What are the top ten dogmatically embraced beliefs held by Nichiren Buddhists that cause the most argument and dissension among us? Most disputes can be traced back one or more of these fallacies.
10. The practice of shakubuku necessarily entails a literal interpretation of the gosho and Lotus Sutra, and justifies intolerance, rudeness, and even violence.
9. A class of monks, priests, or clergy of any kind is destructive and antithetical to Nichiren Buddhism.
8. We all must agree, and others must be converted to our views, if Nichiren Buddhism is to flourish.
7. One particular organization or sect is the true heir to Nichiren's teachings or "lifeblood."
6. All natural disasters and human tragedies are caused by incorrect beliefs as defined by Nichiren.
5. Nichiren Buddhism is the only true teaching.
4. Nichiren is/was more of a Buddha than Shakyamuni.
3. Some Gohonzon are better or worse than other Gohonzon.
2. Nichiren inscribed the Daigohonzon.
1. Nichiren is/was infallible.
Please add your own or comment.
51 comments
I was disappointed. I was hoping you would have listed at least one thing I could argue in favor of but everything was so clearly false.But there is another falacy that you left off, perhaps because Nichiren subscribed to it himself, which I think deserves a spot in the top ten. Chanting or practicing this buddhism protects you from anything.
I have many experiences of protection and you can say that they are just coincidence, but that means you aren't a Buddhist because you don't believe in cause and effect. I've had so many protection experiences that to tell them all would make a great book. And before you can say it, yes, other people of other religions can cite their own examples of protection. The basis is causality, and causality doesn't stop working just because you aren't a Buddhist. If you are a good person then you're going to receive good effect, so there are many stories in many religions. Yet, I am Buddhist, and have many experiences of protection. That is a reality of my life, and I know it is born from practice. People who don't see the protection don't practice. Many are great with words and would make it appear to others that they are consistent, yet they don't practice with consistency and so they don't have these protection experiences.Nichiren said very clearly that if you don't benefit from practice it isn't his fault, but your own, and I know there are many here that have a very weak or non-existent practice; so don't blame anyone but yourself if you don't have the discipline to practice every day. This is Buddhism and it is an every day practice.
You left off my favorite: The Buddha didn't preach the Lotus Sutra.
That is a two thousand year old argument that cannot be proven either way. The people of the small vehicle would have us believe that the Buddha taught only the Pali Cannon, and it took him 48 years to do that. It doesn't take 48 years to teach the Pali Cannon.I tend to believe the Mahayana version which is standard among all Mahayana sects.
"If you are a good person then you're going to receive good effect, so there are many stories in many religions.""And before you can say it, yes, other people of other religions can cite their own examples of protection."So then practising doe not lead to protection, or as I would state it, for many practising leads to the perception of protection.Yet I disagree with your assumption,"People who don't see the protection don't practice. Many are great with words and would make it appear to others that they are consistent, yet they don't practice with consistency and so they don't have these protection experiences."I practice regularly and have no expectation of protection. Maybe I'm the exception that proves your rule. Nichiren believed things that were not true, dragons cause rain, leaders following wrong teachings cause earthquakes, I think most people would object to those. Shakyamuni taught the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren is the leader of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, and chanting daimoku will protect you, are still accepted by many as true.
Mark,Setting my own personal views (concepts) aside, for now, I would be very very interested and grateful, if you or any BJ contributors could provide or direct me to any and all documentary or theoretical evidence stating that the Buddha actually taught the Lotus Sutra...believe me, I have tried to find such proof for this "600 pound gorilla in the room" for many years.Thanking you in advance,With respectI remain...Franko the Fool
There is no proof that Buddha taught the Lotus Sutra as well as there is no proof that he did. What I find interesting is that if he didn't teach the Lotus Sutra then where did the One Moment in Three Thousand Existential Spaces come from? It surely didn't come from the Pali Cannon, and it is this theory of life that, while not provable through the scientific method, can be observed to be true.If the Buddha didn't teach the Lotus Sutra, then the person who did is the real Buddha.
"I practice regularly and have no expectation of protection. Maybe I'm the exception that proves your rule."Maybe you just aren't very observant. What keeps you practicing? Surely not your skeptical mind, so I have to assume that at some point you have seen benefit from this practice, and maybe you have such good karma that you don't need much protection. I couldn't possibly explain to you your own circumstances, but since you do practice there seems to be no need. "Nichiren believed things that were not true, dragons cause rain"I think it's interesting that people who would normally chalk this up to a metaphor, which it is, when speaking about Nichiren describe it as a literal. Nichiren had to speak to those that believed in deities as well as those that didn't. "leaders following wrong teachings cause earthquakes"Incorrect teachings lead to incorrect action which is then mirrored by the environment.
In this so-called two thousand year old argument, there are two things at play: belief and fact. The notion that the Buddha actually taught the Lotus Sutra without any documentary proof lies in the realm of belief. Essentially, it's a folk tale. It does not take a lot of research to discover the how and why. To say that there is no documentary proof of the Buddha teaching this sutra is a fact. None exists. Either the existing or the non-existing of something may be a fact. The mistake is in maintaining that a belief is a fact. It's fine to assert a belief, however one should be adult enough to say, that's just my belief and yours may differ. To bristle every time someone mentions the fact that there is no proof is just childish.One Moment in Three Thousand Existential Spaces came from Chih-i, the founder of T'ien-t'ai Buddhism. The concept is said to be interpolated in the Lotus Sutra, but so could a lot of things, so that is not much of an argument. All the talk about protection suggests that some people believe that there is some sort of divine force at work here. Who or what are you seeking protection from? You are your only enemy. In Buddhism, protection refers to protection against negative states of mind. That, then, is the real question. Does your practice protect you from dwelling in negative thinking? If you are seeking protection from forces outside of yourself, you are barking up the wrong tree.
This whole debate about the origin of the Lotus Sutra is news to me. What's the point of the dispute? I mean, what does it matter? The Lotus Sutra is part of the Buddhist canon. Is there some sort of movement afoot to exclude it from the Buddhist canon? Or what?Can someone offer a quick summary or suggest a link that will bring me up to speed? Thanks.
"The mistake is in maintaining that a belief is a fact. It's fine to assert a belief, however one should be adult enough to say, that's just my belief and yours may differ. To bristle every time someone mentions the fact that there is no proof is just childish."I said there is no proof either way, and that I tend to believe the Mahayana side of things."All the talk about protection suggests that some people believe that there is some sort of divine force at work here. "How many times do I have to say there are no metaphysics in Buddhism. It is all cause and effect, and if you can't see the complex interplay of Dependant Origination then you will not understand. That is why I believe the Buddha did teach the Lotus Sutra, because I can see the interplay of life and causality.
I practice because I like it. I'm not trying to get anything from it except the already present experience of reality.I don't believe that earthquakes are caused by anything other than geophysical forces regardless of what anybody or any book says to the contrary. And I believe those who do are victims of religious mind control.
Brooke, this is something that has raged in the Buddhist community for thousands of years. It all boils down to the difference between Hinayana and Mahayana. First off, the people of the small vehicle do not like the term Hinayana. They just go off any time that term is mentioned so if you want to speak with them please use Theravadin instead, and they don't believe any of the Mahayana sutras were ever taught by the Buddha, much less the LS. They believe that they are all a fabrication. The problem is that none of this can be proved either way, so it really boils down to actual proof in a persons life. Either you believe the Mahayana sutras or you don't. I believe they are true.
"I don't believe that earthquakes are caused by anything other than geophysical forces regardless of what anybody or any book says to the contrary. "Earthquakes are caused strictly by geophysical forces. The fact that people get in the way is karma. Timing is the key.
"If you are seeking protection from forces outside of yourself, you are barking up the wrong tree." -dmrI couldn't agree more. Something that I've heard Nichiren said that I really like:"You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni's lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself. Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your own life."
Brooke, it doesn't matter, unless you want to stand on the claim that the Lotus Sutra is superior to all other sutras. That point of view is based partially on the order in which the Buddha was supposed to have taught the sutras: he taught the Flower Garland first, then the Pali Canon, then some of the Mahayana sutras, and finally the Lotus and Nirvana. You may be somewhat familiar with this, so I won't go into all the detail. No one, not Mr. Ikeda, the SGI, other Nichiren sects, or the numerous scholars around the world who have no axe to grind either way, believe that the Buddha taught the Mahayana sutras. He probably taught only a fraction of what is contained in the Pali Canon. So to claim the Lotus Sutra's superiority based on the idea that the Buddha actually taught it is not a very credible argument. No one is trying to exclude it from the Buddhist canon, but the question was what were some of the top fallacies and that's one of them. Mahayana, Hinayana, true, provisional, this sutra is best, etc--none of that is important. It's all meat on the same bone and if one teaching suits you better, you should embrace it. All this other stuff we need to leave behind. It's counter productive.
"So to claim the Lotus Sutra's superiority based on the idea that the Buddha actually taught it is not a very credible argument."Prove what you say. You cannot prove it as no one else has been able to prove it in over two thousand years, so that makes your assumption no more credible than my assumption that the Buddha must have taught the Lotus Sutra because he is the only one that could have done so.I brought this up over six years ago on ARBN, that in the future the detractors of Nichiren Buddhism would go after the Lotus Sutra. I didn't know at the time that they had been doing so for centuries already. Hows it feel to be the detractor's pawn?
You are just relaying what you have read from historians that cannot possibly know what the Buddha taught or did not teach. It is impossible for any historian to know what was said and what was not said. Of course, we can assume that the Ceremony in the Air was a metaphor, and a lot of other things that were written later were metaphor and simile. That doesn't mean that the Buddha didn't teach it. All that means is that people decided to write it in that manner at a later date.We already know that people perverted Buddhism day one after the Buddha died by making him a deity, so it is possible that the Mahayana teachings were never taught, except for one thing. They have been proven to be true through the lives of the Great Masters of Buddhism, and that is what qualifies them as true. The Three Time Periods have come about no matter if it was taught or not. The Lotus Sutra has been proven to be true in the lives of millions of people, and that is what makes it true, not a few historians who don't even practice Buddhism.
Mark, I have discussed this with you in three different forums and you don't get it because you don't want to get it. I don't even know how to characterize your arguments and not leave you feeling insulted. The Buddha taught the Lotus Sutra because only he is the only one that could have done so? What does that even mean? You say Buddhism is not metaphysics and then you throw around things that sound very much like some metaphysical prophecy nonsense. You say you believe the Mahayana, huh? So then you believe that after the Buddha taught these sutras, they were hidden away at the bottom of the sea, guarded over by sea-dragons, until Nagarjuna, with no possible way to breath underwater, went to the bottom of the sea and retrieved them? Typically when fundamentalists are challenged they start with the name-calling. Detractor does not offend me too much, but it is inaccurate. I think the Lotus Sutra is fine. But I also think that the myths surrounding the sutra ought to be left in the past where they belong.
Perhaps I can't prove to an absolute certainty that Gautama never spoke the Lotus Sutra. I also can not prove that Lincoln didn't use a OUIJA board to write the Gettysburg Address. This much is certain regardless the events depicted in the sutra never happened at least not on this physical earthly plane. So any claim of the historical veracity of the sutra is impossible no matter who wrote or spoke it."the Buddha must have taught the Lotus Sutra because he is the only one that could have done so." Forget proving that, which would be impossible, but explain how it is even reasonable. No one except the Buddha could have written it?
"You are just relaying what you have read from historians that cannot possibly know what the Buddha taught or did not teach. It is impossible for any historian to know what was said and what was not said." Well I don't belive Moses talked with a burning bush, I don't belive Krishna talked with Arjuna, but there are traditions that say those conversations happened. Do you suggest we throw out all evidence and verification and just accept what a religious tradition says at face value?"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." -Victor Stenger.
dmr,Thank you.You've said it before and it bears stating ONCE AGAIN that cause and effect in Buddhism is not Newtonian. There is no "actual proof" of the karma hypothesis. It is metaphysical, transcending the laws of nature and physical matter. It is non-falsifiable, anecdotal and that makes it a religion if you believe it.
"Buddhism teaches the existence of a law of cause and effect which explains that when we make a cause, the anticipated effect of that cause is stored deep in our lives, and when the right circumstances appear then we experience the effect."That may not be provable but it is reasonable, and does not require the same kind of religious faith as saying that there is a God who rewards and punishes you. Maybe religion isn't black and white but something can be more or less religious. Or maybe words are ideas which never completely conform to reality.
I don't know where Mr. Hidden got that quote but it is a either a poor translation or simply incorrect according to the Buddha's teaching. It is deterministic, something the Buddha loathed, and verges on the Christian concept of original sin.Cause and Effect/ Karma are indeed not linear or "Newtonian" ... it is more like the matrix of quantum physics....Scottish philosopher David Hume deconstructed the whole concept of cause and effect and he has yet to be successfully refuted...and what we have is called contingency...this is what the Buddha taught as follows in his general statement of interdependent origination/conditioned co-arising.
If you carefully examine the above statement you will come to understand what the Buddha taught.... Interdependent origination/conditioned co-arising. Renge is simply put a reworking/rewording of the above. You could just as well chant Nam (mu) Myoho Paticcasamuppada Kyo...but that's a real mouthful.Mark re the origination of the Lotus Sutra perhaps you should keep these words of the Buddha in mindIf you want to posit that there is no cause and effect that everything spontaneously arises together and that things do not arise out of causes I would have to say that is not Buddhism. That it negates any idea of morality and posits karma not as an action but as fate. I would reject that. I further think that without cause and effect there is no meaning and we are left with nihilism.
I don't believe I ever said that Buddhism is not Newtonian, and if that means non-scientific, I don't think I agree, or with the idea that Buddhism is or should be completely free of metaphysics.It's funny because I talk about karma and cause and effect today on my blog at theendlessfurther.com
My error and my apology.
No problem, Joe.
Morality is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous. And it doesn't matter how you describe virtue, if there is no cause and effect there can be no good or bad actions.
"No one except the Buddha could have written it? "I didn't say written, I said taught, or at least I meant that. I say that no one else could have taught it except a Buddha. If there happened to be another Buddha at the time of the fourth conference on Buddhism, then maybe he wrote it. You must awaken to understand ichinen sanzen well enough to hide it within the text. Joe blow Buddhist certainly didn't write it.
"the myths surrounding the sutra ought to be left in the past where they belong."Myths are made up by people who don't understand the teaching. Unfortunately, since no one here is able to understand how life works then they can't understand when I say only a Buddha could have taught the Lotus Sutra. If you think that makes me a fundamentalist, oh well, I am a fundamentalist then. I have been talking about ichinen sanzen now for over five years and I have yet to find anyone who understands it. Some are getting close, but most can't get past their own delusion. Sorry if that sounds arrogant. I don't mean it to be, just speaking the reality.
It isn't I that is clinging to a certain view other than reality as-it-is. If I choose to believe the Buddha taught a certain teaching, that really has no effect on whether the teaching is correct. If it is correct then it could be said to be from the Buddha's teachings, but the view of its origin is secondary to whether it is correct. If it is not correct, then it doesn't matter the origin. Chi-ih believed the teachings of the Lotus to be true and correct and so did Saicho and Nichiren. All three taught ichinen sanzen. Nichiren crystallized it within the Gohonzon. I am merely a student of these Masters.
Yes but when an action that is considered virtuous creates the opposite effect of it's intention who makes the call?
karma makes the call in all instances. All we can do is try to maintain the highest morality and virtue and if it has the effect of impacting someone negatively, there is nothing we can do about it.
You make your call, the other people involved make their call, other people may make their own judgement and if it's a biger deal the legal authorities will weigh in. Many times things are mixxed. Without any details I would say you have made a cause towards the mental habit of virtue but have to live with the outcome. Many factors are involved and intention is one of them. If people are aware of your intentions that may mitigate their judgement.
I don't see how karma makes any calls. Karma doesn't exist as an entity that can do anything. Karma simply means that actions have consequences. Or that causes have effects. It's impersonal and unintelligent it makes no judgements.
So virtue depends upon who defines it which makes it subjective? One man's virtue is another man's terrorist:"The noble BrutusHath told you Caesar was ambitious:If it were so, it was a grievous fault,And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest -For Brutus is an honourable man;So are they all, all honourable men -"
Good and evil are constructs of the human brain, but it would be false to say they don't exist. It would be true in my opinion to say the universe doesn't care. Without cause and effect you couldn't have a reason to punish any crime. Murder is the same as planting a garden. It makes no difference to all the stars in the sky, does it make a difference to you. And I'm not saying that cause and effect is only good for morality, it is a law of teh universe and none of those stars would exist without it.
now, why in the world would you think that? especially after 5 whole years of talking about your reality of it all...
There is only one reality. People, however, see life through their own conditioning and do not perceive the true nature of reality. I already know what your counter will be, so no need. Certainly I have been conditioned also, but to say that I am wrong based on the fact that I am conditioned would be like saying the Buddha was wrong or T'ien-t'ai was wrong because of their conditioning as well. It is because we seek that we are awakened. If you are not seeking to understand ichinen sanzen then it will always elude you.
since you are so adept at mind reading and putting words in others mouths, enjoy your reality based dialogue with yourself, markp. I do thank you, though, for proving beyond any shadow of a doubt your amazing arrogance. have a good one!
I've been called arrogant so many times that it really doesn't affect me at all. I would ask that you start teaching ichinen sanzen since you assume to know enough to judge me without even reading anything I have written on the subject. In fact, I would also ask that you tell me whom I can go to to learn ichinen sanzen. Please tell me who is teaching this subject? I studied my ass off for years before I ever saw any realization in regards to how life actually works. When I did finally awaken to the basics it was an incredible moment in my life, and since then I have been trying to teach others what I have awakened to. In the years I have been teaching I have been confronted by many people like yourself that thinks I am arrogant and don't know what I'm talking about. Let me just tell you something you may not know. Nichiren was considered arrogant. T'ien-t'ai was considered arrogant, and so was the Buddha. It is not that they were arrogant, but the people who saw them as arrogant were in fact clinging to their own view of reality over the truth.
If you want to debate me, then join my forum [The Nichiren Sangha] @ http://ichinensanzen.org/forumFrom there just send me a private message and I'll give you permission to enter the debate forum. That way everyone can speak freely. BuddhaJones is not the place for this.
the simple reason so many find you arrogant is ... oh, I don't know ... because you're coming off as arrogant? and even obliquely comparing yourself to Nichiren, T'ien-t'ai and the Buddha certainly doesn't tip your scales in favor of humility, imo. it did make me chuckle, though, so thanks!and just so we're clear, I really have no desire or intention to teach you anything at all - what could I possibly contribute to you as one who has already unlocked the mystery of "how life actually works"? nor do I have any need to read anything written by you beyond what's already public on this forum - it's quite enough (search is your friend!).and forgive me for being judgmental, markp, I simply wanted to convey my annoyance. I didn't appreciate being told that I shouldn't bother replying to you since you already knew what I was going to say, especially when you were so far off the mark. maybe instead of arrogant, a better word to convey my opinion of what you wrote would be... presumptuous, or rude, or condescending? take your pick, they all work for me. and I'm not judging you personally, but stating my opinion concerning what you wrote. someone as enlightened as yourself should surely know the difference.
and I will definitely check out your forum, markp.however, is there a problem with speaking freely here, as you imply?
"is there a problem with speaking freely here, as you imply?"No, it just isn't the place. When people debate it is likely that anger will appear. Myself, I don't get angry, but I do get perturbed, and the written word is not as expressive as face to face dialog so many misinterpretations occur. "a better word to convey my opinion of what you wrote would be... presumptuous, or rude, or condescending?"When the Buddha said to the Ascetic, "remember me as the one who awakened on his own", what do you think the Ascetic thought? I haven't awakened to any degree that can be said to rival that of any Buddhist Master, but I have awakened to their words. I have never said anything that cannot be referenced to the Masters of Buddhism or the Buddha himself. I may say it in my own words, but it has already been written, and I can back it up.That is the difference between someones version of how they think it should be and the true reality!
T'ien-t'ai said, "people are quite deranged. Few are not." That is in the Maka Shikan or one his other works. I can't remember exactly where, but it is there. If I ever said that I would be banned from every site but my own!
of course, we really didn't need T'ien-t'ai to let us know that "living beings are quite deranged", did we?endless wars, senseless death and suffering, religious fanaticism, nuclear proliferation, genocide in Darfur, the inhumanity of Gaza and the West Bank, the political insanity of neo-liberalism, teabaggers!?!, financial houses of cards on Wall Street feeding unbridled capitalism while Main Street crumbles, climate change denial and the continued ravaging of our planet for profits... did I mention religious fanaticism? hey, look! there's a scary priest - vanquish him! deranged puts it a bit lightly, imho.but... you were alluding to my own derangement, though, for not fully grasping the "true reality" contained in your words, or doorways, or something, right? oh, markp, I'm not deranged... I'm raving mad! 30 years in the gakkai can have that effect :O)forgive me for interrupting your monologue... carry on!
These are all things I ignore. It is the same thing so many religions get hung up on. I suppose I like the philosophy. Virtually all the BUDDHIST groups believe in cause and effect. They all believe in meditative thought and chanting. Prayer in a language that is not vernacular is healthy. It encourages study. I still pray in Latin. Some view religion as God. In the end, the reality of life is a the all powerful God. You pray to bring the God within you to the outside. Anyone that wants to fight you over it has not found the spirit inside of themselves. Ask a prison guard to name the most dominant groups in prison. You will find no Amish and no Buddhists. Not to say in Buddhist dominated countries there are not, but most Buddhists do try to turn poison into medicine. Most Buddhist sects become powerful like most other religious sects do. Someone at some point held a knife to the throat of the populace. If some organization wants to invalidate my belief, let them. I'll pray silently in private. No one needs crosses, stars, statues, or scrolls to pray to. There is a mental switch that gets turned on in meditative prayer. It relieves stress and encourages concentration. That is why prayer, any prayer works. You don't pray to an external God, you pray to the power of God within you. Anyone can disagree with me and I will do what I do. Fear and force is the weapon of the weak. Think about it, when was the last time you WON and argument? Best way to lose in any endeavor. Go with prayer, Namu Myo Ho, Shema, Pater Nostra whatever. Use it to relax, accept the unacceptable and find peace within yourself. There are as many religious viewpoints as there are people. Spiritual strength is within you. Organizations will always lead to disappointment.