Nichiren as the True Buddha

[Serenity509]

From the perspective of ultimate truth, I just don't find it that interesting whether Nichiren is the original Buddha or not. These sectarian battles seem too political. We all, without exception, have Buddha-nature.

[joy&peace]

I cannot imagine Buddha caring about it. Buddha said on his last four teachings, one of them - be attached to the Dharma, not the person.

[markatex]

You seem to have already decided that SGI is all hunky dory and any criticism of it whatsoever does not matter to you and anyone who has any issues with it is just being a big meanyhead, so why do you keep posting this?

[illarraza]

From the perspective of ultimate truth, I just don't find it that interesting whether Nichiren is the original Buddha or not. These sectarian battles seem too political. We all, without exception, have Buddha-nature.

Of course you are entitled to your beliefs and priorities. It is however undeniable that Nichiren Daishonin was very interested in the question of the identity of the Eternal Buddha.

Illarraza

[Serenity509]

You seem to have already decided that SGI is all hunky dory and any criticism of it whatsoever does not matter to you and anyone who has any issues with it is just being a big meanyhead, so why do you keep posting this?

That's a good question. I'm not currently an SGI member. Why have Clark Strand and some academics not associated with SGI written favorably of SGI?

[illarraza]

You seem to have already decided that SGI is all hunky dory and any criticism of it whatsoever does not matter to you and anyone who has any issues with it is just being a big meanyhead, so why do you keep posting this?

That's a good question. I'm not currently an SGI member. Why have Clark Strand and some academics not associated with SGI written favorably of SGI?

https://www.reddit.com/r/sgiwhistleblow ... ok_waking/

Illarraza

[Serenity509]

You seem to have already decided that SGI is all hunky dory and any criticism of it whatsoever does not matter to you and anyone who has any issues with it is just being a big meanyhead, so why do you keep posting this?

That's a good question. I'm not currently an SGI member. Why have Clark Strand and some academics not associated with SGI written favorably of SGI?

https://www.reddit.com/r/sgiwhistleblow ... ok_waking/

Illarraza

Why is it so hard to accept that Strand, who seems to be well learned and deeply care about Buddhism, appreciates SGI as a Buddhist lay movement that accepts all cultures and contributes to society?

Isn't it possible that Strand didn't join SGI because he's a Pure Land Buddhist? Please read this article:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/born-again-buddhist

[Serenity509]

There are many websites out there of ex-Catholics, yet the Catholic Church has over a billion people. Any human institution is in some sense flawed and the practice is what you make of it. Are there any scholarly assessments of SGI that you could please share with me?

[illarraza]

There are many websites out there of ex-Catholics, yet the Catholic Church has over a billion people. Any human institution is in some sense flawed and the practice is what you make of it. Are there any scholarly assessments of SGI that you could please share with me?

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/ ... Q45445.pdf

Illarraza

[illarraza]

You might find this interesting...

http://www.globalbuddhism.org/15/chilson14.pdf

Illarraza

[JazzIsTvRicky]

I reject the notion of Nichiren as the True Buddha not because I am well read, but because simply I just don't like the idea

I'm an outsider to this discussion, so my point of view on whether or not Nichiren was a Second Buddha or the True Buddha is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm only piping in here because I had a question about Myoho-Nameless' comment above. Where I'm from, the matter of disliking or liking a claim is different from the truth value of a claim, its truth or falsity. For example: when I mom told me she had cancer, I really disliked the idea. I got around to accepting the truth of it, but even now, I still don't like the idea. Is it possible that this idea may be true even if many dislike it?

I recognize that this may be a topic more appropriate to a fresh thread, but I was interested in learning how this question might be addressed from the perspective of Nichiren's Buddhism. Thank you.

In terms of Nichiren Buddhism again it depends on the Nichiren Sect. The Nirvana Sutra Vol. Six says. "Rely on the Law" Nichiren says in his writings that all of us who embrace his teachings are 'True Buddhas' for instance, in Nichiren's Gosho: 'The True Entity of Life' - Nichiren writes:
"No one but Nichiren has ever revealed these teachings. T'ien-t'ai, Miao-lo and Dengyo knew in their hearts but did not declare them aloud. There was reason for their silence: The Buddha had not entrusted them with this mission, the time had not yet come, and they had not been the Buddha's disciples from ages past. No one but Jogyo, Muhengyo and the other leaders of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth can appear during the first five hundred years of the Latter Day to spread the Law of Myoho-renge-kyo. Only they are qualified to inscribe the object of worship which physically manifests the ceremony of the two Buddhas seated together in the Treasure Tower. This is because both the Law and the object of worship are the reality of ichinen sanzen revealed in the Juryo chapter of the essential teaching.

The two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Taho, are merely functions of the true Buddha, while Myoho-renge-kyo actually is the true Buddha. The sutra explains this as "the Tathagata's secret and his mystic power."4 The "secret" refers to the entity of the Buddha's three properties and the "mystic power" to their functions. The entity is the true Buddha and the function, a provisional Buddha. The common mortal is the entity of the three properties, or the true Buddha. The Buddha is the function of the three properties, or a provisional Buddha. Shakyamuni is thought to have possessed the three virtues of sovereign, teacher and parent for the sake of us common mortals, but on the contrary, it is the common mortal who endowed him with the three virtues."

I believe this to be quite explanatory as is this teaching of Nichiren, -The Real Aspect of the Gohonzon- "Never seek this Gohonzon outside yourself. The Gohonzon exists only within the mortal flesh of us ordinary people who embrace the Lotus Sutra and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The body is the palace of the ninth consciousness, the unchanging reality which reigns over all life's functions. To be "endowed with the Ten Worlds" means that all the Ten Worlds without exception are contained in the one world of Buddhahood. That is why the Gohonzon is called a mandala. Mandala is a Sanskrit word meaning "perfectly endowed" or "cluster of blessings." The Gohonzon is found in faith alone. As the sutra states, "Only with faith can one enter Buddhahood."

So I would say the faith in the 'Gohonzon of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo' is the True Buddha based on the Scripture of Nichiren Daishonin.

Sincerely, JazzIsTvRicky

[john perry]

Please don't forget that people have said that Nichiren is the Buddha of the latter day of the law.

[JazzIsTvRicky]

Please don't forget that people have said that Nichiren is the Buddha of the latter day of the law.

However in the 6th volume of the Nirvana Sutra Shayamuni Buddha says, "Rely on the Law and not upon persons"

[JazzIsTvRicky]

The idea of Nichiren as the original Buddha is not as crazy as it sounds. This is how I understand it; please correct me if I make errors.

The idea starts it was Nichiren who identified the odaimoku of the Life Span Chapter as the heart and essence of the Lotus Sutra.
This is something that I imagine all Nichiren followers accept. You could argue that there were hints already foreshadowed in Zhiyi's exposition on the Title, but it was really never pointed at as the exclusive practice of NMRK.

OK, so we accept that as true, and move on. Let's ask another question: what is the relationship between the odaimoku and the Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni? It may sound abstract and theoretical, but it has very practical consequences. Will you put the mandala gohonzon on your altar, or an image of Siddharta Gautama? Or both? Which is the correct object of worship? While this may sound like a silly questions to other Buddhists, to us it makes a lot of sense. Objects are not just objects. It's not the same what you worship, what you put on the altar. This idea that "it is the same" is a Zen idea, because they are part of the Separate Teaching that stresses only consciousness. So for them, every object is the object of worship IF it is focused on (one can focus even on cow dung and attain samadhi) - and it's the same whether you repeat "Coca Cola" or "Namu Amida Butsu" to a Zen Buddhist. More or less. But within the context of the Lotus Sutra School and all the subschools, the Integrated Teaching does not say objects are indifferent and only the "Host", the "Mind" is what matters; but that the Mind is itself the objects, and the objects are the Mind. (When Dogen says "mind is mountains and rivers", he's taking it from his Tendai background, not from his Zen lineage...)

Since mind and environment are in an intimate relationship in the Integrated Teaching, and we don't have some detached Mind that is outside of phenomenality, it is of prime importance what is the object that the mind focuses on. If I understand correctly, Nichiren taught that there is a special object - namely, the text of the Lotus Sutra, more specifically, the hidden treasure within the text, Myoho-Renge-Kyo - which functions like a mirror, and one is able to perceive the nature of mind in it.

Now this question was the reason for the first schism after Nichiren. The Fuji sect (the one that later became Nichiren Shoshu - not exactly, but let's simplify things here) - they maintained that only the mandala gohonzon should be used as the object of worship, and not statues of Siddharta Gautama. This was before declaring Nichiren as the original Buddha or whatever, but here you can already see the whole point of the dispute. It was a question of the relationship between Shakyamuni's teachings and enlightenment, and Nichiren's teaching and enlightenment.

Shakyamuni's teachings belong to the second chapter of the LS (Expedient Devices) - Shakyamuni was the master of teachings, a genius of the Dharma, who was more skilled at the socratic method than Socrates himself. He taught different things to different groups, according to the audience's capabilities and needs. The people around Shakyamuni were taught all these great teachings that they could use as a ladder towards salvation.

This is all good, the problem arises when in the Life Span chapter, Shakyamuni reveals the final truth that is so hard to accept: the truth that he in fact got enlightened in the very remote past, an unimaginable amount of time has passed since. Now the question is: how did he get enlightened in that indefinitely remote past? He either: a) met another Buddha who skillfully guided him towards enlightenment or b) met the daimoku itself which enabled him to attain verbal identity with Buddhahood, arise faith, and get to the stage of non-retrogression.

Now the option (a) is impossible, because following the LS, all Buddhas are really emanations of Shakyamuni Buddha. The idea that Shakyamuni was instructed by one of his emanations doesn't make logical sense.

So (b) must be true. And if (b) is true, then the daimoku is "higher" than Shakyamuni Buddha; Shakyamuni is merely someone who got enlightened to it and developed skillful devices in India to lead the hearts of renunciants and ascetics, Brahmins and all kinds of followers, towards liberation, with appropriate means that were good and useful for those times.

So Shakyamuni's life embodies the Expedients chapter, while Nichiren's embodies the Life Span chapter, more specifically the odaimoku "buried within" that chapter. And just like the Life span chapter is superior to the Devices chapter, so is Nichiren superior to Shakyamuni, and prior to Shakyamuni himself, since Shakyamuni, too, got enlightened first through the odaimoku.

It's a fascinating reversal. It reminds me of the relationship between Christ and Abraham. Abraham was the founder of the faith. The father of all Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism. But Christ comes and says: "Before Abraham was, I am." Something that comes later, paradoxically becomes prior to what came before it. Shakyamuni becomes Nichiren's student.

Now, there are obvious differences, such as that Nichiren never claimed: "Before Shakyamuni was, I am". There are countless quotes that you can show, made by Nichiren himself, that he clearly saw Shakyamuni Buddha as the true Buddha and himself as Bodhisattva Superior Practices, and even that is not sure.

I'm not going to guess what Shoshu's answer to that is. Possibly that Nichiren was the original Buddha working in the guise of Bodhisattva Superior Practices?

[Minobu]

Is it true that the SGI study department now debunked this myth?
They no longer believe DaiSensei Nichiren Shonin to be the True Buddha of Kuon Ganjo ?