Guarded kudos to Greg Martin on his article in the February, 2004 issue of Living Buddhism, titled Buddhism and Christianity. The entire series needs to be seen before making a final determination on its merit, but its off to a good start. The article makes some new and interesting assertions that bring the SGI more in line with scholarship, reality and what many of us already knew that no one has a monopoly on the truth. Nichiren Shoshu is a very intolerant religion everyone but them are slanderers. By way of association, the SGI characterized itself as the only true way to enlightenment and happiness. Has this changed?
Greg Martin writes:
Finally, we do not take an exclusivist position that Nichiren Buddhism is the only vehicle capable of carrying adherents to the pinnacles of truth and the shores of happiness. While we certainly believe there is only one ultimate reality, we acknowledge that the major religions also seek, and to varying degrees see, this truth as well.
I wonder what Nichiren would say? The main concession in this article is that other religions are capable of revealing the truth and leading people to happiness. I have never heard or read this kind of groundbreaking admission from the SGI in my 30 years. I remember president Todas remarks on Christianity and how the highest of the Ten Worlds that Christians could hope to attain was Rapture (Heaven). Based on that standard, I hope the statements in this article are genuine and not just cleverly crafted words to make us look more open and tolerant while secretly disparaging the provisional nature of the monotheists, polytheists, and pagans. In a way, its kind of like a dog laying down and exposing its belly to a dominant dog. Right now, theyre a lot bigger than we are so if we want to play and not fight, its time to go through the ritual of feigned capitulation even if we are the superior practice. You cant be an engaged Buddhist if you proclaim to be the supreme source of spiritual truth and the rest are heretical otherwise its not a dialogue, its a monologue, and you arent engaged, youre posturing like a Cobra ready to strike at the first opening.
We have come a long way from the days of debate and point-counter-point on the streets or elsewhere in our many shakubuku campaigns. Its a change of strategy, and rightfully so. In the past, the difference between the benefits that we received as Nichiren Buddhists as opposed to the benefits experienced by practitioners of other religions would have been explained as relative happiness versus absolute happiness realization and enlightenment. Greg Martin continues:
So while we do not claim to be the sole possessors of the truth (Who could possess truth anyway?) What concerns us more is the degree to which a religious tradition is able to deliver on its promises.
Yesand that includes us first and foremost. The other milestone in this article is the insinuation that when God is viewed as non-literal -- as a metaphor -- God is the ultimate reality of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.
But in terms of how increasing numbers of Christians understand God, yes, we do believe in God. Our name for God is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the Mystic Law.
However, there are millions of literalist Bible belt Christians and fervent non-Christian monotheists that dont see God in a non-literal way. God as a concept or Law is not a groovy thing with them. In fact, these people think youre going to burn in Hell and are not afraid to tell you so.
For this reason, as Nichiren Buddhists, we need to be more capable of intelligent discourse with people of other religions and not just learned in our sects teachings. I will be disappointed if later in the series that Martin doesnt invoke Joseph Campbell to support some of his points on Christianity. Joseph Campbells video series with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth should, in my mind, be part of the SGI study curriculum. We need to be well-rounded and not sectarian parrots. If you dont know anything about Buddhism or other religions beyond the teachings of your own sect (and thats a big problem for us), you dont really know jack about Buddhism or religion. Joseph Campbell writes:
Now the peoples of all the great civilizations everywhere have been prone to interpret their own symbolic figures literally, and so regard themselves as favored in a special way, in direct contact with the absolute. Even the polytheistic Greeks and Romans, Hindus and Chinese, all of whom were able to view the gods and customs of others sympathetically, thought of their own views as supreme, or at the very least superior; and among the monotheistic Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, of course, the gods of others are regarded as no gods at all, but devils, and their worshipers as godlesseach in its own way, the navel of the universe, connected directly as by a hot line with the Kingdom of Light or of God.
However, today such claims can no longer be taken seriously by anyone with even a kindergarten education. And in this there is serious danger. For not only has it always been the way of the multitudes to interpret their own symbols literally, but such literally read symbolic forms have always been and still are, in fact the supports of their civilizations, the supports of their moral orders, their cohesion, vitality, and creative powers. (Myths to Live By, Joseph Campbell, Arkana, 1993, pg. 10)
In other words, we are living in a world where anthropomorphism is alive and well with a bullet. To many, God is this ultimate super being that created man and the universe. Do Buddhists believe in God? Not in a literal sense. For decades, I have been suggesting to Christians who Ive engaged in discussion, that God is a Law, not a person, and that Law is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Peoples conception of God is endless. Just ask 100 people off the street and youll get 100 different answers.
As the 101st person off the street, my opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It seems obvious to me that the ancient religions had encounters with phenomena they thought was the intervention of a supreme being(s) - from the Upanishads/Vedas to the Bible to the Egyptians and tribal cultures spread all over the planet. Think Moses and Ezekiel here. Were not alone. Even now, were such a backward and peculiar species, if some advanced civilization came, we might regard it as God or the Second Coming, even the Devil. The universe created God - not the other way around. Lets hope that God treats us better than the Americans treated the Indians.
Comments
Hi Charles
Enjoy your thoughts
Some more along the same lines
People take different roads seeking fulfilment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they're lost. H. Jackson Browne
Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal? In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals. M.K. Gandhi's "My God"
Best Wishes
Barry
I agree. I am new to this Buddhism, and still have tons to learn. . .but the moments in SGI meetings and in publications when I thought I was hearing that Nichiren Buddhism and/or SGI was IT. . .it reminded me too much of the protestant Christian church that I grew up in which liked to think it had a direct link to God. . .and everyone else was, well. . .going to hell. ;-)
I've started to focus on the Lotus Sutra, Daimoku and Nichiren's writings and taking more responsibility in finding my own truth in this Buddhism rather than thinking an organization is going to lay out all my truths. (Old habits die hard.)
But I like that this article sort of cleared some of that up about SGI philosohy. . .or at least looked like it. . .and that SGI isn't claiming to be the one & only path to enlightenment.
Because that is just SO unenlightened. ;-)
By the way. . .really enjoyed your book on healing.
Great article. I would like to read the whole article by Greg Martin. BTW he was the senior leader in charge of the Philadelphia area or something like that when I was "univited" to future SGI meetings back in 88. I have always fondly thought of Greg as the guy who kicked me out of SGI, though I have no idea if it was he who actually made the decision, and in any case the situation was actually more complex and I ended up leaving after being invited back to meetings as long as I didn't talk so as not to confuse those with seeking spirit. I also like to egotisitically imagine that Greg has a big thick file on me somewhere with that absurd letter I wrote remonstrating with the SGI back then when I was just an undergrad. I chuckle just thinking about it!
Sorry for that aside, what I really wanted to say was that I liked your comments about God and the Law. It reminded me of the statement by William James in Varieties of Religious Experience about how a universal law can seem like a person. My own thought on this for some time has been that the absolute reality is not a person but it is personal. I think the personal face, so to speak, of the Law, the Dharma, is the Buddhas, the bodhisattvas, and in fact each of us. The more we are aligned with the Dharma the more clearly we can hear it speak to us through others and through the events in our life and in our intuitions, and the clearly we can become expressions of the Dharma for others.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Charles, I hope you send your comments to Greg. They are excellent, and I think the series will benefit if he hears what you have to say. Best - Brian
Charles, I echo Brian's sentiments. You are always thought provoking and Mr. Martin would do well to consider your input.
For what it's worth, my own feeling as a Nichiren Buddhist is that I am a non-theist, and I am not comfortable with God, or any gods, other than mythical and/or metaphorical ones, and I don't really like approaching theistic folks and trying to convince them that their god is my dharma. It isn't.
In my opinion, of course. You know how subtle I usually am ...not!
Cheers!
Andy
Brian:
Thanks, man. I have no doubt that Greg knows about this article because there are little spies everywhere. Has he read it? Like you say, he should. Please feel free to send him the link.
Charles
Andy:
Thanks Andy. Greg should get all the input he can to do a series like this - especially studying Joseph Campbell. I'll be watching closely. I'll be the first to congratulate him if he breaks new ground. I have never met the man - only corresponded with him a couple of times. I want the SGI and its leaders to amaze and compell the world. Let's wait and see.
Charles
I'd like to add to the various comments given regarding Greg Martin's article. When I first read it, I was so relieved! Finally, we as SGI Buddhists are addressing the "God" issue that always comes up when doing shakubuku.
In my years of practice, I have introduced many people to Buddhism. Some were atheists, some agnostic, while many others were brought up in Fundamentalist hardcore Christian families. Each had to come to terms on their own with how Nam myoho renge kyo fit into the scheme of their belief system.
Doing shakubuku in the South can be an ultimate challenge at times. When my family first moved here from New England, my mother made the comment that there were more churches than gas stations. That was over 40 years ago, and it still holds true today. It's interesting, because the only time I was ever put off as I dialogued with someone about the greatness of Buddhism, was when she replied at the end of my spiel, that her dialog with God was much more personal and therefore, she had no interest in chanting.
Her reply caused me to self-reflect and try to understand my relationship with the Mystic Law. Today, I have a much better feeling about that relationship, because I understand that godliness will manifest in my life only when I take complete responsibility for all of my actions without getting on a guilt trip. Chanting always puts me on a straighter path. I feel that this article is paramount to successful shakubuku in this time. People are not as gullible as they were in the 60s. With communication so easily accessible now, we are realizing that the general populus is questioning and asking for the very tool we have to offer.
Now we need to take responsibility for how we present this precious tool to others. It's time to stop dropping the line, "Chant for whatever you want." Today, it's about chanting to uncover your best potential while enjoying the ride. Perhaps it was always that way. I guess we were in too much of a hurry to realize it.
Hi Chuck,
It is heartening to hear that that writer in Living Buddhism, whom I take to be an official spokesperson for SGI USA, should at last acknowledge what is so obvious in this multi-cultural, pluralistic contemporary world: hey, guess what! other paths might also lead to the shores of happiness! and hey! maybe even bigger concession may just be forthcoming: other paths might just provide insights that are understated or lacking in our own, insights that could even enhance our own. How about that?
With you, I wonder, what WOULD Nichiren say??
Now Im going to say something dangerous:
If a river is polluted, look towards the source. If a religious tradition shows persistent problems within, the seeds are almost invariably to be found in the actions or words of the founder, in things he did or said that (to be charitable as possible) could easily be twisted or interpreted in a single-minded way by his followers. That our tradition should be so resistant to embracing or appreciating other traditions, that it should persist in seeing itself as the one true way with all the schisms and internecine rivalry that has resulted, I would say obviously has its source in the fierce and unrelenting exclusivism of Nichiren (Jackie Stone has plenty to say on this subject . . . see the article Nichiren exclusivism on this site) .
To continue a discussion which Im having with Cris Roman (here Im cutting and pasting from a letter to him about a month ago . . . thanks for your reply, Cris, meant to get back to you, but Ive been busy, distracted, whatever) where in the goshos does Nichiren say that we should accord all religious traditions respect? (Cris asserts this in Chapter 13 of his book on this site a book that I mostly found a superb read, by the way) Id love to find that passage. Some of it is implicit in Nichirens wide study, his inclusion of Sanscrit characters & Japanese gods on the Gohonzon itself, but I think of his four pronouncements (Nembutsu leads to Avichi Hell, Zen is a devil, Shingon will destroy the nation, Ritsu is a traitor), of his wish (ironic, tongue in cheek?) that the priests of those sects be beheaded rather than the Mongol envoys (check out that nasty little passage in that little, rarely-read gosho, The Mongol Envoys) just wonderful stuff for a pluralistic age. In the very generality with which he slams other sects (there are dozens, if not hundreds of examples of this), it is clear that he is not just criticizing individuals' behaviour, but other ways of faith, proclaiming his way the diamoku of the Lotus Sutra as the only way to Buddhahood (salvation) and the efficacious medicine for all.
There are other ways in which Nichiren extenuates his exclusivism. In his appreciation of how the propagation of Buddhism may differ in its way of propagation according to the Time, the Country, and the Circumstances, etc. there is an obvious sort of relativism, at least vis--vis manners of propagation. In The Opening of the Eyes, ND shows a crystal-clear perception of how Shakabuku (strict refutation) and Shoju (gentle persuasion) represent different strategies and even different worlds that accord with different times and countries, the former corresponding with his own. He describes how from the point of view of Shoju, Shakabuku may seem hopelessly benighted, whereas from the point of view of Shakabuku, Shoju is hopelessly weak (WND, p. 285). In Letter from Sado he continues in the same vein, comparing Shakabuku and Shoju to the worldly ways of the literary and the military (WND, p. 301). Shakabuku, he makes clear, is a strategy that in 12th century Japan he has consciously adopted, but in some of the same goshos to his followers, N. demonstrates a masterly capacity to do Shoju as well One could could therefore conclude that if Nichiren was writing in a way that accorded with the time in which he lived, that he would write quite differently if he lived in our own. Of course one could find further consolation in the idea that ND in his writings only criticizes other Buddhist faiths of his time, and does not address other religious traditions. This, however, only leaves us to wonder, how far can we carry NDs logic towards a truly pluralistic appreciation of the truths to be found in other faiths? His position summed up in the notion that that we can only achieve Buddhahood through the Lotus Sutra, that we must not mix rice (daimoku) and filth (extraneous practices) -- would strongly imply the opposite. (See WND 1014on)
Ever since I started to chant seven years ago, I have seen our practice as a way and not the way, and see no reason to waver from this view. I continue to chant because chanting is in itself its own benefit, and I see an obvious link between my practice and my present degree of happiness. I also greatly appreciate the sangha of my district, area and generally, the SGI. This is the sangha I came upon at that time and at the present time I see no reason for leaving. But I have to confess, I find Nichiren s writings profound, invigorating, thought provoking, enlightening though they are unpalatable in their frequent black/white, my way or the highway exclusivism. Thus after seven years of practice, I have only read about two thirds of them all the major ones mind you, but still . . . this attests to the fact that I can only take Mr. N in small doses. I find much more enjoyable and enlightened in a modern sort of way translations of the Sufi mystic Jelaluddin Rumi, Nichirens contemporary half way around the world, who wrote the following poem,
ONLY BREATH
Not Christian or Jew or Moslem, not Hindu,
Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion
or cultural system. I am not from the East
or the West, not out of the ocean or up
from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not
composed of elements at all. I do not exist,
am not an entity in this world or the next,
did not descend from Adam and Eve or any
origin story. My place is a placeless, a trace
of the traceless, neither body nor soul.
I belong to the beloved, have seen the two
worlds as one, and that one call to and know,
first, last, outer, inner, only that
breath breathing human being.
(The Essential Rumi, trans. Coleman Barks, 1994.)
We are human beings first and foremost, with all the mystery that being implies. The labels and even concepts we so readily apply to each other and to ourselves betray and frequently do violence to this central truth. Nowhere in the worlds literature have I found a better expression of this truth than in this poem. Certainly, nowhere in the writings of Nichiren.
So, what have you to say about this?
P.S. Chriss reply to my question was that he found religious tolerance in all the river/ocean metaphors that run through Ns letters but notice how N. doesnt ever clearly suggest that religions and spiritual practices are all rivers (like "different roads")leading to an ocean of enlightenment, but rather contrasts rivers and the ocean, disparages rivers (as carriers of corpses, etc.) in favour of the ocean (forever vast, clean and pure), the ocean being the Lotus Sutra and chanting of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, and the rivers, all other (Buddhist) practices and faiths. (Just type oceans and rivers in a word search at the gosho.net site and see for yourself) PPS: I wonder what he would think of the ocean if he saw it today?
Brain:
Your letter was better than the article.
Charles
Hi Charles,
Was that mis-spelling deliberate? I am not just a brain, but also a body! I guess I'll have to read "Buddhist Healing" to get an answer to my questions... You'll be happy to know that it just arrived in the mail, along with two other copies for friends! You'll be getting some feedback soon...
Brian
Dear Charles,
Thank you for your suggestions and the soapbox. I was able to find a copy of LB.
It might be interesting to compare my thoughts below, written before reading this article based on the excerpts you provided, to my thoughts after reading the entire article. Here goes
Before (based on excerpts):
I agree with Andy. I see only more confusion with teaching that the Christian God equals the Three Great Secret Laws. I think it encourages the all paths lead to the same place mentality. If you are wondering what Nichiren would say, On Practicing the Buddhas Teaching I think speaks to the issue.
I have not read the LB article. The excerpts from it that you have quoted dont offer any concessions that I can see, although they are a study in Diplomacy. They are in fact, as you suggest they might be, carefully crafted words, and, I will add, written with the desire to have the SGI recognized and accepted in the mainstream of the World Religious community. Nichiren did not seek the mainstream. Rather, he seems to have had the attitude, Build it and they will come.
After (excerpts in context):
I should have mentioned above, nothing inherently wrong with carefully crafted words.
Before:
I think your analogy of the dog lying down and exposing its belly to a dominant dog is on targetand I hope this is the case. This does not mean that I approve of the tactic--I am sure Nichiren would not. Nichiren turned down the proffered temple and retired to Mt. Minobu.
After:
I found the dog to be borderline passive aggressive. It wags its tail, growls and shows a few teeth, sniffs while traveling in circles, as dogs will do, exposes its belly, then jumps up with a friendly challenging bark. After all, we are all dogs in this analogy, arent we?
Before:
Here are the excerpts you have provided, and my take on them.
Finally, we do not take an exclusivist position that Nichiren Buddhism is the only vehicle capable of carrying adherents to the pinnacles of truth and the shores of happiness.
Nothing given up hereno concessions made. It has always been part of our school of thought that if a certain person has the capacity to come to a correct understanding of life through a certain teaching, that person will do so if that teaching is encountered. This is like reaping a harvest. Nichirens teaching is called the Buddhism of Sowing because it plants the seeds of Buddhahood in persons of any capacity at all. This is the greatness of the Lotus Sutra, why it is the Supreme Teaching, and why it is said to hold the highest place. Nonetheless, Mr. Martins statement above is true.
While we certainly believe there is only one ultimate reality, we acknowledge that the major religions also seek, and to varying degrees see, this truth as well.
What has been said here? It sounds very inclusive, and as if Mr. Martin is placing the major World religions on the same level as Nichiren Buddhism, but here is the caveat: Is this not an indirect way of saying other major religions are provisional (partial and incomplete) views of this truth?
Here Mr. Martin has avoided an exclusivist position without surrendering superiority. Is this genius or just good diplomacy?
After:
I will note that Mr. Martins article expresses the thoughts I had written above. To those unfamiliar to the Lotus Sutra it would seem that the author is offering a degree of parity between Christianity and Nichirens teachings, but to most Nichiren Buddhists with some background in study it should be clear that Christianity is alluded to in this article as a lesser vehicle.
Before:
So while we do not claim to be the sole possessors of the truth (Who could possess truth anyway?) What concerns us more is the degree to which a religious tradition is able to deliver on its promises.
Here again, Mr. Martin exudes a magnanimous sprit, while soliciting the concession from others that they are also not the sole possessors of the truth--without surrendering the superiority of the practice of the Lotus Sutra in its ability to deliver on its promise to enable persons of any capacity at all to awaken Buddhaood as manifest reality. This is, or should be, the thrust of Mr. Martins statement, What concerns us more is the degree to which a religious tradition is able to deliver on its promises.
After:
Ill stand by this statement, and add that it is consistent with the thrust of Mr. Martins article.
Before:
But in terms of how increasing numbers of Christians understand God, yes, we do believe in God. Our name for God is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the Mystic Law.
Perhaps Mr. Martin is attempting to induct God in the same way that Nichiren included the main deities in Japanese mythology. However, Nichiren taught that Hachiman and Tensho Daijin were subservient to, and/or emanations of the Buddha of the Juryo chapter, clearly defining their place and relationship. I would ask this, If God equals Namumyohorengekyo, what would possibly entice a Christian to chant? Will we teach Christians that chanting brings them closer to God, that Namumyohorengekyo is after all Gods real name?
After:
SGI Payday! As Mr. Martin writes, There will, of course, be many people for whom this understanding of God will be unacceptable. Thats fine. But there will also be manyaccording to one study as many as twenty-five percent of all adults in Americafor whom it will resonate.
This is what its all aboutmore members equals kosen-rufuright? I beg to differ.
Before:
As I stated at the beginning of this note, I have not read this article. My feeling is that while it an excellent work of Diplomacy, this article is an extension of The Buddha In Your Mirror, and another step in the wrong direction, asking the rivers to flow backwards and muddying the waters as a result--a lesser good that destroys the potential for the greatest good, and therefore a great evil.
Rather than seeking to join the various rivers and streams, SGI should seek to become the Great Ocean that all rivers and streams naturally flow into. Build it and they will come!
As for the Seat of Ordination, when the Law of the Sovereign and the Law of the
Buddha are united and become one, and sovereign and subjects become one in their faith
in the doctrine of the Great Three Mysteries, the same bond that existed in the days of old
between King Utoku and the Monk Kakutoku will also exist in the future world of the
impure and evil Age of the Latter Law.
At that time an imperial edict and a decree of the shogun will be granted; a most
exalted placesimilar to the Vulture Peakwill be found, and there the Seat of
Ordination will be erected. We have only to wait for the right time for this to happen.
This will mark the advent of the actual law established by the Buddha among men. To
this Seat of Ordination will come not only all the people of the three countriesIndia,
China and Japanto repent their sins and be saved, but even Brahma and Indra and
the other gods will come and gather around it.
Once this Buddha Law is established, the Seat of Ordination existing now at Enryakuji
will lose its reason for existence, since it is based merely on the precepts of the
conceptual doctrine of the Trace Buddha. (Nichiren, Sandaihiho-sho)
In other words, the SGI needs to rethink what kosen rufu means and what function the organization should perform in order to fulfill this great goal. So far it has been proselytize, proselytize, and proselytize. In the past I believe that this was a correct approach. Times have changed. In fact, the SGI has played the major role in creating this change in circumstances; the SGI needs to change with them.
After:
After reading Mr. Martins entire article, I have this to offer: With the exception of Our name for God is Namumyohorengekyo it is a good work. But before the SGI can expect credibility from other religions it needs to follow its own prescriptionSo while we do not claim to be the sole possessors of the truth (Who could possess truth anyway?) What concerns us more is the degree to which a religious tradition is able to deliver on its promises--and be willing to re-examine its own doctrines and degree of delivery. Im ready when you are. Until that time, because of its attachment to knowledge, if for no other reasons, it too, will remain a lesser vehicle.
Before and After:
In fairness to Mr. Martin, he seems to recognize this to a degree. Still, Mr. Martin and the SGI are seeking new ways to proselytize, to seek out new members, when what is needed is to develop an organization that attracts people without having to sell itself to them. The Seat of Ordination will be a place where people are drawn to by virtue of its greatness, not because of the carefully crafted words of a good sales pitch and market studies.
Who can do this? Nichiren writes:
I, Nichiren, would like to say this. The Lotus Sutra is linked to the seeds of Buddhahood inherent in the beings of each of the Ten Worlds. But if one slanders this sutra, then it means that one is destroying the seeds of Buddhahood in the beings of each of the Ten Worlds. Such a person is certainly bound to fall into the hell of incessant suffering. When might he manage to get out of hell again?
But those who follow the teachings of Nichiren honestly discard the mistaken doctrines of the provisional teachings and the incorrect theories of the mistaken teachers, and without hesitation put their faith in the True Law and the correct doctrines of the correct teacher. Accordingly they are able to gain the lotus of the entity and to manifest the mystic principle of the entity of the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light. This is because they put their faith in the golden words of the Buddha indicated in the Juryo chapter of the essential teaching and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. (Nichiren, Entity of the Mystic Law)
I no longer believe that kosen rufu can be accomplished through the propagation of Namumyohorengekyo. What is needed is for individuals to manifest the mystic principle of the Land of Eternally Tranquil LightBuddhahood as Manifest Reality. This is the true Seat of Ordination, the High Sanctuary. To this Seat of Ordination will come not only all the people of the three countriesIndia, China and Japanto repent their sins and be saved, but even Brama and Indra and the gods will come and gather around it.
Its really not that complicated. Toda is quoted as saying, To be a general of soldiers is easy. To be a general of generals is difficult.
I understand this to mean that a general of soldiers leads by virtue of the authority of his rank and position. In contrast, a general of generals is followed due to the authority of virtue. The Buddha is a general of generals. The person whom manifests the mystic principle of the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light is such a general of generals. The Seat of Ordination is in no way different from this.
While my usual method of supporting my family is in a supervisory position, currently I am working as a carpenter while waiting for another project to start. I ride a commuter bus to the city carrying a five-gallon bucket with a lid to cover it. In this bucket I have my lunch and two travel mugs filled with coffee and room for transporting a hand tool or two, as I need to. Because I carry this bucket, when the Bus is crowded, and it usually is, I have to sit at the rear of the bus where there is u shaped seating so I can place the bucket in front of me at my feet, and not take up more room than should.
I have been doing this for about a month and it has been interesting. Most of the people that ride this bus have been riding it together for several years. The more social ones choose the back of the bus because the u shape seating creates an environment to visit with each other during the long trip that can sometimes be two hours, depending on traffic. I set in the rear of the bus for other reasons. I have been an intruder.
While I was not offended, one day a certain lady, seeing me coming, jumped up and changed seats, installing herself wedged tightly between two other people. I dont blame hershe was taking a practical measure to protect her flat black overcoat from the dust and grim of my workday. While I do make effort to cleanup the best I can before leaving work, some residue of my job invariably accompanies me on the evening bus, along with my bucket. Not only have I inserted myself into the fabric of their social group, I have felt about a welcome as lint on that ladys fine coat, because of my physical condition.
Last week on the way home the bus was filled beyond capacity. There were two people sitting on the steps in the well leading out of the rear exit door and one person standing. I gave up my seat and sat on the lid of my bucket. For me, it was a long and uncomfortable ride home, but no one had to stand all the way.
The next day the bus was not so crowded. I was able to sit slightly farther forward, one seat for me, one for my bucket. I was holding my travel mug when I dozed off. Startled awake by the clang of the stainless steel mug on the floor, the bus traveling uphill at that moment, there was about eight ounces of coffee traveling in two streams racing towards the back of the bus. I stood up and talking out loud to myself said, What can I do about this? Then I unzipped and took off my hooded sweatshirt, dashed to the head of the stream, dropped to my knees at the feet of these people and proceeded to mop up the mess I had made. No other words were spoken by anyone, and when I finished I stuffed the sweatshirt into my bucket and when back to sleep.
Something changed that day. Instead of being the unwelcome dirt bag with the five-gallon bucket who is ignored as much as possible as a matter of course, three of the snootier of the women and one man made a point of pausing at my seat as they exited the bus to wish me a good weekend.
Now, when I shake off as much of the days dust as I can and enter the bus, my greetings are returned and I am invited to Come sit here, but not by the lady in the nice black coat--and I understand her reasons for this. I am drawn into their conversations and they are curious about the dirt bag with the five gallon bucket who shows more than passing consideration of others and they ask questions about my family and life.
Today they took the time to poke fun at what a snappy dresser I am. I smiled and said, Im glad you feel comfortable enough to disparage my appearance in my presence. Makes me feel like one of the family.
While this is a rather mundane story from daily life, it is exactly the effect of manifesting the mystic principle of the Land of Eternally Tranquil Life and the advent of the actual law established by the Buddha among men. To this Seat of Ordination will come not only all the people of the three countriesIndia, China and Japanto repent their sins and be saved, but even Brahma and Indra and the other gods will come and gather around it.
In fact, it is precisely in the mundane behavior of everyday life where manifesting the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment demonstrates its true value. As far as Higher Powers go, there is no power higher than ones everyday conduct as a human being. This is the ultimate purpose of practice of the Mystic Law. It is to be lived out in this historical moment, just as we are, in our present circumstances, amid the messes of life, not at some future point in some pure and far away land.
Sincerely, Chikushonin
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo
PS: Mr. Martins article ends with the note, If you have comments or questions on this topic, please let us know: lb@usaorg . I will forward the following invitation:
We are currently discussing the LB article Do Nichiren Buddhist Believe in God? at
http://www.buddhajones.com/Atkins/Blog/archives/000062.html#more unavailable
Please join us.
I enjoyed the article, too, Chuck - having spent my undergraduate years studying comparative religions (the first in a long line of lucrative career moves for me), my major interest was in the dialogue beween Christianity and Buddhism (emphasis at that time on DT Suzuki and Thomas Merton).
I don't know if we're a "dog showing its belly" or not, but I do believe that the "Christianity" Greg is talking about is pretty benign. The more fundamentalist strain which you discuss in another blog is full-blown genocidal against us and non-believers like us. And this philosophy has an extreme level of political power in our society. It is foolish for us to be squeamish about confronting the reality of dispensationalist Christianity. This is a religion which worships a God who wants to massacre the Jews, Buddhist, Hundus and Moslems of the planet, whose members boast of their willingness to be snatched from their cars and careen into our children while they are snatched 9/11-like to heaven to look down on our massacre and gloat. This is a dangerous cause for these individuals to be making, since, if cause and effect are real, it is not we who are going to be loaded onto intergalactic boxcars - I for one do not wish this on anyone.
For anyone who is interested in the impact of this form of Christianity in our society, I recommend Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God". I remember asking Shin Yatomi last year at an FNCC study conference whether he had read it. He said he was going to. I wonder, too, if Greg has read it. There's Christians and there's Christians. The ones whose God wants to kill us are the ones who wield the polical power. Is our teaching "superior" to theirs? You're damn straight it is, and I wish someone would be brave enough to come right out and say it. I wish I could be more romantic and touchy-feely about this, but I can't. We're going to have to confront the problem sooner or later. Bye for now, and thanks for opening this line of discussion. I recently bought your book for a member of mine who is suffering with lupus. She appreciates it very much. Byrd in LA.