The Buddha ignores high tech

Thesis:

High tech gadgetry doesn't seem to matter to Buddhists. And for good reason.

A most curious matter:

My source for what follows is the highest of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings, The Lotus Sutra*. The Lotus is replete with references appropriate to ancient times, especially to a non-mechanized, agrarian society. I wondered, though, if the Lotus (which is supposed to be older than the known age of the universe) has any references to high tech. Since it speaks of other countries far beyond earth having existed for millions of years, it would seem to make sense that these lands had at least acquired our level of machination.

Yet the Lotus says almost nothing of these technologies.

I said, "almost nothing." Consider this, from the Lotus's Chapter 7:

QUOTE [page 122]:

[Shakyamuni] Buddha announced to the monks: "When the Buddha Great Universal Wisdom Excellence [GUWE] attained [Enlightenment], five hundred ten thousand million Buddha worlds in each of the ten directions trembled and shook in six different ways...

"...a great light shone everywhere, completely filling the worlds and surpassing the light of the heavens...At that time in five hundred ten thousand millions lands in the eastern direction the Brahma palaces shone with a brilliant light that was twice its ordinary brightness, and the Brahma kings each thought to himself, Now the brilliance of the palace is greater than ever in the past...

At that time [these] Brahma kings... accompanied by their palaces [my emphasis - Steve] ...journeyed together to the western region .... They saw the Great Universal Wisdom Excellence Thus Come One in the place of practice...

"...each [king] took his palace and presented it to the Buddha, speaking these words [in unison!]: ‘...We beg you to accept and occupy these palaces that we present.'"

:UNQUOTE.

My interpretation

I believe these kings used their (mobile) palaces as traveling machines to visit that Buddha (GUWE Thus Come One). Furthermore, considering how far these kings had to travel, there's no doubt in my mind that these traveling machines operated using the highest principles of technology. They were able to convey these kings quickly and without regard to the kinds of limitations which we endure - for instance, that it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

[Well, it isn't possible to travel faster, but it is possible to travel better.]

I believe that such a high technology exists, though it had no attraction to those who'd possessed it. This is evident by the fact that these kings were offering their palaces to the BUWE Buddha, which would leave them no way to get home! Correction: "...with no tech vehicle to get home!"). They had no intention of going home, at least not right away. They implored the Buddha to enlighten them by means of what is (ironically enough) called the Great Vehicle Law.

Once they were to attain Buddhahood by practicing this Law, then they would be able to travel back home - without means of their palatial vehicles. One of the powers of a Buddha is to be able to travel anywhere - at will. More than that: To be in several distant places at the same time.

With that kind of Enlightened power, who needs technology?

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

"Technology is way overrated. I mean, did the proliferation of word processors make people better writers?"  - Steve.

* The Lotus Sutra, as translated by Burton Watson.

The Parable of the Hidden Jewel: A Novel Interpretation

Introduction

I have recited all 28 chapters of the Lotus Sutra over 150 times within the last ten years. That means, of course, that I have also recited the famous Parable of the Hidden Jewel, which appears in Chapter 8, over 150 times. Today, I want to share some of my impressions of this parable, especially concerning the words "sharply rebuking him."

Concerning this Parable

Immediately following this paragraph, I will quote from parts of Chapter 8 of the Lotus Sutra, which pertain to this Parable. Here's the link to Chapter 8 in its entirety, should you decide to read all of its 11 pages for reassurance that I have not omitted anything of import: http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap08.html . This link claims Burton Watson as the translator (into English), as does the Soka Gakkai International which published The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras in 2009. I mention this, since there are some differences (though minor) between these two translations.

For your convenience, I numbered the lines of text as they appear in the link, but only the verse section. There is a section in prose (also in Chapter 8), which adds some important information - this I inserted between lines 28 and 29. While it was a common practice to offer verse and prose versions of Buddhist teachings, there are noteworthy differences between them. The two blocks of indented lines -  13-28 and 29-36 - comprise the entire parable, while the other numbered lines provide context.

QUOTE [read the two preceding paragraphs before reading this QUOTE]:

1    At that time Ajnata Kaundinya and the others, wishing to state their
2    meaning once more, spoke in verse form, saying:

3    We have heard the sound of this prophecy
4    assuring us of unsurpassed ease and tranquility;
5    we rejoice in gaining what we never had before
6    and make obeisance to the Buddha of measureless wisdom.
7    Now in the presence of the World-Honored One
8    we bewail our faults and errors.
9    Of the Buddha's immeasurable treasure
10  we have gained only a small portion of nirvana,
11  and like ignorant and foolish persons
12  have taken that to be sufficient.

     13  We are like the poor and impoverished man
     14  who went to the house of a close friend.
     15  The house was a very prosperous one
     16  and he served many trays of delicacies.
     17  The friend took a priceless jewel,
     18  sewed it in the lining of the poor man's robe,
     19  gave it without a word and then went away,
     20  and the man, being asleep, knew nothing of it.
     21  After the man had gotten up,
     22  he journeyed here and there to other countries,
     23  seeking food and clothing to keep himself alive,
     24  finding it very difficult to provide for his livelihood.
     25  He made do with what little he could get
     26  and never hoped for anything finer,
     27  unaware that in the lining of his robe
     28  he had a priceless jewel.

"World-Honored One, it was like the case of a man who went to the house of a close friend and, having become drunk on wine, lay down to sleep. At that time the friend had to go out on official business. He took a priceless jewel, sewed it in the lining of the man's robe, and left it with him when he went out. The man was asleep drunk and knew nothing about it. When he got up, he set out on a journey to other countries. In order to provide himself with food and clothing he had to search with all his energy and diligence, encountering very great hardship and making do with what little he could come by.

     29  Later the close friend who had given him the jewel
     30  happened to meet the poor man
     31  and after sharply rebuking him,
     32  showed him the jewel sewed in the robe.
     33  When the poor man saw the jewel
     34  his heart was filled with great joy,
     35  for he was rich, possessed of wealth and goods
     36  sufficient to satisfy the five desires.

37  We are like that man.
38  Through the long night the World-Honored One
39  constantly in his pity teaches and converts us,
40  causing us to plant the seeds of an unsurpassed aspiration.
41  But because we are without wisdom,
42  we are unaware of this, unknowing.
43  Having gained a small portion of nirvana,
44  we are satisfied and seek nothing more.
45  But now the Buddha awakens us,
46  saying 'This is not really extinction,
47  when you have gained the Buddha's unsurpassed wisdom,
48  then that will be true extinction!'
49  Now we have heard from the Buddha
50  these prophecies and descriptions of adornment,
51  and how each in turn will bestow a prophecy on his successor,
52  and in body and mind we are filled with joy.

:UNQUOTE.

My Analysis

Line 31: and after sharply rebuking him,

This line warrants the clarification provided by the following prose section, also appearing in Chapter 8:

QUOTE:  [source: same link as cited above]:

"Later, the close friend happened to meet him by chance. The friend said, 'How absurd, old fellow! Why should you have to do all this for the sake of food and clothing? In the past I wanted to make certain you would be able to live in ease and satisfy the five desires, and so on such-and-such a day and month and year I took a priceless jewel and sewed it in the lining of your robe. It must still be there now. But you did not know about it, and fretted and wore yourself out trying to provide a living for yourself. What nonsense! Now you must take the jewel and exchange it for goods. Then you can have whatever you wish at all times and never experience poverty or want.'

:UNQUOTE.

For the longest time, I reacted badly to line 31, thinking, "How does this poor man deserve rebuke, for the jewel was hidden in his robe - so how could he even know it was there?" However, the yellowed highlight - "In the past I wanted to make certain" - makes clear that the jewel was hidden but wasn't beyond reasonable detection. After all, the poor man must have washed his robe many times since "such-and-such a...year" had passed since the rich man sewed the jewel into the robe's lining.

The lesson on right mindfulness - one of the Buddha's Eightfold Paths - was far more valuable than the jewel itself. Elsewhere in Chapter 8, it says, "The Buddha is like this friend." If so, then the Buddha would have been far more concerned with teaching a lesson on right mindfulness than on making his poor friend materially wealthy. Hopefully, the poor (now rich) man walks away with the jewel, thinking, "How could I have been so unaware for so long that something [the jewel] was so close to my person? How many times was I vaguely aware of a lump when I sat down and shifted my weight? How many times did I hand-wash my robe and not felt a rock-hard foreign presence?"

The Buddha has the gift of being able to prod people into asking questions of themselves, which is a useful basis for meditation.

Now is a good time to provide a definition of mindfulness:

QUOTE [  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism) :


Mindfulness...is a spiritual or psychological faculty (indriya) that, according to the teaching of the Buddha, is considered to be of great importance in the path to enlightenment. It is one of the seven factors of enlightenment. "Correct" or "right" mindfulness...is the seventh element of the noble eightfold path. ...

Enlightenment (bodhi) is a state of being in which greed, hatred and delusion (Pali: moha) have been overcome, abandoned and are absent from the mind. Mindfulness, which, among other things, is an attentive awareness of the reality of things (especially of the present moment) is an antidote to delusion and is considered as such a 'power' (Pali: bala). This faculty becomes a power in particular when it is coupled with clear comprehension of whatever is taking place.

The Buddha advocated that one should establish mindfulness (satipaṭṭhāna) in one's day-to-day life maintaining as much as possible a calm awareness of one's body, feelings, mind, and dhammas.

:UNQUOTE.

In effect, the poor man remained poor since his own lack of right mindfulness denied him awareness of the presence of the jewel in his robe. In order to advance spiritually, one has to maintain (as highlighted above)  a calm awareness of one's body... Hopefully, that awareness would extend to include those things closest to one's body.

Then there's the issue of the poor man's state of life. He was poor, lacked right mindfulness, and would drink to the point of having to sleep it off while still in the presence of his good friend. The poor man might well have become rich after cashing in the jewel. But the world is full of stories of poor men who, upon becoming rich, lost everything due to their own character flaws or negative karma, if you will.

The "Buddha" got his friend drunk...

...and presumably had joined him in drinking wine. What to think?

Providing wine and drinking with his poor friend were expedient means (the title of Chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra) by which the Buddha was able to approach the poor man. As for providing the wine, sometimes one has to acknowledge the importance of a negative element in another's life - and then work with that in order to encourage positive elements. As for the Buddha himself drinking alcohol, there are two possibilities:

• He only appeared to drink, which is plausible since one of the Buddha's supernatural powers is the ability to generate appearances;

• He actually did drink, though what actually entered his body wasn't alcoholic since, according to the Lotus Sutra, "poison shall have no power to harm him," and "all that he eats will become like sweet dew."

Concerning that last, some might object that the historic Shakyamuni Buddha has been universally acknowledged as having died of food poisoning. I am probably the only Buddhist who disputes this, claiming that the Buddha used expedient means to give the appearance of his death and, further, that he is still alive today (and not merely with us in spirit).

Lines 1 and 2

I now restate lines 1 and 2 from above:

1    At that time Ajnata Kaundinya and the others, wishing to state their
2    meaning once more, spoke in verse form, saying:

Just to be clear, Ajnata Kaundinya and the others refers to a total of 500 disciples. What we have here is an example of numerous persons engaging in joining their minds. That's what enabled them to speak in unison, uttering words that hadn't been agreed upon in advance.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"Rely on the Law and...," Buddha

Introduction

It is extremely rare for any of my readers to post comments to my blog posts, although I've always encouraged responses. However, on Oct. 22 someone did exactly that. So I will use this post to reply again. I'd already replied once, in the form of a comment posted under his/her original comment. Both of these comments as well as the post commented upon can be seen here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/09/to-sgi-part-2.html

I value your comments and give their contents a lot of thought. I might not agree with what you have to say, but I definitely give your words my utmost attention.

"Rely on the Law and not upon persons."


QUOTE:

The words of the various teachers are in themselves of no use at all. The Buddha gave strict counsel against following them with his statement in the Nirvana Sutra, “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.”

:UNQUOTE: "The Teaching, Practice, and Proof," an essay by Nichiren written in 1275.

The quote immediately above is a good example of the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination - which means simply that there isn't anything that has an existence independent of other phenomenon. As applied to the first sentence (containing the aqua-colored highlight):  Even the words of the Buddhas in themselves are of no use at all. For one thing, even the greatest teachers fail by using words alone if their pupils aren't interested or don't have the capacity to understand the lessons.

The second quoted sentence (containing the yellowed highlight) invites a question: Doesn't the Law require a person or persons to teach it? Since according to dependent origination the Law cannot exist by itself, the Law (in order to be meaningful) has to manifest itself in phenomenon (such as teachers). However, the Buddha spoke of attaining wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom. How can anything come of itself without violating dependent origination or, for that matter, the Law of Cause and Effect?

Obviously, nothing can. So why did the Buddha speak of teacherless wisdom - wisdom that seems to be disconnected from humans as if it's out there just floating around until we acquire it? I think he did so as an encouragement for those people living in a time when there is no Buddha in the world to teach them. However, as the following quote makes clear, the Buddha is always in the world though not visible to us and that the apparently teacherless wisdom has an inconspicuous Buddha behind it, using subtle methods to convey (that is, teach) it to us.

QUOTE [Chapter 16, Lotus Sutra*]:

I am the father of this world,
saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people,
though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction.
For if they see me constantly,
arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds.
Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five
desires
and fall into the evil paths of existence.
Always I am aware of which living beings
practice the way, and which do not,
and in response to their need for salvation
I preach various doctrines for them.

:UNQUOTE.

The sentence I yellowed is one reason why I claim Shakyamuni Buddha didn't die in ancient India over 2,000 years ago. He's alive and with us and I don't mean only in spirit - I mean, he's got a body that is no different from the one he had before he "died." And this body can be shapeshifted as is made clear numerous times in the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha is always here, always teaching us but not as he did before, in terms of being the leader of a great assembly of Seekers of the Way well-known throughout the land.

The part highlighted in aqua is fascinating: Why would people fall prey to arrogance and selfishness, abandon restraint, and end up wallowing in sensuality if they see the Buddha constantly? That would seem to cast doubt upon the ability of the Buddha to save people, since his extended presence sends them in the other direction. Maybe the answer lies in having too much of a good thing which comes to be relied on, completely replacing one's own efforts. I think the Buddha subtracts himself from the world - that is, apparently does so - in order to encourage his disciples to stand on their own two feet. He'll always be around to teach us - perhaps by whispering in our ears or setting up object lessons for us - but we'll be thinking we're learning and improving by ourselves. Which is a great confidence builder, so we don't always remain as little children constantly leaning on our teachers.

An evaluation using Ohm's Law

Ohm’s Law can be written: I = V/R

In plain English, that’s “Current equals Voltage divided by Resistance.” However, keep in mind: This only applies in a closed-system known as a circuit. A simple circuit would consist of a battery (voltage source or causative agent if you prefer) with a single loop of wire connecting one of its terminals to the other, with a resistor inserted somewhere on that wire. In the example below, that resistor takes the form of a light bulb, which offers resistance (to the flow of current) which in fact helps define the amount of the current flowing through the circuit.

What I call Om’s Law, on the other hand, can be written: E = C/R [note the similarity with Ohm’s Law stated earlier as I = V/R].

You could say E = C/R means that any given Effect (E) - for example, the current flowing in an electric circuit - can be calculated if its Cause(s) (C) - for example, the voltage provided by a battery in an electric circuit - and Resistance(s) (R) - for example, the resistance provided by a light bulb into which current flows in a circuit - are known. But there is another way of looking at this relationship: Effect is Cause and Resistance. In fact, you cannot obtain any effect without both C & R being present. Most people would be surprised that you simply cannot obtain any kind of effect without resistance also being present. We don't normally think of resistance as being a good thing - framing it as an impediment instead.

Look at E = C/R from this perspective:

E = Enlightenment (the Ultimate Effect which inspires all buddhist practice - that is, to someday become a Buddha, a fully-enlightened one).

C = Cause (all of the positive deeds embraced by the six paramitas**, which buddhists strive to perform, since there can be no buddhahood without a long track record of performing good and selfless deeds).

R = Resistance (all of the negative deeds - or evil karma - which put a drag on our attainment of buddhahood).

In the equation (E = C/R), if R is reduced to a very small value (that is, if most of our negative karma is totally erased), then the value of E would approach infinity, unless of course the value of C is simultaneously reduced to a very small value.

The problem, though, is that R can only approach zero, since it isn't possible to divide by zero - algebraically, that's not permitted. So what this means is, once someone attains Buddhahood, Resistance (R or negative karma) would still be present in his E (or Enlightened) state. Most people would hesitate to consider a Buddha as someone who still has even the smallest trace of sin present in his life. But the irony is, he couldn't be enlightened without it - that little bit of sin will always be present and will always be a factor when "calculating" - that is, considering - the magnitude of his Enlightenment.

Apparently this limiting-but-defining factor has something to do with why not all Buddhas are created equal. The Lotus Sutra cites the examples of several Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who have received predictions of someday attaining buddhahood. And there are differences in their characteristics - they're not all the same in terms of any kind of "infinite" aspects. Some have life spans of only one kalpa*** - others with trillions of kalpas***. Some have more followers than others; Shakyamuni is the leader of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth (while no other Buddha is mentioned as having such a unique distinction); same with Many Treasures Buddha, being unique in the function of his funerary tower.

So it's obvious that not all Buddhas are equal. Could that mean that there is one Buddha superior to all of the others? Maybe, but he couldn't be infinitely superior simply because it's mathematically impossible to divide by zero as I mentioned earlier.

A disturbing possibility

The Lotus Sutra speaks of devils who will come to reside in certain buddha lands, but will (instead of committing evil acts) support the Buddhist Law. That seems to indicate that even a devil has it somewhere in his heart to someday become a Buddha. Does that, however, mean that a Buddha could have it somewhere in his heart to become a devil?

We freely accept that even a devil could someday become a Buddha. But could we so easily accept that even a Buddha could someday become a devil - that is, backslide - even though the Lotus Sutra speaks of the stage of non-regression?

For now, I'll leave that question for you, since I'm still meditating on the answer.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Asterisked items above

* Page 273 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 273 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

** six paramitas: Six practices (or "perfections") needed to attain enlightenment: almsgiving, keeping of the precepts, forbearance, assiduousness in practice, meditation, and wisdom.

*** kalpa: According to wikipedia: "In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years."

TO: SGI (Part 7: The Correct Practice of Buddhism)

Specific Introduction

Today's post will convey what I regard to be the correct practice of Buddhism. This is meant to stand in stark contrast to the practices promoted by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

General Introduction

Today's post is the seventh installment in my "TO: SGI" series, which is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). 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. This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:

http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html

The basis of correct Buddhist practice

As far as I'm concerned and as far as SGI Buddhists should be concerned, the basis of correct practice is the Lotus Sutra. I am aware that SGI places greater emphasis on the opinions of their founding figure, Nichiren Daishonin. But, as I've written before, Nichiren is not a Buddha and in fact declared himself not to be. However, SGI insists it knows better, which is why they promote him over Shakyamuni Buddha.

Since even Nichiren claimed that the Lotus Sutra was the highest teaching of Shakyamuni, I feel I can use that sutra as a reasonable basis for any comments I might make. This is one of its most important statements as uttered by Shakyamuni himself:

QUOTE (see source at the end of this posting):

Gainer of Great Authority, you should understand that this Lotus Sutra richly benefits the bodhisattvas mahasattva, for it can cause them to attain supreme perfect enlightenment. For this reason, after the thus come one has passed into extinction the bodhisattvas mahasattva should at all times accept, uphold, read, recite, explain, preach, and transcribe this sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

The part I highlighted in yellow deserves a clarification, which appears on page 205 of the same book quoted above. Not only "can" the Lotus Sutra cause them to reach enlightenment, it is the only means by which they can attain enlightenment :

QUOTE:

But if the person is able to hear, understand, ponder, and practice the sutra, then you should know that he can draw near to supreme perfect enlightenment. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain supreme perfect enlightenment in all cases do so through this [Lotus] sutra.

:UNQUOTE.

Again, the Buddha himself spoke these words. I inserted "[Lotus]" in this quote, since the context of this quote makes it perfectly clear that the Lotus is the "sutra" the Buddha is referring to.

Correct Buddhist Practice

What should be chanted?

The chanting of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and gongyo (parts A and C) should be discontinued. The Lotus Sutra doesn't mention the daimoku at all, so why should that be considered the primary practice - or even any part of correct practice? And chanting gongyo, as is currrently done, in Chinese basically encourages members to ignore the Lotus Sutra as a whole. Parts A and C come from the Lotus but are not its entirety, which the Buddha says should be embraced. Anyone chanting Parts A and C in Chinese will not be chanting anything they understand. So what's the point?

Instead, I urge that the Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras be chanted in their entirety in English - all 396 pages. There are several English translations of the Lotus available, but (especially for SGI members) the version cited at the end of this post would be most appropriate since that version was published by the SGI.  Some might argue that only the Lotus should be chanted and not to include its opening and closing sutras - known as The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and Sutra on How to Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy. However, in my personal opinion based on the references the Lotus makes to these other two sutras, it would be appropriate consider all three as (in effect) the Lotus Sutra. In fact, often these three are referred to as the threefold Lotus Sutra.

As for those who don't understand English, they should chant the threefold Lotus in their own language. The point is to understand what you're reading aloud (chanting) as you read aloud. Only that can build reinforcement and understanding.

My personal practice is to chant in English by directly reading the text cited at the end of this blog, starting at the beginning. The next day, I pick up where I had left off on the previous day. I proceed in this manner until I've read all 396 pages. And then I start at the beginning and proceed to read the whole thing over again. So far, I've read the Lotus over 150 times - but that did not include the opening and closing sutras. I included these within the last 6 months, since my study of these texts and of the Lotus itself convinced me that all three sutras should be recited.

What should be chanted to?

If SGI wishes to practice Buddhism correctly, in terms of what Shakyamuni Buddha (and not Nichiren Non-Buddha) had in mind, they've got to get rid of the Gohonzon as the object of devotion. The Gohonzon served a practical purpose, but only as long as SGI members had memorized gongyo and could therefore concentrate their gaze on this mandala. Since I propose that, for English speakers, the English language version replace the current Parts A and C, and since the entire Lotus is much longer and therefore would not be memorized by most people (nor is that really necessary), how could the Gohonzon remain as the object of worship? The chanter would be holding a copy of this book in his hands and would be reciting what he sees on the printed page. He wouldn't be able to take his eyes off this book unless he had memorized it and could therefore afford to gaze upon the Gohonzon.

The book itself should be regarded, for all practical purposes, as the supreme object of worship. Of course, if it gets damaged or worn out over time, a new copy of this book should be purchased and the old one destroyed, preferably in a respectful manner.

What would a chanting session look like?

Someone chanting alone at home would simply pick up his copy of the threefold Lotus and recite it in the manner I've described above. If a small group of people chant together, they could take turns reading aloud (say) for one minute each and keep taking turns until their agreed-upon time for chanting expires.

Chanting in unison in large groups, even those consisting of dozens or even hundreds (or even thousands) of people is possible. I've experimented with reading the English-language version by reading each syllable in each sentence without any pauses as might be called for when commas appear, reciting one sentence at a time in one breath. The current parts A and C are read that way - as kind of a drone without pauses or emphases. Whoever is leading large-group gongyo would start by reading a predetermined portion for a few minutes without the group joining in until he reaches a predetermined point. Then the congregation would join in, after having gained a sense of this particular leader's speed and rhythm.

Members would follow the leader's cues as to speed, and when to take a breath which is important when reciting sentences so long they can't be recited in one breath. The leader would determine when to take a breath and would simply stop chanting at that point. Of course, the members would keep chanting not knowing the leader had planned to stop for a breath at a certain point. But when they become aware that the leader had stopped, they would stop. And then they would pause until the leader started chanting again. They would let him chant alone for a couple of words until they figured out where he picked up and then they could rejoin him.

This can be done, but you might ask, "What happens if the leader makes a mistake, like losing his place or transposing words or adding or subtracting words?" Any of these errors would obviously throw off the rhythm of the group, but this would be immediately obvious. In which case, the leader simply stops and pauses briefly and then tries again. The leader would pick the place where he went wrong or perhaps start at a place just before that. The members would listen long enough to figure out when and where they should join in. If the leader makes an error toward the end of a sentence, he might not stop in order to try again but instead finish the sentence.

The basic understanding would be that chanting is supposed to stop upon reaching a sentence's period (or question mark). Then everybody takes time to breathe and the leader starts the next sentence, with the members joining him after he utters the first few words, thereby setting the pace.

A possible refinement based on the Practice of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

For large groups, I like the idea of rearranging the chairs in the meeting hall so they don't all face front. There would be three divisions within this hall - half of the rows of chairs facing (for example) north, the other half facing south, with a separation of these two blocks of (say) ten feet. The leader could sit within this separation with his back to (say) the west wall. That way, you'd have each of these two groups of people chanting toward the other group. That would be preferable to one large mass of chairs facing north directing their chanting at the leader.

Chapter 20 of the Lotus Sutra is entitled "The Bodhisattva Never Disparaging," who practiced by bowing to other people and directing his respectful words toward them. Each half of the congregation chanting to the other half would be paying homage to that practice. In addition, not only does the book assume the status of object of worship, so do the other people to whom one is directing one's voice.

End Comments

The comments above are only my opinion as to what is correct practice. But I encourage these to be food for thought. Members might come up with their own variations, and time to experiment and get used to any new approach would be needed. I don't really expect the SGI to heed my suggestions, especially since the Gohonzon is so central to their practice and world view. It's hard to change, especially when faced with the prospect that 10, 20, 30 or more years of lifetime practice would have to be judged as incorrect. And of course having all Gohonzons ritually destroyed would be hard for long-time members to accept. Perhaps they would do well to reflect on the importance of abandoning inappropriate attachments, which is a basic Buddhist teaching taught by Shakyamuni himself.

I myself chanted for years in the manner prescribed by the SGI, but I don't consider that to have been wasted effort. In my view, anyone's sincere efforts to practice Buddhism is worthy of respect - as long as they keep an open mind about why they might have to change their practice and being brave enough to do so when that time comes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Source:

Page 311 of The Lotus Sutra and it's Opening and Closing Sutras, translated by Burton Watson, and published by the Soka Gakkai International in 2009. Page 311 is part of the Lotus Sutra portion of this book.

The Dalai Lama as heretic

Opening Statement:

I had problems with the film Unmistaken Child, especially since I happen to view Tibetan Buddhism as a serious hindrance to the worldwide attainment of enlightenment. For what the Dalai Lama preaches is not Buddhism but, indeed, is (only) Political Tibetanism.

The movie's basic premise:

A monk searches for his recently-deceased master, and finds him in the form of an 18-month-old child. There was a Q&A after the screening I'd attended which was hosted by a gentleman who mentioned something quite interesting. I didn't catch his name, but he was from a local Tibetan cultural society and was not an official spokesman for the film. [In fact, he made a pitch for donations for his local society.]

He said there are dozens of such young people in each of the Tibetan monasteries, who had been (basically) taken from their families after being declared reincarnated masters. My gut reaction upon hearing that: "Well, that's one way to ward off depletion of the ranks of monks."

Ty Burr, movie critic, had this to say in his July 17, 2009 review:

QUOTE:

We [the film's viewers] simply are present from 2001, when the 84-year-old Geshe Lama Konchog died, to 2005, when the toddler recognized as his reincarnation was presented to the Buddhist community of Nepal and beyond....The film's central character, actually, is Tenzin Zopa, the tenderhearted young acolyte whose life, since the age of 7, has been devoted to serving Geshe Lama. Upon his master's death, the grieving Zopa is instructed by the Dalai Lama himself to seek out the reincarnated boy, a task he feels unsuited for.

:UNQUOTE.

Some of the problems I had with this movie:

·         "Existence after existence these living beings are reborn in company with that Bodhisattva, hear the Law from him, and all have faith in and understand it" - Lotus Sutra, Chapter 7. I understand the concept of living beings being reborn in company with their teachers. I'm not clear at all on the (apparently Tibetan) concept of teachers being reborn in the company of their disciples, especially so soon after they pass away. And even murkier to me is the idea that monks have to go scouring through the countryside to find their former masters in the form of newborn babes. My view? If he's truly any kind of master, he'll attract his disciples (not the other way around)!

·         The film shows 27-year-old Tenzin Zopa telling us how "lost" he felt after the death of his master, to whom he was faithful servant for 20 years. Zopa tells us, while lamenting his personal disorientation, "I didn't know what to do." If Zopa's master was truly worthy of the title "master," then he would have better prepared his young servant for the eventuality of his passing.

·         I was amazed by the palatial residence of the Dalai Lama, and the huge throng of monks who live with him in Dharamsala. I couldn't help thinking: "Wow, where's all the money coming from to support this group?" I personally tend to be wary of worldly and wealthy monks, especially those who are international celebrities. And especially those who had accepted money from the CIA.

·         Moviegoers were treated to the sight of a child crying (the Unmistaken Child, that is) as his hair is being shaved off with a razor. I might not be an enlightened Tibetan lama and never even went to barber school but I know this much: It causes a lot less pain to first give the initiate a haircut with an ordinary pair of scissors and then shave off what's left over. That's loving kindness! When the child wouldn't stop fussing and crying out "Please don't cut off my hair," at the half-way point of his tonsorial he was conveniently taken off camera to a private room to finish the job.

·         The child's parents were asked to permanently give up their child to the monastery. The mother had trouble with this, but I was wondering if she really had the option of saying no. [You know, cultural pressure and all that; people, that's what theocracy looks like.] Also, the movie didn't make clear (didn't even bother to ask) whether the parents would have any visitations rights. My heart went out to the mother, who was "asked" by a benevolent kidnapper to give up the fruit of her womb.

·         Unmistaken Child is really a terrible movie. I might not be a famous film critic like Ty Burr (quoted above), but I am absolutely amazed that any professional critic can fawn over such flawed minimalism when, indeed, a more in-depth treatment of this search-for-reincarnated-masters theme is called for. For instance, Ty might have started by looking at this movie's protagonist's website. That's right, the simple, unassuming disciple in search of his master is, upon closer inspection, quite a sophisticated fellow - which I suspected right away upon hearing how well he spoke English in the movie (an ability unnoticed by Ty). Anyway, for the curious, here's Tenzin Zopa's website: http://geshezopa.blogspot.com/

The larger issue of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism

Make no mistake about this: The Dalai Lama is a Pope. I have trouble with Popes. Don't much like them. They take too much and give so little in return. I've seen footage of Dalai Lama's supporters calling him a "god" or a Buddha. But I would ask them a few questions:

·         "Why does your God need to refer to an oracle [Nechung - the State Oracle of Tibet]?"

·         "Why was your God not able to protect Tibet from the Chinese?"

·         "Why is the Dalai Lama afraid of the deity Dorje Shugden, going so far as to forcibly suppress his worship among Tibetan Buddhists? I understand that one who is a Buddha is totally without fear. So if the Dalai Lama is a Buddha, why is he afraid of Dorje Shugden? [Apparently, the Lama fears for his life and his followers believe this.]

·         "The Dalai Lama admitted he himself once worshipped Dorje Shugden (whom he now refers to as ‘evil'), but now says that was a mistake. Let me see if I'm understanding this: Our Dalai Lama (the God King or, as some claim, a Living Buddha) actually admits to having made a mistake of this magnitude?"

·         "How did it come to pass that the United States, back in the 1950's, allowed China to march into Tibet unopposed? Tibet must have had some terrible karma for it to have fallen so easily - at a time when the US possessed nuclear weapons and China did not."

·         "How much money does the Dalai Lama call ‘mine' - what is the extent of his personal wealth? No one seems to talk about that at all."

·         "Why does your Buddha lament the loss of Tibet's sovereignty, the loss of his country? Shakyamuni Buddha voluntarily gave up his kingdom, and lived to see it conquered by a foreign army. Perhaps the Dalai Lama should more deeply contemplate the notion of impermanence."

During my campaign against Barack Obama for the US presidency, I had blogged frequently on my beliefs of the evils of national sovereignty. And I pledged to work for the elimination of nationalism and the concept of national borders. However, the Dalai Lama seeks to restore his old fiefdom. Maybe he should redirect his efforts toward making all land on earth an enlightened Buddha land. Nations come and go - that is the way of impermanence. Only the Buddhist path to enlightenment is worthy of any kind of serious attention as a global goal.

End note

This link is a fascinating view of what might be motivating the strange behavior of the Dalai Lama in his efforts to suppress Dorje Shugden's followers. Written by a westerner who had served on numerous occasions as the Dalai Lama's translator:

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/articles/HelmutGassner01.pdf

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Lotus Samgha

"As for the Dalai himself, as long as Shakyamuni Buddha is alive, we don't need a Dalai to play with. As for all these Tibetan masters flying around, well, the world really is full of magicians though one should carefully ponder the source of their magic" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

"First-class" Gohonzon

News Flash: On Tuesday, Oct. 1, I returned my Gohonzon, via first-class mail, to the SGI's Chicago Community Center.

Introduction

I'm going to give the reasons why I gave up my Gohonzon and mailed it instead of returning it to SGI in person. I'll also address:

• Why I don't chant daimoku or do gongyo anymore (that is, parts A and C), even though I still "assiduously practice" - which is what the word "gongyo" means - by reciting the entire Lotus Sutra.

• Expedient means versus lying.

• Why Nichiren would make such an obviously false claim: "Chanting daimoku once is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once."

• My attempt to reconcile my practices with SGI's.

My Gohonzons - I had 3 of them

I was given a Gohonzon when I first joined SGI (then known as NSA) in 1974. I destroyed that Gohonzon in 1976 as a symbolic act upon quitting this group. I didn't chant at all during the following 17 years, after which I rejoined SGI at the urging of a friend. I was told that SGI had changed from being a heavy-handed, authoritarian cult to a group that was more supportive of its members.

When I rejoined the SGI in 1993, I specifically declined offers to give me a new Gohonzon. Even back then, I sensed that the Gohonzon wasn't an integral part of the practice, since even blind people can chant and when Nichiren was about to get his head lopped off, he didn't say to his guards, "Excuse me, can I have access to my gohonzon before you kill me?" He knew that his actions and what was in his heart were the things that really mattered.

Actually, I had made my own Gohonzon back in 1993 - just a sheet of letter-sized paper with 3 columns of words in English, which I chanted to for about 2 or 3 years. These words were of particular importance to me - for instance, the names of my good friends and enemies, brief descriptors of milestones in my life, titles of a variety of buddhist doctrines, the daimoku itself...all together, about 60 entries. That's what I chanted to, my own personalized Gohonzon; and that's what I insisted everyone had a right to do - chant to their own personalized Gohonzon.

And, no, it isn't necessary for these personalized Gohonzon to be subjected to an eye-opening ceremony. There is no truth to the claim that such a ceremony somehow mysteriously activates Gohonzon. All it does is give the priesthood something to do, which puts them in a position of superiority over the laity.

I did, however, relent and apply for an official Gohonzon from the SGI in 1996 (3 years after rejoining SGI), no longer chanting to my self-created version and only sporadically to the official version. My practice always consisted of chanting, not being concerned about chanting to anything in particular. Again, I didn't see the Gohonzon as an integral part of my practice.

For the last six years, my Gohonzon wasn't enshrined in a butsudan; I had it safely stored away in a shipping tube. Only recently did I buy a butsudan and re-enshrine it. But during its years of storage, I didn't really miss it. However, when I went to the SGI Center (during the weeks this summer before I was banned), when I chanted to that Gohonzon, I did not take my eyes off of it and I did my best to concentrate on it. I couldn't say the same for some of the other members I chanted with, who seemed too easily distracted or outright bored. I couldn't help but suspect: "There's got to be a reason for this."

[Side Note: Since I was banned from the SGI Center, that's why I mailed in my Gohonzon rather than relinquish it in person.]

In Nichiren's day, it was common for Buddhists to chant to paintings or statues of Shakyamuni. And Nichiren knew how powerful it would be to give members something to focus on as they chanted. It also put him in a position to grant or deny gohonzon, thereby laying the groundwork for a discriminating priesthood. I remember my last district chief accused me of trying to create a new religion in which some people were understood to be better than others. Actually, SGI does exactly that - by creating two classes of people, members and non-members or those who have Gohonzon and those who don't.

About the Daimoku, which I no longer chant

Recently, I made a conscious decision to stop chanting daimoku. Instead, when I feel the urge to say something brief (as when I'm washing dishes, for example), I simply say, "Hail to the Buddhas," or "Namu Saddharma-pundarika Sutra." That last is the Sanskrit equivalent of the daimoku. Since Sanskrit is closer to the language Shakyamuni spoke, I feel more comfortable with that than with Nichiren's daimoku. Whenever I have an appreciable block of time on my hands with which to practice (say, at least 15 minutes), I don't waste it on repeating the Lotus Sutra's title (which is, in essence, what the daimoku is). Instead, I read as much of the English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra as I can.

That is and should be our bedrock practice.

Expedient or Skillful Means

I feel I owe Nichiren and the SGI a huge debt of gratitude, for without them, I would never have sought the Law. The problem with both, however, lies in their abuse of the concept of "expedient/skillful means." When using skillful means, I find too often a willingness among SGI members (especially leaders) to lie when trying to do shakubuku or convey doctrine. It even bothered me when I read that the Buddha told lies, as is openly revealed in the Lotus Sutra (but which, of course, weren't called lies...but that's what they were).

I figured out why Shakyamuni did that, but I've found no one else anywhere who shares my view, which I posted at this link: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html

It is not okay to lie to people - ever. My feeling is, if I have to tell a "white lie" to get someone to chant, then I'd rather they never practice. For sooner or later, the lies catch up to the liar. People aren't stupid. If they have half an ounce of intelligence, they'll figure out the lies. Problem is, too many folks themselves live lives rooted in lies, so they "understand" why they were lied to. But, to me, lying spoils the purity of transmission of the Law. It's better to simply not go there.

Reconciliation of Practices - Mine and SGI's

I was looking for a way to integrate my practice of reading the Lotus Sutra with SGI's practices. And I found I couldn't do it. When I recite from the Lotus Sutra, my eyes are focused on the text in front of me which means I couldn't be looking at the Gohonzon. Then it occurred to me why Nichiren (and therefore the SGI itself) was so dismissive of the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra. Which has everything to do with why Nichiren would claim that chanting daimoku once was equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once. And that's simply because in Nichiren's time, very few people knew how to read.

Even for the illiterate, Nichren's recommended style of practice was easy. All they had to do was go to enough meetings to hear gongyo being chanted, so they could commit it to memory simply by listening - which was how it was done in Shakyamuni's day. Nothing was written down until after the Buddha died; the disciples simply listened and committed to memory. If Nichiren had insisted that his converts recite the entire Lotus Sutra, many wouldn't have been capable of such a feat of memory. And that would have taken their eyes off the Gohonzon, since their gaze would have been fixed upon the Lotus Sutra's text - again, assuming they knew how to read.

Not to mention: Familiarity with the Lotus Sutra might have also caused members to come up with questions which Nichiren (much like the SGI today) couldn't answer.

SGI won't listen to or answer any doctrinal questions until members start turning in their Gohonzons and stop paying zaimu (tithing) and stop subscribing to publications. Isn't it sad that a religious organization will only respond to a loss of revenue? Hmmm...come to think of it, that's how Daisaku Ikeda got so rich, by having legions of Japanese ladies selling his newspaper and, later, his other publications.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com