This discussion has cropped up numerous times over the decades I have been involved with chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. The issue has come up again in a different thread, here.
Is Nichiren Buddhism really Buddhism?
On one hand I have heard people from other lineages say that it is not Buddhism. Rather, it is a form of Japanese nationalism -- or, at best, a "Buddhism-based new religion" or cult invented by Nichiren and/or Soka Gakkai.
Even many chanters say that Nichiren himself rejected all Buddhism and replaced it with the practice of chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra, essentially eschewing the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.
It's an interesting paradox. Some Buddhists reject daimoku as non-Buddhist, while some chanters claim that it is a practice far superior to "mere Buddhism."
I see chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo as part of Buddhism because it is based on the Lotus Sutra. Many of the aphorisms of Nichiren Buddhism are drawn from other sutras as well, such as the Vimalakirti (a lotus blooms in the mud.) Nichiren's writings echo the Dhammapada at times.
Further, I see no reason to belittle the practice of others to make chanting seem more important. Or vice versa.
I think that a person can chant Namu Myoho Renge Kyo and not declare him or herself a Buddhist, just as a person can meditate without "becoming a Buddhist." But that does not make the practice non-Buddhist.
What do you think? Is Nichiren Buddhism really Buddhism?
17 comments
A question like this should spark great debate and, perhaps, gets to the essence of all that is confusing and controversial about Nichiren's teachings. I think a large part of answering it lies in whether or not you define the Buddha as a single historical entity, i.e. Shakyamuni, or any numbers of historical entities who may have attained Buddhahood -- to my mind, Shakyamuni, Chih-I (T'ien-t'ai), and Nichiren. And, as I have heretically suggested in earlier posts -- perhaps even Jesus, himself (how else do you account for the impact of a single being upon a billion or more others?).Now, that said, I really believe Buddhism is about the concept of immanent (permeating all phenomena) Mystic Law vs. transcendent (external and separate) deity. My understanding is that Buddha simply means "enlightened teacher," and, in that respect, Nichiren certainly qualifies and, whether some respect it or not, he called himself Buddhist and drew upon a vast knowledge and practice of Buddhist teachings to manifest his teachings. The "nationalist" claim is BS -- all Japanese were, and to some extent are, exceedingly nationalist in their approach, culture and linguistics. Nichiren never left the island, except for a smaller island (Sado) and it is only natural that his writings and his attitudes and his bearing appear nationalistic to 21st Century Westerners.I absolutely believe Nichiren was a Buddhist and believe I am as well. From the moment I perceived the oneness of everything on a New York City street in 1967 to the present day, the notion of the true entity of all phenoomena (shoho jisso) has been the central point of my existence. I believe it dovetails perfectly with the teachings of Shakyamuni, Chih-I, et al. No one will ever convince me otherwise nor should they dare to call me anything other than Buddhist.However, in the practice of Nichiren's Buddhism it is the practice that is everything -- literally, everything: the chanting of Nam or Nam-u Myoho Renge Kyo to a universally acceptable mandala created to "perceive the entity of one's own life." It is his practice that is so remarkable -- not his writings, although they come in a close second.Shakyamuni and Jesus wrote nothing down, so we are left to their disciples to determine what they thought Buddhist or Christian practice should be and, frankly, we have no real idea of what they wanted. Depending on one's interpretation, the concretization of their teachings in the form of practice can be almost anything. With Nichiren, that is in no way possible. That is why I believe that anyone who chants Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to his mandala is Buddhist, whether or not they continue to think of themselves as Christian, Muslin, Hindu, Sufi, Mormon or, like myself, take great pride in their study of all religions and ultimately begin to believe that they are indeed Buddhist and will, in short order, attain enlightenment. Does this mean we will all become Buddhas? Of course not -- it is not all of our missions to become teachers of universal truth. Does it mean we will all believe, feel and act with total confidence on the basis of a Buddha-nature that is 100% actualized. Absolutely! I believe that is the very definition of what Buddhism, at least in the Lotus Sutra, is teaching and what makes Buddhists of us all.
This is a good question but I'm not sure it is being raised within the proper context. The question of whether chanting NMRK is a Buddhist practice is not valid. How can reciting the title of a Buddhist sutra possibly be un-Buddhist? Same thing with whether or not Nichiren was a Buddhist. He was a Tendai priest, of course he was.The question has more to do with how the Nichiren tradition has evolved over time. The apparent demotion of the historical Buddha; the notion that "Shakayamuni's Buddhism" is not longer valid; the exclusivity and criticism of other established Buddhist traditions as also invalid or "heresies"; the disregard, ignorance, and intermittent criticism of core Buddhist teachings, such as no-self and non-attachment; and the distorted presentation of Buddhist history-these are the things that cause some to question the Nichiren tradition's place within the greater Buddhist tradition. Now there are those who also have a tendency to view chanting, whether it's mantras or sutra titles or whatever the case may be, as incomplete practices. They will stress that silent meditation is the indispensable practice. However, this is a dogmatic view, the flip side to the claim that only chanting NMRK is a valid practice.
Buddhism is about awakening. I recall a Tibetan nun named Wong-Mo, who I mentally referred to as "Wrong-Mo," complaining to be that Nichiren practice "must be so boring." Old Wrong-Mo had left her monastic life in Nepal with the Dalai Lama to marry a recovering heroin addict. It took me about three minutes to sway her husband with the old SGI rap. I was writing an article for an alternative weekly in our area and was covering a local emergence of Tibetan Buddhism.After discussion, observation, and joining in their practice to understand it better, I was instantly convinced that Nichiren's daimoku was the Himilayas and they were more like the Smokey Mountains. It was nice, it was pretty, and it was power nap inducing.To assert that Nichiren's recommended practice is not Buddhism, is just plain ignorant. Silent meditation is found in yoga, Hinduism, Christianty, and many other traditions. So, the same sort of question could be posed top those sects that meditate only,"are you really Buddhists? Or are you really Quakers?!I find that labeling someone as a "Buddhist," is just that, a label for telling yourself and the world the origins or family of tradition you identify with. If you chant damioku, you will be embracing the Lotus Sutra. If you practice or identify with other sutras and use mudras, you too are a Buddhist. If awakening is the goal, what difference does a label make? I should introduce you all to Wrong Mo so you can see the effect of decades of Tibetan Buddhist practice - which many believe is the greatest Buddhist practice - can be as impressive as decades of a dfaily does of Vallium.Gakkoren
The basis of Nichiren Buddhism is the Three Thruths which makes it Buddhism. The fact that the practitioners don't know this is because it's easier to propagate it as a new form of Buddhism. That is the error of the Japanese, and something I would like to correct if given the chance.
The goal of buddhism is awakening to reality.Perhaps this reality can be described as selfless with no beginning and no end.I think that daimoku directly points to this reality in the clearest way possible.I would say that daimoku perfectly describes awakening.My position would be not only is Nichiren Buddhism really buddhism but it is the best and most accessible exposition of buddhism available.If everything else that is considered buddhist were to be taken away and all that was left was namu myoho renge kyo nothing would be lost. The Daishonin proclaimed namu myoho renge kyo to be the sole teaching leading directly to enlightenment in the latter day of the law and though that seems too monolithic and exclusive to me as I feel enlightenment is an inherent and natural condition that can be awakened in many ways in my mind Nichiren's buddhism is the best.
Great responses on this thread. I think the question should be focused more: Are Nichiren Shoshu, Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Shu, etc. really Nichiren Buddhism?Nichiren was a Buddhist, yeah. There is no doubt in my mind that Nichiren practice is Buddhist.On closer examination, though, it's not so obvious. You look at SGI, and they put an insular, superstitious, enemy-smiting, intensely materialistic spin on Nichiren's teachings. And, yeah, you can find gosho quotes to support a lot of it.But is it really Nichiren Buddhism?You can go off on your own like a tusker, print a gohonzon off the internet, learn gongyo on youtube, chant and join a message-board sangha, and find gosho quotes to support that, too.But is it really Nichiren Buddhism?The label "Nichiren Buddhism" seems up for grabs for anyone to claim as their own.
While SGI, Nichiren Shoshu, and Kempon Hokke each claim to be the true orothodoxy of Nichiren Buddhism, I would say that anyone whose practice is chanting daimoku is a Nichiren buddhist.It doesn't matter if you down loaded your Gohonzon or don't even have one.If you want a strict interpretation no one is a Nichiren buddhist as he refused to found a sect or school and so there is no Nichiren Buddhism.Those who claim that others who chant daimoku are not Nichiren Buddhists are Nichiren Buiddhists but I think they have lost sight of what is essential and are finding fault when they should be offering encouragement.
We all hopefully get to go to school, but we also graduate and go on from there...at least I did. You don't stay there forever, what all of these Nichiren Schools teach, (I was involved with them for some 30+ years either a paid employee or a senior leader) is not what Tendai/Nichiren taught. The greater part of the object of their exercise is in the definition below:Definition: "Routinization" (veralltiiglichung) is "the process whereby either the prophet himself or his disciples secure the permanence of his preaching and the congregation's distribution of grace, hence insuring the economic existence of the enterprise and those who man it, and thereby monopolizing as well the privileges reserved for those charged with religious functions" (Weber 1964: 6s).When assessing any school, religion, or at worst ideology/dogma, I keep the above definition in mind and also..."is there any nonduality in the message?"...if there is, I politely "leave the room". In brief, please beware there is a subtle, but very important difference, between what Tendai/Nichiren teaches and what is found in most Buddhist schools. ....the Middle Way is NOT the void/nonduality/no ego, it is a subtle integration of ke and ku. This subtle integration is alluded to in Ch'an (as opposed to most Zen schools.)Lastly ....a lot of Buddhists want to attain enlightenment..."I want to attain enlightenment"....if, as Shakyamuni taught, the "I/Me" is a construct, who or what attains this "enlightenment"....???All for now...as these are my concepts (2nd of the 5 Aggregates) and hence personal truths (Conventional truths) not for everyone...we all have our own "truths" because... a thought is a fact and a fact is a truth....that being, to you personally...there are very few universal truths...birth, death, old age and sickness...we can almost add taxes at this point in history. For me personally, Myoho Renge is the Truth of Kyo (Reality) and the chanting of which represents a "Dharma Gateway" to subjective wisdom. Is it a "Dharma Gateway" or the only "Dharma Gateway"...????...We'll let the dogmatists endlessly argue that one.Franko the Fool
Franko,I would say that my reading of teh Gosho shows Nichiren thought routinization was of primary importance. But I guess you can argue for ever over what dead people believe.I do have to wonder what you have against non-duality.
Hi Mr Hidden, re your comment: "I do have to wonder what you have against non-duality" From a "Fool" (Franko) and in deference to a "Clown" (albeit Hidden) and your great blog at Fraught With Peril I'll elaborate.......the short answer is absolutely no/thing against non-duality and somehow I do not see anything in my post that would indicate such...but then again "the written word is a poor messenger"My concern, as is Tendai's, is when people take an extremist view about non-duality/ku, as do some schools of Buddhism ....which is poor Buddhist Psychology/Thought and contrary to what Shakyamuni and Nagarajuna taught.Prime point and first off, Shakyamuni never taught Buddhism...he taught how to relieve suffering. So how many people do you know have realized the state of Non-duality/Ku... I would wager not many...Wilber ran some stats you published a while back...a "poverty of results." Why...because it is a "Red Herring..."THE Straw Man" of Buddhism. Like winning the lottery it probably "ain't gonna happen..." Over and above that, it is not, according to Nichiren and Tendai, the goal or teaching of their particular astute form of, albeit contectualized Buddhism.Almost all of Nichiren's theoretical thought is based on Tendai...who IMO was the Emanuel Kant/Einstein of Buddhism, in that he laid the theoretical framework for a brilliant psychological system. Tendai states:
In a conversation in 1952 in Copenhagen between three Nobel Laureates in Physics, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Niels Bohr, Bohr quotes a poem by Schiller called Most people don't do the digging are content with someone else's breezy rationalized version of it, be it a senior leader, priest, guru, or some chubby little Japanese ex-bill collector they turn to as mentor. That is why there is Faith , Practice and Study...the three pillars of wisdom. There are three types of truth...small "t" truth (Conventional truth/Ke)...large "T" Truth (Non-duality/Ku ) and TRUTH with caps....which is the "Reality Limit" or the Middle Way. As I stated: we all have our own "truths" because... a thought is a fact and a fact is a truth....that being, to you personally...Vasubandu underlines this fact by starting one of his most famous treaties, the Twenty Verses with "this is only a concept"To touch on some previous relevant comments in this topic: Well ALL these schools don't even approach that...as Wolfgang Pauli would quip "They aren't even wrong" ( I will give a pass to Ryuei/McCormack) ...they are a Japanese misinterpretation of Tendai and Nichiren stuck at the level of Deity Worship. They are only at Ken Wilber's fulcrum 8 of 10 and fulcrum 8 of Franko's 11. These Japanese schools come out of a mindset that deified an emperor as a living God, felt they were are chosen people (didn't/don't the Jews and Germans in WW II claim the same thing..? ) and supported the stupid idea you could defeat the US in WW II....they got their asses kicked and caused countless misery for a whole nation.....talk about actual proof..!!I will readily admit I lack a certain maturity of equanimity and don't suffer fools easily....but I don't like to see good peoples pockets picked by routinizers and worse than that supposed teachers that are real charlatans and don't understand what they are teaching. They can't even explain how to chant/meditate ...mainly because they never learned themselves...they were taught to beg and that's what they teach.I could go on and on but enough of my concepts for now.With due respect,Franko the FoolI think I agree with the gist of what you say.when any teaching gets codified and institutionalized it may not be completely dead but it's probably on life support and not capable of doing much, you have to revive it with your own life or not only will you be following a truth outside yourself, but the way it's being presented may make it not true at all.Yet in an age as fallen as this one even that is something to be respected.
Mr. Franko, while I am in general sympathetic to some of your remarks, I find them rather confusing. I am not sure what non-duality/ku has to do with Nichiren. He didn't teach about emptiness. And if there was ever a guy who needed some non-duality, he was. "Almost all of Nichiren's theoretical thought is based on Tendai. . ." Yes, but did Nichiren understand Tendai, or more importantly did he understand Chih-i. I think not. He missed something somewhere along the line. If emptiness destroys all concepts and views, and ultimately itself as a concept (sunyata-sunyata or the emptiness of emptiness) and you cannot even hold on to emptiness as a view, then how can you hold onto anything else? How can you say this is the absolute, the ultimate. How can you say that one teaching is superior to all other teachings? This is what Chih-i meant when he said one truth has many names. All truths merge into one truth, but as soon as you say one truth, you must say no-truth to prevent clinging, attachment. This then, was the way Chih-i explained the emptiness of emptiness. "a thought is a fact and a fact is a truth" Well, you may mean something else here, but taken literally this is wrong. Thought is thinking, thinking is being conscious of a consecutive series of images and ideas and of the relations between them. A fact is a referent which is, was or will be, or could be, judged or experienced. Facts include absence of any other fact, but not what is absent. Truth is conformity of a judging with fact. When what is judged to be is, the judging is true. Now, I think your "Routinization" is interesting and probably holds a lot of water in regards to the SGI.
Dear DMRThanks for joining our little discussion..In-as-much as I am working to a tight dead-line on a project, in order to give your questions/comments the time/attention they deserve I will have to answer your comments/questions in 3 posts/parts.... 1) Tendai and 2) emptiness 3) "thought"Again these are "mere concepts" on my part.....as confusing as they may well be I will try my best to clarify the butter into ghee....smile.I would agree that Nichiren perhaps didn't teach much about emptiness... Nichiren's focus was on the integrated Middle Way, which, as you well know he inscribed in his mandala. There are certain gosho that do speak a great deal about emptiness...although Nichiren uses a slightly different terminology, calling it the "Original Mind." This has unfortunately been poorly translated as "the Original Buddha" by some schools. Whether certain Nichiren schools have avoided translations of certain important gosho due to not understanding their importance or on purpose...I don't know...moreover the quality of the translations is often on the "Readers Digest" level. If you haven't yet I would encourage you to read Thesis on the Whole being Contained in the One Instant of Mind Sôzai ichinen shôGoshô Shimpen, p.111-116, as you will see what I mean. I have read/studied it literally dozens of times and get more depth out of it each time. It will provide good insight into the next 2 parts of my blah blah blah. http://www.hokkeko.ca/chapter2.htmAgain and again, IMO, Nichiren, as an enlightened sage, (I'll leave it at that for now) surely had an experiential awareness of emptiness/ku. Indeed Nichiren's constant polemics and dogma becomes tiresome to some in the 21st Century. That was the style of rhetoric then...this is now...those were different times. This is one of the reasons, IMO, his teachings should be "decontectualized" This is not a knock on Nichiren merely commentary....Truth is a dynamic, time sensitive and hence truth is a verb. I never met the man or walked a mile in his shoes/sandals, nobody is trying to cut my head off, so I would agree with Schopenhaur, speaking of Kant's mistakes, he stated "Great men can make mistakes with impunity" Those who choose to "deify" Nichiren, will no doubt find that heretical...so be it.Perhaps as a useful, albeit simple metaphor, and back to my comment that Tendai (I use that term as it I easier to type) ... was IMO the Emanuel Kant/Einstein of Buddhism...to extend the metaphor/analogy...Einstein won the Nobel prize for the theoretical work for what would become the television (cathode ray tube)...although there were prototypes out there (see J Stone et al) Nichiren inscribed, what I refer to as a "Dharma Gateway" that allows us to encounter our own minds at the deepest level....so perhaps Nichiren could be compared to a combination of Edison, Bell and Marconi (I think a corporation developed the TV)Sorry I have gone on and on but these are serious comments/questionsTo be continued,Franko the Fool
Emptiness and karma are two of the most misunderstood words in Buddhism. Perhaps we should try to define the term first..??From my "conceptualization" emptiness/void/non-duality/ sunyata-sunyata....all mean no sense of a separate self/ego/I/me etc. As stated, the problem is, as Tendai points out, when this becomes an "extreme view".....and this is what a lot of Buddhist schools and the Transpersonal movement make it.Tendai's system has 3 Truths: 1) Conventional/ke 2) Supreme/ku 3) The Middle Way/Chu...then as you say, ultimately "No Truth"...absolute negation much like Nagarajuna, which is a logical extension of The Middle Way....it is The Reality Limit or in common vernacular..."it is what it is"This is poetically put in the famous Zen expression:
Back in the 60's Donavan had a nice song about it "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is"...very simple.You are correct ", then how can you hold onto anything else? How can you say this is the absolute, the ultimate? How can you say that one teaching is superior to all other teachings?" simply because according to Ku and Chu...THERE IS NO YOU...it is a construct of your thoughts that create this "YOU"However this makes the mistake of denigrating or dismissing Conventional Truth/ke with an "extreme view"....this is IMO a huge mistake and one that Tendai and Nichiren sought to avoid like the plague/swine flu (smile)http://www.hokkeko.ca/chapter4...If you or anyone are interested in Part 3 "thought" let me know.....I'm not big on typing to myself....in essence and quoting you, this is what I was saying "When what is judged to be is, the judging is true."...with the caveat..for you and truth with a small t... which means conventionally/ke....This whole brilliant system by Tendai is also called Conditioned Co-arising/12 Links or, as found in the Gosho "An Essay on the Chain of the Twelve Causes and Karmic Circumstances that Run through the Whole of Sentient Existence" which is essentially another way of approaching the Middle Way. http://www.hokkeko.ca/chapter1...I could go on and on but it's all in certain Goshos I have recommended or cited and also it's all just words on a page.With respectFrank the FoolFrom my perspective you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. "There is no you" is close but not exactly why Buddhism teaches non-attachment to views. Nichiren entire corpus of teachings is based on his obsessive attachment to an extreme view and his dogmatic writing style is still extreme compared to others of that same era. Perhaps the problem is that you are relying on Tendai teachings (which really should not present a problem) and maybe you need to go to the original source, Chih-i, the Chinese founder of T'ien-t'ai.
You miss the point...there is a you in a "Conventional Truth " or ke sense.....the rest is metaphysics which is essentially useless. The whole trick is to really understand this YOU...that is the start of wisdom.While I am probably familiar with them, I would be interested in these "others of that same era" and what they have to say..??Au contraire, I have read and more importantly studied everything I could get my hands on re Tendai, The Great Calming and Contemplation by Donner and Stevenson, The recently published two volume "The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra" by Professor Haiyan Shen, "Tien-t'ai Philosophy of Buddhism and Foundations of Tien-T'ai Philosophy" by Swanson. I have not been able to get Chih-I "An Introduction to the Life and Ideas of A Chinese Buddhist Monk" and have had a request at Abe Books for years.That and my nearly 34 years of practice has given me a pretty good understanding....but more importantly I have decontectualized the information and meditated on it.....we in the 21st Century are "a different breed of cat" when it comes to thinking.Perhaps if you had done the reading I suggested you would have a better understanding of Nichiren's thought. You obviously have a problem with him, but realize that is YOUR problem not his/mine. Take the best and leave the rest, as the old saying goes. Again and again you have to decontectualize Nichiren to appreciate his genius. Don't rely on anything you have been taught...use upaya...which is really a "skillful experiment." and meditate on it....if you have been taught how..??
Sorry, I guess when you wrote Tendai you were referring to Chih-i. I understand full well the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth. My original remarks were not about the emptiness of self, but rather the emptiness of views. Although they are essentially the same, the focus is a bit different. I do not have a problem with Nichiren. I just call 'em as I see 'em.Dogen is one contemporary who comes to mind. While he could be a bit of a purist himself, I find him far less extreme than Nichiren.