jdoskow@spiff.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow) (01/19/91)
Pre disclaimers:
1) Neither I nor anyone else posting to this news group represents any
opinion other than their own. The various Nichiren Shoshu lay
organization produce volumes of material that explain their
positions and views. Readers wishing to know authoratative
positions are urged to acquire and read these publications for
themselves.
2) I am not a scholar of Buddhism by any stretch of the imagination.
I make no representation of quoting any sutras to "prove" anything,
but simply to indicate my reading of them.
lefty@TWG.COM (Lefty) writes:
> Keith apparently fails to realize the senselessness of using a piece of
> scripture to establish its own validity.
Whatever Mr. Evans' shortcomings, even a modest perusal of the
important documents of the Nichiren or T'ien t'ai sects will convince
the reader that their methods of argumentation were far more developed
than this. T'ien t'ai (from which Nichiren derived his theoretical
foundations) was(is?) a scholarly sect that prided itself on a
thorough knowledge of all Buddhist writings. Nichiren's writings
contain references to many sutras and commentaries as well as Confucian,
Taoist, and Shinto writings, Chinese and Japanese history and literature
and evidence detailed knowledge of the languages of these documents
that, needless to say, far exceedes that (dare I say) of any participant
in this discussion. Taken as a whole, Nichiren laid out his arguements
carefully stating documentary (scriptural), theoretical, and actual
proofs for his teachings.
>
> I have been increasingly disturbed by Mr. Evans' insistence that his
> particular sect is the One True Buddhism.
>
This is perhaps the result of a mistranslation of the term "True." I
suspect that the translation was by a Japanese without knowledge of the
implications of the term in American culture. In the Nirvana Sutra,
Sakyamuni is said to have directed that his followers should ignore all
sutras that were incomplete, and follow only those that were complete
and final. This is one possibility for what is meant by "True."
Another possibility is based on T'ien T'ai's classifications of sutras.
In any event, unless one subscribes to the preposterous notion that all
teachings are equal, he must recognize that everyone makes at least some
sort of choice about superior and inferior teachings. One need not look
far.
Various Zen sects assert that one has no need of the finger once he has
the moon, and some go further and assert that the Zen sect (sic) has the
moon. This could easily be paraphrased (and I have heard it put exactly
this way) that Zen represents the true (that word again) teachings of
the Buddha, while the other sects are mearly fingers. (and you know then
that you've been given the finger ;-)
{ No form of Buddhism that I am familiar with holds that one can
attain enlightenment through doctrinal studies alone. To find a
clear statement of the in Nichiren's writings one need look no
further than the page 2 of the first volume of Major Writings. }
Many of the founders of Japanese and Chinese Pure Land sects include in
their writings statements that only the Pure Land sutras lead to
enlightenment and the rest should be discarded or ignored.
In his comments in this stream, Bill Mayne indicated that he considered
the Pali Cannon to be authoratative (and other works presumably less
so.) To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard proof to resolve
this issue, so I would have the include this statement as an example
of someone's idea of "True" Buddhism.
> One of the cardinal Buddhist sins is sowing dissension within the Sangha.
> How do you reconcile your actions, Mr. Evans?
>
This is surely true, but sowing dissension is not the only "sin" by a
long shot. If a "leader" of a group was acting in such a way as to
expose his followers to serious illness based on the belief that he
is divinely protection, exposing such an abuse would clearly
take precedence over maintaining "calm" within the order.
>
> Certainly you
> are not doing Nichiren Shoshu any good in this
We may agree on this point, although the possiblity exists that Mr.
Evans may learn something from this exchange.
>
tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) writes:
> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes:
> >
> >kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) writes:
> >>...In the first 42 years of Shakyamuni's preaching life,
> >>he taught according to the minds of the people, with his bodhisattvas
> >>asking questions and even answering them, too. Ignorant people in this
> >>day and age read them and thinking that since it accords with their mind
> >>that is must be the Way. Also in these earlier sutras, he taught that
> > --------------
> >>women and men of learning could not attain Buddhahood. If he said such
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >>things then, how can these sutras have any value now?
> >
> >I seriously doubt that he said such things then. He may have said that
> >through learning *alone* men and women cannot attain Buddhahood, but
> >that is an entirely different statement. I challenge you to site one
> >reference from the Pali canon which, taken in context, supports your
> >claim.
As I indicated above, the demand to refer to the Pali canon is
prejudicial in its own way. In any case, I've previously warned in
other news groups about the dangers of reading sutras, and this is an
excellent example of what I was talking about. First, there is a syntax
error in Keith's statement. It should parse:
"he taught that (women) and (men of learning) could not attain
Buddhahood."
The term "men of learning" is an english translation of the Japanese
"shomon" which is Sanskrit for "sravakas." The edition of the Lotus
Sutra that Dave recommends reads in part:
"[the Buddhas'] wisdom-school is difficult to understand and difficult
to enter, so that the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas connot apprehend it."
[Kosei, pp 51]
Sariputra's speech (Sariputra is a sravaka, or "man of learning")
at the beginning of Chapter III [Kosei pp 77] as well as many other
parts of the sutra reconfirm this meaning.
The subject of women is much more problematic.
In Buddhism in Translations by Henry Clarke Warren (Atheneum, N.Y., 1973
- Am I the only one to notice the irony of Mr. Warren's warning in the
preface against translators?) a selection from the Culla-Vega discusses
the admission of women into the order. At first the Buddha refuses
outright, but finally assents when Ananda questions him about womens'
capacity to attain enlightenment and he responds affirmatively. But he
then gives them eight additional commandments that makes the most senior
woman subservient to the most junior man, and etc. And he likens having
women in the order to various forms of crop disease. And he says that,
while his religion would have lasted 1000 years, with women in the order
it will only last 500. (those 500 year periods again.)
Jack Carol mentions the Vimilikirti Sutra as picturing woman in a
favorable light. I'll risk commenting on a sutra that I haven't read
based on a brief summary in *Buddhism in China* by Ch'en (Princeton, 1972)
Does the sutra specifically state that women can attain enlightenment,
and does it contain similiar statements for "men of learning" such as
Sariputra. From Mr. Ch'en's description, I think it is deficient in the
latter, while the Lotus
"was the most popular sutra in China ... because it contained the
most comprehensive statement of the revolutionary Mahayana
doctrines of the eternal Buddha and universal salvation."
That is, it included everyone.
> >
> >Actually I think it a preposterous and even slanderous charge against
> >Sakyamuni to suggest he practiced deliberate deception for most of
> >his life. If that were the case why would you accept something he
> >supposedly taught at the end of his life? If a teacher told me "I've
> >been lying to you and everybody else for more than 40 years, but what
> >I'm telling you now is the truth" I would hardly accept his teaching.
> >
Perhaps a near analogy can be found in the teaching of geometry.
In high-school, students are taught that parallel lines never intersect.
If the student makes it to study college physics he or she may learn
that parallel lines do in fact intersect. Is the high school teacher a
liar to be mistrusted in all things, or simply to be to be understood in
context? (In Buddhism, admission to the advanced program is open to all
regardless of IQ, financial status, etc.)
> >I confess I don't know enough about the Lotus Sutra to evaluate
> >that possibility. But if Nichiren was right then Sakyamuni was wrong,
> >even though Nichiren depends largely on the supposed statements
> >of Sakyamuni.
>
> I would suggest that you read the Lotus Sutra for yourself. It is highly
> valued by Many sects. I find it wonderful. My opinion is that the Nichiren
> sect does misinterpret in some ways or ad on to it incorrectly in some ways.
>
Of course, one may hold whatever opinion he likes, but in order to
convince me Dave would need to demonstrate that he has some
understanding of T'ien t'ai's and Nichiren's teachings and state why he
disagrees with it. For example, T'ien t'ai divided the sutra into
theoretical and actual parts and described a preparation, revelation,
and transmission section of each part (as well as the entirety of the
Buddhas teachings.)
Can Dave describe this division from the point of view of the parts of
the sutra referenced, the events in those sections, the doctrines
referenced by them, and why he thinks the analysis is in error?
Can he do the same for T'ien t'ai's classifcations of the sutras into
the "five periods and the eight teachings?"
It would be a gross overstatment of my own understanding to state that I
am conversant with Nichiren's teachings. However, I have read most of
the 1500 or so pages of translations of his original writings and a fair
representation of the recent commentaries. And reading the Sutra, I
find passage after passage that confirm his teachings.
> liberation.But that it is the ONLY way of liberation is something that I
> doubt.
There are many passages in the sutra that can be read as implying
exclusivity. One example is from Chapter III in which Sariputra says:
"... But now, on hearing from the
Buddha the unprecedented Law which I have never before heard,
I [have attained enlightenment]" [Kosei pp78]
Since Sariputra was reputed to be formost in wisdom, and some sources
suggest that had he not died before Sakyamuni he would have been
qualified to lead the order after the Buddha's death, this statement can
be reliably taken to mean that the Buddha never revealed this teaching
before.
> The other problem that I have with the current practices that I have seen
> is that the belief (at least in Rochester NY) is propigated that if one
> keeps firmly in mind a desire (any desire) while chanting, that desire will
> happen. As far as I can see (and that is not far) this encourages (beginners
> at least) to attach to desires. This seems against the very fiber of the
> Dharma. I was so bothered by this latter point that I wonder if this
> is actually the teaching of Nicheren or some American curruption of his
> teaching.
>
> I have yet to find any reference to this in his teaching.
>
> Any Ideas? Keith?
>
With tongue in cheek, I offer the following passages
in the Sutra.
"Again, Ajita! If anyone, for the sake of this sutra, goes to a
monastery and, either sitting or standing, hears and receives it
even for a moment, by reason of that merit in his next bodily
rebirth he will acquire the most excellent kind of elephants, horses
and carriages, jeweled palanquins and litters, and ride in celestial
cars." [Kosie pp 271]
"If anyone makes offerings to [those who keep, read and recite
this sutra] will obtain visible reward in the present world." [Kosei
pp 343]
"Thereupon the two sons, with a mind for their father, sprang up
into the sky seven tala trees high, and displayed many kinds of
supernatural deeds, ... led their father, the king, to cleanse his
mind to faith and discernment." [Kosei pp334]
More to the point, in November, 1988, I posted a detailed theoretical
response to this criticism in s.c.china in a stream to which Dave was a
participant. Perhaps he would like to recap that arguement and explain
where he found it deficient.
Having said that, my opinion is that, while I have no reason to doubt
that Dave has read the second chapter of the Lotus Sutra more than once,
it seems to me that he has failed to grasp its spirit, which is why he
repeats this criticism from time to time.
mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu (bill mayne) writes:
> Besides, the early teaching of the Buddha uses appeal to reason
> and experience. This is why I find it so compelling. Nichiren
> appeals to supernatural, unverifiable claims and promotes a cult
> of personality. I find the former teaching far more plausible.
Nichiren's teachings are highly logical, which is what attracted me to
them in the first place. I can well believe that they have been poorly
explained.