Chanting Growers Group

The Selection of the Time / WND pg. 538 (continued)

The Selection of the Time / WND pg. 538 (continued)

Question: Do the scholars Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu say anything about this principle [of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo]?

Answer: Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu knew about it in their hearts, but they did not expound it in words.

Question: Why did they not expound it?

Answer: There are many reasons. For one, the people of their day did not have the capacity to understand it. Second, it was not the proper time. Third, these men were bodhisattvas taught by the Buddha in his transient status and hence had not been entrusted with the task of expounding it.

Question: Could you explain the matter in greater detail?

Answer: The Former Day of the Law began on the sixteenth day of the second month, the day after the Buddha's passing. The Venerable Mahakashyapa received the transmission of the Buddha's teachings and propagated them for the first twenty years. For the next twenty years, this task fell to the Venerable Ananda, for the next twenty years to Shanavasa, for the next twenty years to Upagupta, and for the next twenty years to Dhritaka. By that time a hundred years had passed. But the only teachings that were spread widely during this period were those of the Hinayana sutras. Even the titles of the Mahayana sutras failed to receive mention, so the Lotus Sutra, needless to say, was not propagated at this time.

Men such as Mikkaka, Buddhananda, Buddhamitra, Parshva, and Punyayashas then inherited the teachings, and during the remainder of the first five hundred years after the Buddha's passing, the doctrines of the Mahayana sutras began little by little to come to light, although no particular effort was made to propagate them. Attention was concentrated on the Hinayana sutras alone. All this transpired during the period mentioned in the Great Collection Sutra as the first five hundred years, which constitute the age of attaining liberation.

During the latter part of the Former Day of the Law, six hundred to a thousand years after the Buddha's passing, there appeared such men as Bodhisattva Ashvaghosha, the Venerable Kapimala, Bodhisattva Nagarjuna, Bodhisattva Aryadeva, the Venerable Rahulata, Samghanandi, Samghayashas, Kumarata, Jayata, Vasubandhu, Manorhita, (43) Haklenayashas, and Aryasimha. These more than ten teachers started out as adherents of non-Buddhist doctrines. Following that, they made a thorough study of the Hinayana sutras, and still later they turned to the Mahayana sutras and used them to disprove and demolish the doctrines of the Hinayana sutras.

But although these great men used the Mahayana sutras to refute the Hinayana, they did not fully clarify the superiority of the Lotus Sutra in comparison to the other Mahayana sutras. Even though they did touch somewhat on this question, they did not make clear such vitally important doctrines as the ten mystic principles of the theoretical teaching and of the essential teaching, the fact that persons of the two vehicles can attain Buddhahood, the fact that the Buddha attained enlightenment countless kalpas in the past, the fact that the Lotus Sutra is the foremost in all the sutras preached in the past, present, or future, or the doctrines of the hundred worlds and thousand factors and of three thousand realms in a single moment of life.

They did no more than point a finger at the moon, as it were, or touch on some parts of the Lotus Sutra. But they said nothing at all about whether or not the process of instruction is revealed from beginning to end, whether or not the original relationship between teacher and disciple is clarified, or which teachings would lead to enlightenment and which would (44) not. Such, then, were the developments in the latter five hundred years of the Former Day of the Law, the time noted in the Great Collection Sutra as the age of meditation.

By some time after the thousand years of the Former Day of the Law, Buddhist teachings had spread throughout the entire land of India. But in many cases, Hinayana doctrines prevailed over those of the Mahayana, or provisional sutras were permitted to overshadow and efface the sutra of the true teaching. In a number of respects, Buddhism was in a chaotic condition. Gradually, the number of persons attaining enlightenment declined, while countless others, though adhering to Buddhist doctrines, fell into the evil paths.

Fifteen years after the beginning of (45) the Middle Day of the Law, which followed the thousand years of the Former Day, Buddhism spread eastward and was introduced into the land of China. During the first hundred years or more of the first half of the Middle Day of the Law, the Buddhist doctrines introduced from India were vigorously disputed by the Taoist teachers of China, and neither side could win a clear victory. Though it appeared at times as though the issue had been decided, those who embraced Buddhism were as yet lacking in deep faith. Therefore, if it had become apparent that the sacred teachings of Buddhism were not a unified doctrine but were divided into Hinayana and Mahayana, provisional and true, and exoteric and esoteric (46) teachings, then some of the believers might have had doubts and turned instead to the non-Buddhist teachings. It was perhaps because the Buddhist monks Kashyapa Matanga and Chu Fa-lan feared such a result that they made no mention of such divisions as Mahayana and Hinayana or provisional and true teachings when they brought Buddhism to China, though they were perfectly aware of them.

During the five dynasties that followed, the Wei, Chin, Sung, Ch'i, and Liang, disputes took place within Buddhism over the differences between the Mahayana and Hinayana, provisional and true, and exoteric and esoteric teachings, and it was impossible to determine which was correct. As a result, from the ruler on down to the common people, there were many who had doubts about the doctrine.

Buddhism thus became split into ten different schools: the three schools of the south and seven schools of the north. In the south there were the schools that divided the Buddha's teachings into three periods, into four periods, and into five periods, while in the north there were the five period school, the school that recognized incomplete word and complete word teachings, the four doctrine school, five doctrine school, six doctrine school, the two Mahayana doctrine school, and the one voice (47) school.

Each of these schools clung fiercely to its own doctrines and clashed with the others like fire encountering water. Yet in general they shared a common view. Namely, among the various sutras preached during the Buddha's lifetime, they put the Flower Garland Sutra in first place, the Nirvana Sutra in second place, and the Lotus Sutra in third place. They admitted that, in comparison to such sutras as the Agama, Wisdom, Vimalakirti, and Brahma Excellent Thought, the Lotus Sutra represents the truth, and that it is a complete and final sutra, and sets forth correct views. But they held that, in comparison to the Nirvana Sutra, it represents a doctrine of non-eternity, a sutra that is neither complete nor final, and a sutra that puts forth erroneous views.

From the end of the fourth through the beginning of the fifth hundred years following the introduction of Buddhism in the Later Han dynasty, in the time of the Ch'en and Sui dynasties, there lived a humble priest named Chih-i, the man who would later be known as the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai Chih-che. He refuted the mistaken doctrines of the northern and southern schools and declared that among the teachings of the Buddha's lifetime the Lotus Sutra ranks first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Flower Garland Sutra third. This is what occurred in the first five hundred years of the Middle Day of the Law, the period corresponding to that described in the Great Collection Sutra as the age of reading, reciting, and listening.

During the latter five hundred years of the Middle Day of the Law, in the reign of Emperor T'ai-tsung at the beginning of the T'ang dynasty, the Tripitaka Master Hsüan-tsang journeyed to India, spending nineteen years visiting temples and stupas in the 130 states of India and meeting with numerous Buddhist scholars. He investigated all the profound doctrines contained in the twelve divisions of the scriptures and the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Buddhism and encountered therein the two schools of the Dharma Characteristics and the Three Treatises.

Of these two, the Mahayana Dharma Characteristics doctrine was said to have been taught long ago by Maitreya and Asanga and in more recent times by the Scholar Shilabhadra. Shilabhadra transmitted it to Hsüan-tsang, who brought it to China and taught it to Emperor T'ai-tsung.

The heart of the Dharma Characteristics doctrine lies in its assertion that Buddhist teachings should accord with the capacities of the listeners. If people have the capacity to understand the doctrine of the one vehicle, then the doctrine of the three vehicles can be no more than an expedient to instruct them, and the doctrine of the one vehicle, the only true way of enlightening them. For people such as these, the Lotus Sutra should be taught. On the other hand, if they have the capacity to understand the three vehicles, then the one vehicle can be no more than an expedient to instruct them, and the three vehicles, the only true way of enlightening them. For people such as these, the Profound Secrets and Shrimala sutras should be taught. This, say the proponents of the Dharma Characteristics school, is a principle that T'ien-t'ai Chih-che failed to understand.

Emperor T'ai-tsung was a worthy ruler whose name was known throughout the world and who was said to have surpassed in virtue the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors of antiquity. He not only reigned over the entire land of China, but also extended his influence to more than eighteen hundred foreign countries ranging from Kao-ch’ang (48) in the west to Koguryö in the east. He was regarded as a ruler who had mastered both Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings. And since Hsüan-tsang was first in the favor and devotion of this worthy ruler, there was none among the leaders of the T'ien-t'ai school who ventured to risk losing his head by challenging him, and the true teachings of the Lotus Sutra were neglected and forgotten throughout the country.

During the reigns of T'ai-tsung's heir, Emperor Kao-tsung, and Kao-tsung's stepmother, Empress Wu, there lived a priest called Fa-tsang. He observed that the T'ien-t'ai school was under attack from the Dharma Characteristics school and took this opportunity to champion the Flower Garland Sutra, which T'ien-t'ai had relegated to a lower place, declaring that the Flower Garland Sutra should rank first, the Lotus Sutra second, and the Nirvana Sutra third among the sutras preached during the Buddha's lifetime.

In the reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung, the fourth ruler following T'ai-tsung, in the fourth year of the K'ai-yüan era (716), the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei came to China from the western land of India, and in the eighth year of the same era, the Tripitaka masters Chin-kang-chih and Pu-k'ung also came to China from India. These men brought with them the Mahavairochana, Diamond Crown, and Susiddhikara sutras and founded the True Word school. This school declares that there are two types of Buddhist teachings: the exoteric teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, which are expounded in the Flower Garland, Lotus, and similar sutras, and the esoteric teachings of Mahavairochana Buddha, which are expounded in the Mahavairochana and similar sutras. The Lotus Sutra holds first place among the exoteric teachings. But although its fundamental principles somewhat resemble those of the esoteric teachings expounded by Mahavairochana Buddha, it contains no description whatsoever of the mudras and mantras to be used in religious rituals. It fails to include any reference to the three mysteries of body, mouth, and mind, and hence is to be regarded as a sutra that is neither complete nor final.

Thus all of these three schools mentioned above, the Dharma Characteristics, Flower Garland, and True Word, attacked the T'ien-t'ai school, which was based on the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Perhaps because none of the members of the T'ien-t'ai school could measure up to the stature of the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai, though they were aware of the falsity of these other teachings, they did not attempt to speak out against them in public as T'ien-t'ai had. As a result, everyone throughout the country, from the ruler and high ministers on down to the common people, was led astray from the true teachings of Buddhism, and no one any longer came to gain the Buddha way. Such were the events of the first two hundred or more years of the latter five-hundred-year period of the Middle Day of the Law.

Some four hundred years after the beginning of the Middle Day of the (49) Law, the sacred scriptures of Buddhism were brought to Japan from the kingdom of Paekche, along with a wooden statue of the Buddha Shakyamuni, and also priests and nuns. At this time the Liang dynasty in China was coming to an end, to be replaced by the Ch'en dynasty, while in Japan, Emperor Kimmei, the thirtieth sovereign (50) since Emperor Jimmu, was on the throne.

Kimmei's son, Emperor Yomei, had a son named Prince Jogu who not only worked to spread the teachings of Buddhism but also designated the Lotus Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, and Shrimala Sutra as texts that would insure the protection of the nation.

Later, in the time of the thirty-seventh sovereign, Emperor Kotoku (r. 645-654), the teachings of the Three Treatises and Establishment of Truth schools were introduced to Japan by the Administrator of Priests Kanroku from Paekche. During the same period, the priest Dosho, who had been to China, introduced the teachings of the Dharma Characteristics and Dharma Analysis Treasury schools.

In the reign of Empress Gensho (r. 715-724), the forty-fourth sovereign, a monk from India called the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei brought the Mahavairochana Sutra to Japan, but he returned to China, where he had been residing, without spreading its teachings (51) abroad in Japan. In the reign of Emperor Shomu (r. 724-749), the forty-fifth sovereign, the Flower Garland school was introduced from the kingdom of Silla by a priest of that state called the Preceptor Shinjo. The Administrator of Priests Roben inherited its teachings and in turn introduced them to Emperor Shomu. He also helped construct the great image of the Buddha at Todai-ji.

During the time of the same emperor, the Reverend Ganjin came from China, bringing with him the teachings of the T'ien-t'ai and Precepts schools. But although he spread the Precepts teachings and built a Hinayana ordination platform at Todai-ji, he died without even so much as mentioning the name of the Lotus school.

Eight hundred years after the beginning of the Middle Day of the Law, in the reign of the fiftieth sovereign, Emperor Kammu (r. 781-806), there appeared a young priest without reputation named Saicho, who was later to be known as the Great Teacher Dengyo.At first he studied the doctrines of the six schools - Three Treatises, Dharma Characteristics, Flower Garland, Dharma Analysis Treasury, Establishment of Truth, and Precepts - as well as the Zen teaching, under the Administrator of Priests Gyohyo and others. Later he founded a temple called Kokusho-ji, which in time came to be known as Mount Hiei. There he pored over the sutras and treatises of the six schools, as well as the commentaries written by their leaders. But he found that these commentaries often contradicted the sutras and treatises upon which these schools relied and were replete with one-sided opinions. It became apparent to him that if people were to accept such teachings they would all fall into the evil paths of existence. In addition, though the leaders of each of the different schools proclaimed that they had understood the true meaning of the Lotus Sutra and praised their own particular interpretation, none of them had in fact understood its teachings correctly. Saicho felt that if he were to state this opinion openly it would surely lead to quarrels and disputes. But if he remained silent, he would be going (52) against the spirit of the Buddha's vow. He agonized over what course to take, but in the end, fearful of violating the Buddha's admonition, made known his views to Emperor Kammu.

Emperor Kammu, startled at his declaration, summoned the leading authorities of the six schools to engage in (53) debate. At first these scholars in their pride were similar to banners raised aloft like mountains, and their evil minds worked like poisonous snakes, but in the end they were forced to bow in defeat in the presence of the ruler, and each and every person of the six schools and the seven major temples of Nara acknowledged himself a disciple of Saicho.

It was like that earlier occasion when the Buddhist scholars of northern and southern China gathered in the palace of the Ch'en dynasty and, having been bested in debate by the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai, became his disciples. But [of the three types of learning] T'ien-t'ai had employed only perfect meditation (54) and perfect wisdom. The Great Teacher Dengyo, by contrast, attacked the Hinayana specific ordination for administering the precepts, which T'ien-t'ai had failed to controvert, and administered the Mahayana specific ordination (55) described in the Brahma Net Sutra to eight eminent priests of the six schools. In addition, he established on Mount Hiei a specific ordination platform for administering the precepts of the perfect and immediate enlightenment of the Lotus Sutra. Thus the specific ordination in the precepts of perfect and immediate enlightenment at Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei was not only the foremost ordination ceremony in Japan, but a great ordination in the precepts of Eagle Peak such as had never been known either in India or China or anywhere else in Jambudvipa during the eighteen hundred or more years since the Buddha's passing. This ceremony of ordination had its beginning in Japan.

If we examine the merit achieved by the Great Teacher Dengyo, we would have to say that he is a sage who surpasses Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu and who excels both T'ien-t'ai and Miao-lo. If so, then what priest in Japan today could turn his back on the perfect precepts of the Great Teacher Dengyo, whether he belongs to To-ji, Onjo-ji, or the seven major temples of Nara, or whether he is a follower of one of the eight schools or of the Pure Land, Zen, or Precepts school in whatever corner of the land? The priests of the nine regions of China became the disciples of the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai with respect to the perfect meditation and perfect wisdom that he taught. But since no ordination platform for universally administering the precepts of perfect and immediate enlightenment was ever established in China, some of them might not have become his disciples with regard to the precepts. In Japan, however, [because Dengyo in fact established such an ordination platform] any priests who fail to become disciples of the Great Teacher Dengyo can only be regarded as non-Buddhists and men of evil.

As to the question of which of the two newer schools brought from China is superior, the Tendai or the True Word, the Great Teacher Dengyo was perfectly clear in his mind. But he did not demonstrate which was superior in public debate, as he had done previously with regard to the relative merit of the Tendai school in comparison to the six older schools. Perhaps on that account, after the passing of the Great Teacher Dengyo, To-ji, the seven major temples of Nara, Onjo-ji, and other temples throughout the provinces of Japan all began proclaiming that the True Word school is superior to the Tendai school, until everyone from the ruler on down to the common people believed that such was the case.

Thus the true spirit of the Tendai Lotus school really flourished only during the lifetime of the Great Teacher Dengyo. Dengyo lived at the end of the Middle Day of the Law, during the period described in the Great Collection Sutra as the age of building temples and stupas. The time had not yet arrived when, as the Great Collection Sutra says, "Quarrels and disputes will arise among the adherents to my teachings, and the pure Law will become obscured and lost."

Now more than two hundred years have passed since we entered the Latter Day of the Law, a time of which, as the Great Collection Sutra records, the Buddha predicted that "quarrels and disputes will arise among the adherents to my teachings, and the pure Law will become obscured and lost." If these words of the Buddha are true, it is a time when the whole land of Jambudvipa will without doubt be embroiled in quarrels and disputes.

Reports reaching us say that the entire land of China, with its 360 states and 260 or more provinces, has already been conquered by the kingdom of the Mongols. The Chinese capital was conquered some time ago, and the two rulers Emperor Hui-tsung and Emperor (56) Ch'in-tsung were taken captive by the northern barbarians and ended their days in the region of Tartary. Meanwhile, Hui-tsung's grandson, Emperor (57) Kao-tsung, driven out of the capital K'ai-feng, established his residence in the countryside at the temporary palace at Lin-an, and for many years he did not see the capital.

In addition, the six hundred or more states of Koryö and the states of Silla and Paekche have all been conquered by the great kingdom of the Mongols, and in like manner the Mongols have even attacked the Japanese territories (58) of Iki, Tsushima, and Kyushu. Thus the Buddha's prediction concerning the occurrence of quarrels and disputes has proved anything but false. It is like the tides of the ocean that never fail to come when the time arrives.

In view of the accuracy of his prediction, can there be any doubt that, after this period described in the Great Collection Sutra when "the pure Law will become obscured and lost," the great pure Law of the Lotus Sutra will be spread far and wide throughout Japan and all the other countries of Jambudvipa?

Among the Buddha's various teachings, the Great Collection Sutra represents no more than an exposition of provisional Mahayana doctrine. In terms of teaching the way to escape from the sufferings of birth and death, it belongs to the period when the Buddha (59) had "not yet revealed the truth," and so cannot lead to enlightenment those who have not yet formed any connection with the Lotus Sutra. And yet in what it states concerning the six paths, the four forms of birth, and the three existences of life, it does not display the slightest error.

How, then, could there be any error in the Lotus Sutra, of which Shakyamuni Buddha said that he "now must (60) reveal the truth"? Many Treasures Buddha likewise testified to its truth, and the Buddhas of the ten directions put forth their long broad tongues until they reached the Brahma heaven as a sign of testimony. Shakyamuni Buddha also extended his tongue, which is incapable of telling falsehoods, until it reached the highest heaven in the world of form, saying that in the last five-hundred-year period after his passing, when the entire body of Buddhist doctrine would be about to disappear, Bodhisattva Superior Practices would come forward with the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo and administer them as good medicine to those afflicted with white leprosy - that is, persons of incorrigible disbelief and those who slander the Law. And he charged Brahma, Shakra, the gods of the sun and moon, the four heavenly kings, and the dragon deities to act as that bodhisattva's protectors. How could these golden words of his be false? Even if the great earth were to turn upside down, a high mountain crumble and fall, summer not follow spring, the sun move eastward, or the moon fall to earth, this prediction could never fail to come true!

If that is so, then, in this time of "quarrels and disputes," how can the ruler, the ministers, and the common people of Japan hope to escape harm when they vilify and abuse the envoy of the Buddha who is attempting to spread the Law of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, send him into exile, and attack and beat him, or inflict all kinds of trouble upon his disciples and followers? Ignorant people must surely think when I say this that I am merely calling down curses upon the people.

A person who spreads the Lotus Sutra is father and mother to all the living beings in Japan. For, as the Great Teacher Chang-an says, "One who rids the offender of evil is acting as his (61) parent." If so, then I, Nichiren, am the father and mother of the present emperor of Japan, and the teacher and lord of the Nembutsu believers, the Zen followers, and the True Word priests.

And yet, from the ruler on down to the common people, all treat me with enmity. How, then, can the gods of the sun and moon go on shining down on their heads, and how can the gods of the earth continue to support their feet? When Devadatta attacked the Buddha, the earth shook and trembled, and flames shot out of it. When King Dammira cut off the head of the Venerable Aryasimha, his own right arm that held the sword dropped off and fell (62) to the ground. Emperor Hui-tsung branded the face of the priest Fa-tao and exiled him south of the Yangtze, but before half a year had passed, the emperor was taken prisoner and carried (63) off by the barbarians. And these attacks of the Mongols on Japan are occurring for the same reason. Though one were to gather together as many soldiers as there are in the five regions of India and surround this country (64) with the Iron Encircling Mountains, it will do no good. The people of Japan are certain to encounter the calamity of war.

From this situation one should understand that I am in fact the votary of the Lotus Sutra. Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, stated that, if anyone should abuse or curse someone who is spreading the Lotus Sutra in the evil world of the latter age, that person would be guilty of an offense that is a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, million times greater than if he had been an enemy of the Buddha for the space of an entire kalpa. And yet nowadays the ruler and the people of Japan, following their personal whims, seem to hate me even more intensely than they would an enemy of their own parents or one who had been a foe from their previous lifetime, or upbraid me even more severely than they would a traitor or a murderer. I wonder that the earth does not open up and swallow them alive, or that thunder does not come down from heaven and tear them apart!

Or am I perhaps not the votary of the Lotus Sutra after all? If not, then I am wretched indeed! What a miserable fate, in this present life to be hounded by everyone and never know so much as a moment of peace, and in the next life to fall into the evil paths of existence! If in fact I am not the votary of the Lotus Sutra, then who will uphold the one vehicle, the teaching of the Lotus Sutra?

Honen urged people to discard the Lotus Sutra, Shan-tao said that "not even one person in a thousand" can reach enlightenment through its teachings, and Tao-ch'o said that "not a single person has ever attained Buddhahood" through that sutra. Are these men, then, the votaries of the Lotus Sutra? The Great Teacher Kobo said that one who practices the Lotus Sutra (65) is following "a childish theory." Is he perhaps the votary of the Lotus Sutra?

The Lotus Sutra speaks of a person (66) who "can uphold this sutra" or who (67) "can preach this sutra." What does it mean when it speaks of someone who "can preach" this sutra? Does it not mean someone who will proclaim, in the words of the Lotus Sutra itself, that "among the sutras, it holds the highest (68) place," and who will maintain its superiority over the Mahavairochana, Flower Garland, Nirvana, Wisdom, and other sutras? Is this not the kind of person the sutra means when it speaks of the votary of the Lotus Sutra? If these passages from the sutra are to be believed, then in the seven hundred and more years since Buddhism was introduced to Japan, there has never been a single votary of the Lotus Sutra other than the Great Teacher Dengyo and I, Nichiren.

Again and again I wonder that the persons who attack me do not, as the Lotus Sutra says, suffer the punishment of having their "heads split into seven (69) pieces" or their "mouths closed and stopped up," (70) but I realize there are reasons. Such punishments are no more than trivial penalties fit to be inflicted where there are only one or two offenders. But I, Nichiren, am the foremost votary of the Lotus Sutra in the entire land of Jambudvipa. Therefore, people who ally themselves with those who slander me or treat me with malice deserve to meet with the greatest difficulties in Jambudvipa, such as the immense earthquake that rocked Japan in the Shoka era, or the huge comet that appeared as a punishment upon the entire (71) land in the Bun'ei era. Just look at these happenings! Though in the centuries since the Buddha's passing there have been other practitioners of Buddhism who were treated with malice, great disasters such as these have never been known before. That is because there has never before been anyone who taught the people at large to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! With respect to this virtue, is there anyone in the whole world who dares to face me and say he is my equal, anyone within the four seas who dares to claim he can stand side by side with me?


Notes:

43. All the men in this and the two preceding paragraphs comprise the twenty-four successors who are said to have inherited Shakyamuni's lineage.
44. This passage refers to the "three standards of comparison" enumerated byT'ien-t'ai to assert the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over other sutras. "Whether or not the process of instruction is revealed from beginning to end" corresponds to the second standard; "whether or not the original relationship between teacher [the Buddha] and disciple is clarified" corresponds to the third standard; and "which teachings would lead to enlightenment and which would not" corresponds to the first standard.
45. That is, the year CE 67, the traditional date for the introduction of Buddhism to China during the reign of Emperor Ming of the Later Han dynasty.
46. Here, "exoteric and esoteric teachings" refers to a classification of Shakyamuni's teachings according to the manner in which they were expounded: secret and otherwise. The secret teaching is here termed "esoteric," while the others correspond to "exoteric."
47. A designation by T'ien-t'ai of the different systems of classification used by different schools during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period.
48. A kingdom located in the southern foothills of the T'ien-shan Mountains. In 640 it was conquered by Emperor T'ai-tsung.
49. The traditional date for the introduction of Buddhism to Japan is in the thirteenth year of the reign of Emperor Kimmei (552).
50. Emperor Kimmei is now regarded as the twenty-ninth emperor, because the administration of the fifteenth ruler Empress Jingu is no longer considered a formal reign. In Nichiren Daishonin's time, however, she was included in the lineage, so Emperor Kimmei was counted as the thirtieth sovereign.
51. Mention of Shan-wu-wei's stay in Japan appears in A Brief History of Japan by the priest Koen (twelfth century) of Mount Hiei, and The Genko Era Biographies of Eminent Priests by the Zen priest Kokan Shiren (1278-1346). Though no conclusive proof exists that Shan-wu-wei actually journeyed to Japan, this tradition is thought to have been widely accepted in the Daishonin's time.
52. The vow is to spread the correct teaching of Buddhism and lead the people to enlightenment.
53. This debate was held at Takaosan-ji temple in Kyoto in 802.
54. With "perfect meditation" and "perfect wisdom," the Daishonin refers to the three types of learning: precepts, meditation, and wisdom. T'ien-t'ai devoted himself to meditation and wisdom based on the Lotus Sutra, yet continued to employ the Hinayana precepts.
55. The ordination ceremony in which one receives the ten major precepts and forty-eight minor precepts, as set forth in the Brahma Net Sutra. This ordination ceremony was held at Takaosan-ji temple in 805 for eight priests including Dosho and Shuen.
56. Hui-tsung (1082-1135) and Ch'in-tsung (1100-1161) were the eighth and ninth emperors of the Northern Sung dynasty. The "northern barbarians" were Jurchen, a nomadic people of Manchuria, who established the Chin dynasty in northern China. They captured the Sung capital of K'ai-feng in 1126.
57. Kao-tsung (1107-1187) was the first emperor of the Southern Sung dynasty. Lin-an is the present-day city of Hangzhou.
58. This refers to the Mongol invasion of 1274.
59. Immeasurable Meanings Sutra.
60. Lotus Sutra, chap. 2.
61. On the Nirvana Sutra.
62. Dammira (Sanskrit unknown) was a king of Kashmir in India who destroyed the Buddhist temples and stupas in his kingdom. It is said that, when he killed the Buddhist teacher Aryasimha, he lost his right arm and died seven days later.
63. Fa-tao (1086-1147) was a priest of Sung China. When Emperor Hui-tsung, a Taoist follower, acted to suppress Buddhism, Fa-tao remonstrated with him but was branded on the face and exiled to Tao-chou. He was later pardoned, but Hui-tsung was captured by the invading Chin forces and taken to Manchuria, where he lived until his death in 1135.
64. The outermost of eight concentric circular mountain ranges said to surround Mount Sumeru. Here it is mentioned to suggest impregnability.
65. The Precious Key to the Secret Treasury.
66. Lotus Sutra, chap. 17.
67. Ibid., chap. 11.
68. Ibid., chap. 14.
69. Ibid., chap. 26.
70. Ibid., chap. 14.
71. The earthquake refers to that of the twenty-third day of the eighth month in 1257, and the comet, to a comet that appeared on the fifth day of the seventh month in 1264.

(to be continued)

ten mystic principles
[十妙] (Jpn.: ju-myo)

Ten principles set forth by T'ien-t'ai (538-597) in The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra interpreting the word myo of Myoho-renge-kyo, the title of the Lotus Sutra. According to T'ien-t'ai, the ten mystic principles are all implicit in the single word myo. There are two categories of ten mystic principles: the ten mystic principles of the theoretical teaching (first half ) of the Lotus Sutra, and the ten mystic principles of the essential teaching (latter half) of the sutra. In the descriptions below, the word mystic is a translation of myo.

The ten mystic principles of the theoretical teaching are based on the concepts of the true aspect of all phenomena and the replacement of the three vehicles with the one vehicle. They are (1) the mystic principle of reality, meaning that the objective reality observed and illuminated by wisdom is mystic; (2) the mystic principle of wisdom, that the wisdom with which one understands this reality is mystic; (3) the mystic principle of practice, that practice based on mystic wisdom is mystic; (4) the mystic principle of stages (which are attained through practice), that the stages leading to enlightenment are mystic; (5) the mystic principle of the three elements, that objective reality or truth, subjective wisdom, and the behavior arising from the fusion of these two, are mystic; (6) the mystic principle of responsive communion, meaning that the Buddha appearing in order to respond to the people's desire to seek him is mystic; (7) the mystic principle of transcendental power, that the supernatural powers the Buddha uses to reveal the truth are mystic; (8) the mystic principle of preaching, that the Buddha's preaching what is verbally inexpressible is mystic; (9) the mystic principle of relationship, that all people are related to the Buddha is mystic; and (10) the mystic principle of merit and benefit, that people who received the seeds of Buddhahood major world system dust particle kalpas ago finally attain the truth through the process of maturing is mystic.

The ten mystic principles of the essential teaching are based on the revelation of the Buddha's original enlightenment countless kalpas in the past as expounded in the "Life Span" (sixteenth) chapter. The ten mystic principles of the theoretical teaching are preparatory to the ten mystic principles of the essential teaching. Because the Buddha who revealed his original enlightenment in the remote past is called the true Buddha, each of the mystic principles of the essential teaching are modified by the word "true." They are the mystic principles of (1) true cause, meaning that the practices of the true Buddha are mystic; (2) true effect, that the merits and virtues attained by the true Buddha are mystic; (3) true land, that the land where the true Buddha dwells is mystic; (4) true responsive communion, that the true Buddha appearing in response to the people's desire to seek him is mystic; (5) true transcendental power, that the supernatural powers the true Buddha displays when he preaches are mystic; (6) true preaching, that the true Buddha's preaching in the remote past is mystic; (7) true relationship, that the people who formed connections to the true Buddha in the remote past are mystic; (8) true nirvana, that the true Buddha's nirvana is not an expedient means but eternal and inherent, and therefore is mystic; (9) true life span, meaning that, though the true Buddha's life span is eternal, his repeatedly being reborn as an ordinary mortal with a life span he desires is mystic; and (10) true benefit, that the benefit the true Buddha bestows upon the people in the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light is mystic.

From source: The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism

do you have to be a vegetarian do get into the higher worlds of buddhahood?
nammyohorengekyo

All I can say to that is from personal experience. I have been to huge banquets which Daisaku Ikeda attended. Steak was the main couse. I have also been served sushi at such events. I am pretty sure that chicken has been a part of those menus as well.

Nichiren Shoshu priests (which, remember, the SGI is no longer afffiliated with) ARE NOT vegetarians. I have friends that chant that are, that say their daimoku affected a conciousness that eating the flesh of other life forms was not a good thing to do. Nichiren Daishonin never thanks anyone for hams or sausages or jerky, in any of his letters. I believe that he was a vegetarian, but that is an assumption.

Vegetarianism is more prevalent, in my experience, in Hinayana schools which are more prone to exist in India. Almost everyone in India is a vegetarian anyway, so to not have a precept towards vegetarianism would be not be looked upon as a good thing.

So ultimately, in my experience it is a very personal decision that one makes for themself. But in answer to your specific question, like I said, Daisaku Ikeda was there. One does not get into much higher worlds than those that he is in. He is a true Votary of the Lotus Sutra and so therefore, I would say that frankly, vegetarianism has nothing to do with enlightenment.

I eat meat.

Thomas

Reference to being a vegetarian

Reference to being a vegetarian

The Two Kinds of Illness
BACKGROUND:

Nichiren Daishonin wrote this letter from Mount Minobu to Shijo Kingo in Kamakura on June 26, 1278, when he was fifty-seven. Shijo Kingo was a devout follower of the Daishonin and a samurai who served the Ema family, a branch of the Hojo clan. He was well versed in both the practice of medicine and the martial arts. This letter conveys the Daishonin's appreciation for the medicine that Shijo Kingo had prescribed and sent to him, along with other offerings. Its content closely resembles that of another Gosho, "The Treatment of Illness," written to Toki Jonin on the same date. The opening passage, in fact, is virtually identical to one appearing in "The Treatment of Illness."

The Daishonin's life at Minobu was by no means easy. Winters were bitterly cold, and his shelter was inadequate. Food was another problem. Following the custom of Buddhist monks in those days, the Daishonin abstained from eating fish and meat, and the food provided by his disciples and believers did not provide all the nutrition he needed. In addition, for nearly the entire first half of 1278, he suffered from debilitating and chronic diarrhea. He says in a letter addressed to Shijo Kingo in October 1278: "I, Nichiren, am not as healthy as others, and in addition, I dwell in this remote mountain forest. This year was especially difficult, with widespread epidemics and famine in spring and summer, which worsened in autumn and winter. My sickness grew worse again, too, but you prescribed various medicines and sent them to me along with quilted silk clothes. Thanks to your remedies, I improved steadily; I have now recovered and feel much better than before" (The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. 1, p. 225).

In this letter, Nichiren Daishonin refers to two kinds of illness: illness of the body, which arises primarily from physical causes, and illness of the mind, which arises from delusion and earthly desire. He explains that illness of the body can be cured by sufficiently skilled physicians but illness of the mind cannot; only Buddhism provides a remedy for such disorders. He also attributes the epidemics then ravaging Japan to slander of the Lotus Sutra. Neither Hinayana nor provisional Mahayana teachings will be able to stem them, he says. Faith in the Lotus Sutra alone will eradicate the people's slander and remove their suffering.

Nam myoho renge kyo

Nam myoho renge kyo

SGI President Ikeda's Daily Encouragement for January 7
--------------------------------------------------------------

When we plant the seed of happiness that is faith and carefully tend its growth, it will produce fruit without fail. We have to bear in mind, however, that we cannot plant a seed today and expect it to bear fruit tomorrow. That's not reasonable and Buddhism is reason. If we persevere in the practice of "faith equals daily life" in accord with reason, then our prayers will definitely be answered. This is Nichiren Daishonin's promise to us. And his words are true beyond any doubt.

Nam myoho renge kyo !!

"This I will state. Let the gods forsake me. Let all persecutions assail me. Still I will give my life for the sake of the Law."

(The Opening of the Eyes - The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, page 280) Selection source: For Young Men's Division January study meeting, Seikyo Shimbun, January 6th, 2006

Who Is a Buddha?

Who Is a Buddha?

To many, the image conjured up by the word Buddha is of an otherworldly being, calmly remote from the matters of this world. Through meditation he has attained the state of "nirvana" which will enable him to escape this world and its constant sufferings--the fruit of human delusion and desire.

However, this image does not reflect the truth about the life of Shakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism who lived in India around 2,500 years ago. He was a deeply compassionate man who rejected the extremes of both asceticism and attachment, who was constantly interacting with others and wanted all people to share the truth he had discovered.

The literal meaning of Buddha is "enlightened one." Enlightenment is a fully awakened state of vast wisdom through which reality in all its complexity can be fully understood and enjoyed. Any human being who is awakened to the fundamental truth about life can be called a Buddha.

However, many schools of Buddhism have taught that enlightenment is only accessible after an arduous process undertaken over unimaginably long periods of time--over many lifetimes, in fact. In dramatic contrast, what is considered Shakyamuni's last and highest teaching, the Lotus Sutra, explains that Buddhahood is already present in all life. It teaches absolute equality and emphasizes that even within the life of a person apparently dominated by evil, there exists the unpolished jewel of the Buddha nature. No one else gives it to us or judges whether we "deserve" it.

As with gold hidden in a dirty bag, or lotus flowers emerging from a muddy pond, we have first to believe our Buddha nature is there, then awaken and develop or "polish" it. In Nichiren Buddhism this can be done through devotion to the law contained in the Lotus Sutra and the chanting of the phrase "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo."

But Buddhahood is not a static condition or a state in which one can rest complacently. Rather, it is a dynamic experience and a journey of continual development and discovery.

When we continually reinforce the Buddhahood in our lives, we come to be ruled less and less by selfishness (or greed), anger and foolishness--what Buddhism terms the three poisons. As we fuse our lives with the enlightened life of the Buddha, we can tap the potential within us and change ourselves in a fundamental way.

As this inner state of Buddhahood is strengthened, we also develop a fortitude which enables us to ride even the wildest storms. If we are enlightened to the true, unchanging nature of life, we can joyfully surf the waves of difficulty which wash against us in life, creating something of value out of any situation. In this way our "true self" blossoms, and we find vast reserves of courage, compassion, wisdom and energy or life-force inside us. We find ourselves becoming more active and feeling deep inner freedom. And as we experience a growing sense of oneness with the universe, the isolation and alienation that cause so much suffering evaporate. We lessen our attachment to our smaller egotistical self, to difference, and become aware instead of the interconnectedness of all life. Gradually we find our lives opening up to those of others, desiring their happiness as much as our own.

However, while it is easy to believe that we all possess the lower life-states outlined in Buddhist teachings (hell, hunger, animality, anger and so on), believing that we possess Buddhahood is much more difficult. But the struggle to develop and constantly strengthen this state within our lives is well worthwhile.

For, in the words of Daisaku Ikeda, "[Buddhahood] is the joy of joys. Birth, old age, illness and death are no longer suffering, but part of the joy of living. The light of wisdom illuminates the entire universe, casting back the innate darkness of life. The life-space of the Buddha becomes united and fused with the universe. The self becomes the cosmos, and in a single instant the life-flow stretches out to encompass all that is past and all that is future. In each moment of the present, the eternal life-force of the cosmos pours forth as a gigantic fountain of energy."

(from: http://www.sgi.org/english/Buddhism/more/more15.htm )

The Selection of the Time / WND pg. 538 (continued)

The Selection of the Time / WND pg. 538 (continued)

Question: During the Former Day of the Law, the capacities of the people may have been somewhat inferior to those of the people who lived when the Buddha was in the world. And yet they were surely much superior to those of the people in the Middle and Latter Days of the Law. How then can you say that in the early years of the Former Day of the Law the Lotus Sutra was ignored? It was during the thousand years of the Former Day of the Law that such men as Ashvaghosha, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, and Asanga appeared. Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, who is known as the scholar of a thousand works, wrote The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra, in which he declared that the Lotus is first among all the sutras. The Tripitaka Master Paramartha, in describing the transmission of the Lotus Sutra, says that in India there were more than fifty scholars who spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, and that Vasubandhu was one of them. Such was the situation in the Former Day of the Law.

Turning to the Middle Day of the Law that followed, we find that the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai appeared in China around the middle of the period and completed The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, and Great Concentration and Insight in thirty volumes, in which he explored all the depths of meaning in the Lotus Sutra. At the end of the Middle Day of the Law, the Great Teacher Dengyo appeared in Japan. He not only transmitted to our country the two doctrines of perfect wisdom and perfect meditation expounded by the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai, but also established a great ordination platform of the perfect and immediate enlightenment on Mount Hiei. Thus the perfect precepts were acknowledged throughout Japan, and everyone from the ruler on down to the common people looked up to Enryaku-ji temple on Mount Hiei as their guide and teacher. How then can you say that in the Middle Day of the Law the teachings of the Lotus Sutra were not widely disseminated and spread abroad?

Answer: It is a commonly accepted assertion among the scholars of our times that the Thus Come One invariably preached his teachings in accordance with the capacities of his listeners. But in fact this is not how the Buddha truly taught. If it were true that the greatest doctrines were always preached for the persons with the most superior capacities and understanding, then why, when the Buddha first achieved enlightenment, did he not preach the Lotus Sutra? Why, during the first five hundred years of the Former Day of the Law, were the teachings of the Mahayana sutras not spread abroad? And if it were true that the finest doctrines are revealed to those who have a particular connection with the Buddha, then why did Shakyamuni Buddha preach the Meditation on the Buddha Sutra for his father, King Shuddhodana, and the Maya Sutra for his mother, Lady Maya, [rather than the Lotus Sutra]? And if the reverse were true, namely, that secret doctrines should never be revealed to evil people having no connection with the Buddha or to slanderers of Buddhism, then why did the monk Realization of Virtue teach the Nirvana Sutra to all the countless monks who were guilty of breaking the precepts? Or why did Bodhisattva Never Disparaging address the four kinds of believers, who were slanderers of the Law, and propagate to them the teachings of the Lotus Sutra?

Thus we can see that it is a great mistake to assert that the teachings are invariably expounded according to the listeners' capacities.

Question: Do you mean to say that Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, and the others did not teach the true meaning of the Lotus Sutra?

Answer: That is correct. They did not teach it.

Question: Then what doctrines did they teach?

Answer: They taught the doctrines of provisional Mahayana, the various exoteric and esoteric teachings such as the Flower Garland, Correct and Equal, Wisdom, and Mahavairochana sutras, but they did not teach the doctrines of the Lotus Sutra.

Question: How do you know that this is so?

Answer: The treatises written by Bodhisattva Nagarjuna run to some three hundred thousand verses. Not all of them have been transmitted to China and Japan, so it is difficult to make statements about their true nature. However, examining the ones that have been transmitted to China such as Commentary on the Ten Stages Sutra, The Treatise on the Middle Way, and The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, we may surmise that the treatises remaining in India are of a similar nature.

Question: Among the treatises remaining in India, are there any that are superior to the ones transmitted to China?

Answer: There is no need for me to make pronouncements of my own on the subject of Bodhisattva Nagarjuna. For the Buddha himself predicted that after he had passed away a man called Bodhisattva Nagarjuna would appear in southern India, and that his most important teachings would be found in a (72) work called Treatise on the Middle Way.

Such was the Buddha's prediction. Accordingly, we find that there were seventy scholars in India who followed in the wake of Nagarjuna, all of them major scholars. And all of these seventy scholars took Treatise on the Middle Way as the basis of their teachings. Treatise on the Middle Way is a work in four volumes and twenty-seven chapters, and the core of its teachings is expressed in (73) a four-phrase verse that describes the nature of phenomena arising from dependent origination. This four-phrase verse sums up the four teachings and three truths contained in the Flower Garland, Wisdom, and other sutras. It does not express the three truths as revealed and unified in the Lotus Sutra.

Question: Is there anyone else who thinks the way you do in this matter?

Answer: T'ien-t'ai says, "Do not presume to compare Treatise on the Middle Way [to the teachings of the (74) Lotus Sutra]." And elsewhere he says, "Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna clearly perceived the truth in their hearts, but they did not teach it. Instead, they employed the provisional Mahayana teachings (75), which were suited to the times." Miao-lo remarks, "For demolishing false opinions and establishing the truth, nothing can compare to the Lotus Sutra." (76) And Ts'ung-i states, "Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu cannot compare with (77) T'ien-t'ai."


Notes:

72. The appearance of Nagarjuna after Shakyamuni's death is predicted in the Maya Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra.
73. The four-phrase verse referred to is: "We speak of all things as 'empty' / which are dependent in origination. / They are no more than 'existence in name only.' / This is the Middle Way."
74. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra.
75. Great Concentration and Insight.
76. The Annotations on "The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra."
77. A passage to this effect appears in The Supplement to T'ien-t'ai's Three Major Works by a Sung T'ien-t'ai scholar Ts'ung-i, though the exact quotation has not been found.

(to be continued)

Dependent Origination

Dependent Origination

Buddhism teaches that all life is interrelated. Through the concept of "dependent origination," it holds that nothing exists in isolation, independent of other life. The Japanese term for dependent origination is engi, literally "arising in relation." In other words, all beings and phenomena exist or occur only because of their relationship with other beings or phenomena. Everything in the world comes into existence in response to causes and conditions. Nothing can exist in absolute independence of other things or arise of its own accord.

Shakyamuni used the image of two bundles of reeds leaning against each other to explain dependent origination. He described how the two bundles of reeds can remain standing as long as they lean against each other. In the same way, because this exists, that exists, and because that exists, this exists. If one of the two bundles is removed, then the other will fall. Similarly, without this existence, that cannot exist, and without that existence, this cannot exist.

More specifically, Buddhism teaches that our lives are constantly developing in a dynamic way, in a synergy of the internal causes within our own life (our personality, experiences, outlook on life and so on) and the external conditions and relations around us. Each individual existence contributes to creating the environment which sustains all other existences. All things, mutually supportive and related, form a living cosmos, a single living whole.

When we realize the extent of the myriad interconnections which link us to all other life, we realize that our existence only becomes meaningful through interaction with, and in relation to, others. By engaging ourselves with others, our identity is developed, established and enhanced. We then understand that it is impossible to build our own happiness on the unhappiness of others. We also see that our constructive actions affect the world around us. And, as Nichiren wrote, "If you light a lamp for another, your own way will be lit."

There is an intimate mutual interconnection in the web of nature, in the relationship between humankind and its environment--and also between the individual and society, parents and children, husband and wife.

If as individuals we can embrace the view that "because of that, this exists," or, in other words, "because of that person, I can develop," then we need never experience pointless conflicts in human relations. In the case of a young married woman, for instance, her present existence is in relation to her husband and mother-in-law, regardless of what sort of people they may be. Someone who realizes this can turn everything, both good and bad, into an impetus for personal growth.

Buddhism teaches that we "choose" the family and circumstances into which we are born in order to learn and grow and to be able to fulfill our unique role and respective mission in life.

On a deeper level, we are connected and related not just to those physically close to us, but to every living being. If we can realize this, feelings of loneliness and isolation, which cause so much suffering, begin to vanish, as we realize that we are part of a dynamic, mutually interconnected whole.

As Daisaku Ikeda has written, an understanding of the interconnectedness of all life can lead to a more peaceful world:

"We're all human beings who, through some mystic bond, were born to share the same limited life span on this planet, a small green oasis in the vast universe. Why do we quarrel and victimize one another? If we could all keep the image of the vast heavens in mind, I believe that it would go a long way toward resolving conflicts and disputes. If our eyes are fixed on eternity, we come to realize that the conflicts of our little egos are really sad and unimportant."

(from: http://www.sgi.org/english/Buddhism/more/more11.htm )

"Single-mindedly chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and urge others to do the same; that will remain as the only memory of your present life in this human world."

(Questions and Answers about Embracing the Lotus Sutra - The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, page 64) Selection source: SGI President Ikeda's speech, Seikyo Shimbun, January 9th, 2006

it becomes increasingly difficult for me to 'unlearn' so much...

not that i have been religious in the past, but it is difficult...

i like the inter-connection/symbiosis, though...every action has its' own consequences, or benefits...

my closest chapter is hundreds of miles away...i will continue to read here, and have an open mind.

thank you.

The reason is innately we all have a Buddha Nature waiting to become manifest

The reason is innately we all have a Buddha Nature waiting to become manifest

Is morality God-given or simply human intuition?

It's not blasphemous to believe the ability to tell right from wrong is the result of the millions of years our ancestors lived as social mammals, some academics say

By Marc Hauser and Peter Singer

Tuesday, Jan 10, 2006, Page 9

`Non-believers often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, and have worked to abolish slavery and contributed to other efforts to alleviate human suffering.'



Is religion necessary for morality? Many people consider it outrageous, perhaps even blasphemous, to deny the divine origin of morality. Either some divine being crafted our moral sense, or we picked it up from the teachings of organized religion. Either way, we need religion to curb nature's vices. Paraphrasing Katherine Hepburn in the movie The African Queen, religion allows us to rise above wicked old Mother Nature, handing us a moral compass.

Yet problems abound for the view that morality comes from God. One problem is that we cannot, without lapsing into tautology, simultaneously say that God is good, and that he gave us our sense of good and bad. For then we are simply saying that God meets God's standards.

A second problem is that there are no moral principles that are shared by all religious people, regardless of their specific beliefs, but by no agnostics and atheists. Indeed, atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts rest on different principles. Non-believers often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, and have worked to abolish slavery and contributed to other efforts to alleviate human suffering.

The opposite is also true. Religion has led people to commit a long litany of horrendous crimes, from God's command to Moses to slaughter the Midianites -- men, women, boys, and non-virginal girls -- through the Crusades, the Inquisition, innumerable conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and suicide bombers convinced that martyrdom will lead them straight to paradise.

The third difficulty for the view that morality is rooted in religion is that some elements of morality seem to be universal, despite sharp doctrinal differences among the world's major religions. In fact, these elements extend even to cultures like China, where religion is less significant than philosophical outlooks like Confucianism.

Perhaps a divine creator handed us these universal elements at the moment of creation. But an alternative explanation, consistent with the facts of biology and geology, is that over millions of years we have evolved a moral faculty that generates intuitions about right and wrong.

For the first time, research in the cognitive sciences, building on theoretical arguments emerging from moral philosophy, has made it possible to resolve the ancient dispute about the origin and nature of morality.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank space with "obligatory," "permissible," or "forbidden."

1. A runaway boxcar is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the boxcar onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ______.

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond, and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical condition, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital, but there is a healthy person in the hospital's waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person's organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person's organs is _______.

If you judged case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then you are like the 1,500 subjects around the world who responded to these dilemmas on a Web-based moral sense test (www.moral.wjh.harvard.edu). If morality is God's word, atheists should judge these cases differently from religious people, and their responses should rely on different types of justification.

For example, because atheists supposedly lack a moral compass, they should be guided by pure self-interest and walk by the drowning child. But there were no statistically significant differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with approximately 90 percent of subjects saying that it is permissible to flip the switch on the boxcar, 97 percent saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby, and 97 percent saying that is forbidden to remove the healthy man's organs.

When asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others forbidden, subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that cannot account for the relevant differences. Importantly, those with a religious background are as clueless or incoherent as atheists.

These studies provide empirical support for the idea that, like other psychological faculties of the mind, including language and mathematics, we are all endowed with a moral faculty that guides our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. These intuitions reflect the outcome of millions of years in which our ancestors have lived as social mammals, and are part of our common inheritance.

Our evolved intuitions do not necessarily give us the correct or consistent answers to moral dilemmas. What was good for our ancestors may not be good today. But insights into the changing moral landscape, in which issues like animal rights, abortion, euthanasia and international aid have come to the fore, have not come from religion, but from careful reflection on humanity and what we consider a life well lived.

In this respect, it is important for us to be aware of the universal set of moral intuitions so that we can reflect on them and, if we choose, act contrary to them. We can do this without blasphemy, because it is our own nature, not God, that is the source of our morality.


Marc Hauser is professor of psychology and director of the Primate Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory at Harvard University. Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

from: Project Syndicate

Nam myoho renge kyo !!

When we revere Myoho-renge-kyo inherent in our own life as the object
of devotion, the Buddha nature within us is summoned forth and
manifested by our chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. This is what is
meant by "Buddha." To illustrate, when a caged bird sings, birds who
are flying in the sky are thereby summoned and gather around, and when
the birds flying in sky gather around, the bird in the cage strives to
get out. When with our mouths we chant the Mystic Law, our Buddha
nature, being summoned, will invariably emerge.

(WND, 887)
How Those Initially Aspiring to the Way Can Attain Buddhahood through
the Lotus Sutra
Written to the lay nun Myoho in 1277

Buddha nature
[仏性] (Jpn.: bussho; Skt.: buddha-dhatu or buddha-gotra)

The internal cause or potential for attaining Buddhahood. The Sanskrit word dhatu means root, base, foundation, ground, or cause, and gotra means family, lineage, basis, source, cause, or seed. Mahayana Buddhism generally holds that all people possess the innate Buddha nature, though its existence is obscured by illusions and evil karma. The Nirvana Sutra is especially famous for the phrase "All living beings alike possess the Buddha nature."

The history of Buddhism has witnessed doctrinal arguments concerning the Buddha nature, especially with regard to whether all people possess it. The Dharma Characteristics (Chin Fa-hsiang; Jpn Hosso) school, for instance, teaches the doctrine of the five natures, which classifies all people into five groups by their inborn capacities: those destined to be bodhisattvas, those destined as cause-awakened ones, those destined as voice-hearers, an indeterminate group, and those who can neither become bodhisattvas nor attain the enlightenment of voice-hearers or cause-awakened ones. Of these, only those destined to be bodhisattvas and some among the indeterminate group can attain Buddhahood. In contrast, the T'ien-t'ai (Chin; Jpn Tendai) school, which is based on the Lotus Sutra, holds that all people are endowed with the three inherent potentials of the Buddha nature -the innate Buddha nature, the wisdom to perceive it, and the deeds to develop it -and therefore can attain enlightenment.


Buddha wisdom
[仏智] (Jpn.: butchi)

The supreme wisdom of a Buddha that penetrates the true aspect of all phenomena. The "Expedient Means" (second) chapter of the Lotus Sutra states: "The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable. The door to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it." The "Simile and Parable" (third) chapter of the sutra explains that even Shariputra, who was known as foremost in wisdom among all Shakyamuni's disciples, could attain enlightenment only by taking faith in the Buddha's teachings. That is, it attributes Shariputra's enlightenment not to his wisdom but to his faith. The Lotus Sutra makes clear that all human beings have Buddha wisdom as a potential, and that only faith in the sutra can bring it forth. Concerning the relationship between faith and wisdom, Nichiren (1222-1282) set forth the principle of substituting faith for wisdom in On the Four Stages of Faith and the Five Stages of Practice. Here, wisdom indicates the Buddha wisdom that is beyond ordinary understanding. This principle means that through faith one can gain the Buddha wisdom and attain enlightenment.


Buddha eye
[仏眼] (Jpn.: butsu-gen)

The supreme perceptive faculty possessed by a Buddha. One of the five types of vision. A Buddha is said to perceive the true nature of all things and phenomena, transcending limitations of time and space. The Nirvana Sutra says, "Those who study the teachings of the great vehicle, though they have the eyes of ordinary beings, are said to have the eyes of the Buddha."

From source: The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism

The Selection of the Time / WND pg. 538 (continued)

The Selection of the Time / WND pg. 538 (continued)

Question: In the latter part of the T'ang dynasty, the Tripitaka Master Pu-k'ung introduced to China a treatise in one volume entitled The Treatise on the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment, whose authorship he ascribed to Bodhisattva Nagarjuna. The Great Teacher Kobo says of it, "This treatise represents the heart and core of all the thousand (78) treatises of Nagarjuna." What is your opinion on this?

Answer: This treatise consists of seven leaves. There are numerous places in it that could not be the words of Nagarjuna. Therefore, in the catalog of Buddhist texts it is sometimes listed as a work of Nagarjuna and sometimes as a work of Pu-k'ung. The matter of its authorship has never been resolved. In addition, it is not a summation of the lifetime teachings of the Buddha and contains many loose statements. To begin with, a vital passage, the one asserting that "only in the True Word teachings [can one attain Buddhahood in one's present form]," is in error, since it denies the fact that the Lotus Sutra enables one to attain Buddhahood in one's present form, a fact well attested by both scriptural passages and (79) actual events. Instead it asserts that the True Word sutras enable one to attain Buddhahood in one's present form, an assertion for which there is not the slightest proof in scriptural passages or actual events. That one word "only" in the assertion that "only in the True Word teachings [can one attain Buddhahood in one's present form]" is the greatest error of all.

In view of the facts, it seems likely that the work was written by Pu-k'ung himself who, in order to ensure that the people of the time would regard it with sufficient gravity, attributed it to Nagarjuna.

Pu-k'ung makes a number of other errors as well. Thus, in his translation The Rules of Rituals Based on the Lotus Sutra, which deals with the Lotus Sutra, he defines the Buddha of the "Life Span" chapter as the Buddha Amida, an obvious and glaring mistake. He also claims that the "Dharani" chapter of the Lotus Sutra should follow immediately after the "Supernatural Powers" chapter and that the "Entrustment" chapter should come at the very end, views that are not even worth discussing.

That is not all. He stole the Mahayana precepts from the T'ien-t'ai school and, obtaining support in the form of a command from Emperor Tai-tsung, established them in the five temples on Mount Wu-t'ai. And he decreed that the classification of doctrinal tenets used by the T'ien-t'ai school should be adopted for the True Word school as well. On the whole, he did many things to confuse and mislead the world. It is acceptable to use translations of sacred texts by other persons, but translations of sutras or treatises from the hand of Pu-k'ung are not to be trusted.

When both old and new translations (80) are taken into consideration, we find that there are 186 persons who have brought sutras and treatises from India and introduced them to China in translation. With the exception of one man, the Tripitaka Master Kumarajiva, all of these translators have made errors of some kind. But among them, Pu-k'ung is remarkable for the large number of his errors. It is clear that he deliberately set out to confuse and mislead others.

Question: How do you know that the translators other than Kumarajiva made errors? Do you mean not only to destroy the Zen, Nembutsu, True Word, and the others of the seven major schools, but to discredit all the works of the translators that have been introduced to China and Japan?

Answer: This is a highly confidential matter, and I should discuss it in detail only when I am face to face with the inquirer. However, I will make a few comments here. Kumarajiva himself said: "When I examine the various sutras in use in China, I find that all of them differ from the Sanskrit originals. How can I make people understand this? I have only one great wish. My body is unclean, for I have taken a wife. But my tongue alone is pure and could never speak false words concerning the teachings of Buddhism. After I die, make certain that I am cremated. If at that time my tongue is consumed by the flames, then you may discard all the sutras that I have translated." Such were the words that he spoke again and again from his lecture platform. As a result, everyone from the ruler on down to the common people hoped they would not die before Kumarajiva [so that they might see what happened].

Eventually Kumarajiva died and was cremated, and his impure body was completely reduced to ashes. Only his tongue remained, resting atop a blue lotus that had sprung up in the midst of the flames. It sent out shining rays of five-colored light that made the night as bright as day and in the daytime out-shone the rays of the sun. This, then, is why the sutras translated by all the other scholars came to be held in little esteem, while those translated by Kumarajiva, particularly his translation of the Lotus Sutra, spread rapidly (81) throughout China.

Question: That tells us about the translators who lived at the time of Kumarajiva or before. But what about later translators such as Shan-wu-wei or Pu-k'ung?

Answer: Even in the case of translators who lived after Kumarajiva, if their tongues burned up when they were cremated, it means that there are errors in their work. The Dharma Characteristics school in earlier times enjoyed a great popularity in Japan. But the Great Teacher Dengyo attacked it, pointing out that, though the tongue of Kumarajiva was not consumed by the flames, those of Hsüan-tsang and Tz'u-en burned along with their bodies. Emperor Kammu, impressed by his argument, transferred his allegiance to the Tendai Lotus school.

In the third and ninth volumes of the Nirvana Sutra, we find the Buddha predicting that when his teachings are transmitted from India to other countries many errors will be introduced into them, and the chances for people to gain enlightenment through them will be reduced. Therefore, the Great Teacher Miao-lo remarks: "Whether or not the teachings are grasped correctly depends upon the persons who transmit them. It is not determined by the (82) sage's original pronouncements."

He is saying that no matter how the people of today may follow the teachings of the sutras in hopes of a better life in the hereafter, if the sutras they follow are in error, then they can never attain enlightenment. But that is not to be attributed to any fault of the Buddha.

In studying the teachings of Buddhism, apart from the distinctions between Hinayana and Mahayana, provisional and true, and exoteric and esoteric teachings, this question of the reliability of the sutra translation is the most important of all.


Notes:

78. A Comparison of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism.
79. "Actual events" refers to events mentioned in the Lotus Sutra. For example, in chapter 3, the Buddha predicted that Shariputra would in the future attain enlightenment as a Buddha called Flower Glow. Chapter 12 depicts the attainment of Buddhahood by the dragon king's daughter and predicts the future enlightenment of an evil person, Devadatta.
80. The translations made before Hsüan-tsang (602-664) are called "old translations." His and subsequent translations are known as "new translations."
81. The Liang Dynasty Biographies of Eminent Priests.
82. On "The Words and Phrases." "The sage" referred to here is Vasubandhu. Miao-lo attributed an error in Vasubandhu's commentary on the Lotus Sutra, The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra, to the translator. In this context, the Daishonin employs Miao-lo's statement to indicate the Buddha. Thus, he says in the following paragraph, "that is not to be attributed to any fault of the Buddha."

(to be continued)

I saw a really good movie i think you guys would be interested in, its called I <3 huckabees it has alot to do with dismantling reality as a form of self therapy (sound farmiliar?) well enjoy
-always