chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu (12/07/90)
Buddha Dharma and free thinking A person has the freedom to chose a way of practice according to her/his personality etc. Depending on the personality a person may select his/her own method of study. Some may study all the avaialable material, some may just study one sutra, some may just learn only one verse, or some may not study none but would meditate and live mindfully in order to attain the goal. Why all this is possible? Because Dharma is something in existence with relative to a person. It is the individual,you and me, who undergoes unsatisfactoriness (or dukkha), it is the individual,you and me, who has to follow the path, it is the individual who attains enlightenment. That is why Dharma is timeless, that is one reason why it survived among humans in the world for thousands of years without any authority figure. It is not a law laid down by one person, Buddhas discover it and taught it to the world, so will be the future Buddhas, Bodhisatvas. Furthermore, it is to be investigated by the wise, not something to be spoon fed by one to another, even the Buddhas only show the way. It is up to the individual to follow the way. It is inward leading, so to find whether another person slanders the Dharma has to be found by within oneself through investigation and analysis. One fact I can admire about Buddha Dharma is the due attention and regard paid by the Buddha to individual capabilities. Buddha gave the highest priority to freedom of thinking. I think the Bodhisatvas' vow "the Dharma gates are many... etc." shows the value of this free thinking. In order to show the Buddha's attitude towards free thinking further I would like to summarise the Kalama Sutra. (this is not an attempt to show the superiority of one sutra over another) At the time of the Buddha, there was a group of people in India called Kalamas. Once they came to see the Buddha and stated that "there are many brahmins, recluses with different philosophies, views etc. coming to our village and explaining their teachings fully while abusing the others' teachings. This leads us to wavering and doubt as to which of the teachings are true and which are false." Buddha's reply in summary: "Kalamas be not misled by report or tradition or hearsay. Be not mislead by proficiency in the presentation nor by mere logic or inference, nor after considering reasons, nor after reflection on and approval of some theory, nor because it fits becoming (or life style?), nor out of respect for a recluse (who holds it). But Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These things are unprofitable, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the intelligent; these things when performed and undertaken, conduce to loss and sorrow, then indeed you reject them, Kalamas. Furthermore, in this sutra the Buddha shows what kind of mental characteristics can result in wholesome,happy, profitable outcomes. The three emotions that would lead to the unwholesome,unprofitable etc. are greed, hatred (or malice), and delusion (or ignorance). On the other hand, the actions done which are not based on greed, hatred, delusion (based on non-greed,non-hate,non-delusion) could lead to profitability happiness etc. Then there are explanations given as to whether a person beleives in a life after death or not how the actions done without greed, hatred, and delusion can be profitable, beneficial etc. I was trying to put the meaning of the sutra in a nutshell, I hope I did not distort the meaning of it ( someone else who had read it may be able to point them out for the benefit of the readers). As a matter of fact you can use the idea expressed in the sutra to scrutinize (or investigate the validity of) itself, but please read the whole sutra in context. As I stated earlier I've quoted and summarised it only. Some other thoughts of religious tolerance from the Buddha. "Teaching of this Dharma is not for converting people, but for realization, for ending of unhappiness (unsatisfactoriness), for happiness and benefit." In another occasion, while in a wooded area he took leaves from the ground to his fist and compared what he had in his hand to what he had taught (told to the world) as opposed to the facts he understood which is the rest of leaves in the whole world(isn't it same as the bodisatva vows in mahayana as saying dharma gates are countless) Restricting such a vast ocean of Dharma, which nurtures free thinking and wisdom, by tunnel vision and authoritative statements do not help anyone. In summary all different buddhist schools really reveals more and more, while showing the essense of dharma. Even though for some from outer appearance these different schools may show diversity, all of them show how the essense of dharma which runs through them as a uniting thread. Bandula Jayatilaka
kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) (12/08/90)
In <1990Dec7.011311.2389@nas.nasa.gov> chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu writes: >A person has the freedom to chose a way of practice according to her/his >personality etc. Depending on the personality a person may select his/her >own method of study. Some may study all the avaialable material, some >may just study one sutra, some may just learn only one verse, or some >may not study none but would meditate and live mindfully in order to >attain the goal. Why all this is possible? Because Dharma is something >in existence with relative to a person. It is the individual,you and me, >who undergoes unsatisfactoriness (or dukkha), it is the individual,you >and me, who has to follow the path, it is the individual who attains >enlightenment. That is why Dharma is timeless, that is one reason why >it survived among humans in the world for thousands of years without >any authority figure. It is not a law laid down by one person, Buddhas >discover it and taught it to the world, so will be the future Buddhas, >Bodhisatvas. The law is one, not many. So how can you propose that there are many ways to reach it? 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? In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni taught according to the Buddha's mind. He just started preaching with no one asking him any questions. This is also the first time he says that women and men of learning can attain enlightenment. > Furthermore, it is to be investigated by the wise, not >something to be spoon fed by one to another, even the Buddhas only show >the way. It is up to the individual to follow the way. It is inward >leading, so to find whether another person slanders the Dharma has to >be found by within oneself through investigation and analysis. Yes, one needs a seeking spirit. > One fact I can admire about Buddha Dharma is the due attention and >regard paid by the Buddha to individual capabilities. Buddha gave the The individual is one with the universe. Since the Buddha-nature is inherent in life, each individual has the potential to manifest this nature. > In order to show the Buddha's attitude towards free thinking further >I would like to summarise the Kalama Sutra. (this is not an attempt to >characteristics can result in wholesome,happy, profitable outcomes. The >... deleted for brevity Yes, the key is to follow the Law and not the Person. >three emotions that would lead to the unwholesome,unprofitable etc. are >greed, hatred (or malice), and delusion (or ignorance). On the other hand, >the actions done which are not based on greed, hatred, delusion (based >on non-greed,non-hate,non-delusion) could lead to profitability >happiness etc. Then there are explanations given as to whether a person >beleives in a life after death or not how the actions done without greed, >hatred, and delusion can be profitable, beneficial etc. Greed, anger and stupidity are the causes of fetters in one's future lives. > Some other thoughts of religious tolerance from the Buddha. "Teaching >of this Dharma is not for converting people, but for realization, for >ending of unhappiness (unsatisfactoriness), for happiness and benefit." If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, then he also is a slanderer. That is the whole point of explaining the superiority of the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren Daishonin (we have hardly toughed on him, yet) and Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Nichiren Daishonin was Bodhisattva Jogyo reborn (Shakyamuni entrusted Bodhisattva Jogyo with propagating the Law, which he expounded in the Lotus Sutra, in the future). After 20 years of studying all Shakyamuni's sutras, he proclaimed Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to be the true Law that of Shakyamuni teachings on April 28, 1253. He also fulfilled all the predictions that Shakyamuni made about this person (Bodhisatva Jogyo reborn). He also quoted many passages of the sutras that explain the causes of suffering - incorrect religious beliefs and false ideologies. Based on the sutras, when the true law is lost, the 3 disasters and 7 calamities occur. Looking at 13th century Japan, he saw that all but 2 of these disaters had occured already, invasion by a foreign power and internal revolt. So, based on the sutras, he predicted that these would occur. Even Japan has only been invaded once (by the US) and attacked twice (by the us and the Mongols 1274,1280). His predictions came true. So based on the sutras, one can say that the true Law had been lost. There were many sects of Buddhism extant in Japan at that time (and probably still is, although Nichiren Shoshu is the largest) therefore, the true Law does not come from the sutras but from Nichiren Daishonin. This is based on the sutras not someone's opinion. -- Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Respectfully, Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov
mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> 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. 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. >[The Lotus Sutra]... >is also the first time he says that women and men of learning can >attain enlightenment. If the Buddha was in fact this deceptive and inconsistent this is quite different even than giving limited teaching earlier and fuller teaching later. I could believe in later teaching which expands on earlier teaching, but not flatly contradicting it. Either the Buddha was deceptive or those who several centuries later propagated the Lotus Sutra are putting words in the Buddha's mouth. A third possibility is that those who, like Nichiren Daishonen use the Lotus Sutra to denegrate all the Buddha's other teachings are actually misinterpreting it. 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. 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. bill mayne | mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu
chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu (12/11/90)
>If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, >then he also is a slanderer. That is the whole point of explaining >the superiority of the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren Daishonin (we hav hardly >toughed on him, yet) and Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. >Nichiren Daishonin was Bodhisattva Jogyo reborn (Shakyamuni entrusted >Bodhisattva Jogyo with propagating the Law, which he expounded in the Lotus >Sutra, in the future). After 20 years of studying all Shakyamuni's >sutras, he proclaimed Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to be the true Law that >of Shakyamuni teachings on April 28, 1253. He also fulfilled all the >predictions that Shakyamuni made about this person (Bodhisatva Jogyo >reborn). He also quoted many passages of the sutras that explain the >causes of suffering - incorrect religious beliefs and false ideologies. >Based on the sutras, when the true law is lost, the 3 disasters and 7 >calamities occur. Looking at 13th century Japan, he saw that all but >2 of these disaters had occured already, invasion by a foreign power >and internal revolt. So, based on the sutras, he predicted that these >would occur. Even Japan has only been invaded once (by the US) and >attacked twice (by the us and the Mongols 1274,1280). His predictions >came true. So based on the sutras, one can say that the true Law had >been lost. There were many sects of Buddhism extant in Japan at that >time (and probably still is, although Nichiren Shoshu is the largest) >therefore, the true Law does not come from the sutras but from >Nichiren Daishonin. This is based on the sutras not someone's opinion. -- > Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. > Respectfully, > Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov Keith your unwavering confidence in Nichiren Daishonin is remarkable. I would say keep it up, since you have understood him very well I assume you are following him properly. For me, I have an enquiring mind. therefore, I read everything that I come across according to the time I have, and try to analyse them finding out the validity of them. But I haven't found any material to read about Nichiren Daishonin, in fact I was trying to find books about him and the sect in a library and I could not. So, whatever information about him and his teachings are from what I read from your articles and what I heard from others. In fact, a few years ago after seeing a telephone number for Nichiren sect in the telephone directory I called them, since I am interested in learning about different sects of Buddhism. The person I talked to told me they perform cultural activities together. From what I understood from your writings, Nichiren Daishonin was concerned about future of Japan (with his predictions on Japan etc.). But for other countries and cultures there would have been other predictions. Tibet, India, China etc. may have their own predictions. (I am not arguing for or against these or any other predictions, because it is a different topic). (from my enquiring mind: What is Nichiren Daishonin's teachings about mindfullness, consciousness, middlepath, investigation, questioning, analysis of nature of things? These are some of the concepts that matters me most in my day to day life. Could you elaborate more on these with respect to Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? These questions are not asked for argumentation or comparisons but for curiosity and knowledge.) >The law is one, not many. So how can you propose that there are many >ways to reach it? 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 For some, the search is hard without (since I have confidence in goodness of others I am sure that there are some genuine followers of the Dharma) a physically existing Buddha, but the Buddhist way is a way of wisdom and effort. Therefore, I do not see any point in discouraging others about their investigations. The law is one, this is what one realizes. The way of realisation, the Noble Eightfold Path is only one. The problem is one (the same), the realization (or the ultimate solution) is one. For example, your unsatisfactoriness and my unsatisfactoriness are the same in nature. How we come to think about this may differ due to differences in our cultural background. More people may have got diseases earlier days due to lack of sanitation and lack of widespread use of preventive methods. On the other hand, more people would get diseases today due to stress, pollution etc. The bottom line, both in the past and the present people are subject to diseases. So in summary, the nature of the problem is the same. (As I think that is one reason why a person responding to an earlier question on detachment could refer to Gandhi or Erich Fromm's writings instead of Buddhist texts directly. The other reason is the diversity of experience) The way people go about finding that ther is a problem may seem 'different'. This difference is due to differences among people. Each of our experiences, our way of thinking are different from one another. On the other hand,there are rich,poor, lazy, enthusiastic, dull, keen, wise ,ignorant etc. in this world. Because of this difference, world and countries get into trouble when the freedom is supressed. That is why the freedom of thinking is essential. That is why the Buddhist emphasis is not on converting people but on realization. (Ignorance of people, and accord with mind are more deeper subjects, which cannot be dealt so easily in few sentences) The world is more open and smaller today due to better communication than in the olden days. Because of this, some people are more enthusiastic in making other people act or think as same as they think or act ( as a matter of fact some would like to see the whole world acting or thinking the same, which will never happen). In haste, some try to put people from one mold to another (which fails miserably). But more often we forget the others are also conscious and thoughtful as we are. In this process, we forget about others' capabilities, rights, duties etc. >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 How do you know exactly how other people understand dharma and think about dharma? From what you have written so far (I am not passing any judgements on your view as to whether it is good or bad) you 'do not beleive' in 'enlightenment in this day and age', that leads to the conclusion that you never tried to understand it. If this is the case how do you know the experiences of those who really practiced mindfullness etc. or those who really tried to attain the realisation. >If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, >then he also is a slanderer. That is the whole point of explaining The openness to Buddhism came earlier than the openness of the modern world. Historically thinking, that is why it spread everywhere freely. So if you were to find out the falsehood of slandering about Buddha dharma and to admonish others you have to be open, conscious and aware of other cultures etc. (more open than if you were to talk about other global issues). Bandul Jayatilaka
mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec11.022234.11006@nas.nasa.gov> chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu writes: [Quoting Keith Evans, I believe...] >>If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, >>then he also is a slanderer. Yesterday I posted a longer response to Mr. Evans, but as I read this I was struck by the irony. Someone who claims that all the Buddha's early teachings were false and deceptive and that the Buddha at the end of his life contradicted them to declare the Lotus Sutra was the only true teaching calls others slanderers, even by their silence! I hesitated before posting any response to Mr. Evans because I at first saw no point in the controversy. But now I'm glad I did lest I be guilty of slandering the Buddha by letting Mr. Evan's claims slandering all but a small and suspect part of the Law go unchallenged. I've thought the whole controversy unworthy of Buddhists. Some may think my own vehement response in this category. Fortunately Bandul Jayatilaka's response is milder and more thorough. I commend him for that. Bill Mayne
tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: > >In article <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> 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. > >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. > >>[The Lotus Sutra]... >>is also the first time he says that women and men of learning can >>attain enlightenment. > >If the Buddha was in fact this deceptive and inconsistent this is >quite different even than giving limited teaching earlier and >fuller teaching later. I could believe in later teaching which >expands on earlier teaching, but not flatly contradicting it. >Either the Buddha was deceptive or those who several centuries >later propagated the Lotus Sutra are putting words in the >Buddha's mouth. A third possibility is that those who, like >Nichiren Daishonen use the Lotus Sutra to denegrate all the >Buddha's other teachings are actually misinterpreting it. >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. I don't read from it that previous teachings are wrong but that they are but mere point at the moon. I also do not get from the Sutra that chanting it's name is the TRUE teaching. I DO get that there is but one teaching. That in reality all of the teachings lead to the one teaching. I do not doubt that chanting parts of the Sutra and it's name can be a way of liberation. But that it is the ONLY way of liberation is something that I doubt. 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? > >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. > >bill mayne | mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu Many sects revere their teachers. But I do have some problems with the use of the assertion that this is TRUE Buddhism. Yech! Like the others are not. It misses the whole beauty of the Lotus Sutra. dave -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Dave Tilley cs.rochester.edu
kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) (12/13/90)
In <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: >In article <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) writes: >>...In the first 42 years of Shakyamuni's preaching life, >>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 > ----------------------------------------------------- >I seriously doubt that he said such things then. He may have said that >through learning *alone* men and women cannot attain Buddhahood, but Men in the world of learning, which means what you said. Sorry that I was not explicit. >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. Shakyamuni used expedient means. When at 30, he gained enlighenment, he preached first to his 6 disciples who had abandonded him. He foune that they were not ready to comprehend what he had taught. So he employed various means to prepare them for it. There various omens when he began preaching the sutras. But none were as auspicious as those before he started to preach the Lotus Sutra. The 5000 arrogant men got up and walked away, saying that they already understood his teachings. In the 16th chapter of the Lotus Sutra, he declared that he had actually gained enlightenment many many lifetimes ago, in the distant past from his bodhisattva practice. >>[The Lotus Sutra]... >>is also the first time he says that women and men of learning can >>attain enlightenment. >If the Buddha was in fact this deceptive and inconsistent this is >quite different even than giving limited teaching earlier and >fuller teaching later. I could believe in later teaching which >expands on earlier teaching, but not flatly contradicting it. Back then, women had very little rank in society, not like today. In the Lotus Sutra, the dragon king and his ten daughters were able to gain Buddhahood, demonstrating that one could gain Buddhahood just as they are, through faith in the Lotus Sutra. >that possibility. But if Nichiren was right then Sakyamuni was wrong, >even though Nichiren depends largely on the supposed statements >of Sakyamuni. >Besides, the early teaching of the Buddha uses appeal to reason >and experience. This is why I find it so compelling. Nichiren In the early teachings, he taught according to the listener's mind. So, people who read them now, say that this accords with their mind and so it must be the way. In the Lotus Sutra, he taught according to the mind of the Buddha. He taught about his enlightenment which is why none of his disciples could answer his questions for him -- Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Respectfully, Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov
kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) (12/14/90)
In soc.religion.eastern you write: > Keith your unwavering confidence in Nichiren Daishonin is remarkable. > I would say keep it up, since you have understood him very well I assume > you are following him properly. For me, I have an enquiring mind. > therefore, I read everything that I come across according to the time > I have, and try to analyse them finding out the validity of them. But I > haven't found any material to read about Nichiren Daishonin, in fact > I was trying to find books about him and the sect in a library > and I could not. So, whatever information about him and his teachings > are from what I read from your articles and what I heard from others. > In fact, a few years ago after seeing a telephone number for Nichiren > sect in the telephone directory I called them, since I am interested > in learning about different sects of Buddhism. The person I talked > to told me they perform cultural activities together. From what I > understood from your writings, Nichiren Daishonin was concerned about > future of Japan (with his predictions on Japan etc.). At that time Japan was so isolated, it was the whole world to the Japanese anyways. In a few places he mentions concern for all mankind, not just the Japanese. > (from my enquiring mind: What is Nichiren Daishonin's teachings > about mindfullness, consciousness, middlepath, investigation, > questioning, analysis of nature of things? These are some of the > concepts that matters me most in my day to day life. Could you elaborate > more on these with respect to Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? These questions are > not asked for argumentation or comparisons but for curiosity and > knowledge.) Mindfulness, investigation, questioning analysis of the nature of things is okay and actually should be done as he says that Buddhism (the law of cause and effect, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo) are one and the same. The idea is not to go live on amountain top and be a Buddhist, but it is to live within society (and for that one needs to know and understand society) and make it better through our efforts. The idea of chanting is so that we can do our human revolution, i.e., change ourselves (from wholeheartedly pursuing money or fame, for example, to wholehearted concern for the suffering of others) on the inside and then the outside (the environment, society, etc) will change as it is a reflection of ourselves. I saved consciousness for last because there is a lot of theory about it. There are 9 consciousnesses, the first 5 are the 5 senses, then the 6th is the integration of th first 5, that reconizes things in the environment, the 7th is the subconscious, the 8th is the karmic storehouse of all ones past causes (for karma to become manifest requires an internal cause and an external cause), and the 9th is the pure-nature that nothing can destroy (the Buddha-nature). Being a Buddhist does not mean going against the laws of society. Buddhism is common sense. Buddhism is reason. >For some, the search is hard without (since I have confidence in goodness >of others I am sure that there are some genuine followers of the Dharma) >a physically existing Buddha, but the Buddhist way is a way of wisdom >and effort. Therefore, I do not see any point in discouraging others >about their investigations. I agree. As Buddha said in many sutras (when the true law is lost, the 3 disasters and 7 calamities occur) and Nichiren Daishonin wrote a letter to the Kamakura government of Japan, that the cause of suffering is incorrect religious beliefs and false ideologies. One's actions are based on one's beliefs. I go to 7-11 to get coffe because I believe it. If I didn't believe it I wouldn't go or I might try to do it once and find out different and never do it again. The problem with doing this in religion is that you only got one shot. Nichiren says that the idea is to have the correct faith at the moment of death, then one is cedrtain to attain to be met by a 1000 Buddhas and reach Eagle Peak (attain Buddhahood). If not, then one is reborn in the hell of incessant suffering, for aeons, and beleiving in a wrong religion is a cause to be born to parents with heretical beliefs and the cycle of suffering continues. Buddha taught to overcome the sufferings of life and death. > The law is one, this is what one realizes. The way of realisation, >our cultural background. More people may have got diseases earlier >days due to lack of sanitation and lack of widespread use of preventive >methods. On the other hand, more people would get diseases today >due to stress, pollution etc. The bottom line, both in the past and >the present people are subject to diseases. So in summary, the nature >of the problem is the same. Right. Because there has not been a religion in widespread use that allows the people to change, and so they kepp going through the same sufferings over and over again (i.e., history repeats itself). > The way people go about finding that ther is a problem may seem >'different'. This difference is due to differences among people. Each >of our experiences, our way of thinking are different from one another. >On the other hand,there are rich,poor, lazy, enthusiastic, dull, keen, >wise ,ignorant etc. in this world. Because of this difference, world >and countries get into trouble when the freedom is supressed. That is >why the freedom of thinking is essential. That is why the Buddhist >emphasis is not on converting people but on realization. Yes, on realizing this pure nature inside, and when one understands that he has, then he realizes that so do others. Buddhist emphasis is on practice, not just realiization. One has to exert oneself to change his karma and create a happy and peaceful society. Actually, only in Buddhism is the individual truly an individual. When all are centered on the goal of the happiness of all mankind, then their efforts result in a happier life for themselves as well. >Ignorance of people, and accord with mind are more deeper subjects, which >cannot be dealt so easily in few sentences) I agree. The basic ignorance is the ignorance of the true self (the Buddha-nature). > The world is more open and smaller today due to better communication >than in the olden days. Because of this, some people are more enthusiastic >... >the others are also conscious and thoughtful as we are. In this process, >we forget about others' capabilities, rights, duties etc. I think that the more communication is the cause of less beleif in the Christian and the new non-communist movement. The concern is not to make everybody beleive the same why (like you said, it won't happen), but for everyone to chant for the sake of their happiness. >>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 > How do you know exactly how other people understand dharma and think >about dharma? From what you have written so far (I am not passing any >judgements on your view as to whether it is good or bad) you 'do not >beleive' in 'enlightenment in this day and age', that leads to the >conclusion that you never tried to understand it. orry if I gave that impression. Actually, chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to the Gohonzon (the physical manifestation of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as enscribed by Nichiren) one is actually enlightened (in the world of Buddhahood) adn the idea is to gain enlightenment in this lifetime. >>If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, >>then he also is a slanderer. That is the whole point of explaining > The openness to Buddhism came earlier than the openness of the modern > world. Historically thinking, that is why it spread everywhere freely. > So if you were to find out the falsehood of slandering about Buddha dharma > and to admonish others you have to be open, conscious and aware > of other cultures etc. (more open than if you were to talk about > other global issues). I agree. -- Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Respectfully, Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov
kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) (12/14/90)
In <1990Dec12.061626.10201@nas.nasa.gov> tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) writes: >In article <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: >> >>In article <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) writes: >>>...In the first 42 years of Shakyamuni's preaching life, >> ...(deleted for brevity) >>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. >I don't read from it that previous teachings are wrong but that they are >but mere point at the moon. I also do not get from the Sutra that chanting >... >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? That the dragaonking and his 10 demon daughters could gain enlightenment throught the Lotus Sutra, inplies that one can gain enlightenment as they are, without having to extinguish their desires. The idea of chanting for desires is value. Chanting for desires initially to prove the power of the Gohonzon to the new beleiver. For instance, doing drugs has very little value for one's life (unless they are sick). But chanting for drugs and getting them, has great value to show the new member the power of Buddhism and to inspire the desire for enlightenment. so new members` are encouraged to chant for things the act of chanting one in in the state of Buddhahood (earthly desires are enlightenment). And actually, as one fulfills his desires, he soon realizes what he thought would make him happy is only temporary and he gains a deeper understanding of happiness really is, rahter than just trying to deny one's desires outright, which you can't do, unless you deny your humanity. >>Besides, the early teaching of the Buddha uses appeal to reason >>of personality. I find the former teaching far more plausible. >Many sects revere their teachers. But I do have some problems with >the use of the assertion that this is TRUE Buddhism. Yech! Like the >others are not. It misses the whole beauty of the Lotus Sutra. You should look at the omens in the Lotus Sutra. The Treasure Tower appearing in the 11th chapter, and Taho (Many Treasures) Buddha who said everything that you (Shakyamuni) have said is the truth and the emergence of the bodhisattvas from the past (discpiles of Shakyamuni) was like saying that this 25-year-old man was the father of these 100-year-old men. -- Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Respectfully, Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov
mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec12.061626.10201@nas.nasa.gov> tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) writes: >In article <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: >> >>In article <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) writes: [Long debate on Nichiren interpretation of the Lotus Sutra omitted.] >>... A third possibility is that those who, like >>Nichiren Daishonen use the Lotus Sutra to denegrate all the >>Buddha's other teachings are actually misinterpreting it. >>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. I'm actually glad and not surprised to learn from someone who knows something about it that the Nichiren interpretation as put forth by Mr. Evans is suspect. It is like learning the violence done to the Bible by Christian fundamentalists. >>bill mayne | mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu > >Many sects revere their teachers. But I do have some problems with >the use of the assertion that this is TRUE Buddhism. Yech! Like the >others are not. It misses the whole beauty of the Lotus Sutra. > >dave How true. And I agree with pleas to lower the thermastat in this newsgroup, though hopefully by appeal to our better instincts rather than through censorship. (Are you listening, moderator?) I got involved in this only because, like others, I saw the teaching of the Buddha, at least all sects other than Mr. Evan's being repeatedly attacked any time an orthodox Buddhist explanation was given in response to a question about Buddhism. Your interesting perspective on the Lotus Sutra shows me that some good has come out of all of this. Thanks. Bill Mayne
tilley@acl.kodak.com (David Tilley) (12/15/90)
In article <1990Dec14.033942.1988@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: > >In article <1990Dec12.061626.10201@nas.nasa.gov> tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) writes: >>In article <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: >>> > >I'm actually glad and not surprised to learn from someone who knows >something about it that the Nichiren interpretation as put forth by >Mr. Evans is suspect. It is like learning the violence done to the >Bible by Christian fundamentalists. > I would like to say that my involvement with Buddhism at all is due in large part to the goodness of a member of NSA (Nichiren Soshu of America). Tim (my NSA friend) gave me books, introduced me to his group, drove me to NY City to get a Gohonzen (sp?) and deeply encouraged me to chant. I also met Phillip Kapleau (sp?) at the rochester Zen Center. He gave me the encouragement for Zazen. I recently talked with Gary Snyder and have been greatly encouraged by him and his writings to be involved in Buddhist Action. Although I have turned away from NSA I am greatful for their work in helping me find Buddhism at all. I say all this because I feel I have been only critical of Nichiren beliefs. and that is a bit one sided. >........... >How true. And I agree with pleas to lower the thermastat in this >newsgroup, though hopefully by appeal to our better instincts >rather than through censorship. (Are you listening, moderator?) >I got involved in this only because, like others, I saw the teaching >of the Buddha, at least all sects other than Mr. Evan's being >repeatedly attacked any time an orthodox Buddhist explanation was >given in response to a question about Buddhism. > >Your interesting perspective on the Lotus Sutra shows me that some >good has come out of all of this. Thanks. No prob. For some note I would like to say that both Kapleau Roshi and Thich Naht Hahn (sp?) list the Lotus Sutra as a good reference. > >Bill Mayne Dave