From: cup.portal.com!Tagi%portal@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra
Organization: ----
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:11:28 GMT

9208.21 e.v.


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


W.F. Wong criticizes Ms Wilde's words as overly extreme.  I don't do this
very often, but I'm going to chime in on the side of Ms Wilde here
(somewhat).  


Wong writes:

First, I would like to thank Miss Wilde for her lengthy reply. Bill 
Kish has replied to some of the points and my sentiments are the same as his.
However, I would still like to respond to some other points Miss Wilde made.
Due to length consideration, I cannot quote everything she said, so ...


Response:

I would also like to thank Ms Wilde for her words.  Note that I ALSO agreed
with Bill, and find a middle position between Wong and Wilde more reasonable
and emotional pleasing.


Wong:

I agree with Bill here - what doesn't work is not always the fault of
the system itself, one must start with examining the practitioner first. 
Furthermore, the fact that one has tried them but failed does not mean one is
free to condemn it as 'evil' (as did Nichiren.)


Response:

Amen.  Of course I don't think that one 'must' start by examining the
practitioner, but I do see its advantages.  'Evil' is sometimes very
important, I would add.


Wong:

..It is the role of EVERY PRACTITIONER to "read and
interpret the sutras" and to "form/establish a practice" by him/herself. I
sincerely do not believe in a "set lunch" answer. Life is different for each 
and everyone of us. The Buddha's Dharma is but a guiding principle (albeit a
damn good one, I think ;-) for EACH ONE of us to live our life to its fullest
possibilities. "Be a lamp unto thyself" - those were the parting words of the
Buddha ... and what wonderful words ! To accept a "set lunch" answer and give
up the responsibility of carrying that lamp to some "Fuehrer" is a betrayal of
our most basic humanity.


Response:

To a point this makes sense.  Yet if my 'being a lamp' means seeing one
particular path as THE path (no matter how deluded I may be), isn't this just
as 'legitimate' as a more accepting attitude?

This is the heart of my criticism.  Intolerance is difficult to engage.
I also sense an intolerance in many followers of Nichiren (similar to
many who follow Jesus Christ).  Does OUR intolerance of THEIR intolerance
help matters?  It seems to set a rather poor example, I think.  Ms Wilde
is entitled to her views and I think they are important for her.

That said, if she designed to COERCE others to accept them, I would of
course oppose her.  So far I've only seen her expressing them openly and
subjecting herself to the usual criticism which such exclusive sects always
face when engaging public debate.

I think that some of us NEED to 'give up our responsibility to another'
at various times in our lives.  Looking at history (of Buddhism AND
other religions) it seems a rather natural aspect of our basic humanity.
If, as you say, this becomes the case of a 'Fuehrer' who wields our
trust to disempower others, I of course oppose this, yet understand that
even THIS is human nature.  Rejecting it does not make it go away.  I think
that most of us have such desires and participate in activities which partake
of such energies personally.  Some take it to social circles.


	
Wong:

Err... just a technicality but ... if ONE sutra says something which
7 others (which you quoted) independently refutes, should you place more weight
on the thesis of the 7 rather than the 1 ?


Response:

Here I present my main argument.  The wording above implies that there is some
way which one 'should' resolve both single issues, such as choosing among many
scriptures regarding preference and emphasis, and more complex problems,
such as one's way of life or thought.  I infer that you intend us
to REASON that 7 sources of equal value to the 1 compared refutes our
possible choice of it.  What if reason is not the basis of our choice?
IS reason the best means of choosing what we shall place focus on in our
lives?

I argue that some people do not operate on the basis of reason (regardless
of how fervently they may argue that they DO this).  Some people base their
choices (especially regarding their religious focus) on EMOTION.  It is
not the scripture itself which is important (though to the person this
may be the reality), it is the CHOICE of the scripture.  Such a choice
brings social acceptance.  Groups can rally around certain scriptures and
symbols and this brings them sufficient security as to allow developement
in other areas of their lives.

An example of this in Zen Buddhism is when a choice is made to adopt a
particular lifestyle within a monastery/temple.  Many of the restrictions
within such contexts (some Christian monastics have come to associate this
with their 'Rule') are arbitrary and simply serve to minimize conflict of
personalities.  It may seem more REASONABLE to allow a variety of 
activities and personality, yet the requirement of conformity allows all
those within the community to work on themselves without the distraction
of emotional conflict and uncertainty.

Consider this in reverse.  An attachment to one scripture allows the
community to work on themselves without the distraction of INTELLECTUAL
conflict and and the uncertainty that THIS brings.  However, while there
may be a social value for certain behaviors OR scriptures, this is often 
defined by the community itself.  As such it cannot be reasonably
questioned since it is an emotional issue.  One can argue against the
artificial environment of the monastery.  One can argue against the adoption
of one revelatory scripture.  Yet in both cases it is a matter of personal
TASTE, and this cannot really be critiqued fairly.

Another way to see this is that it is another's personal relationship with the
Buddha which you are critiquing based on your own tastes.  I think that
this may be unfair.
 
   
Wong:

[Miss Wilde went on to try to establish the supremacy of the Lotus by, alas,
quoting the Lotus itself.]



Response:

This goes toward proving my point here.  Surely quoting the Lotus will not
convince us of its supremacy if our standard is REASON, but if our standard
is EMOTION, and we are greatly inspired by it, then we may agree with her.
Her 'argument', therefore, is valid within the context of HER community.


Wong:

This leads me to the main point of this reply - the supremacy of the 
Lotus. To begin with historical and archealogical studies throughout the years
have established the following (Buddhist scholars should help me out on this
one ;-) :


Response:

This also displays an intellectual and 'scholarly' bias.  I tend toward it
myself, but I've come to understand it as a TASTE issue.


Wong:

1. None of the words in ANY sutra can be specifically associated with
the Buddha. Every sutra (including the Pali Canon) has been edited many, many
times over with material added and deleted as late as the Muslim invasion
of India in the 12th (or is it 14th ?) century.


Response:

This is untrue.  On an individual and social basis, we may associate any
words in ANY sutra with the Buddha.  We can never be proven wrong,
and it is quite possible that the Buddha speaks to US with these words.

Yes, the sutras have been edited.  It is quite possible that this editing
CLARIFIED the words through the Buddha's influence ON the editors.  Thus,
editing on its own cannot be used as a basis to reject our attribution of
the sutra to the Buddha.  It is a personal and, to the community which does
so, an EMOTIONALLY revealed truth.  If you or if 'scholars' don't understand
it, then perhaps you are farther from the Buddha.  Or, perhaps you simply
have a different RELATIONSHIP with the Buddha on your different path.


Wong:

2. All Mahayanist texts as they exist today are later compositions. Of
course, this does not bar the possibility that certain phrases/paragraphs or
ideas may have been spoken of by the Sakyamuni Buddha....3.....


Response:

This also doesn't address the possibility that Buddha isn't 'dead'.  Perhaps
the Buddha simply exists in another plane, to which certain composers may
'tune in'.  If you are speaking ONLY historically about the MOUTH of 
Gautama, I agree with you.  If you are talking about relationships of a
less historical nature, I think that your words are overly restrictive.


Wong:

My point?   While I do admire the content of the sutra (I particularly
like the idea of Ekayana), I wouldn't take the form of the sutra too seriously.
Stuff like the Buddha stretching his tongue to the heavens is at best symbolic.
Furthermore, you quoted the Lotus to indicate its "supremacy" ... what about
this ...

	"Thus the Bodhisattva gave the Great Magical Mantra, the Great Wisdom
	 Mantra, the Supreme Mantra, the Unequalled Mantra which will allay
	 all sufferings. This is the absolute truth. So the Mantra goes,

		Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, nirvana-ho !"

This is my (poor) translation (from memory) of the Heart Sutra. If I take it 
literally, I would have to conclude that your "Namo myoho renge kyo" is an 
inferior mantra and that you should be chainting "gate, gate ..." 


Response:

It would not suprise me if some Buddhists do just THIS.  They might consider 
the Heart Sutra to be superior and that the Lotus is less revealing.  FOR 
THEMSELVES, they are correct.  I know that you are arguing against Ms Wilde's
extremity, yet I think that you fail to withold your own in response.

	
Wong:

[Kukai example omitted]

This might sound confusing but the bottom line seems to be - who's 
story do you buy ? My personal belief is to approach each and every scripture
(which I have the time and access to ;-) on its own merit. Seriously question
and examining the statements and propositions made ON ITS OWN MERITS based
on the general Buddhist principles (which I want to be deliberately vague 
about).


Response:

Your personal belief works for you.  Would you have, as some Christians
and Nichirens would, EVERYONE follow your method?  This is the real problem
in religion today, as I see it.  People mistake PERSONAL truths for 
UNIVERSAL truths.  One can see a difference between these, and I think
that an acceptance of such a difference is healthy.

Reason is a perfectly legitimate approach.  I argue that emotion is ALSO.


Wong:

As for Nichiren, I have not read a lot of his writings but what I have
read leads me to conclude that it compares pale with other greats such as
Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu etc. But none of these greater men ever had the ego
to claim that their's was the truth to end all truths or that their teachings
represents Buddhism solely while all others are evil.


Response:

This is a personal evaluation.  Ms Wilde evidently disagrees, yet if
you two had the incentive and time to get together and compare your FEELINGS
about these texts, I submit you would BOTH learn something.  When both of
you quote what you think is valuable here in Usenet WE get to learn what
you value and perhaps gain insight into experiences of the scriptures.

[some omitted]


Wong:

As for the threat of going to hell for not embracing the Lotus with full
faith etc. - sounds like a fire and brimson sermon from you not-so-friendly
neighbourhood TV evangelist. Suffice it is to say that it is hardly consistent
with the idea of compassion.


Response:

'The' idea of compassion?  I think that this word (let alone its asian
counterpart) is sufficiently ambiguous that your characterization here is
specious.  I presume that if the NS place a value on the term, then they
have an interpretation that includes such 'fire and brimstone' expressions.
Having little knowledge of their sect, however, I cannot be sure.

Holding others to standards which we accept for ourselves is quite common
among religious sects also.  While Ms Wilde may indeed be doing this, I
think that you do not escape it here yourself.


Wong:

Having said all these, I would like to add that my aim is not to "break"
your faith but to let you see that no system is complete in itself and that
"surrender" to any is at best useless and at worst dangerous. We should
constantly question/contemplate on the very basis of our existence and
principles. If it is unable to stand up against such grinding, maybe it isn't 
what one should rest on. 


Response:

Here you display what I call 'tribalism'.  It is the 'my group does it better
than your group' or 'my way is better than your way' type of thinking that
I'm referring to here.  As I've mentioned above, I think your words are
extreme and that there is room for both Ms Wilde's style and your own.

I think that some systems are indeed complete in themselves and that for
SOME, 'surrender' is important.

The extremity which I see in MANY words written by adherents to particular
traditions is this generalization.  Telling us what we 'should' be doing
(constantly questioning, for example), is not conducive to what *I* consider
compassion.   It can not only disorient and confuse people who are
attempting to come to terms with their feelings about their path, but could
well prove as coercive as any 'fire and brimstone' sermon.


Wong:

Remember ...

		"Great doubt, great awakening,
		 Small doubt, small awakening,
		 No doubt, no awakening."


Response:

I would add...

Great doubt, little faith,
Small doubt, great faith,
No doubt, perfect faith.

The terms are too easily turned against us, as Hui-neng showed.

Please attempt to argue me out of my preference for chocolate. ;>


Invoke me under my stars.   Love is the law, love under will.


I am I!


Frater (I) Nigris (666)