From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:35:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug20.182830.20694
Organization: ----

Hi,

	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 ...

>	I tried to write about the *experience* of Buddhism in a simple, plain-
>speaking manner.  The "concentrated" mind of which ...

	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.)

>The principal difference between Nichiren and other Buddhist
>innovators involved not only his ability to read and interpret the sutras ex-
>pounded by Shakyamuni Buddha but also his "innate capability" to form/establish
>a practice whereby Gautama's Dharma could be achieved.  

	I have to disagree. 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 undo 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.

>For example, ("The Essence of the Juryo Chapter," MW 3, p. 32-
>33):  "The Buddha also stated, 'However, men of devout faith, the time is 
>limitless and boundless--a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand,
>nayuta aeons--since I in fact attained Buddhahood.'  [Lotus Sutra, Ch. 16]  
>With this single proclamation, he refuted as great falsehoods the words of the
>Kegon Sutra, ...

	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 ?

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

	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 ;-) :

	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.

	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. The Lotus, although being one of the earliest Mahayanist sutra, 
could not have been around before the 1st century B.C.E. Judging from the
significant differences in length and content from the various Chinese 
translations (for example, the numbers of chapters are all different and the
chapter on Devadatta did not exist in the earlier translations) leads one to
conclude that it did not settle into its final form till very late (probably
4th or 5th century C.E.).

	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 ..." 

	As another example, Kukai in his Shingon (Tantric) teaching divides
the Dharma into 10 divisions. While he admit the Lotus into the higher ranks,
he concludes that since these sutras were spoken by Sakyamuni Buddha, the
Manifested Body, it is inferior to the Mahavairocana Sutra (Dainichi kyo) which
was delivered DIRECTLY by the Dharma Body, i.e. Mahavairocana. Still, another
example, Dr. D.T. Suzuki who's Rinzai Zen sect doesn't really favour any
particular sutras, concluded (after a lifetime of Buddhist studies) that the
Buddhavatamsaka Sutra (Kegon kyo) is the "pinnacle of Buddhist thoughts".

	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).

	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.

>Nichiren wrote in "A Comparison of the 
>Lotus Sutra and Other Sutras":  "After the death of the Buddha, there were only
>three persons who realized the true meaning of this passage of the Lotus Sutra.
>In India, Bodhisattva Nagarjuna said in his "Daichido Ron":  '[The Lotus Sutra]
>is like a great physician who changes poison into medicine.'...

	Pure Land Buddhists will gladly point to you the quote that Nagarjuna
recommends Nembutsu as the easiest means of practice. Namo-myoho-renge-kyo,
by the way, is not mentioned by him.

	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.

	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. Remember ...

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

with Metta,

W.F. Wong.