Is understanding Buddhist jargon; or technical knowledge in general, essential? How about understanding the differences between the various sects; the Nichiren schools, the Nichiren derived schools, and other forms of Buddhism; is that necessary?
On all accounts, probably not for a stream enterer. However, wrong knowledge can do harm; while correct knowledge can certainly be helpful. The main thing is, one should not get bogged down, or overwhelmed. Otherwise, we might be like a leaky boat, overladen with cargo, sent out into stormy seas, with a confused captain at the helm. Chances are, we would sink.
I get overwhelmed all the time. So, I just say "not yet." It is not necessary to dismiss that which we are unable to understand -- that is sour grapes. With time, study, chanting, concentration, and reflection; insight arises; it actually becomes possible to understand what presently seems impossible to grasp.
It is not so much the jargon, but what it means, that can be highly useful, for one who wishes to truly benefit from Buddhism. As for putting off new people, as someone suggested too much jargon might do, marketing Buddhism to the messes is not really my gig. I suspect that almost anything that has too much popular appeal is probably not worth pursuing.
I know that might seem sardonic, or worse, elitist. I just wonder at what point does changing Nichiren's teaching, so that it is not much different from other popular self help schemes, turn it in to something other than Buddhism? A friend once told me that he liked Soka Gakkai because it taught what he already believed. My reaction was, why bother then? Why do we practice Buddhism? Is it so we can stay as are, and receive some self affirmation, to build up our self esteem?
If someone takes up the practice of chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo; while gazing at the Mandala Gohonzon, things should start happening. Things like Dharma Lists of Buddhist terms then become useful in sorting out one's experiences. I know, in retrospect, that I would have been better off in the past, had I pursued then, what I now pursue. Instead, I was swayed by guidance that we do not really need to understand anything, that all we have to do is do it.
In the old days, we talked about achieving Kosen Rufu, which we also called world peace. As Mr. Ikeda used to say, doing so requires a fundamental change in human beings. What changes? Why? How? Buddhist teachings answer those questions.
As for technical knowledge about the different sects, I have only a marginal interest in that. I think Nichikan, who was really the founder of Nichiren Shoshu, made some very serious doctrinal errors. Does it really matter if we see Shakyamuni or Nichiren as the Buddha? My answer is yes, that is vital.
It is also important to know that by Shakyamuni, we mean the Uncreated Triple Bodied {musa sanjin} Tathagata {Nyorai} of Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra. The other sects, such as Zen and Ritsu, revered Shakyamuni as only the Manifest Body {Nirmana-Kaya}. They saw Amida as the Reward-body {Sambogha-Kaya}, and Dainichi as the Truth Body {Dharma-Kaya}. When Nichiren Buddhists enshrine a statue of Shakyamuni, as a Gohonzon, it represents all three bodies, not just the manifest historical person.
Nikko once objected to a specific statue of Shakyamuni Buddha as a Honzon, because the person who commissioned it, Hakii, understood it in the Zen or Ritsu sense. So Nikko insisted that it should be flanked by statues of the 4 attendants {the leaders of the Bodhisatvas from Underground}. That way, it clearly represented the Eternal Shakyamuni of the Life Span Chapter. Niko {one k}, thought it sufficient to consecrate it as the triple bodied Shakyamuni, or Eternal Buddha, as Nichiren had done on other occasions.
Nikko was not saying that Nichiren is the Eternal Buddha. Nikko wrote: " ... the Lord of Teachings of Namu-myoho- renge-kyo, Shakyamuni Buddha enlightened from remote ages past; which is the reason for Nichiren Shonin's appearance in this World."
Is that important to know? Maybe only if we were taught a distorted version of the story.
Does Nam' or Namu matter? My answer is yes, though chanting both ways, or more correctly, all three ways, is fine. It becomes an issue when I hear SGI members making fun of Namu; when Namu is actually technically correct -- Nam' is like an elision or contraction.
Should one know what is written on the Mandala Gohonzon? My answer is that helps a whole bunch. Again, here, we have some problematic Nichikan doctrines. For example, it does not have Nam Myoho Remge Kyo Nichiren written down the middle. It has Namu Myoho Renge Kyo written down the middle. Nichiren signed his name at the bottom, sometimes in the center, sometimes off to one side. That is important to know; it goes to the symbolism of what is written on the Mandala.
People tell me they do not want to learn about the details of the Gohonzon, meditative states, cultivations, the 5 skandhas, the 6 8, or 9 consciousnesses, and all that stuff. They just want to chant, overcome obstacles, and get what they want. I say that is like keeping the chaff, and throwing away the wheat, Or like exchanging jewels for pebbles.
Finally, I do not think it has to be too complex for a beginner. I do think beginners would do better if they were taught authentic Nichiren Buddhism. Then, the hunger and thirst to learn more will naturally emerge, from a correct practice and the awakening of faith and trust that this really works.
That is how it worked for me. First, I spent 20 years learning the wrong things. Next another eleven unlearning them. Then, in July of 2003, 31 years after joining Soka Gakkai, my practice of Buddhism started. I am in no way bitter or angry about this. If I were, that would mean I was still controlled by self centered greed, hatred, and delusion. That is the whole point of Buddhism; to overcome those things.
All of conditioned existence is dukkha -- it is suffering, stressful, and unsatisfying. We suffer because we make our happiness conditional on transient things. It is possible to live a life that is truly satisfying. One way to do this is by chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo; which taps into our inherent virtues of innocent purity, unconditional bliss, atemporal constancy, and an authentic sense of who we are.
So, we do not require a lot of technical knowledge to do that. Correct technical is useful, while incorrect technical knowledge is a hindrance that can lead us in circles. It might be better, for some, to start with a simple faith, do the practice, ignore the jargon and sectarian claims; then pursue higher learning when the need and want awakens.
bowing with palms together,
robin
23 comments
If you're a Nichiren Buddhist, you should know what Nichiren taught. But that doesn't mean you should automatically accept those teachings as true. I think you have to put it to the test yourself and find out for yourself. All beliefs should be subject to questions and examination.
What Nichiren taught was based on a lot of prerequisite knowledge. I suspect his average lay follower would've known the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, the threefold training, the 4 immeasurables, and the 6 paramitas. He, himself, and some of his ordained followers, had a far more extensive knowledge. A few things "out of my hat" meaning I am too busy right now to look them: 1. He appeared to replace 3 fold training (ethics, spiritual cultivation, and discernment); which is the core of the 8-fold path; with faith in the Three Great Hidden Dharmas. 2. He wrote that beginners should not worry about following or cultivating the first 5 paramitas: Charity, Ethics, Patience, Diligence, and Meditative Absorptions. As for the 6th, Discernment, he said beginners should substitute Trust / Faith / Confidence. 3. He said the problem with cultivating the immeasurables {benevolence, compassion, appreciative joy, equanimity} was it made the people in general more hateful. Cultivating generosity, patience, and so on made people greedier and more miserly. Cultivating discernment made them stupider. Those are not verbatim citations, just the gist. I think some of it is in "On the Four Stages of Faith and the Five Stages of Practice." "Teaching, Practice, and Proof" is also helpful. As is "The Kalpa of Decrease" and "The Teaching, Capacity, Time, and Country."Was he saying that the cultivation of the 6 paramitas and 4 immeasurables is bad? I think he was saying that it was all too overwhelming for a beginner. He used, iirc, the metaphor of a small, leaky boat trying to carry heavy cargo through stormy seas. Now, was he saying that we should stop at the beginning? Or is building on and increasing that initial faith enough? At some point, should we follow the threefold training, and try to specifically cultivate the 6 paramitas and 4 immeasurables? If we chant daimoku with faith; will we naturally manifest all the skills and merits of the above; with no conscious effort to cultivate them? Are those skills and merits even desirable? Those are the kinds of issues I have chanted about for the least 6 years or so; that I tried to put out of my mind prior to that.
The last one is good. I thought I deleted the other two. My bad.
:-)
Robin you state "Does it really matter if we see Shakyamuni or Nichiren as the Buddha? My answer is yes, that is vital." I am NOT being "picky" but could you please elaborate?ThanksFrank
Frank,I could answer that from several levels of meaning. The simplest is four words; Nichiren Shonin said so. He did so over and over, with no equivocation. I am aware that Nichikan came up with some "kanjin" readings, of a few isolated passages, to defend his Nichiren as the "Original Buddha" doctrine. From where I sit, those make even less sense than the Bible codes. On a related note, even Soka Gakkai admits that a key Gosho, that Nichikan apparently used as a source for the Kuon Ganjo, doctrine is an obvious forgery.Another point is the timing and source of the Nichiren as the Source Buddha doctrine, connects it with nationalistic, ethnocentric 'kokugaku" thought; such as the reverse honji suijaku doctrine that the Buddha was a temporal manifestation of Tensho Daijin. The original idea was that Tensho Daijin was a minor temporal manifestation of the Buddha, thus making Shinto subservient to the Buddha Dharma. The nationalists reversed this role; making the Buddha subservient. Similarity, in Nichiren Shoshu; Nichiren Shonin, who repeatedly referred to himself Shakyamuni's envoy, emissary, or messenger; becomes the Buddha's original MasterI could also go into the fact that Nichiren interpreted the Remote Past, the "time" when Shakyamuni of the the Juryo first awoke, to be a metaphor for infinity or eternity; for time without beginning. In the Rooster diagram, Nichiren explains that all three bodies {Trikata or Sanjin } of "Shakyamuni who awoke in Remote Ages Past" have no beginning and no end. He also refers to Shakyamuni as the Buddha of musa sanjin or the uncreated triple body. He also uses the words eternally existent. So it is looks rather absurd for Nichikan to over rule Nichiren and claim that "remote past" was really meant to be a finite time.Moreover, the idea that there is a separate Buddha for Shoho and Mappo appears to be a fabrication of Nichiren Shoshu. Neither Nichiren, Nikko nor anyone else I know of ever mentioned such a thing. The rule in all of Buddhism is that a single samyaksambuddha gets three ages of one Dharma Dispensation. Also, of course, Nichiren did not invent the Gohonzon or Daimoku, he was the first to use them as the core of a popular practice. The Mandala is just a diagram of the Ceremony in Open Space, it is not Nichiren's life; and others chanted daimoku before him. Also, the Buddha described his awakening as result of his reverent devotion {Namu} to the Wondrous Dharma {Myoho}. After contemplating the Lotus Flower {Renge}, he decided to preach {Kyo}.All these issues aside, the real reason is that dispensing with the Buddha and replacing him with another Buddha, messes up the symbolism of the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra does not overturn the conventional notion of the sbuddha. From the viewpoint of conventional truth, the Samyaksam Buddha, the pratyeka Buddha, and shravaka Buddha are different in phenomena. They are three different ways of waking up. However, from the viewpoint of ultimate truth the awakening of all three is the same, in noumena or spiritual quality. From that viewpoint, which is the same as the Honmon; you, I, Devadatta, Nichiren, and every other being is a "true buddha of the latter day." In that Japanese hongaku expression, the latter day also represents eternity.So, it comes down to the fact that Shakyamuni in the temporal samyaksambuddha of this tome and place. From the standpoint of "acquired Awakening" or shikaku there are three vehicles, and three kinds of buddhas. However, from the viewpoint of unattained awakening, there is only one vehicle. I ahould go into how they are different, briefly. Basically, the Samyaksambuddhas awaken of their own effort, but also accrue great merit by selfless action to help others, and thus earn the merit of preaching. The Prayekas also awaken without a teacher, but do not acquire the merit of praching. Finally, the Shravaka awakes via the teaching of a Samyaksambuddha.In the Vimalkirti Sutra, the arhats are sad because they heard the Dharma, and thus can never be Temporal Wheel Turning Buddhas or Samyaksambuddhas.. The Lotus Sutra tells us not to worry, because the Enlightenment is still the same. So it poses Shakyamuni's appearance as the temporal Buddha of our history; against the eternal, uncreated, deathless nature of his awakening -- and ours.Using specious reasoning to satisfy ethnocentric desires to replace Shakyamuni is not only intellectually dishonest, it also misses the point. If there were supposed to be a new samyaksambuddha for Mappo, then the Lotus Sutra would be posing one man's acquired awakening against another's. Innate Awakening is not the property of any particular being. However, it is also incomplete just to say the Buddha is the impersonal Dharmakaya. The personal qualities of the Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya are part of it. The uncreated Triple Bodied Tathagata includes the Buddha's deeds as an historical human being, his idealized personal qualities that transcend history, and the eternal Dharma he was awakened to.In the Lotus Sutra, the temporal Buddha is represented by the Shakyamuni of history attended by the arhat disciples. The arhats attain gradual spiritual purification via the 4 frameworks of mindfulness; of body & form, sensation & raw feelings, mentality, and mental objects. The insights of the arhats are that all conditioned phenomena are impure, dukkha {stress, dissatisfaction, suffering}, inconstant, and anatta {the sense of a separate, constant ego fabricated by the brain faculty}. They attain Luminous Citta by waking up to the unconditioned, un-become, unborn, and un-fabricated.On another level, there is the cosmic Shakyamuni Buddha who ascends into the air, and who is attended by Samantabhadra, Yakuo {or Myo'on}, Majushiri, and Maitreya {or Kanzeon}. I take these to represent Acquired Buddhahood; and earned merits or skills like moral virtue, medicinal healing & creative culture, discernment of emptiness, and benevolence & compassion.There is the Dharma-Kaya, represented by the appearance of the 7 jeweled celestial stupa.Finally, there is the Eternal Triple Bodied Tathagata Shakyamuni; attended by the 4 leaders of the Source Gate Bodhisattvas from Underground; Pure Practices, Firmly Established {blissful} Practices, Unbounded {Constant} Practices, and Superior Practices. I take these to represent Buddha Nature / Amala; and the 4 innate virtues of innocence, spontaneous bliss, constancy, and authentic self {which is self-less and an un-fabricated process}.
please forgive me:... that Nichikan apparently used as a source for the Kuon Ganjo doctrine, is an obvious forgery. In the Rooster Diagram Gosho, three bodies {Trikaya or Sanjin}The Lotus Sutra does not overturn the conventional notion of the Samyaksambuddha. So, it comes down to the fact that Shakyamuni is the temporal samyaksambuddha of this time and place. From the standpoint of "acquired Awakening" or shikaku there are three vehicles,, but do not acquire the merit of preaching
Thanks Robin,I may have misinterpreted your original short statement. Off the top, I totally discount almost ANYTHING that the Fuji School teaches.My personal concern, as I see it all the time, is that people have a tendency to "concretize" Shakyamuni as THE Buddha. Locating him and his teachings in linear time and space, when the Treasure Tower teachings transcend this concept. I also find a form of duality arising where any personality (even a Buddha) is put above the potential for all to attain Buddhahood. This hierarchy "gives me a rash"For me, at least, the "concept" of an "Eternal Buddha" is meant as a metaphor or archetype of our own potential, inherent Buddha nature? You seem to say that here?"However, from the viewpoint of ultimate truth the awakening of all three is the same, in noumena or spiritual quality. From that viewpoint, which is the same as the Honmon; you, I, Devadatta, Nichiren, and every other being is a "true Buddha of the latter day." In that Japanese hongaku expression, the latter day also represents eternity.....Shakyamuni's appearance as the temporal Buddha of our history; against the eternal, uncreated, deathless nature of his awakening -- and ours." and "I could also go into the fact that Nichiren interpreted the Remote Past, the "time" when Shakyamuni of the Juryo first awoke, to be a metaphor for infinity or eternity; for time without beginning."And this is where I get confused as you then state: "However, it is also incomplete just to say the Buddha is the impersonal Dharmakaya. The personal qualities of the Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya are part of it. The uncreated Triple Bodied Tathagata includes the Buddha's deeds as an historical human being, his idealized personal qualities that transcend history, and the eternal Dharma he was awakened to." I hate to repeat myself, but as I have stated "........ regarding the "Original Buddha" are as you well know a great "bone of contention" among various schools. This however is a matter of documentary and theoretical proof. To be somewhat glib, it oft times reminds me of the old Abbott and Costello comedy routine "Who's on First" as actual proof, according to Nichiren, is always the prime concern.......The crux of the matter would be their assertion that Nichiren is the "Original Buddha" or is considered by some as "the Buddha for the Latter Day"......in my opinion (and it is only that) all Buddhas are manifestations, emanations, or functions of the "Original Mind" or "Myoho Renge" and NOT in terms of importance any particular historical personality. There is absolutely no duality in Buddhism.....who's first or second is a matter of historical time which is only a "construct" of our unenlightened minds. Time is a function of Renge and not linear. I try not to go there as people tend to "cling to their" particular school and become "bitter" and defensive if challenged.""When this root of good was justified to his hearers, it was on account of the impact of their being awakened out of the good and evil of the dream they were informed for the first time of the intrinsically of the real aspect of the enlightenment of the original mind." A Collation of the Layers of the Various Teachings of All the Buddhas of the Past, Present and Future as to Which Specific Doctrines are to be Discarded or Established Sô Kan Mon Shô Goshô Shimpen, p.1408-1426.I do see the Buddha as the impersonal Dharmakaya (Myoho Renge). Otherwise we get into "Deity Worship" which is a duality and a regression.With respect,Frank
Frank,This is one of three points I'll comment about. Again, the most direct answers that Nichiren rejected that idea. At times, he did refer to the Original Buddha as the impersonal Dharma-kaya, but other times he stressed Shakyamuni the human being, still other times he strssed a sort of trans-personal celstiasl Shakyamuni. I think he resolves that in Kanjin Honzon Sho and, very specifically, in the Rooster Diagram Gosho. There, he makes it rather clear that the Original Buddha is the Eternally Existent Uncreated Triple Bodied Tathagata. This is in ontrast to the Vajra Teaching that the Dharma-kaya, generally represented by the cosmic Buddha Mahavairochana, is the "Adhi-Buddha." There are then many sambogha-kayas like Amida and the Medicine Buddha. Finally, Shakyamuni is understood as the Nirmana-kaya. So the three bodies are viewed as separate. It could be that Nichiren was mistaken on this. Or he have felt a need to pander to the people's need to have a personal model of a Buddha. However, he made it clear enough in Kaimoku Sho that he venerated Shakyamuni over and above all other Buddhas; he stated that all others are partial emanations of Shakyamuni. He includes "Shakyamuniwho awoke in this first world for the first time" as one of these partial emanations. I think he was pointing to the unity of the three bodies; which, from what I gather, was also taught by T'ien T'ai. The Buddha's deeds as an historical person; his idealized trans-personal bliss, discernment, and compassion; and the Dharma to which he awoke are all one; no dualities or "trinalities." That leads to the second point, why Shakyamuni as the archetypal Buddha?
Actually, I think there is duality in Buddhism; from the standpoint of Conventional or Secular Truth; which is also given as Conditional or relative Truth. IIRC, Nagarjuna connected this with phenomenal forms; so it also known as the Truth of Temporary or Interim Existence. It is from this point of view that acquired merits or skills and acquired awakening or shikaku have meaning. Also, self and others have meaning. Also there are three vehicles and three kinds of buddhas. We are talking about concrete, measurable phenomena. I might compare this with quantitative analysis.Now, you wrote "absolutely no," so I shall agree with that. From the viewpoint of Utlimate or Sacred Tuth; also known as Unconditional or Absolute Truth, there is no duality. Iirc, Nagarjuna connected this with Emptiness, or he was read that way, so it is also called the Truth of Emptiness.From this viewpoint, every thing is a process, part of interdependent co-arising, nothing has any self nature. Also, innate virtues and original awakening have meaning here. I might compare this with qualitative analysis. We are talking about more abstract or form-less noumena; which can not be weighed, measured, or described as having a certain shape, size, color, volume, mass, and so on. While there are two truths, there is only one Reality. My take is that both truths are true, which is why we have the third truth, the Middle Way. This is not a third reality; it unites the two truths. From the viewpoint of Conventional Truth, Shakyamuni is still the samyaksambuddha for us. He is our role model ofarchetypal truth. Also, his teachings are the fundamental building blocks; they did not expire, the principles are as true now as they were then. Some of the concepts might need adjusted, to accord with science. Also, some of the formal methods can be adapted to other cultures. That is my take.Today.
Comments on Robin's Point 1 (0.00 / 0)RobinI have carefully read your first two of three points and thank you for taking the time Robin. To some it may seem we are getting a little too theoretical and concerned with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" rather than "pulling the arrow out" and I hope the real-world applications of this question/comment i.e. "I see the Buddha as the impersonal Dharmakaya (Myoho Renge). Otherwise we get into "Deity Worship" which is a duality and a regression." will become clear as we progress, as it transcends the theoretical and documentary evidence we are examining.You, in part state: "At times, he [Nichiren] did refer to the Original Buddha as the impersonal Dharma-kaya, but other times he stressed Shakyamuni the human being, still other times he stressed a sort of trans-personal celestial Shakyamuni.......I think he resolves that in Kanjin Honzon Sho and, very specifically, in the Rooster Diagram Gosho. ........It could be that Nichiren was mistaken on this. Or he have felt a need to pander to the people's need to have a personal model of a Buddha."Exactly....Nichiren was not above using skillful means (Upaya) as can be seen by the relative depth of his Gosho depending on the recipient. Also I agree with Chris Holte that there are esoteric aspects to all teachings, including Nichiren's. It's all about depth and how deep you choose to go to "find the gold" The Japanese needed a "personal model of a Buddha" that was a Deity...their emperor is a descendant of the sun and some in Japan still believe that dogma. I don't live in Japan and I am for better or worse one of "Descartes Bastards" a product of the Western so-called "Enlightenment"[I'll make this point as a side-bar: It is truly sad that Western Buddhists, with the exception of the truly brilliant Ken Wilber, have thrown all the accomplishments of the Western Philosophy and Psychology out with the bathwater and choose to "ape" the Orient. Exactly what Jung warned us NOT to do...enough said for now.]Googling around like a mad-man I found the "Rooster Diagram Gosho" NSD/2 pg. 20.... (emphasis mine)"The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, * fascicle 10, preaches:"The shoin bussho is possessed by the Dharma-bodied Buddha, and it is innately possessed by all the people throughout the past, present and future lives. By nature they are endowed also with seeds of the en'in and ryoin bussho; these Buddha-natures are not acquired as a result of practicing Buddhism."I don't mean to sound glib but....so what else is new?You state and I (for what it's worth) totally agree: "I think he was pointing to the unity of the three bodies; which, from what I gather, was also taught by T'ien T'ai. The Buddha's deeds as an historical person; his idealized trans-personal bliss, discernment, and compassion; and the Dharma to which he awoke are all one; no dualities or "trinalities."While "Googling the Rooster" I also found a very interesting dialogue between you, Chris, Ryuei and a guy named Safwan Zabalawi. I'll enclose it as that pretty well sums it up to the end of your "Point One"I'll wait a bit before going to point 2 as I don't want to confuse the "thread of dialogue" too much. Please keep up the good work...I do appreciate these clarifications as I trust your scholarship and judgment Robin.From SGI Unofficial Site:
by: fwalmsley @ Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:37:44 PM CDTWe're all still getting used to this software. Turns out, posting a long, unbroken line of characters will throw off the site's formatting. Who knew?The comment above contained a line of asterisks to indicate quoted material. Since I cannot edit a comment to take out extraneous formatting, I had to delete the comment, edit, and re-post it under my own name (apologies to fwalmsley.)I'd just like to ask everyone to avoid inserting extraneous formatting into their posts. For formatting, please use the buttons provided below the comment box -- bold, italic and quote. To indicate quoted material, select the text and click "quote." Blockquote tags will automatically be added.Thanks.
Sorry Beryl and thanks for taking the time to re-format...a hastle at best.BTW should I ever want to post a new subject (and god forbid that ! grin) how would I do it ???...I HAVE looked all over the site and... DUH on me!Thanks for all your efforts at BuddhaJones.With respectFrank
Frank, if you'd like to post your thoughts on a new topic, you can create a "New Diary."Log on to the site. Over to the left under "menu" you'll see:- Home- Diaries- fwalmsley's Page- New Diaryetc.Click on "New Diary." You'll see a couple of fields where you can write your new post. The top window is a good place for a few introductory sentences. Then you can put the bulk of your post in the second window.Give it a try and let me know how it goes...
First, I think I have covered the three points:1. The Source Buddha is not just an impersonal Dharma that emanates a Reward Body and and a Response / transformational body. The Source Buddha, as Nichiren taught, is all Three Bodies as one Eternally Existent Uncreated Tripled Bodied Tathagata. 2. Duality [dvaita; nini ?] does exist in Buddhism as the conventional, relative Truth {Sammutti-sacca Sanskrit: Samvriti-satya} or Conditional Truth {Vohara-sacca or vyavahara- satya; the truth of form or concete form [rupa, ruparupa, shiki ?] or Interim Existence [ketai ??]. I have the other sino-japanese terms used by T'ien T'ai and Nichiren, but can not access them at the moment. There is ultimate truth = paramatha sacca/satya; which is non-duality {advaita or funi, ??}. This is conflated with Emptiness [sunnatta, shunyata, ku ?], and becomes the Truth of Empiness {kutai ??}. There is also the concept of formlessness {arupa, mushiki ??} and even subtle form {arupa rupa}. Argh! I have some other sino-japanese terms I can not access right now. At any rate the conditional vs. unconditioned, the relative vs. absolute, conventional vs. ultimate, emptiness vs. form,and so on; sets up a sort of monism or idealism that becomes another form of dualism; pitting duality vs. nonduality. I think this is resolved by chutai ?? {madhyama sacca/ satya}. This encompasses both the relative and absolute. So Buddhism still respects the conventional truth that Shakyamuni is the Buddha of this planet for this age. That is why the Eternally Existent Uncreated Tripled Bodied Tathagata is referred to and imaged as the historical founder of Buddhism. It is convention, like green means go, red means stop, and yellow means go real fast before the light turns red. 3. All the symbolism of the Lotus Sutra is structured on the axiomatic assumption that Shakyamuni is or represents the Original Buddha. Those were the three points. The Rooster Diagram illustratesthat, per what I got from Reverend Ryuei, I am going from quotations he posted on that Gosho. The theory gets difficult, but is quite practical. It has practical applications. One of those is honing the skill to sort it all out. There are others. Like having the patience and confidence to know what we know, and what we do not know, not yet. We do not know if something is useful, if we do not know what it is. This goes back to the thread title. We all get overwhelmed at times. We can look at the ground and sigh; decide we are too stupid and are just never going to get it. Or we can shake our fist at the sky, dismiss it all as a bunch of pleasurable mental speculation; and decide the grapes we can not reach right now are sour anyway. Or we can cheerfully take the middle path on the yellow brick road; and gradually extend our reach as we go. gasshorobin
Robin,Again thanks for your time....I felt if I can get this "hypothesis" past your scholarship of theoretical and documentary proof I will have passed an important "sniff test" for my book."Actually, I think there is duality in Buddhism; from the standpoint of Conventional or Secular Truth" I do agree but IMHO we have to get over or transcend that. I suppose we could beat this to death like a $20 mule and even get into Tendai's concept of "No Truth' but I really don't want to get into that "theoretical mine field" that took me so long to navigate.So I dusted off the ol' tetralama (Four Alternatives) form of Buddhist logic and chose "door #3" which is a synthesis of both affirmation and negation to solve our "divergence of opinion"You state: "Shakyamuni is still the samyaksambuddha for us. He is our role model of archetypal truth." Again I agree and would propose that Nichiren's Great Mandala (Gohonzon/Omandala) is the "Ultimate Buddhist soteriological Archetype/Symbol" to date, that I have, or probably will ever encounter.The problem being, for me at least...why is this one of the "Best kept secrets in the world" ?? The Gakki had a good "kick at that cat" but they and NST are in a real"cat fight" now and self-destructing as we speak.You state: "Some of the concepts might need adjusted, to accord with science. Also, some of the formal methods can be adapted to other cultures."This IMHO is the BIG PROBLEM facing "engaged in the real world Buddhists" of the 21st Century. And one of the reasons this "Deity worship" aspect might be abandoned.As perhaps a counterpoint; Freud "turning a phrase" by Voltaire said that if there was no God man surely would have invented one. Perhaps some people need a personal deity in order to relate to a teaching, be that a charismatic President or High Priest.....Nichiren or Shakyamuni are fine in that role as an archetype/symbol...in the end what do I know about what's rolling around in other peoples minds? I see Buddhism as a perfect psychology NOT necessarily religion..... but still don't want to strip out all the mystical/magical beauty of Buddhism. These aspects of the mystical/magical could be transcended ......i.e. "keep the best and leave the rest" .....The "rest" being the Oriental cultural layers of religious dogma and superstition brought to the West by certain Japanese Sangas.Later in Chris Roman's book (Chapter 13 "The Japanese Factor") that is being serialized on this site, there are some invaluable insights into this conundrum. As an old retired "fart" I get to "lurk" around different sites..here's a somewhat typical comment "Hi Byrd, interesting post. .....Asian Buddhism is dead meat in America, simply because what works for the Asian mind is not necessarily what works for the Western mind...." Well David certainly doesn't pull any punches does he !The point being is that a medieval Buddhist cosmology does not relate to the 21st Century at all. Some people and sangas are content to pour over dusty sutras and try to base their lives and practice on such and good on them BUT if you want to attract new people it doesn't work.Aldous Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy" states in short that there is "thread" of wisdom running through all Eastern and Western philosophy/religion that has the common denominator of nonduality. "Nichiren snobs" and what I would call "Buddhist snobs" think they have a "copyright" on this wisdom. Unfortunate at best !Thanks for your all your time and assistance..also your reco' on Mr Atkins book which I have ordered, and cograts on your incredible NDE and return to health.With respectFrank
For the stimulating discussion. I think must be possible for Nichiren Buddhists to exchange ideas, agree on some things, and disagree on others? I still have some thoughts on using statues and paintings to represent the Gohonzonl; but I hold those thoughts for a different thread and / or day. Unless someone wants me to go over it tomorrow. Perhaps we just displayed one of the values of theoretical study. One can step back, and look at concepts objectively, while suspending judgment. That is in itself is maybe part of the fourth framework of mindfulness taught by the Buddha -- Contemplation of Mental Objects (Dhammas). These are basic concepts -- 5 hindrances, 5 skandhas, 6 faculties of perception and sensory objects, 7 factors of awakening, and 4 Noble Truths.
You state: "Some of the concepts might need adjusted, to accord with science. Also, some of the formal methods can be adapted to other cultures."This IMHO is the BIG PROBLEM facing "engaged in the real world Buddhists" of the 21st Century. And one of the reasons this "Deity worship" aspect might be abandoned. Again, still dodging the worship issue, one thing is that Buddhist Cosmology has no real ontological value. However, viewed as a map of the Psychological or Spiritual Universe; it appears to have Epistemological Value? If I want to travel to the Brahma Heavens in a rocket, I am in trouble. However, if I want to enter blissful meditative "heavens," Buddhist Cosmolgy is a reliable map. gasshorobin
Google denies knowing anything about a rooster diagram, with or without gosho.
If you have the Nichiren Shu Gosho translation it is in Volume 2 page 16. I will review it later as I am preparing a post in detail for BJ regarding this "concept"Frank
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/...
Thanks for following up on this. I would like to learn more. Looking forward to your rooster "diary."