Like I said in my previous post the unfortunately got shut down, I love the Nichiren teachings but I do have my doubts. One of which is how do you view your path?

I think that other is the only choice I can make. I don't limit myself to saying all Buddhist paths are valid, and some may not be although I cannot determine for myself the truth of that for people other than myself.

There are other paths that I think are valid, and some I also question.

Then there is the definition of "valid" as used in the poll.
Do you mean "leads to attaining enlightenment" when you write "valid", or did you have a different meaning in mind?

Two people can be on the same road; going opposite directions. They might also be on different roads going the same direction. Not all roads are the same though. Not all Buddhist practices do the same thing. Some might be dead ends; but a dead end road might go some place nice.

I think the threefold praxis taught by Nichiren is a practice that leads one to Awakening; the ultimate destination sought by all Buddhists. It is a path that requires little ot no prerequisite skills. Chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo elicits kanjin, insight onto one's 'citta," which I presently translate as spirituality. So, another way of saying kanjin is "spiritual introspection."

There are other ways to do spiritual introspection. However, not all Buddhist paths atre even intended as insight practices. Some of them are intended to cultivate skills and merits; like concentration or the generation of authentic compassion. The Buddha taught that the 4 frameworks of mindfulness lead to awakening, to spiritual purification. I think that the Threefold Praxis taught by Nichiren does also; and is more accessible to a lot more people. That is my view right now; and it works for me; but I refuse to be attached ti fixed views.

One more thing, thanks for your patience. Whatever method one uses, cynical doubts and fears are one of the hindrances one must overcome. Nichiren wrote that beginners only need one prerequisite, to have trust or faith in the Lotus Sutra. I think he meant to get past debilitating cynical doubt and fears. As we progress, the other obstacles we encounter are what we need to overcome, to develop into spiritually mature beings.

One more one more thing, Nichiren Shonin also cautioned about slighting others who practice, even though they really do have faults. I have had doubts because of the behavior of some Nichiren Buddhists. That required me to develop patience or forbearance. It is not about who is right; it is about what is right. Wisdom is important too. Patience does not mean to endure abuse. Even Bodhisattva Never Disparage stepped back out of the line of fire. Also, at one point, the Buddha decided walk with the elephants.

So the main thing is to do spiritual introspection in order to face and resolve whatever it is that causes doubt. It is nice to have someone one trusts, to talk with, to get more specific spiritual guidance. I have no teacher like that, so I take it to the Gohonzon. Nichiren Shonin wrote that he designed Gohonzon(s), based on the Lotus Sutra, to make the practice of kanjin easier. Kanjin Honzon = revered object [to facilitate] kanjin.

May all your deserts be oases.

gassho

robin

I think the questions are too vague. What do you mean by "valid"?

Lets say "valid means leads to enlightenment" granted who knows what enlightenment really is.

I appreciate most religions, Buddhist or not, and if they help people find meaning and comfort, and enable them to lead ethical lives, then I can't see that there's much wrong with that. Do I think all religions lead to Buddhist enlightenment? My guess is that they don't, but then again, that isn't the aim of non-Buddhist religions; however, I remember reading in one of Nichiren's writings where he indicated that in previous ages, it was possible to attain enlightenment via Hinduism and Confucianism. As best as I can tell, his insistence that the Lotus Sutra provided the only means to enlightenment was not necessarily a commentary on other religions or other schools of Buddhism; it mostly had to with his belief that he was living in the Declining Age of the Dharma, or Mappo. And I just don't know how literally that needs to be taken - especially since it was thought in Nichiren's time that the Buddha lived far longer ago than he really did, which throws the dates for the various Dharma ages off by centuries. If you want to take all of that completely literally, it seems to me you'd have to do some real mental/logical gymnastics to work around all that.

As far as other schools of Buddhism go, my tendency is to take them on their own merits. I appreciate most of them, even if I personally have no interest in taking up their practices. I will say this, though - if you wander over to the Tibetan Buddhism forum, you will see several statements to the effect that enlightenment is only possible through the Tantras. This appears to be a very common idea in their tradition, and I don't see that anyone's ever given them any grief about it. I've also read books on Zen Buddhism that indicate that zazen is the only way to enlightenment. And many Pure Land Buddhists believe that none of these practices leads anyone to enlightenment anymore, and the only hope anyone has is through the saving grace of Amida. As far as I can tell, nobody considers any of these positions a big deal, and everybody generally gets along. Yet, if a Nichiren Buddhist makes a similar statement regarding Lotus Sutra-based practices, he or she is accused of being intolerant, hateful, and not a real Buddhist. I honestly don't understand it.

To answer your question, I have no idea.

Nothing to comment on really, other than to say interesting observation. I suppose I've noticed the same thing, and generally I try to respect the beliefs of anyone so long as they can tell me why they believe it, or the belief helps them to live a better life.

I do think that other religions/ Buddhist sects need to be taken on their own means. Expedient Means is really what I view them as, though in some cases I think they can actually be harmful to people, particularly when we see the extremists of different religions.

I know that the practice of chanting works for me, so it's what I do. If a different practice helps someone else to rid themselves of suffering and attain Buddhahood, than I have no problem with that.

As grand master Tientai had said, those who walk the path ready required to know what is General and what is Specific, else their cultivation would go know where.

To be in General, here would means all good path/cultivation that leads one to the goodness of being are to view as valid. This we have a much peaceful world.

To be specific , here means that in your personal cultivation , you must ready have a sound understanding on your specidfic lineage and crystak clear on the detail of your lineage's doctrine pass down by your Buddhist teacher , else it would never able to bring up your courage for you to take the path of realising the your salvation/Buddhahood/liberation.

In muddling with all general teachings in this world only made you an appearance 'good person' only. But the fact it would not able to bring too far.
It has not enough crictial belief and understanding during those crucial point of your life, unable to differentiate from the deceiving phenomena from your innate mara functions , and battle against the odd , and unfavourable manifestion .


ASN

The response would be that those other schools would tell you that other practices are a waste of time; whereas Nichiren would tell you other paths lead one to the lower realms. I am not buying that; I am just saying is that the likely response. You likely agree with me that there are more than one reason why Nichiren has the reputation of being more combative. I think it comes from a shallow understanding of Nichiren; an image promoted in a large part by the recent relatively aggressive tactics of some Nichiren Schools

Most other modern schools that are known in the west, have better public relations. I also think Nichiren Buddhism has a reached a broader cross section of western society. I think those who gravitate to Tibetan, Zen, and Vipassana might already be the kind of people who are into tolerance. On the other hand, in Soka Gakkai, we do see an incredible diversity. That is actually what attracted me to Soka Gakkai. As an aside to that, when I joined, my friends told me that I was not the type who would be into Buddhism. I was sort of half Jock / cowboy / redneck and half new age hippy; but the former part was a lot more on the surface.

At any rate, I suspect it is up to us to change the public image of Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren wrote Matsuno dono gohenji which includes this line, "Take these teachings to heart, and always remember that believers in the Lotus Sutra should absolutely be the last to abuse each other. All those who keep faith in the Lotus Sutra are most certainly Buddhas, and one who personally attacks a Buddha commits a grave offense."

with metta

robin

Thanks for the replies It got frustrating practicing with my local group because it seemed too much like a Christian church. I was brought up with the mystical but soon grew tired of it. I came to Nichiren and liked the ten worlds because it is very logical. Then I see that I do not always agree with Nichiren since he has his mystical parts. So how am I suppose to reconcile Nichiren and his teachings.

I think that in the Lotus Sutra , Shakyamuni says that all other faiths should be respected because they are aspirants of the truth. The of course can be extended to all other forms of sometimes mumbo-jumbo that passes of as belief systems.

In fact the wisest words on this subject was from a Theravadan head monk in a temple within Thailand, who when I asked why all sorts of soohtsayers and astrologers were allowed to practice their arts within the temple walls ? He wisely replied with the analogy that it didn't matter as they had the strong whisky whilst the others had only the weak beer.

I think that all those aspiring to some sort of faith will eventually reach Buddhahood, possibly before those with none whatsoever.

Livindesert

I hope that I haven't caused any reason for this thread also to be shut down.

I understand what you're saying, but ask yourself this: Is the practice working for you?

If it is, then continue practicing. There's no need to accept anything purely on the basis that it exists in the texts we study. Continue studying on your own, and try to see how you can relate the concepts to how you live your life.

I personally think a fair amount of any Buddhism has more to do with the culture they came from rather than some sort of literal truth, to be honest, but I suppose I'm more of a skeptic than most.

I've already made a good amount of progress in understanding concepts like karma and rebirth while still maintaining what I view as a rationalist mindset. Just keep studying and practicing. As you've probably heard people say, doing this develops a faith that isn't blind or based simply on doctrine.

Also, the term 'mystic' isn't a bad one. It just implies something that is beyond our general understanding and can't be fully expressed through words. I like this because I find it's much easier to say 'I don't know' than to pretend I do when it comes to metaphysical concepts and how exactly it is that chanting works.

Peace

Kris

Could you give me the quote on that one. Also I was told at a SGI meeting that other Buddhist paths needed to be converted more forcefully than non Buddhist ones(I don't agree with conversions). Could you give me some insight on these issues?

Yeah, I agree - though I wonder if other schools don't really have some form of that "other paths lead to the lower realms" thing, too. I don't know, but I suspect it. I've never liked the "candy & rainbows" portrayal of Buddhism in the West. There are a whole bunch of things about Buddhism that offend our liberal post-modernist sensibilities - they're just swept under the rug. You're right, Nichiren has gotten some terrible PR, at least in the West.

You know, I keep posting the following quote from T'ien-t'ai and people tend to ignore it.

"The observer and that which is observed are everywhere produced by the matrix of causality and conditions. In all that is produced by causality and conditions, there is emptiness of self."
The Great Calm-Observation, Volume 5, Part 3, Page 1

That quote means that both you and everything you see, hear, taste, touch and smell are all due to causality and conditions. Now, is reality a wierd thing? Very wierd according to the view of Quantum Physics. In fact the scientists did an experiment and found that reality acts differently when there is an observer than it does when there is no observer.

People tend to assign mysticism to things they don't understand, and the Buddha also teaches in this way because it is easier to understand, yet the underlying analysis is that the mysticism is nothing more than a way to explain an aspect of reality that the relationship between a cause and an effect are not apparent.

If you haven't seen the movie "What the Bleep do we Know" I suggest you get the "Down the Rabbit Hole" edition and watch it. Then go back to that quote above.

And, BTW, while I didn't answer your poll, I don't think you'll find anywhere the depth of doctrine that you find in Nichiren Buddhism, the basis of which are the works of Nargarjuna, T'ien-t'ai, Saicho, Nichiren, and the Buddha himself.

Right. All paths lead to the One Vehicle, or however it's phrased. I also think the LS says or insinuates that Buddhahood is the ultimate destiny of everyone, whether they currently aspire to it or not.



What church did you grow up in? I've always had a spiritual bent, and I didn't leave Christianity because I was agnostic or a skeptic, or anything like that, so it's hard for me to relate to this. That's the big reason I had a hard time with some of the Zen groups I've participated in - many of them are really just secular meditation groups.

At the lone SGI meeting I've ever attended, one lady described it as "very scientific." I didn't know much about it at the time, so I didn't think much of it, but as I got to study this, I just don't know how people can arrive at this view. I've even heard an SGI member on another online forum say that Nichiren Buddhism wasn't a religion and that you could be a Catholic or whatever other faith and still practice Nichiren Buddhism. I was a bit stunned by this statement. I get how you can secularize Zen and Vipassana or Theravada, but Nichiren Buddhism?

Anyway...

well, expediency

I think that is definately interesting but the observation causation tends to break down once you get out of the sub atomic world.

Also I was told the reason to tell people you can combine practices is to bring them into Nichiren totally eventually. It is underhanded way of expediate means.

This is an expedient means not used by Nichiren Shoshu. Nichiren said it all when he said "Do not mix filth with rice". This practice doesn't need any mixing, and in fact, that mixing undermines the benefits of practice, which then leads to people quitting. I agree that it is an underhanded tactic, but would add that it is self defeating as well.

I think that is partially true, but I think the bigger reason is that at it's core Nichiren Buddhism is a practice. Belief isn't a prerequisite, and I think that plays a huge role in why a lot of people give it the time of day in the first place. I know that's how it was for me.

I know people I practice with who still believe in god and that Jesus was his son and all that, because it's how they were raised. But when it comes right down to it we are engaging in the same practice and working towards the same goals.

I really think that's what kosen rufu (or whatever other sects choose to call it) is all about. Not necessarily 'converting' people to Nichiren Buddhism, but using the principles and philosophy of this Buddhism to overcome our differences and coexist peacefully, helping everyone to escape suffering and achieve indestructible happiness.

Just my take on it though, and perhaps not that of everyone.

This reminds me of the phenomenon of Catholic priests who are also Zen masters. It blows my mind. It seems to me that if you divorce the practice from its Buddhist underpinnings, that it completely loses its meaning, and becomes open for imbuing it with whatever meaning one wants.

I've always been more of a Buddhist believer than a practitioner - I've never been one who meditates or chants every single day. My understanding was always that faith was the most important thing, as that is what the practice is built on. If I was going to explain Nichiren Buddhism to someone, I would start by describing the general Buddhist worldview - in discussing the practice of gongyo, I'd probably put in the context of Japanese Buddhism, in general - gongyo is basically just a Japanese Buddhist prayer service, and most, if not all, schools of Japanese Buddhism have some version of it (just like all Japanese Buddhist schools have a gohonzon, even Zen). IOW, it's very difficult for me to think of Nichiren Buddhism outside of a more general Buddhist context.

I have heard that it is extremely very difficult to get the Napalese to practice pure Buddhism, because cultualy they are mixed with all the Hindus practice stuffs . But it is a pity if Buddhism could not sank root back the the land of Buddhism. So certain expediency allowance was given for them on their mixed. With the hoping that in few generation dowm the roots , the better understanding of of Buddhism could be achieved and they could seperate Hinduism and Buddhism in the correct way.

Ansanna.

So what to you is true Buddhism?

Something I wrote earlier on this subject.

When defining True Buddhism we must first define the word true. True in this sense is not the opposite of false. There is no false Buddhism, but only that the early sutras did not reveal the full truth. Ichinen Sanzen is the unifying theory of all the Buddha's teachings, in that through the lens of this principle all other teachings become clear.

When we look at earlier statements from the Buddha; there is no self; dependant co-arising, and other principles; they all become clear from the perspective of Ichinen Sanzen. Much like a car has thousands of parts, just looking at the parts you cannot see the car; however, from the perspective of the car you can see that it indeed consists of all the parts.

True Buddhism includes Ichinen Sanzen as its core teaching, and at present there are only two major sects of Buddhism that teach it; Tendai and Nichiren. Nichiren was responsible for evolving the teachings of Tendai by revealing Actual Ichinen Sanzen as the practice of chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo, thus fulfilling the prophesy of the Buddha in the Lotus Sutra.

That would make NMRK a part of Buddhist tradition and teaching. The historical Buddha did not chant NMRK, and NMRK is just a expression of cause and effect. Which 99% of Buddhist paths teach. NMRK is only the best for some people not everyone. Many say a path is the best without trying every single other path. Which cannot be done. Therefore a path is only relavent to the individual and individuals can get together and practice(sangha). Where other Buddhist say my path is the best. Nichiren buddhist seem to have a larger percent of these types of people. This is a shame because Nichiren Buddhist also have the most down to earth people I have found in a Buddhist group.

Livindesert , markp is talking about the specific path to attain Buddhahood.

of course , you could have your general terms in Buddhism, it is still valuable in interfaiths dailogue , and for general public education on Buddhism humanism and envirmomentalism.

ASN

Exclusive practice or not is uncommon common sense, Nichiren said beginners should stick to one practice. He said teachers with no skills should stick with teaching the Lotus Sutra. What one wants to do is avoid bet hedging. One can not practice Honen to the letter and Nichiren to the letter. There is a cross purpose there. Honen was teaching that Amida would take one to the Pure Land, then one could cultivate and awaken there. This is somewhat similar to, and might be loosely based on, the anagamin or non-returner, who is reborn in the pure abode, and becomes an arahant there.

With Nichiren, it was awakening in this life time. Trying to get in good graces; to be reborn in the Pure Land, to awaken there; and practicing to fully awaken now, means one is doing neither. Now, some pure land schools teach immanent pure land, to be realized now. So, with that, there is no real cross purpose. Still, for some, there might be a feeling of divided allegiances between Shakyamuni and Amida; like being torn between two lovers.

Also, iirc, Nichiren told one guy he could practice Nembutsu as a sage, but would be setting a bad example for those hung up on conventional truth. At any rate, I am told, by sources I trust, that Honen never claimed Nembutsu would lead directly to Awakening in this life; which he felt was not even possible for most people. A strict follower of Honen would have been seeking rebirth in Pure Land, and see other practices as a waste of time, and even an impediment. That may or may not apply to specific modern schools or practitioners.

disclaimer: That is the teaching of Honen as Nichiren understood it and had issues with. Some will have a different view of what Honen taught. I am a Nichiren Buddhist; think Nichiren was correct. Also, I use this only to illustrate the principle of not mixing conflicting practices.

One more thing, the downside of institutionalizing exclusive path is that it can lead to religious wars. For some reason, exclusive path folks tend to have a strong need for their path to be the only valid one, or at least the best one for all, and see others as threats. I have never been able to fathom why.

gassho

robin

Neither can I

I'm a bit curious by what you said about being more of a believer than a practitioner. To me, it has always seemed that without practice there is no Buddhism. By practice, I don't solely mean chanting or meditation, but actually incorporating Buddhist principles as part of your life. I think there are different kinds of faith; one being the confidence that you can overcome anything with this practice, which I place a lot of value in, the other being a belief in all of the supernatural and metaphysical aspects of a religion, which I don't feel are as important.

I've always felt that this Buddhism's lack of any real dogma was one of it's biggest strengths, along with the fact that it actually challenges the practitioners to think about and try to prove different concepts within their own lives. Many religions don't do this, and require some sort of upfront belief as a prerequisite. I'm not able to force myself to believe something at will, unless I have good reasons for doing so. This Buddhism allows people to develop their faith incrementally through the actual practice.

So really, neither can be discarded. If you're just chanting without understanding why you're doing so, you could be practicing just about anything. On the same merits though, one could study and understand all of the metaphysical and supernatural aspects of Buddhism, but if they don't have any way of putting those concepts into practice there really isn't any point.

As one example, take the concept of rebirth. I know people who interpret it many different ways, but in the end I don't feel these differences have a major impact on their practice. At the same time, just because someone takes a literal interpretation of rebirth, or of Buddhist deities, or any other supernatural entity, I do not feel that that makes them a 'better' Buddhist. Perhaps you feel differently and think that believing everything said in the various texts to the letter is the most important element. Perhaps not. I feel that we should strive to take what wisdom we can from the teachings, and see how we may best apply them to our own lives. If I have not seen anything which would warrant a supernatural explanation, then I cannot will myself to believe it. I can still take a general understanding of the concept and relate it to my life, without having to use it as a definitive explanation for any phenomena.


Going back to what you said about how you would go about explaining Nichiren Buddhism, I don't think I would take the same approach. I wouldn't say "Buddhists believe in rebirth and karma and...". I wouldn't touch on any sort of supernatural concepts initially. Rather, I would tell them about different core concepts- the ten worlds, law of cause and effect- and then explain to them how to practice chanting. If they do that, and they see benefit, faith will come.

Hopefully this makes some sense - I don't think I've ever really discussed it with anyone before...

I don't mean believer in the sense of accepting a set of teachings or beliefs, like rebirth or what-have-you. Even before I came to Buddhism, I've always had a deep trust in a higher power of sorts - I don't really think of it in terms of God or a supreme being - more like a process or a flow that contains everything - and it's something that I've never really doubted. I've also never approached my practice as a means to an end - maybe this is my prior experience in Soto Zen talking. I've always thought of it as something that I "should" do, like an offering (which might have something to do with why I've never been able to maintain a daily practice, but that's another story) - I guess it's an expression of faith/trust or gratitude more than anything else. I do have it in the back of my head that there are merits contained in this practice, and that I'm cultivating the qualities of enlightenment through it, but that's all really kinda vague to me, at least when I'm chanting or meditating.

As far as "metaphysics," karma, deities, rebirth, etc. - my feeling is that while I have no hard evidence of any of this (although I have always believed that we have past and future lives - again, even before I came to Buddhism, from a very young age - it's just a deep, deep feeling that I've always had), I don't believe I have or need all the answers, and it would be very presumptuous and arrogant to say that any of it is impossible, or to think that I somehow know better than the Buddha and other enlightened teachers of Buddhism from the past.

Certainly. I suppose I'm just more comfortable saying I don't know than trying to say I do. I try to follow this Buddhism as I think it helps me to live my life in the best possible way, and incorporating it as part of my everyday life is what I consider the practice of it.

It isn't that I doubt what the Buddha said, it is simply that I wish to explore what he taught for myself, so that I can have a better understanding.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Shakyamuni

Though from the Kalama sutra, and not the Lotus, I feel there is a lot of wisdom in this statement. It doesn't make faith irrelevant by any means, for if we had no confidence in the teachings there would be little reason to try and learn from them, but I do feel as though applying skepticism and an inquiring mind is necessary for one to truly gain a useful understanding of how to apply this Buddhism in our own lives.

Peace,

Kris

I agree! I may practice with Nichiren Shoshu, but I don't like that they are so exclusive, and guess what? It did lead to not war, but indeed animosity between sects.

I just have such a great practice that no way I'm changing because of what others say. The proof I see in my life is amazing.

When the Buddha turns the Dharma Wheel a myriad of teachings and teachers appear all over space and time...all are valid ...
it may seem like one, two ar three vehicles but in fact it is only one. Because they all come from the cause of the Buddha turning the Dharma wheel so they all are the one vehicle.....which is to get you to think act and speak correctly creating Good Karma...the ultimate goal....

So as a great teacher once said....if you believe in God the creator and practice that sort of religion, or if you believe in no god the creator and practice that religion, both are perfectly correct for they both are vehichles of the Dharma Wheel turning......

Krisande Well said, I think you get the key of of the essense. That's why many enlightened Buddhist masters have said , Without correct practice , there are no Buddha Dharma. Correct here means to have belief and understanding , and proper study .

That why they could conclude that so long there is correct practice , it is already enlightenment, there will be the lifeblood of lineage between mentor and disciples, there is living Buddhism.

ASN

Dear Ansanna:
The lifeblood is through the scrolls of the sutra. Here is a short experience:

One day, my oldest daughter was baby sitting a two and a half year old child named Dante. His mother dropped him off at our house and I immediately introduced him to our turtle and one of our cats. Then I began my morning prayers. I started chanting the Daimoku and and then I heard someone else chanting the Daimoku. I looked to my right and kneeling upright with hands reverently pressed together and with gaze fixed on the Buddha (Gohonzon) was Dante. I patted him on the head and called him little Buddha and gave him my wife's beads. He then realized that I didn't have any shoes on and he proceeded to take off his little work boots. I began Gongyo. I rang the bell three times. He rang the bell three times and then replaced the striker and picked up a Sutra book. He
tried his best to follow Gongyo and remained concentrated the whole time. We
finished chanting. The mentor for all disciples and believers of Nichiren is Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter of the Lotus Sutra.

Bonten

I believe that whatever path one chooses , if it has been chosen by heart and the feeling of practising that particulair path , then al paths are valid ..

It only because we feel or believe that because we are praticing our path , it is the only right one ..

I would think of this arrogance ...
A path may be suitable for one ,but this doenst mean that other ,by this means are wrong then ...
i do feel that other are entitled to go their own way ,whether buddhist or other ... that doesnt make a difference ...
at all

NMRK !
Richard

I concur with you , Dharma friend Richard

ASN

Richard,


More concordance from this direction! In fact, I tend to express this whenever I attend local district meetings because I find leaders who slip into this shadow of arrogance. It is only with the utmost confidance and conviction in our own beleif in the totality of the Lotus Sutra that we can then see the correct way to follow any teaching.

namaste

i would like to expound my meaning some bit more in depth ...
I think and know deep in my heart that other religions will do just as fine as buddhism ... were it not that most of them are instutional ,or have became like that ..

Also i would like to consider that all religions are founded in different parts of the world .. and thus had no knowlegde of other beliefs ... in beginning ...

had this been known all over the world and had leaders be really religious .. we would have quarrels all over the place...
Due to the searcg for power and control ...

To me the core ,or essence of religions is , that one tries to live as good to ability and takes care of the wellbeing of others ..and oneself ...
trying to live in balance with all that lives among us ...
not in vain are buddha and jesus considered as brothers .. since the share the same amount of wisdom ...

were it not ...that have been misunderstood for so long ...
not saying though that one is wrong and the other is right .. i refuse to do so , each to his own liking .... live and let live

NMRK !!!

[quote], the other being a belief in all of the supernatural and metaphysical aspects of a religion[quote]

I have no problem with religion (in the Buddhist sense) being defined as as having 'mystical' consequences. That just means that which is undefinable in words. But "supernatural and "metaphysical" ?

Supramunane is fine, as that as with mystical just infers something outside of our mundane experience. But 'supernatural' especially, means something much more exclusive and outside of nature. That is, cannot explained by natural laws. On the contrary, Buddhism teaches that all things are interrelated and interconnected.

I agree with your understanding of Buddhism, it's certainly how I try to approach it. However, concepts like the existence deities in particular to tend to delve into the realm of the supernatural, whether that's the term you wish to use for it or not. They may exist, they may have an active role and hence be connected with our own lives. This is fine, but it is not part of the 'natural' world, as you say. The distinction I feel between this and the mystic you are talking about is that the supernatural serve as an explanation for something that is mystic. There's no way we could conceivably 'prove' these, since as you said they cannot be defined by natural laws. I don't think most would view the supernatural as something totally detached from nature should it exist.

Regarding metaphysics, this deals with similar concepts which cannot be empirically proven by natural laws, but this is because their subject matter simply lies outside of what science encompasses. Take rebirth, for example. I think there are strong reasons from a philosophical standpoint to take on a belief in rebirth in one form or another. Now, just because it can't be proven doesn't make it false or unworthy of study. But as it cannot be proven to be either true or false, I feel that it's greatest importance lies in the worldview it creates should one accept it as truth and live their life as though it is true. Taking on this perspective, it is irrelevant whether it is actually provable, as the causes you make as a result of the belief itself are what will determine where your future will be.

On the same note, there are other parts of Buddhism which I think are largely tied in with the culture they came from, particularly when we get into numbers- affecting the karma of your family seven generations forward and back, being reborn after however many days, and whatever else. I study these words and try to determine how they relate to the cessation of suffering, though I must admit that I don't see a literal belief in them as being fundamental to Buddhist practice.

Now, a question I have for everyone:

If I choose not to literally interpret aspects such as those last couple I mentioned, does that make me any less of a Buddhist than one who does? Am I a person of less faith than one who does?

I still try to chant everyday to bring out Buddhahood within my life. I still make conscious efforts to make the best possible causes in my life, and it is one of the Buddhist truths I feel is most important and self-evident, though I may have a slightly more pragmatic than other interpretations I've seen (the 'universal scorecard' conception of karma), though I don't think others have a drastically different perspective. Nonetheless, our acceptance of karma influences our decisions in the same manner.

Just something I thought I'd ask others, as I'm interested in hearing the connotations raised in others when they hear the term 'faith', and what they feel is most important at a fundamental level.

Kris

Hi Kris

but these forces, and indeed deities, that you mention are not outside of the environment but inherent in it. What in fact we do through praying to our Gohonzon is to draw out these protective powers.



I cannot comment on how others view the term supernatural, but I tend to associate that with something beyond that of the natural laws that govern the universe, or something that cannot be demystified and applied to our daly lives.



I can't think of any philosophical reasoning that gives credence to rebirth ?



There is much to be said that rebirth is only that which takes effect when desires arise. That is why to some extent that we say that it's you life force at the point of death that effects the time scale of any rebirth. A positive life force can be equated with the desire to bring the best out of our lives. So it could be that we are reborn in each moment that desires arise.

However, taking the original conception of rebirth (that takes much from Brahmanism) then even as a moral code based upon karmic consequences, then at least that motivates us to create the most value for ourselves and others within our present sphere of existence. That is the most important and relevant causation that we can determine.



When all is said and done, rebirth is a central tenant of Buddhism. It's just that of course any such theories are culturally determined to a large extent. If Shakyamuni had first taught the Law in a Western context then it might be that rebirth would't have been addressed in the same manner as it would not fit well with our cultural-philosophical heritage.

It's that with Buddhism it should - by its very nature - have a fluidity and adaptability that is not found in dogma. But on no account is redefining some concepts to be aligned with throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's just a matter of tailoring a better fitted and more relevant suit to wear.



I think that I've more or less answered this (above). I can't see that comparisons about being a lesser or greater Buddhist as being at all the point. Each person has their own transformation to undergo. It's that we are continuing to do is the gauge by which to judge - if indeed judgement is at all an applicable term.



Yes do chant to reveal your Buddhahood. But do remember to chant for Buddhahood to be revealed in your environment and in other people too.

Essentially speaking, this is main factor towards the realisation of our own happiness and that of of kosen-rufu

There are equally strong reasons to not take this standpoint. Living as if this is the only chance you have can be motivation to not waste time.



Reincarnation, supernatural deities, past lives are not the Buddha's point or focus. These "magical" bits help tell a story but they are not real.

Your line of thinking is precisely what makes you a Buddhist. Study, reflect and come out from under the delusional influences of notions of self, notions of permanence, false discriminative thinking, sensory stimulation and desire.

To actually accomplish this is the only real magic there is.

So what is the difference for you between chanting to make something happen(rain,new car etc..) and chanting to change your inner self thereby allowing you to do better and get that car, or buy a sprinkler system for your lawn.

Very true. I think the point I was trying to make was simply that a belief in rebirth can serve as an explanation for phenomena like why people are born into different circumstances. Those were the philosophical grounds I was talking about.

In terms of how I live my life, I do tend to think of it from the standpoint you mentioned. Regardless of what happens to us after death, if we live our lives to the fullest we will have no regrets. When I think of rebirth I think it's most useful in explaining how we came to be where we are; anyone basing their current action on the hope that they'll be born into a better life, when they have the opportunity now to make their current life the best it can possibly be, is missing the point I think.



Nice to hear I'm not the only one. I just know that there are some Buddhists out there who do believe in those things you've mentioned, who say that a belief in such concepts is a matter of faith. As I'm still relatively new to the practice, I like to try and understand what the general consensus is on these topics so that I'm not misleading anyone when stating my own perspective.




HHY, I think that our difference of opinion regarding the supernatural is largely one of semantics. For example, I would say that the concept of a theistic god is supernatural. Were it to exist, it would certainly be part of our own existence and impact our lives, though it's also beyond (as far as we know) what can be explained through natural laws. The difference between this and mysticism, I think, is that mysticism involves some sort of observable phenomena to which no specific explanation is attached.

For example, the practices of chanting and meditation are performed by ourselves in part to gain a better understanding of a reality which is not necessarily knowable by conventional means. Reaching inward to find deeper meaning and draw out the power of Buddhahood which leads to the cessation of suffering. Making use of something which we can't quite explain yet still see the benefits of. I feel that a belief in deities is too specific to just be in the realm of mysticism, though you may disagree.

Good to see that you're still around LD.

I don't know anyone that chants for these things exactly as you cite. Maybe at the early stages of ones practice ? However, that doesn't mean not focus our daimoku on certain objectives. I'm reminded how Herbie Hancock chanted for three hours per day to win the Grammy award, which he eventually did (later giving it as a gift to President Ikeda). Not so as a self glorification but as a means to give further testimony to his Buddhist practice.

It's by setting such objectives that we undergo an inner transformation as we ultimately pray to the Gohonzon as if all our desires have already been realised. Thus giving praise to our own universal Buddhahood. Not always as easy as it sounds as we may still concentrate on exacting and minor details of our problems instead. Taking a leap beyond that has a profound effect on our lives and all that entails.

As there are infinite meanings due to infinite levels of understanding amongst sentient beings I wouldn't get too concerned about finding a global "general consensus".

When you see the word faith used in a Buddhist concept it helps to understand that there are several different ideas that each get translated as this word 'faith'.

An important one is belief and understanding. Belief without understanding is blind and understanding without belief is paralyzed. Essentially this concept is encouraging us to keep both in lockstep towards the search for truth. Challenge your faith by observing, analyzing and questioning - building greater understanding. In turn challenge your understanding to prove or disprove the tenets of your faith.

So long as the point of the exercise remains centered on seeking out absolute truth then it seems to make sense that absolute wisdom can be found in the process.

There is the concept of Honmon 本門 and Shakumon 迹門. The Hon is sometimes badly translated as True. Better translations are Origin or Source. Those point to the unconditioned The Buddha said that liberation is found in asankhatam or the uncompounded, abhutam or the un-originated, ajatam or the unborn, and akatam or the un-fabricated.

There is Honbtusu 本仏 and Shakubutsu 迹仏. Honbutsu 本仏 or Original Buddha is often poorly translated as True Buddha. It refers to the Shakyamuni Buddha in the last half of Chapter 15, all of Chapter 16, and the first half of Chapter 17 of the Lotus Sutra; who attained Enlightenment in the Remote Past. There is a similar Sanskrit term, Adhibuddha; which means the Primordial Buddha. Shakubutsu 迹仏 is the Trace Buddha and refers to Shakyamuni who first attained Enlightenment in this world. I do not know of any Pali or Sankrit terms for Trace Buddha. One more thing, Shakubutsu is sometimes translated as provisional buddha; this is a so so translation I think.

To shorten this, the True Buddhism is about Hongaku 本覚 or Original Enlightenment; indicating innate or inherent virtues. I see these are attributes or qualities of inherent Buddha Nature. They are

• shuddha {pure} = 浄{jyo - Pure} = Vi-shuddha {purified, original pure state}
• piti / priti {[spontaneous] bliss} = 安立 {anryu - firmly established} = Supra tisthita {deeply rooted}
• nicca / nitya {constancy} = 無辺 {muhen - no boundaries} = Ananta {no end}
• atta / atman {authentic selfless identity} = 上 {Jo - superior, apex} = Vishishta {distinguished}

This is contrasted with Shikaku 始覚 -- acquired, attained or affected awakening. Acquired merits are not bad things or false things, they are just not primary. The cosmic Bodhisattvas who appear throughout the Lotus Sutra represent acquired merits. I take Yakuo to represent healing, the medical arts. Not everyone has to a healer, it is not a primary virtue. Monju represents discernment {prajna}, also a useful skill to cultivate. Kannon represents compassion {karuna}; Maitreya represents loving kindness {metta or maitri}. I think the latter two are in short supply and especially important in our present time. If connected to primary virtues, these trace merits should be authentic or unaffected, not phony or condescending like mere sentiment or pity.

That is my take.

gassho

robin

Instead of piti / priti; that should be sukha; a purer bliss contrasted with priti. a joy that comes from sensory contant. It looks like sukha might be translated as 楽 raku?

Instead of Shuddha; that should be subha meaning wholseome. That appears to be a synonym of shuddha meaning pure. It looks like both might be translated as 浄 jo.

• subha {wholssome, pure, atttrsctive, desirable} = 浄{jyo - Pure} = Vi-shuddha {purified, original pure state}
• sukha {[spontaneous] bliss}= 楽 {raku - ease} = 安立 {anryu - firmly established} = Supra tisthita {deeply rooted}
• nicca / nitya {constancy} = 無辺 {muhen - no boundaries} = Ananta {no end}
• atta / atman {authentic selfless identity} = 上 {Jo - superior, apex} = Vishishta {distinguished}

This also relates to the four frameworks of mindfulness and the Four kinds of wrong view {vipallasa / viparyasa}. I think.

"Perceiving constancy in the inconstant, pleasure in the stressful, self in what's not-self, Perceiving constancy in the inconstant, pleasure in the stressful,self in what's not-self, attractiveness in the unattractive." -- Vipallasa Sutta