Free Nichiren Buddhism
What are the crucial characteristics of a nichiren buddhist? What must one believe? What must one do? In the previous thread DD commented that as long as one embraces the three great dharmas identified by nichiren, one is a nichiren buddhist. Do you agree?
what elements are necessary for correct practice, and what elements are optional?
BuddhaJones.org Archive Project seeks to collect and preserve information related to Nichiren Buddhism in America. All copyrighted content is presented here without permission under Fair Use guidelines, explicitly for the purposes of research, teaching, criticism, comment, and news reporting. This is a nonprofit, educational site unaffiliated with any religious organization or corporation.
39 comments
This is a question that could get people worked up.This is only an opinion and not intended as an accusation against anyone...At the minimum, if you hold the Daimoku in a place of privilege in your mind, you could be considered a Nichiren Buddhist. I think Nichiren spells out the Essential Practice in a Gosho that I think is called Reciting the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra. He sets up a framework of supplementary practices that include reciting the sutra, honoring buddhas of the 10 directions, and if you can - meditation on ichinen sanzen.My grandmother chanted daimoku to foxes. Would that make her a Nichiren Buddhist?
Writing from the outside as someone interested in Nichiren Buddhism, what has impressed me is the freedom your practice gives you. Chanting daimoku is a form of meditation and, in the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren Buddhists have a venerable text that is infinitely productive of meaning (judging from the many books on that sutra by Buddhists of all persuasions). Beyond that, you are free to believe as you wish. If I am missing something, I hope you will let me know.I also respect the egalitarianism of Nichiren practitioners. I don't remember where--perhaps on Ryuei's site?-- that I read that Nichiren priests see themselves as specialists in the same practice that all pursue; that is, Nichiren priests see themselves only as believers assisting other believers. Again, I may be guilty of misunderstanding here, but I see that attitude as refreshingly humble and wholly admirable.
I'm of the opinion that people who chant daimoku are practicing Nichiren Buddhism. The more complications one adds beyond that, the more conflict will arise.Add the Gohonzon and you'll never hear the end of which scrolls are supposedly demon-infested.Add a religious organization and you'll never hear the end of which organizations are supposedly wonderful and which are poison.Add Gosho study and someone will insist on study of the Lotus Sutra.Add study of the Lotus Sutra and someone will insist on the study of all other sutras, too.Add Gongyo and the debate will rage: A&C or A,B&C? in English or Sino/Chinese? Three prayers or five prayers or one prayer?You'll find it's not so easy to maintain a simple practice of minimum complication. Many people cannot devote their practice solely to the chanting of daimoku. They feel that there needs to be something more to it. I wonder what, though.
But, is it Nam or Namu!Some folks will use anything to enforce a difference or dogma! P^)
It's funny that this should come up right now. I've been thinking about this subject lately and I was thinking of posting a diary here about a book I just finished reading: What Makes You Not a Buddhist by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse.Maybe you've already heard of the author— Aside from being a writer, he's also a lama and a filmmaker. I hadn't heard of him until I came across this brief video and decided to find out more. This is the only one of his books I've read. Its stated goal is to identify the heart of Buddhism (at large), exclusive of the supreficial cultural trappings that can get mixed in and conflated with it. I think the book does succeed at this, in accessible language. To summarize, it frames the discussion in terms of the Four Dharma Seals, a.k.a. Four Truths, Four Marks of Existence, etc., which are given as: All compounded things are impermanent.All emotions are pain.All things have no inherent existence.Nirvana is beyond concepts.(Try not to get too bogged down in the way those are initially presented; much attention is given to their meanings and there's an afterword devoted to explaining the choices made in translation).I think the book also (indirectly, at least) offers a framework for relating to members of other Buddhist sects/organizations, etc. that is grounded in compassion and an awareness of our own motivations during those interactions. This is obviously something that BuddhaJones is and should be about.But, to the point of the original post, it may be true that the [o]daimoku may be the only thing in common between people who call themselves Nichiren Buddhists, and is definitely a necessary condition. But from the standpoint of Buddhism at large, I think the [o]daimoku is only sufficient to make someone a "Nichirenist". The [o]daimoku plus some fundamental Buddhist thought would seem to be necessary to be a Nichiren Buddhist.
At the risk of opening cans of worms that might take us far from the minimal criteria.Nichiren identified himself in a lineage that traces back to Chih-i, the "founder" of the T'ien T'ai/Tendai school, which is of course founded on the Lotus Sutra. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, the Lotus Sutra is an exposition of the Ekayana (single vehicle) identified in the Sutra as the Buddha Vehicle. This is in contrast to the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and Bodhisattva vehicles which are characterized as upaya (expedient means).Without reading DJK's What Makes You Not Buddhist, I would caution against assuming that what he describes as the minimal tenets of Buddhism, ie. the Dharma Seals, are central to Lotus Buddhism. From the perspective of Chih-i's thought on the Four Teachings (Tripitaka, Shared, Distinct and Complete), the Dharma Seals I think would be considered a feature of the Shared Teaching as they emphasize sunyata as the Truth. In contrast, the Complete Teaching which Chih-i considers to be fully expounded only in the Lotus and Mahaparinirvana Sutras asserts the Integrated Three Fold Truth (Provisional, Absolute and Mutuality)(contrasted with the Exclusive Three Fold Truth of the Distinct teaching).From the perspective of the Complete Teaching, the Tripitaka, Shared and Distinct Teachings are incomplete. However, when read from the perspective of the Lotus Sutra, these other teachings can be "opened" to reveal the "True". Basically, Chih-i says that these other teachings in and of themselves are incomplete expositions of the Truth, but when viewed through the lens of the Lotus Sutra, their true context is revealed and can therefore be understood to be expressions of the Complete Truth.My sense is that Nichiren distilled this view into the Daimoku. His basis for doing so is founded on Chih-i's work, particularly the "Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra" in which Chih-i explains that the entirety of the Lotus Sutra is contained in its title. Nichiren then took the radical step of asserting that only the Daimoku is necessary - that it is the Essential Teaching that opens the door to Buddhahood.Even as we might suggest simplistically that practice of the Daimoku is all that is required to be a Nichiren Buddhist, when you start examining what this actually means, it opens up to an extensive and profound teaching that presents, in the very least, an interesting dialectic with what is more commonly conceived of as Buddhism. To draw an analogy, Daimoku is E=MC2 without the extensive proof needed to fully appreciate its meaning and significance.
Fortunately, a can of worms is also enlightenment.Thank you for your summary and historical background. I've probably read this in little pieces as footnotes to the Gosho through the years, but it's nice to have a distillation, and it's good inspiration to read more.Khyentse's book actually does say, in effect, "your Buddhism may not have all four as stated" though it does sort of say all Buddhism will have at least the first three. It seems the three truths of T'ien-T'ai Chih-i (non-substantiality, temporary existence, the Middle Way) are as close as we will get within Nichiren doctrine.Either way, my point was not that the Dharma Seals have to be part of Nichiren Buddhism, but rather to highlight the fact that the original question is answered differently in different contexts. In my own study at the moment, I'm trying to get away from the "forest-for-the-trees" kind of view that's easy to fall into when one's daily exposure to Buddhist thought is as limited as it is in mainstream US life.It's interesting that you invoke Einstein, though I wouldn't have chosen mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²) but rather special relativity since we're talking about frames of reference. :)Seriously though, I personally wouldn't look for analogies in the realm of physics but rather mathematical logic where I would invoke Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness theorems, which in layman's terms say, "if the system is consistent, it is incomplete; if the system asserts its own completeness, it will contain contradictions" or "you cant prove the system's validity from within the system".
It not just a little consolation that we have the three truths doctrine. I'm sure its just the medium, but you sound disappointed that this is what he have in Nichiren Lotus Buddhism. If you are interested in Tientai theory, there are some very good sources - Ziporyn's two books are dense and long winded but thorough. Ng's book comparing Madhyamika and Tientai is also excellent. These guys have a slightly different take than Hurvitz and Swanson.Just quickly, the three truths deals with that gaping remainder after the Sunyata analysis is complete and rehabilitates stuff that is roughly written off. In the least, its a compelling response to the obsession with sunyata.I thought about the nexus between math and buddhism a while back...http://callmequeequeg.com/?p=73
In addition to keeping the practice simple, I suggest keeping the practice open. Don't get attached to concepts, doctrines, ideas, organizations, writings, or teachers.This is the "kill the Buddha" dictum. The Buddha that can be named is not the Buddha.The Buddha cannot be grasped through intellectual effort. Any attempt to reify or make the Buddha a concrete thing/person/teaching will lead you astray. Nichiren invokes this caution when he reminds his followers that the true Gohonzon is not a physical object, but the essence of one's life.Comparisons are provisional. Saying that the Buddha is like this, or the Dharma is like that is a red flag that you are trying to conceptualize something that cannot be conceptualized.Simple chanting -- simple, open chanting of daimoku -- is the practice of Nichiren Buddhism. In my opinion.
I agree with your point to an extent, but isn't asserting the dictum to avoid getting attached to concepts, doctrines, ideas, organization, writings, or teachers, doing just that? "Don't" sounds an awful like a "thou shall not".We have nothing but provisional concepts to work with. How did you come to the Daimoku? It was not a spontaneous thought that occurred to you.The "kill the Buddha" idea expresses a proposition about Buddhism that I'm not sure is wholly compatible with Nichiren Buddhism. "Don't seek this Gohonzon outside yourself" is not the same idea - I'm not even sure they occur on the same continuum. At the risk of sounding like a broken record - the Inclusive Three Truths presents a compelling critique of the kind of sunyata emphasis you're invoking. It also implies a practical means of dealing with the problems you are cautioning against while avoiding the stupor that over reliance on sunyata (and sunyata of sunyata) can tend toward.Recall that Nichiren counseled not only practice, but faith and study as well.I'm not arguing that if you don't observe these things you are not a Nichiren Buddhist - I think your aim to keep it simple has much merit but runs the risk of the same fundamentalism that other more scholastic expressions of Nichiren practice can tend to.
Hold everything loosely and gently as if cradling an armload of air. Is that better? Yes, that includes daimoku itself. Upon first chanting, one embraces the daimoku with little understanding. You'll notice that the longer that some people practice, their views become more rigid. They say "daimoku works like this or that" and they come to believe that there are ways to "maximize" their daimoku. Daimoku is as maximized as it gets. The only honest approach to it is with complete joyful openness with no assumptions.A dear friend told me about daimoku. She said, "Just try it. Listen to it. Feel it as you chant." She didn't give me a lecture on the Lotus Sutra or pepper me with Gosho quotes. I came to daimoku knowing nothing about it, and I continue to discover it through experience, not through dogma."Killing the Buddha if you meet him" means to kill any conception of Buddha that is external to oneself. It accords perfectly with Nichiren's teaching.
If I were a Tendai Buddhist, I might agree with you wholeheartedly. As a Nichiren Buddhist, however, I recognize that simple, open chanting of daimoku is the only practical means of dealing with problems of perception.Indeed. How is the practice of simple, open chanting contrary to Nichiren's counsel? Notice that he did not counsel "belief in certain concepts." One can study without taking pride in (and thus fixating) on conceptual frameworks such as those suggested by T'ien t'ai, for example.Nichiren said to study. He didn't say what to study, and he was saying it to a largely illiterate followership with limited access to written materials. What on earth did he expect his followers to study? The sutras and commentaries, perhaps, if people could get their hands on them. However, he famously remarked that no affairs of life or work are in any way separate from the ultimate reality. Is it possible that Nichiren intended his followers to observe (study) their own lives and minds, and to study the world around them, using the daimoku as a lamp?Why must "study" mean academic analysis, and nothing else?Fundamentalism is a symptom of a closed practice and a closed mind. It may have its frenzied "peak experiences," but it lacks joy. This is why a beginner's mind is always, always key -- the freshness and light touch of total openness is the antidote to fundamentalism.Bravo Bravo! Oops wrong Gender. Sorry Auntie. Brava, Brava!
Whether you call it "fundamentalism" or not, I think the risk that Queequeg points to is when somebody takes the "logical" steps from:"Adhering to these principles has served me well."all the way to:"Everyone must adhere to these principles exclusively, forsaking all other practices."
Then you had a good friend. Not only did she wish to share the daimoku with you, she knew you well enough and was skillful enough to present it in a way that made you take faith.The good friend who introduced me also knew me well enough to know that such an approach wouldn't be appropriate for me.Could you elaborate a bit on your use of the word "open" in your comment? It's not immediately apparent from context, and I don't think I've heard it used this way before.Great discussion, everyone! I'm impressed with the amount of brain power and experience represented in the comments here.Auntie, I can't go "all in" with you on "simple, open chanting." I'm sure we've both met people who use chanting daimoku as the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, "Wah wah wah can't hear you." In other words, they use chanting...often obsessive chanting...as a barrier to connecting and dealing with reality.Also, you have not said anything about Bodhisattva action, but surely this must be a consideration when defining what it means to be a Nichiren Buddhist. What constitutes Bodhisattva action? We could debate all day. Even so, I would argue that "just chanting" is not enough. There has to be some sort of Bodhisattva action, too.Also, I would argue that taking the time to study Buddhism in an academic sense and then trying to explain concepts and ideas to help others develop a better understanding is Bodhisattva action.I like the reversal of the original question -- What makes you NOT a Nichiren Buddhist? I will have to give it more thought. One of the things I would say is: "Fundamentalism."I know: Many people consider Nichiren a huge fundamentalist. I don't agree with that characterization...at least as we understand it in modern terms. He was battling to make his mark, to "plant" a new approach to Buddhism in a culture that was openly hostile to him and his teachings. I don't think you can compare his environment in medieval Japan with today's environment of tolerance and pluralism.I have noticed that people who tend toward fundamentalism also tend to think that Nichiren was infallible. Like Jesus or God or some divine essence made human. Unlike normal people, he never made mistakes. He never misjudged anything. He never got his sutras mixed up. He always translated everything perfectly. He can do no wrong.He did remark in his writings...more than once...that he was right and everyone else was wrong about Buddhism. Still, that doesn't make it true...entirely.So that's the thing I would add to "what does it mean to be a Nichiren Buddhist?" ...It means that no one is infallible, and each of us has to discover the truth and power of daimoku for ourselves.
"Hold everything loosely and gently..."Am I the only one who sees the irony in that command?"open chanting of daimoku is the only practical means of dealing with problems of perception."For someone who criticizes rigidity and fundamentalism, you certainly approach that line. I'm not trying to bust on you, but I think you may have a blind spot in your approach.---"Killing the Buddha" and "Don't seek the Gohonzon outside yourself" are not the same teachings.
It also extends to "killing" any conception of Buddha that is internal as well. This idea comes from a Buddhist tradition that privileges emptiness above all other teachings. The goal is to gain release from all conceptions which are categorically false and therefore harmful. Nichiren hardly mentions emptiness in his writings. I used to assume that this was because it was such a well understood idea that he didn't need to mention it. When you check out Chih-i and the other teachers of the Tientai/Tendai tradition, though, the absence of discourse on sunyata makes sense. You may not think you are heir to the Tientai legacy, but if you claim Nichiren as part of your tradition, Tientai/Tendai is included.When Nichiren counsels not to seek the gohonzon outside oneself, he is talking about having faith that the World of Buddhahood exists within one's own life. He also teaches that the world of Buddhahood exists in the lives of all beings. These are two aspects of the same teaching on the universality of Buddhahood (as taught in the Lotus Sutra, this is expressed as the enlightenment of sravakas, Devadatta, the Dragon King's Daughter, and the revelation of the Buddha's life span.) To see Buddhahood in oneslef is the Practice for Oneself. To see Buddhahood in others is Practice for Others. Nichiren explains that Bodhisattva Never Disparaging is an expression of this teaching. Far from killing the Buddha, Never Disparaging greets everyone, even people trying to kill him, praising their Buddhahood.---You asserted that Nichiren never asserted what should be studied. Actually, in the Kaimoku Sho, he stated it pretty explicitly - in the opening lines he asserts that people should study Confucianism, non-Buddhist teachings, and Buddhism. (Maybe math and science are included in non-Buddhist teachings?)We can certainly assume that there were illiterate followers. However, the sheer volume of his writings clearly suggests that he also had many literate followers. In any event, he writes in several of his writings that they should be read with others - ie. read out loud. It was key that his writings, with the exception of official letters like Rissho Ankoku Ron, were written in colloquial Japanese, specifically so that people could easily understand them. Even illiterate people who had to have letters read to them.---I am not bringing Nichiren up as THE AUTHORITY. I agree with Brooke's comments that he was not infallible. I think that reading him critically can be edifying, even enlightening. Sometimes that effect is brought about by thinking why I disagree with him.I'm pointing these things out because I simply disagree with some of your statements about what he taught. I don't disagree with your suggestions about the mind with which we can chant daimoku. But I also would not limit the chanting of daimoku to the state of mind you suggest. I think people will find all sorts of utility in chanting, and I don't think there is only one way of doing it, nor do I think there is only one way of practicing, or a limited scope of subjects to study.What I mean is the sentiment expressed in the Innumerable Meanings Sutra (part of the threefold Lotus Sutra.) I am invoking the description of the Thus Come One:His -- or her! ;) -- body is neither existing nor non-existing;Without cause or condition,Without self or others;Neither square nor round,Neither long nor short;Without appearance or disappearance,Without birth or death;Neither created nor emanating,Neither made nor produced;Neither sitting nor lying,Neither walking nor stopping;Neither moving nor rolling,Neither calm nor quiet;Without advance or retreat,Without safety or danger;Without right or wrong,Without merit or demerit;Neither that nor this,Neither going nor coming;Neither blue nor yellow,Neither red nor white;Neither crimson nor purple,Without a variety of color.Not a lot to hang your hat on, there. Can you intellectually perceive the Thus Come One from this description? If one practices with any humility at all, one must confess that "buddha" defies the rational thought processes. To perceive it, one must look with a different eye, no? Nichiren recommends chanting daimoku to open this "eye."
Oh, yes, Queequeg, we will have to agree to disagree."Killing the Buddha" and Nichiren's admonitions against seeking the Gohonzon outside oneself are both aimed at the human habit of fetishizing. You see it differently -- yet I see no point in fetishizing the difference.What, I wonder, do you feel merits unquestioned devotion? If you answer anything at all -- even to say "nothing" -- that is a fetishist habit of mind, no?As for the rest of your quibbles, everything depends on:1. What is the point of chanting?2. Is the essence of daimoku universal?To me, the point of chanting is to awaken the to the truth which has always been within my life. Perhaps you'll argue that Nichiren intended me to awaken to the truth as dictated by T'ien t'ai, as endorsed by Nichiren, and further illuminated by Confucianism and mathematics.If there is a truth within my life to which I can awaken, must Nichirenism be the sole way to awaken to it? Has no one awakened to the truth prior to Nichiren, or without Nichiren -- or, indeed, without the entire body of Buddhist thought and practice?Many people fervently believe in the "sole gatekeeper" model -- that Nichiren alone perceived the truth, and only through reverence to him and his teachings can one awaken. Legitimate reasons for embracing this model can be found in Nichiren's writings.For myself, I find chanting daimoku to be beneficial and trustworthy. I particularly appreciate that Nichiren elucidated it specifically and thoughtfully for those of us ignorant of ichinen sanzen. ;-)I do believe, however, that there are other ways of awakening. Yes, I know, this is heretical to the mind that fetishizes Nichirenism!I believe that "the truth which has always been within your life" is a universal phenomenon -- regardless of culture, country, era, or religious tradition. Many have awakened and will continue to awaken without ever hearing of Nichiren, and without ever intoning daimoku.Some are interested in recognizing the universality of the Lotus Sutra, and the universality of Nichiren's intent. Others prefer a more exclusive club.
LOL. This whole thread reminds me of my former roommate who used to say Shut up and chant. Talk about irony.Nichiren Buddhism is a big zero without chanting daimoku. Daimoku is primary. All the other stuff is ancillary.It's hard to stick with daimoku because it gets boring and repetitious. That's the whole point, but people don't like that. They want to accumulate something like knowledge or tangible benefits or the admiration of the ladies or gents, depending.I've seen people do amazing things with daimoku, uncanny stuff. Hell, even I have witnessed amazingness in my own life after chanting about something. I think you have to leave a lot of room for the mystery of it. The myoho, as we used to say. You can get really bogged down in theory and dogma and miss the forest for the trees.
but that's what leaders in a certain Nichiren Organization told members to do if they saw a problem... and generally it just led to a lot of festering malcontent.The great thing about examining a tree closely, it has an infinite number of lessons to teach. Change the focus and see the forest - another infinite number of lessons... and blast off with a spaceship to contemplate the forest and the grasslands, the cities, the poles, the mountains, the oceans and all those twinkling lights... again, infinite lessons. Infinities layering infinities.Am I rite or am I rite?Do the rite. Shut up and chant.
Much as I'd like to kick the fundamentalists to the curb, they're still Nichiren Buddhists. If they're chanting daimoku and studying the Lotus Sutra, they're "Nichiren Buds" as ten2one calls them. I don't think you can disown them without contorting yourself into a doctrinally uncomfortable position much like sgi/nshoshu/kempon hokke adherents who go around calling everyone else "unbuddhist."
Oh, Auntie, thanks for reminding me of this passage in the Innumerable Meanings sutra. It's such a great example of gender bias in Buddhism. Check out the full text here: http://www.fodian.net/world/27...That passage goes on and on with "he" this and "he" that:
The part you quoted describes how inscrutable "he" is...he's without cause or condition, etc. You don't know what he is because "he" defies all manner of orienting descriptors.No, you don't know what he is, but you can be damn sure that whatever "he" is, he's a he.Hilarious! And you wonder why people think Buddhism is inherently sexist in its orientation. The default pronouns for referring to Buddha are always, always male.The Lotus Sutra reveals that Buddha is without specific gender (duh!) yet that's not how people talk about and conceptualize Buddha. The misconceptualization of Buddha as male implies that males are more like Buddha than others. This is totally wrong, yeah, but this is the most fundamental, unexamined, universally accepted assumption in Buddhism.I'm sure some of you will squawk that referring to Buddha as male is a mere expedient, and everyone should just assume that female and intersex are included. (Can't females and intersex people just write little notes to themselves in the margins to remind themselves that they're included? Why do you ladies have to be so difficult?!)Seriously, right now: Think of Buddha. What's the image you hold in your mind? I'll bet you imagined a male-gendered Buddha -- a Shakyamuni or a Nichiren or a fat guy statue at a Chinese restaurant.Bias check: Is your personal, archetypal Buddha male, female, or nongendered?There's a big difference between kicking fundamentalists to the curb and kicking fundamentalism to the curb. If you go back through the thread you'll see "fundamentalism" has been the discussion.
Irony indeed. If we're posting here, we're neither shutting up nor chanting.Seriously though, I started visiting BuddhaJones because it seems like a reasonably intelligent group who are interested in discussion and not too deeply offended by questions, for times when I'm not chanting. Even Nichiren took time out to write the Gosho.It seems like there's been a consensus here from the start that daimoku is the only "crucial characteristic" as it was phrased in the original question. What I do see is a wide variation in attitude toward the various ancillary aspects of the practice.
It seems like the use of the masculine personal pronoun is not an example of gender bias in Buddhism per se, but gender bias in the cultures where Buddhist texts were recorded and transmitted.I don't know much about Chinese, but it's interesting to me that its third person pronouns make no distinction for gender. Though the Lotus Sutra translation passed through Kumārajīva's Chinese on its way to English, it still ended up with masculine pronouns.
Linguistic relativity (a.k.a. the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) is not universally accepted, even among professional linguists who presumably can grasp the concept quite well.Siddhartha Gautama was a man, and I think it can be safely stated, that set the tone. No doubt that the exposition and practice has been conditioned by that.OakTree referenced that there there is no gender in Chinese language - not like the Romance languages, say, or Sanskrit. I think the reason they identify the Buddha as a man in the Lotus Sutra is pretty clear - its about Shakyamuni who, like it or not appeared as a man. The composers were not concerned with making sure that women had positive role models, they were concerned with emphasizing the eternal nature of the Buddha.With that said - I've read speculation that Prabhutaratna may have at one point been a female Buddha. Maybe it was turned back into a man and that's why they then had to make up for it by adding the Devadatta chapter to ensure that women can be Buddhas too. Who knows.Here's the thing:We can rewrite Prabhutaratna as a woman if we want. There's nothing holding us back. Portray Shakyamuni and Prabhutaratna in a yab yum embrace in the treasure tower to symbolize the unity of action and wisdom.It'll keep the kids' attention for a little while anyway.
This may be apocryphal but I have heard it said that the notion of Buddhism as an ism was imposed by westerners, as was the title The Lotus Sutra. Cultural imposition.Jesus was supposedly historically male, but Julian of Norwich and others have viewed him as simultaneously male and female. Female apostles such as Junia are said by some to have existed in history but have been erased from records. I think its telling that the token female buddha was erased over time. History as we know it is by nature revisionist IMO.
Of course you're right: when we're talking about Siddhartha the reason for assigning gender is pretty obvious.To the point of language-derived sexism, I wonder what mentions of other buddhas and bodhisattvas there are where the context would leave the gender ambiguous, yet a masculine pronoun is chosen in the text. A greater research undertaking than I have time for at the moment.In another direction, Google can help us locate the handful of occurrences of the pronouns she and her in Watson's translation of the Lotus Sutra.Of course we have the Dragon Girl, who didn't grow up to be a Dragon Lady, but instead became a Buddha. This was a shocking enough idea at the time that it had to be tempered a bit by changing her into a man first. Sexism in the culture of Siddhartha's time, but probably not sexism in the teaching.
Avalokitesvara, aka Kuan-yin, aka Kannon, aka Perceiver of the World's Sounds, aka the Dalai Lama, aka the Karmapa, is an interesting example of a gender ambiguous Buddhist deity. In Indian/Himalayan art, Avalokitesvara appears as a man, but in East Asia, can appear as a man, a woman, or something in between. In some pieces, even when appearing as a man, I've observed that he/she often has soft, "feminine" features.By way of background, Avalokitesvara is the personification of compassion and will appear as needed by the Buddhist devotee. I believe that's why some manifestations have 11 heads, varying appearances, varying numbers of arms, etc. to reflect the flexibility of appearance depending on need. He/she is sometimes the attendant of Shakyamuni, but my recollection is that he/she most often appears in Japan as the attendant of Amditabha/Amitayu Buddha, the Buddha venerated in the Pure Land traditions.My sense is that Avalokitesvara appears as a woman to emphasize her personification of compassion that I guess is associated with the maternal role of nurturer. In Indian/Himalayan Buddhism, there are also female avatars of the Buddha - I believe that Tara is at times considered an avatar of the Buddha and at other times his consort. Tara is also considered the feminine avatar of Avalokitesvara, so maybe the female Kuanyin in China is derived from Tara.In any event, I think its safe to say that all these buddhas and bodhisattvas aside from the historical Gautama Buddha, are mythological representations of aspects of enlightenment for the purpose of having something to interact with during practice.If we need better role models for our mothers, sisters and daughters, maybe we can take a page out of the Nyingma tradition and someone can "discover" a new Gosho or rescension of the Lotus Sutra that can serve this purpose for people subscribing to the Nichiren path. Other options are elevating Kishimojin or the Dragon King's dauther to a position of higher privilege on the Gohonzon, or better yet, maybe theres a Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren that already does this - he freely adapted the mandalas to the needs of the specific recipient. Might be worth a look through the Gohonzon-shu for something like this.Of course people will object to this kind of revisionist program, but if it catches on and serves the needed purposes - who cares? Tell them its an Upaya and carry on. If I have a daughter I want her to understand that she can be anything she wants, including a Buddha, and she won't need to cross dress to do it, unless of course that's what she does.
ON ATTAINING BUDDHAHOOD states that the common mortal and the Buddha are exactly the same. ONLY NICHIREN states this And codified it by inscribing the Gohonzon- Namu Myo-ho Renge Kyo Nichiren What is the essence of this? The Buddha vow. To bring others to the realization that their lives too are the Mystic Law. That they too can exhibit thier Buddha Nature. They can relieve their suffering and that of others by comiserating and triumphing over lifes toils. I vow to devote my life to others- Namu By sharing the Wonderful Law of creation/personal action- Myo-ho The way to freedom from suffering- Renge By engaging in conversation- KyoThe final key to Nichiren Buddhism is... attaining buddhahood in this lifetime. The Lotus sutra states: Even those of Learning and Realization can attain Buddhahood! BUT only if they take the Vow and give up noteriety and praise ie. their ego to serve others. The "correct" way of Nichiren is simple... the very same Gosho states that those who make offerings with a sincere mind will surely attain Buddhahood. Other Goshos state his wonder at a practitioners offering of a summer robe and of rice. Everyone we meet has a buddha nature. Any offering of kindness to them is an offering to the buddha. It's the sincerity that counts.
There is the problem of the authenticity of On Attaining Buddhahood. There is no original nor generally reliable record of its copy made by a direct disciple of Nichiren. Other problems cited are that it reflects Original Enlightenment thought which some regard as a later development in Japanese Buddhism and therefore its not possible that Nichiren would have expressed such ideas.With that said, I am not sure that it is not an authentic writing of Nichiren. This Gosho was written to Toki Jonin. Toki Jonin was a devoted supporter of Nichiren who became a lay monk in his later life. After Nichiren died, he endeavored to collect Nichiren's writings, many of which were kept at his temple in modern day Chiba. This Gosho appears on Toki Jonin's list of writings. In the centuries after, there were corrupt abbots at Toki Jonin's temple who were accused of selling and otherwise dispersing the treasures of the temple including Nichiren's writings. This Gosho may have been one that was removed from the temple and lost. Maybe it will turn up again someday when some family decides to inventory their treasure vault. Or maybe it has irretrievably been lost to the tumult of history.I touch on Toki Jonin's role in the history of Nichiren Buddhism and the subsequent controversies at his temple in an article on my blog. The article is about the only remaining copy of the Rissho Anoku Ron in Nichiren's hand and I think illustrates the difficulties of handing these writings down over the centuries.http://callmequeequeg.com/?p=40Second, I am not convinced that what people characterize as Original Enlightenment thought is actually expressed in this Gosho. Original Enlightenment asserts a radical position that nearly neutralizes the need for Buddhism and can be, and apparently was, interpreted to justify any behavior or conduct. Clearly, Nichiren does not go this far. Rather, I think he was expressing a fairly orthodox Lotus Buddhism position.Nichiren was not the first to say that the common mortal is a Buddha. I can at least point as far back as Chih-i for this assertion. Chih-i taught the Six Identities in the Cessation and Insight (Maka Shikan) in which the first identity is "Identity in Principle". It is not explicit, but in the context of Tientai thought, it is implied that because all beings possess the Tathagatagarbha, all beings are expressions of the Buddha.
For a complete quote on the Six Identities:http://callmequeequeg.com/?p=40LB, you bring up an excellent point about practicing for others that has been neglected in the discussion. We've been quibbling about practice for oneself and how it should be done, but I think you make an excellent point about the importance of practice for others - ie. telling others about the Buddhahood inherent in their lives. And it does not matter how eloquently or inartfully one does so, whether one is advanced in realizations or not. Both this practice for others and practice for oneself is embodied in the Daimoku.While I disagree that Nichiren was the first to fully equate the Buddha with common mortals, I think that Nichiren arguably was unique in East Asian Lotus Buddhism to bring the principle into practice in ordinary life. He maintained that what distinguished him from Chih-i was that he lived this idea in practice whereas Chih-i only dealt with this idea in theory.Arguably, even this step is implied in Chih-i's writings, even though Chih-i remained an elite monastic his whole life and may not have fully embodied his ideas.Even if you don't believe Nichiren and all his views, he presents some interesting ideas and arguments within the broader realm of Buddhist thought and practice.
I have been re-reading this thread and looking at the differing ideas, ideals and sentiments expressed.It just leaves me with a sense of loss!I keep going back to a conversation I had when I first heard of Nichiren Buddhism. I asked what Nichiren Buddhism was all about, and the response I received was "To manifest Buddhahood". I can't help but feel that the question "What does it mean to be a Nichiren Buddhist?" is missing the point!Shouldn't it be - "What does it mean to manifest Buddhahood?"... and more to the point - how the hell do you do it?
on who you ask.there have been so many schisms in Buddhism over the answers to this question. Nichiren proposed yet another one, and his spiritual progeny haven't stopped arguing since the day he died.as for how do you do it? the best answer to that question I've ever encountered - try and keep trying until the goal is achieved in the place of trying.
.... Little Verdell and Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets".