Time to establish a new sect of Buddhism?

Introduction

I am about to quote a section of the Lotus Sutra* which has bothered me for a long time. No, strike that: replace “bothered” with “stimulated.” I admit, though, at first I was immensely bothered. I'm going to seriously suggest that a new sect of Buddhism could be based on the difference between the words I highlight below.

QUOTE:

At that time the Buddha spoke to the bodhisattvas and all the great assembly: “Good men, you must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.” And again he said to the great assembly: “You must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.” And once more he said to the great assembly: “You must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.”

At that time the bodhisattvas and the great assembly, with Maitreya as their leader, pressed their palms together and addressed the Buddha, saying: “World-Honored One, we beg you to explain. We will believe and accept the Buddha's words.” They spoke in this manner three times, and then said once more: “We beg you to explain it. We will believe and accept the Buddha's words.”

:UNQUOTE.

When I first read these words, I was astounded. The Buddha said, “you must believe and understand,” but the disciples responded with “We will believe and accept.” What gives? And these weren't just any disciples. Page 231 refers to “eight hundred thousand million nayutas of bodhisattvas mahasattva. These bodhisattvas had all reached the level of non-regression, turned the unregressing wheel of the Law, and had gained dharanis.” Not to mention, they were in the presence of the Buddha – and none of these attributes describes me in the least.

So who am I to even suggest the possibility of creating a new sect? Upon what authority do I speak? Answer: I have no authority and am probably the least impressive person you could ever meet. But the Buddha warned of being overly concerned with appearances, so I have no qualms about lacking credentials and appearance in order to make my dharma offering.

I will now turn the focus of questioning from me to these disciples. Who were they – even in all their profound majesty – to substitute the word “accept” for “understand?” I'm tempted to assume they didn't – that somehow the Lotus Sutra had been hijacked with an intentional word-substitution inserted to confuse future generations of Seekers of the Way. However, the insistence by the Buddha that “Belief and Understanding” are of paramount importance can be supported by the title of the Lotus Sutra's fourth chapter. You guessed it - “Belief and Understanding.”

Perhaps these disciples were bothered by the possibility that they would not be able to “understand.” Maybe they really thought it sufficient to vow to “believe and accept.” Maybe they thought understanding wasn't really possible for them. But that's hard to believe in light of what the Buddha had said earlier – on page 135: “Those who have not yet crossed over I will cause to cross over, those who have not yet understood I will cause to understand...” Therefore? The disciples need not have worried about any inability to understand, since the Buddha himself had told them earlier that he “will cause [them] to understand.”

My proposal

If a group of Buddhists should meet, they might want to consider randomly choosing one of their number to assume the role of the Buddha by stating three times, “You must believe and understand the truthful words of the thus come one.” Then the other members of the group will respond by saying, four times, “We beg you to explain it. We will believe and understand the Buddha's words.”

Now, having said this, am I really proposing that anyone create a new sect based on this exchange? Or am I suggesting that disciples might privately – out of earshot of their sect's hierarchy – try this approach just once? If you are a Buddhist, I won't suggest you do anything at all. [You already know what to do.] I've laid my cards on the table, spoken my piece, and have no desire to personally found such a new sect. As I've often told friends, “I'm a member of a Buddhist sect that has one member and one leader – me, in both cases – and I'm not recruiting.”

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Post-script

I knowingly violated the Soka Gakkai's copyright which states:

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Soka Gakkai.

I used their material in this blog post without even trying to obtain their permission. But they know better than to try to make a big deal out of that. I've attempted to engage the Soka Gakkai in debate over a wide range of doctrinal issues, but to no avail. The worst thing they could do would be to sue me for copyright infringement, thereby offering me a possible platform to challenge their views. A platform I don't currently enjoy.

It's true what is often repeated: Silence is golden. The Soka Gakkai will ignore my challenge.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc @ yahoo.com

Footnote:

Lotus Sutra* - In today's post, all of my citations from this highly-esteemed text of Mahayana Buddhism come from the version translated into English by Burton Watson, and published and copyrighted by the Soka Gakkai in 2009, bearing the title:

The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras