I hereby declare the creation of a virtual samgha, calling it The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus. The name "Lotus" highlights my insistence that the foundation of this samgha is to be the Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras. These are known as the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and the Sutra on how to practice meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy. All three sutras have been collectively known for centuries as the threefold Lotus Sutra.
Who am I to insist on anything? I'm just a guy who, like millions of other people, decided to set up a blog. Anyone reading this who decides he doesn't like basing a samgha on the Lotus Sutra is free to ignore me or to set up a samgha based on his own guiding principles. I merely want to present an option for Buddhists who aren't comfortable with their own brick-and-mortar sects; that's my primary purpose.
As for the practices to be followed by self-declared members of this virtual samgha, I will only offer my opinion: The most profound and basic set of practices should be to read, recite, ponder, and teach to others the Lotus Sutra, as is written in the Lotus itself. All other practices will arise from your own mind as a result of having immersed yourself in this basic set of practices. Even though I've recited the Lotus Sutra over 140 times, it was only recently that it occurred to me that my own personal practice never had a meditation component. But I know that such a component is so vital, that I've started incorporating that into my practice.
As to who I am, I am Steven Searle, a retired state of Illinois civil servant who has been battling Stage IV liver cancer for almost a year. My oncologist predicted, at first, that I would have between 5 to 8 months to live. Well, I'm still here. Though my cancer is still with me, I'm not in any immediate danger. In fact, my cancer has been significantly reduced due by chemotherapy and I'm enjoying a large measure of increased vitality. That doesn't mean I'm cured, though I am praying to completely eliminate it. Until that happens, though, I have decided to embrace my cancer as a Buddhist friend and learn from it as much as I can.
I am also entirely alone in my endeavor to create a virtual samgha. I don't have any help, nor am I seeking any. I don't intend to set up a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt church or even recruit any members. Anyone interesting in becoming part of this virtual samgha can do so by merely saying so in his heart; they surely don't have to let me know or declare their membership to anyone else. I am not interested in creating lists of members and, in fact, I encourage anonymity. These are dangerous times we live in. So even though I don't care if spy agencies choose to track my internet (and other) activities, I understand why other people might care about their own personal privacy issues.
One outstanding feature of this virtual samgha is the fact that I will never ask you for money. I don't even sell advertising on this website, since I don't believe people should profit from their religious activities. If donations were to appear magically on my doorstep, I would pass them on to my favorite charity - the United Negro College Fund. For the record, I am not black; I'm a caucasian who makes reparations payments to help atone for the USA's exploitation of slave labor. As I said, that's my favorite charity though I leave entirely to your own discretion how you might choose to engage in almsgiving.
This blogsite is the original home of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus - though, hopefully, this will not remain its only home. I hope other such sites might arise, though they won't be authorized by me nor will I ever assume the right to authorize anything. One of the virtues of a virtual samgha is, no one is in charge; there is no hierarchy. We're to be a community of equals. My own opinion is that Shakyamuni Buddha, through his use of expedient means, is in charge and will provide leadership in his own profound and subtle ways. For those who claim he's dead, I counterclaim that he merely gave the appearance of his death 2,500 years ago in India. I believe he's very much alive - and not just figuratively speaking - since the Lotus Sutra informs us:
"In order to save living beings, as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana but in truth I do not pass into extinction. I am always here, preaching the law. I am always here, but through my transcendental powers I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement do not see me even when close by." - as spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha in Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra - source: indicated in the next paragraph.
The version of the Lotus Sutra I primarily use is the Burton Watson translation published by the Soka Gakkai in 2009 which bears this title: The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras.
There are other versions of the Lotus Sutra, though I refuse to put myself in the role of declaring any particular version is the one to be followed. I am not a pope - just one among equals who strive to perfect their own following of the Way. I strongly encourage you to avoid teachers who claim that their interpretation of the Lotus Sutra should become the focus of your practice. Such interpretations might prove useful to you and, if you wish to also pursue these, you should. However, please don't allow any such interpretations to replace the Lotus Sutra.
I'm going to close now by apologizing for any imperfections in this post. I am interested in starting this samgha as soon as possible, so that makes this post important to me. Getting started is the hardest thing to do and the most easily procrastinated. If you wish to comment either on this website or via email to bpa_cinc@yahoo.com, I will be glad to read your words and answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
Steven Searle
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
TO: SGI (Part I)
Introduction
Today's post (see text below) is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International. Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. I call this post "Part I," fully expecting that I will post other parts - again, primarily directed to people familiar with the SGI.
This link will connect you to the homepage of this blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this site:
http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html
On August 7, I had a brief meeting with Ethan Gelbaum, Regional Director of SGI-USA who works out of the Chicago SGI Community Center, and his assistant Marty. During that meeting I asked, in words to this effect:
Paraphrase begins:
Since Nichiren claimed that chanting one daimoku is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once, why bother to do gongyo at all, since that consists of reciting only chapters 2 and 16 of the Lotus Sutra? The time spent chanting gongyo would be better spent chanting more daimoku, if indeed chanting one daimoku is equal to one reading of the entire Lotus Sutra.
:Paraphrase ends.
Ethan responded by saying, one purpose of chanting gongyo is to praise those chapters, which are considered in the SGI's view to be the essence of the 28-chapter Lotus Sutra. But another purpose is to refute those chapters, in favor of the superiority of the daimoku to which the Lotus Sutra must be considered secondary in importance. Besides, we follow the example of Nichiren who himself, on a daily basis, chanted daimoku (while stressing its superiority) and gongyo. We follow his example.
I didn't refute Ethan on the spot, since his response was something I didn't expect. The version I was familiar with, last heard by me maybe 10 years ago, is that chanting daimoku is the primary practice and chanting gongyo is the secondary practice. And each of these practices supports the other. I would like to know who came up with this revised answer (and when), which introduces praising and refuting. Obviously, the powers-that-be must have found the original version somehow unsatisfactory.
Ethan, as well as SGI, makes the mistake of considering the Lotus Sutra to be Shakyamuni's Buddhism. However, as the Lotus itself makes clear* - "Manjushri, this Lotus Sutra is foremost among all that is preached by the thus come ones. Among all that is preached it is the most profound." That means all Buddhas stand united behind the Lotus Sutra which declares that reciting the Lotus, and not just its title as reflected in the daimoku, is the more superior of these two practices. In fact, the Lotus doesn't mention the daimoku at all, though Nichiren believed it was implied in its text. For my taste, this implication is so subtle as to be unnoticeable, which is also true of Nichiren's claim that the Lotus's 16th chapter implies the validity of the gohonzon.
Think about what you're doing when you chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - you're repeating, over and over again, "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra." Nam means devotion, and Myoho Renge Kyo is the title of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese. Some people might quibble that nam doesn't mean "I devote myself to," that instead it simply means "devotion." However, if you're the one sitting in front of the gohonzon chanting copious amounts of daimoku, it stands to reason that, indeed, you are devoting yourself to the Lotus Sutra. Or at least you're devoting yourself to saying that you are.
By refusing to embrace the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra and by insisting instead that chanting daimoku is the equivalent of doing so, the SGI is in effect abandoning the Lotus Sutra. The daimoku by itself is meaningless if the SGI-supported translation of the daimoku's words is embraced without the context of the entire Lotus Sutra. If you look at the translation, after this paragraph, you'll see that the daimoku fails to make sense with the word myoho. What does the concept "mystic law" mean, without the Lotus which defines and makes clear the meaning of that law? The other three words of the daimoku make sense - everybody knows what is meant by devotion; and the concepts of "simultaneity of cause and effect" and "harmonious vibration" are quickly and easily learned. But the word myoho is where the daimoku fails due to being inherently vague, since it needs the Lotus Sutra's text to provide the critical context.
Nam means "devotion;"
Myoho means "mystic law;"
Renge means "simultaneity of cause and effect;"
Kyo means "sutra" or "harmonious sound."
When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant as praise for the Lotus Sutra (or, more specifically, to its 2nd and 16th chapters), wouldn't chanting daimoku only be sufficient praise? When you chant "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra"- again, that's one of the translations of the daimoku as explained above - aren't you already praising the Lotus? So why should an additional, different kind of praise be necessary? Especially since that "different kind" consists of chanting the 2nd and 16th chapters of the Lotus in ancient Chinese - which makes it incomprehensible to the modern chanter. How does chanting words you don't understand suffice as praise?
When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant to refute the Lotus Sutra as a provisional teaching which is inferior to the daimoku, what are we refuting? We are being asked to believe that the daimoku (promoted by Nichiren, who is not a Buddha as explained below) is superior to the Lotus Sutra (promoted by all the Buddhas of the universe). Such a belief is simply indefensible.
I will now cite two sources for my belief that Nichiren is not a Buddha, even though the SGI calls him the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law:
QUOTE:
ONE: "Why did I first begin to chant as I do? Bodhisattva Jogyo is the one destined to make his advent in this world to propagate the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. But before he had even appeared, I began, as though speaking in a dream, hardly knowing what I was doing, to chant the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, and so I chant them now. In the end, is this a good thing I do, or a bad thing? I do not know, nor can anyone else tell for certain." - Letter to Myomitsu Shonin.
The two areas I highlighted are hardly the words a Buddha would be speaking.
TWO: "...but since I am a common mortal, it is beyond my power to know the past. There is no doubt, however, that in my present life I am the votary of the Lotus Sutra, and that in the future I will therefore reach the seat of enlightenment without fail."
"I cannot hold back my tears when I think of the great persecution confronting me now, or when I think of the joy of attaining Buddhahood in the future."
These two quotes appear on page 386 of The True Aspect of All Phenomena and show that Nichiren, even after he started chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, had not yet attained Buddhahood. Instead, he speaks of doing so "in the future."
:UNQUOTE.
Ethan states that we should practice as Nichiren did (even though, as I pointed out, Nichiren is not a Budda). However, even if Nichiren himself said (which I doubt) that we should copy his practice, he might have only said so expecting us to refute him - or at least hoping we'd do so. This link to my essay "Why did the buddha lie to us?" explains the basis for any such hope Nichiren, in emulation of Shakyamuni Buddha, might have entertained:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html
I can think of a very practical reason why the practice of chanting gongyo is still embraced by the SGI. Simply put, new members are given something to do. If the only chanting practice consisted of daimoku, new members might get bored and quit the SGI. It is important to give a new member a challenging project such as learning how to chant a rapid and precise gongyo. That would appeal to their work ethic and become a source of pride after gongyo is mastered.
Over ten years ago, SGI realized that doing gongyo in its original format had proven to be burdensome to newer members. Especially considering that parts A and C were accompanied by a single recitation of part B in the morning - a very lengthy part B that consisted of the complete version of the 16th chapter, compared to part C which was only an abbreviated version. In the old days, we used to chant in the morning parts A and C four times and one more time including part B. In the evening, we chanted parts A and C three times.
These days, morning and evening gongyo consist of a single chanting of parts A and C, which is far more quickly done enabling members to chant more daimoku should they desire. Still, logically speaking, I find the SGI lacking in the courage of its convictions by not doing away with gongyo altogether. Since the chanting of one daimoku contains the entire Lotus Sutra - or so SGI claims - then clinging to the practice of gongyo is indefensible. Moreover, it becomes just one more attachment which, after all is said and done, should be eliminated as we proceed down the path of enlightenment.
Our one and only meeting (on Aug. 7) was brief, primarily concerning itself with whether Ethan would invoke his authority to bar me from ever again entering the SGI's Chicago Community Center. My sin? Having insisted that reciting the entire Lotus Sutra is a practice superior to chanting daimoku, since in the Lotus Sutra itself, the most profound teaching of all the Buddhas, is a statement defining the most ideal practice as consisting of "reading, reciting and pondering the Lotus Sutra and teaching it to the best of your ability."
My greater sin? While in the Community Center, expounding my belief to SGI members concerning the inferiority of chanting daimoku. On July 31, I met two SGI members so we could try the practice of reading aloud from the Lotus Sutra. Via a series of emails to these two members, we decided to take turns reading a brief section of our choosing followed by comments. Each was supposed to take 5 minutes or so for his turn, but I urged that we not do this in the Center itself. I suggested we sit in Joan's** car, parked in the SGI parking lot, and try this exercise there. I thought it prudent to avoid letting others overhear us while engaged in this unorthodox "chanting."
Unfortunately, I chose the wrong time to go to the men's room. Marty, an assistant of Ethan's who knew Joan**, struck up a conversation in my absence and she told him what we were up to. He said, "You don't have to sit in your car. Why don't you let me unlock one of our private conference rooms for you?" But this room access had a price. Marty and a Women's Division leader who unexpectedly appeared asked if they could sit in on our session. I thought the session was very successful but apparently one or both of these leaders reported us to Ethan. So when I showed up on August 7 in order to chant daimoku, without either of my two SGI friends present, Ethan and Marty were waiting for me.
I will write another post with more details concerning my meeting with Ethan and Marty. But for now, I'll close this post. I will also soon be writing about how former and current members of the SGI should go about setting up a virtual samgha.
More, later.
Steven Searle
clear* - The quote that follows clear* is from page 246 of the Burton Watson translation, published in 2009 by the SGI, of The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. It's in the Peaceful Practices chapter (ch 14) of the Lotus Sutra.
** I use the name Joan since I'm sure my SGI friend won't want her name made public on this blog.
Today's post (see text below) is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International. Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. I call this post "Part I," fully expecting that I will post other parts - again, primarily directed to people familiar with the SGI.
This link will connect you to the homepage of this blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this site:
http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html
SUBJECT: Why bother to do gongyo at all?
On August 7, I had a brief meeting with Ethan Gelbaum, Regional Director of SGI-USA who works out of the Chicago SGI Community Center, and his assistant Marty. During that meeting I asked, in words to this effect:
Paraphrase begins:
Since Nichiren claimed that chanting one daimoku is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once, why bother to do gongyo at all, since that consists of reciting only chapters 2 and 16 of the Lotus Sutra? The time spent chanting gongyo would be better spent chanting more daimoku, if indeed chanting one daimoku is equal to one reading of the entire Lotus Sutra.
:Paraphrase ends.
Ethan responded by saying, one purpose of chanting gongyo is to praise those chapters, which are considered in the SGI's view to be the essence of the 28-chapter Lotus Sutra. But another purpose is to refute those chapters, in favor of the superiority of the daimoku to which the Lotus Sutra must be considered secondary in importance. Besides, we follow the example of Nichiren who himself, on a daily basis, chanted daimoku (while stressing its superiority) and gongyo. We follow his example.
I didn't refute Ethan on the spot, since his response was something I didn't expect. The version I was familiar with, last heard by me maybe 10 years ago, is that chanting daimoku is the primary practice and chanting gongyo is the secondary practice. And each of these practices supports the other. I would like to know who came up with this revised answer (and when), which introduces praising and refuting. Obviously, the powers-that-be must have found the original version somehow unsatisfactory.
My refutation
Ethan, as well as SGI, makes the mistake of considering the Lotus Sutra to be Shakyamuni's Buddhism. However, as the Lotus itself makes clear* - "Manjushri, this Lotus Sutra is foremost among all that is preached by the thus come ones. Among all that is preached it is the most profound." That means all Buddhas stand united behind the Lotus Sutra which declares that reciting the Lotus, and not just its title as reflected in the daimoku, is the more superior of these two practices. In fact, the Lotus doesn't mention the daimoku at all, though Nichiren believed it was implied in its text. For my taste, this implication is so subtle as to be unnoticeable, which is also true of Nichiren's claim that the Lotus's 16th chapter implies the validity of the gohonzon.
Think about what you're doing when you chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - you're repeating, over and over again, "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra." Nam means devotion, and Myoho Renge Kyo is the title of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese. Some people might quibble that nam doesn't mean "I devote myself to," that instead it simply means "devotion." However, if you're the one sitting in front of the gohonzon chanting copious amounts of daimoku, it stands to reason that, indeed, you are devoting yourself to the Lotus Sutra. Or at least you're devoting yourself to saying that you are.
By refusing to embrace the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra and by insisting instead that chanting daimoku is the equivalent of doing so, the SGI is in effect abandoning the Lotus Sutra. The daimoku by itself is meaningless if the SGI-supported translation of the daimoku's words is embraced without the context of the entire Lotus Sutra. If you look at the translation, after this paragraph, you'll see that the daimoku fails to make sense with the word myoho. What does the concept "mystic law" mean, without the Lotus which defines and makes clear the meaning of that law? The other three words of the daimoku make sense - everybody knows what is meant by devotion; and the concepts of "simultaneity of cause and effect" and "harmonious vibration" are quickly and easily learned. But the word myoho is where the daimoku fails due to being inherently vague, since it needs the Lotus Sutra's text to provide the critical context.
Nam means "devotion;"
Myoho means "mystic law;"
Renge means "simultaneity of cause and effect;"
Kyo means "sutra" or "harmonious sound."
When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant as praise for the Lotus Sutra (or, more specifically, to its 2nd and 16th chapters), wouldn't chanting daimoku only be sufficient praise? When you chant "I devote myself to the Lotus Sutra"- again, that's one of the translations of the daimoku as explained above - aren't you already praising the Lotus? So why should an additional, different kind of praise be necessary? Especially since that "different kind" consists of chanting the 2nd and 16th chapters of the Lotus in ancient Chinese - which makes it incomprehensible to the modern chanter. How does chanting words you don't understand suffice as praise?
When Ethan claims that chanting gongyo is meant to refute the Lotus Sutra as a provisional teaching which is inferior to the daimoku, what are we refuting? We are being asked to believe that the daimoku (promoted by Nichiren, who is not a Buddha as explained below) is superior to the Lotus Sutra (promoted by all the Buddhas of the universe). Such a belief is simply indefensible.
I will now cite two sources for my belief that Nichiren is not a Buddha, even though the SGI calls him the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law:
QUOTE:
ONE: "Why did I first begin to chant as I do? Bodhisattva Jogyo is the one destined to make his advent in this world to propagate the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. But before he had even appeared, I began, as though speaking in a dream, hardly knowing what I was doing, to chant the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, and so I chant them now. In the end, is this a good thing I do, or a bad thing? I do not know, nor can anyone else tell for certain." - Letter to Myomitsu Shonin.
The two areas I highlighted are hardly the words a Buddha would be speaking.
TWO: "...but since I am a common mortal, it is beyond my power to know the past. There is no doubt, however, that in my present life I am the votary of the Lotus Sutra, and that in the future I will therefore reach the seat of enlightenment without fail."
"I cannot hold back my tears when I think of the great persecution confronting me now, or when I think of the joy of attaining Buddhahood in the future."
These two quotes appear on page 386 of The True Aspect of All Phenomena and show that Nichiren, even after he started chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, had not yet attained Buddhahood. Instead, he speaks of doing so "in the future."
:UNQUOTE.
Ethan states that we should practice as Nichiren did (even though, as I pointed out, Nichiren is not a Budda). However, even if Nichiren himself said (which I doubt) that we should copy his practice, he might have only said so expecting us to refute him - or at least hoping we'd do so. This link to my essay "Why did the buddha lie to us?" explains the basis for any such hope Nichiren, in emulation of Shakyamuni Buddha, might have entertained:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html
Why gongyo was shortened but not abandoned
I can think of a very practical reason why the practice of chanting gongyo is still embraced by the SGI. Simply put, new members are given something to do. If the only chanting practice consisted of daimoku, new members might get bored and quit the SGI. It is important to give a new member a challenging project such as learning how to chant a rapid and precise gongyo. That would appeal to their work ethic and become a source of pride after gongyo is mastered.
Over ten years ago, SGI realized that doing gongyo in its original format had proven to be burdensome to newer members. Especially considering that parts A and C were accompanied by a single recitation of part B in the morning - a very lengthy part B that consisted of the complete version of the 16th chapter, compared to part C which was only an abbreviated version. In the old days, we used to chant in the morning parts A and C four times and one more time including part B. In the evening, we chanted parts A and C three times.
These days, morning and evening gongyo consist of a single chanting of parts A and C, which is far more quickly done enabling members to chant more daimoku should they desire. Still, logically speaking, I find the SGI lacking in the courage of its convictions by not doing away with gongyo altogether. Since the chanting of one daimoku contains the entire Lotus Sutra - or so SGI claims - then clinging to the practice of gongyo is indefensible. Moreover, it becomes just one more attachment which, after all is said and done, should be eliminated as we proceed down the path of enlightenment.
More on my meeting with Ethan and Marty
Our one and only meeting (on Aug. 7) was brief, primarily concerning itself with whether Ethan would invoke his authority to bar me from ever again entering the SGI's Chicago Community Center. My sin? Having insisted that reciting the entire Lotus Sutra is a practice superior to chanting daimoku, since in the Lotus Sutra itself, the most profound teaching of all the Buddhas, is a statement defining the most ideal practice as consisting of "reading, reciting and pondering the Lotus Sutra and teaching it to the best of your ability."
My greater sin? While in the Community Center, expounding my belief to SGI members concerning the inferiority of chanting daimoku. On July 31, I met two SGI members so we could try the practice of reading aloud from the Lotus Sutra. Via a series of emails to these two members, we decided to take turns reading a brief section of our choosing followed by comments. Each was supposed to take 5 minutes or so for his turn, but I urged that we not do this in the Center itself. I suggested we sit in Joan's** car, parked in the SGI parking lot, and try this exercise there. I thought it prudent to avoid letting others overhear us while engaged in this unorthodox "chanting."
Unfortunately, I chose the wrong time to go to the men's room. Marty, an assistant of Ethan's who knew Joan**, struck up a conversation in my absence and she told him what we were up to. He said, "You don't have to sit in your car. Why don't you let me unlock one of our private conference rooms for you?" But this room access had a price. Marty and a Women's Division leader who unexpectedly appeared asked if they could sit in on our session. I thought the session was very successful but apparently one or both of these leaders reported us to Ethan. So when I showed up on August 7 in order to chant daimoku, without either of my two SGI friends present, Ethan and Marty were waiting for me.
I will write another post with more details concerning my meeting with Ethan and Marty. But for now, I'll close this post. I will also soon be writing about how former and current members of the SGI should go about setting up a virtual samgha.
More, later.
Steven Searle
NOTES
clear* - The quote that follows clear* is from page 246 of the Burton Watson translation, published in 2009 by the SGI, of The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. It's in the Peaceful Practices chapter (ch 14) of the Lotus Sutra.
** I use the name Joan since I'm sure my SGI friend won't want her name made public on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)