Nondualism of buddhist concepts

[nichiren-123]

This isn't post isn't particularly organized but I've tried to pull together all the key points and make it readable.

I found this quote on emptiness:

If all phenomena are characterized by the quality of emptiness, then emptiness must constitute the unchanging and abiding nature of existence, and therefore the absolute or unchanging world must be synonymous with the phenomenal one. Hence all mental and physical distinctions that we perceive or conceive of with our minds must be part of a single underlying unity. It is this concept of emptiness or nonduality that leads the Mahayana texts to assert that samsara, or the ordinary world of suffering and cyclical birth and death, is in the end identical with the world of nirvana, and that earthly desires are enlightenment.
http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/lsoc/ ... us%20Sutra

This quote seems to indicate to me that emptiness is synonymous with the Dharmakaya? Is this correct?

My next question was: if nirvana is suffering then what is the point of buddhist practice? I'd appreciate others opinions on this as well but I would also like to offer my own idea:

What I'm thinking is that the other two bodies of the Trikaya are involved. I'm guessing that the sambhogakaya is maybe the part of you which is freed from suffering?
I'd like to quote a web article on the Sambhogakaya:

Sometimes it is a kind of interface between the dharmakaya and nirmanakaya bodies.
https://www.thoughtco.com/trikaya-three ... dha-450016

If my point about the dharmakaya being emptiness is true then it would strike me that the trikaya are a different aspect of the chih-i's threefold truth:
dharmakaya = emptiness; nirmanakaya = provisionality; sambhogakaya = middle way???

I'd also like to quote the orally transmitted teachings:

The heart of the essential teaching is the exposition of the eternally endowed three bodies of the Buddha. This concept of the eternally endowed three bodies does not refer to the Buddha alone. It explains that all the ten thousand things of the universe are themselves revealed to have Buddha bodies of limitless joy. http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/ott/I ... Meanings/1

So if the trikaya is the essential teaching, isn't NMRK supposed to be the essential teaching? Does that mean the Trikaya and NMRK are synonymous?

further on I've found more evidence:

the three characters of the title, mu-ryō-gi, [immeasurable meanings sutra]  pertain to the theoretical teaching, the essential teaching, and the observation of the mind, respectively. And this expresses the transferred idea that this title of the sutra as it has just been explained and the title of the Lotus Sutra, Myoho-renge-kyo, form a single entity that is not dual in nature

and further on:

The “immeasurable meanings” are the three truths, the threefold contemplation, the three bodies, the three vehicles, and the three categories of action

So my understanding is that all these concepts are different facets of the same underlying principle - Nam myoho renge kyo.
All of them come together as a single nonduality.

[Queequeg]

This quote seems to indicate to me that emptiness is synonymous with the Dharmakaya? Is this correct?

More or less, but not necessarily the way you might think...

My next question was: if nirvana is suffering then what is the point of buddhist practice?

Your premise is incorrect. Nirvana is not marked by suffering; nirvana is the complete absence of suffering. Samsara is marked by suffering. When we say that nirvana and samsara are identical, it means that the nirvana of the Buddha is not something different than samsara; Buddha dwell in nirvana; the rest of us churn in samsara. What this teaching is actually about is that whether one suffers in samsara or attains nirvana, it comes down to one's mind, and whether it is obscured by ignorance.

What I'm thinking is that the other two bodies of the Trikaya are involved. I'm guessing that the sambhogakaya is maybe the part of you which is freed from suffering?

Buddha does not suffer. Period. Not in her Dharmakaya, not in her Sambhogakaya, not in her Nirmanakaya.

As for the rest, I'm not sure.

[nichiren-123]

Your premise is incorrect. Nirvana is not marked by suffering; nirvana is the complete absence of suffering. Samsara is marked by suffering. When we say that nirvana and samsara are identical, it means that the nirvana of the Buddha is not something different than samsara; Buddha dwell in nirvana; the rest of us churn in samsara. What this teaching is actually about is that whether one suffers in samsara or attains nirvana, it comes down to one's mind, and whether it is obscured by ignorance.

Can you elaborate? This is a teaching that has seriously confused me... Coming from an SGI background I've had many friends who simply say that 'sufferings of birth and death equal nirvana' and 'earthly desires are enlightenment' meant that buddha's suffer too - just they accept it; that it is ok to say, get angry, because it's just a function of the buddha state. What I think they think is that nirvana is just an illusion - just another 'expedient means'.
I've always resisted that interpretation but the way it's been taught to me has left me half heartedly accepting it.

[Queequeg]

I know what you mean. Those teachings are often thrown around casually in a way that suggests life, just as it is, is perfect. This, incidentally, is sometimes categorized as Original Enlightenment (hongaku).

Those teachings nirvana is samsara and klesha are bodhi, by the way, are represented on the Gohonzon by Fudo Myoo and Aizen Myoo.

If this were easy to explain and easy to see, everyone would be enlightened.

This is a simplified explanation - don't take it completely literally.

There is something real happening - you may have heard of the Real or True Aspect (jisso). Only Buddhas know the Real Aspect. "Yui butsu yo butsu naino kujin, shoho jisso" "The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas."

The rest of us are to some degree, mistaken about the True Aspect, about reality. When we are mistaken about reality, we suffer. When we see Reality as it really is, ie., when we attain Buddhahood, we eradicate the cause of suffering, which is ignorance.

That said, our suffering is in reality, unreal. That insight, however, is not particularly helpful in alleviating the suffering we are most definitely experiencing. Its the same with Nirvana is samsara, and Klesha are Bodhi. These are insights about reality and our inability to see it. They don't, in themselves, end the suffering we experience. They do hold out assurance of the end of suffering.

[nichiren-123]

... Its the same with Nirvana is samsara, and Klesha are Bodhi. These are insights about reality and our inability to see it...

I don't understand what you mean

[Wayfarer]

The way I was taught to interpret the non-duality of Nirvāṇa and samsara is that from the perspective of conventional truth, there is a world of difference between Nirvāṇa and samsara, but from the perspective of Nirvāṇa there is not. But the higher perspective has to be reached in order to see this!

I think that is a pitfall with 'ordinary mind' teachings, in that they can give rise to complacency and the false belief there is no need for any training in the first place. 'Nothing to be attained' becomes 'no need for any discipline', and the rationalising of the ordinary condition such that we simply stay as we are. I think that's why the non-dualist attitude was regarded as radical in the first place, and why those who first taught it, warned against it being misunderstood.

[ItsRaining]

... Its the same with Nirvana is samsara, and Klesha are Bodhi. These are insights about reality and our inability to see it...

I don't understand what you mean

General gist is both Nirvana and Samsara are empty thus are the same. But that is on an ultimate perspective seen by the enlightened ones, unseen by most of us.

[nichiren-123]

Going back to my point about trikaya = threefold truth:

If my point about the dharmakaya being emptiness is true then it would strike me that the trikaya are a different aspect of the chih-i's threefold truth:
dharmakaya = emptiness; nirmanakaya = provisionality; sambhogakaya = middle way???

I've found this quote:

In our own school, we follow the interpretation set forth in the commentaries of T’ien-t’ai, which gives three readings to each of the ten factors. Reading them three times will produce great benefit.
The first reading, zesōnyo, “this appearance is thus,” indicates that each of the ten factors, such as appearance, nature, entity, and power, “is thus.” Here the word nyo, or thus, represents the principle of non-substantiality. And for this reason we know that all Ten Worlds are characterized by the truth of non-substantiality. When we contemplate this reading, we come to realize that we ourselves are none other than Thus Come Ones of the reward body, the eighty-four thousand teachings, and wisdom.
The second reading, nyozesō, “thus appearance,” or appearance like this, indicates the appearance manifested by the form and shape of one’s own body. All such appearances are temporary, and this means that, since the same applies to all the ten factors from appearance, nature, entity, power, and so forth, all Ten Worlds are characterized by the truth of temporary existence. When we contemplate this reading, we come to realize that we ourselves are none other than Thus Come Ones of the manifested body. This is also known as emancipation.
The third reading, sōnyoze, “appearance is thus,” refers to the Middle Way, the Buddha of the Dharma body. When we contemplate this reading, we come to realize that we ourselves are none other than Thus Come Ones of the Dharma body. This is also known as the Middle Way; as the essential nature of phenomena; as nirvana; and as tranquil extinction.
http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2/Content/180

So sambhogakaya = emptiness; nirmanakaya = provisonality; dharmakaya = middle way

[Queequeg]

... Its the same with Nirvana is samsara, and Klesha are Bodhi. These are insights about reality and our inability to see it...

I don't understand what you mean

The way I was taught to interpret the non-duality of Nirvāṇa and samsara is that from the perspective of conventional truth, there is a world of difference between Nirvāṇa and samsara, but from the perspective of Nirvāṇa there is not. But the higher perspective has to be reached in order to see this!

General gist is both Nirvana and Samsara are empty thus are the same. But that is on an ultimate perspective seen by the enlightened ones, unseen by most of us.

These are some passages to illustrate the responses above.

From the 16th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra:

The Tathagata perceives the true aspect of the threefold world exactly as it is. There is no ebb or flow of birth and death, and there is no existing in this world and later entering extinction. It is neither substantial nor empty, neither consistent nor diverse. Nor is it what those who dwell in the threefold world perceive it to be. All such things the Tathagata sees clearly and without error...

When living beings witness the end of a kalpa
and all is consumed in a great fire,
this, my land, remains safe and tranquil,
constantly filled with heavenly and human beings...

My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere.

And from the Vimalakirti Sutra:

At that time Śāriputra was influenced by the Buddha’s numinous charisma to have this thought: “If the bodhisattva’s buddha land is pure according to the purity of the bodhisattva’s mind, then when our World-honored One was a bodhisattva his mind must have been pure. Nevertheless,
this buddha land is so impure!”

The Buddha knew what he was thinking and asked him, “What do you think? Although the blind do not see them, can the sun and moon be anything
but pure?”

[Śāriputra] answered, “No, World-honored One! This is the fault of the blind, not that of the sun and moon.”

[The Buddha said], “Śāriputra, it is through the transgressions of sentient beings that they do not see the purity of the Tathāgata’s (i.e., my) buddha land. This is not the Tathāgata’s fault! Śāriputra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.”

To see samsara, marked by impermanence, no-self, defilement, and suffering, is to be deluded.

To see nirvana, marked by permanence, self, purity and bliss, is to be enlightened.

To see beings consumed in klesha is to be deluded.

To see beings engaged in bodhi is to be enlightened.

Only Buddhas completely see this. Bodhisattvas of varying degrees see this commensurate with their overcoming of ignorance (See the 52 Bodhisattva Stages)

Pointing out that we are all endowed with the eternal trikaya is along these lines. If you want to understand the significance of this teaching in the Nichiren context, I would start with Kanjin no Honzon Sho - The True Object of Worship.

Last comment - I'm not sure if "nondualism of buddhist concepts" is a helpful way to conceptualize the relationship between various Buddhist teachings. Nondualism refers to a feature of insight into reality.

[nichiren-123]

Would it be right to say that samsara and nirvana are two but not two?

From the perspective of provisional reality they appear different

From the emptiness point of view they are the same as you cannot draw the line between the two

So from the middle way, two but not two???

Am I on the right lines?

Pointing out that we are all endowed with the eternal trikaya is along these lines. If you want to understand the significance of this teaching in the Nichiren context, I would start with Kanjin no Honzon Sho - The True Object of Worship.
.

Will read it later when I've got time

Last comment - I'm not sure if "nondualism of buddhist concepts" is a helpful way to conceptualize the relationship between various Buddhist teachings. Nondualism refers to a feature of insight into reality

Maybe not. Rename it what you like. (I'm assuming you can do that as admin?) I mainly made this thread to get help figuring out the relationships between the key concepts. More specifically, I want to know how NMRK links up with the rest of the buddha's teachings. So that's the direction I hope this thread takes.

On that note I'd like to share my latest personal revelation:

the three characters of the title, mu-ryō-gi, pertain to the theoretical teaching, the essential teaching, and the observation of the mind, respectively. And this expresses the transferred idea that this title of the sutra as it has just been explained and the title of the Lotus Sutra, Myoho-renge-kyo, form a single entity that is not dual in nature
http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/ott/I ... Meanings/1

The word mu means kū, emptiness or non-substantiality.

I think I found proof that ryo and gi are the same as ke and chu but I can't seem to find the source. nvm.

The “immeasurable meanings” are the three truths, the threefold contemplation, the three bodies, the three vehicles, and the three categories of action

So amalgamating the key points from those two quotes: MRK = immeasurable meanings = threefold truth

Reading this link:

http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2013/ ... ai-school/

I've realised:
The tripitaka and connection teachings = ku = myo
The distinct teaching = ke = ho
The perfect teaching = chu = myoho (maybe 'renge' and 'kyo' too, idk I haven't figured that out yet)

For me these are the links in the chain which bring NMRK together with the rest of the buddha's teachings, showing how all of the buddha's teachings fit into the mystic law.

[Queequeg]

Would it be right to say that samsara and nirvana are two but not two?

I think so. I've never heard that "two but not two" convention applied to nirvana/samsara, but I think it works.

From the perspective of provisional reality they appear different

A qualified, yes. Nirvana does not appear except as some compounded thing, which by definition cannot be nirvana. We talk about Nirvana, but its like talking about something that is hopelessly illusive. Hence in Buddhist discourse, nirvana is almost always described in negative terms - as the lack of qualities, as the absence of features, particularly, the absence of suffering. There is a tradition of teachings that discusses nirvana in positive terms - Tathagatagarbha teachings, but we should keep in mind this is a different perspective/paradigm than the negative approach. Its helpful to keep the approaches distinct to avoid confusion.

From the emptiness point of view they are the same as you cannot draw the line between the two

The "emptiness point of view" is an oxymoron. Emptiness is the utter lack of any defining characteristic. That said, we can conventionally talk about an "emptiness point of view", and in that case, right - there is no distinction between them.

So from the middle way, two but not two???

In terms of the logic, that's right. In practice, the middle is remarkable and profound teaching. The Middle is also identified with Buddhanature/Tathagatagarbha. Its the abiding reality in which Mind is integrated. It is empty, it is also conditioned or provisional.

Zhiyi taught:

Identity in principle means that one single thought-moment is identical with the principle of the tathagata-garbha. It is identical with emptiness because of its suchness (tatha), identical with conventional existence because of its function as a treasure-house á (garbha) [in appearing in the world in various forms], and identical with the Middle because of its [participation in the] principle [of reality]. The three wisdoms are included in a single thought, though this is beyond conceptual understanding. As explained above, threefold truth is one truth, though neither three nor one; each and every color and scent is endowed with all of reality (sarvadharma). Every single thought is also like this. This is called “identity in principle” which is positive [and conducive to right] bodhicitta.

Also, this “identity in principle” is indivisible with calming-and-contemplation. [That each moment of thought is] indivisible with quiescence is called “calming,” and [that each moment of thought is] indivisible with luminosity is called “contemplation.”

I mainly made this thread to get help figuring out the relationships between the key concepts. More specifically, I want to know how NMRK links up with the rest of the buddha's teachings. So that's the direction I hope this thread takes...

So amalgamating the key points from those two quotes: MRK = immeasurable meanings = threefold truth

I'm not sure. First, the Ongi Kuden is not the most reliable source. Its authorship is questioned and may not be what it is billed to be. Secondly, whatever is said about the Muryogikyo - Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, it is a provisional sutra.

As for Myohorengekyo, it is synonymous with the threefold inclusive truth (distinguished from the Threfold exclusive Truth of the Separate Teaching), the ten worlds, the mutual possession of the ten worlds, the thousand factors and the three thousand in a single thought moment; Myohorengekyo refers to the Buddha and his innermost wisdom and practice.

If you are interested in the classification system that explains the relationship between the essential teaching and everything else, I would suggest the following:

Chegkuan's Outline of the Fourfold Teachings, Zhiyi's Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, and with these, Nichiren's commentaries such as Kanjin no Honzon Sho.

I can't caution you enough to avoid speculatively connecting dots and instead go directly to authentic sources that will spell these things out for your clearly.

[Wayfarer]

At that time Śāriputra was influenced by the Buddha’s numinous charisma....

Lovely turn of phrase. And, thanks very much for those examples and explanations.

[nichiren-123]

Your guidance are somewhat discouraging, Queequeg, but that's what I appreciate about you - you give me food for thought.

But I think I'm on to something regarding the connection between NMRK and everything else so I'm gonna keep pursuing it in this thread, organizing my thoughts and making them available for constructive criticism.

The way I'm seeing it, Immeasurable meanings sutra (mu ryo gi) is preparation for the lotus sutra. It is the interface between the lotus sutra and everything else. I'll try my best to illustrate this with various quotes (from the orally transmitted teachings mainly - I'm not willing to throw them out as forgery's - the OTT are pretty important in SGI):

the former [immeasurable meanings] serves as preparation and the latter [lotus] as revelation

So the immeasurable meanings is preperation for the "revelation" of Myoho Renge Kyo

...the ways of preaching the Law are immeasurable; and because the ways of preaching the Law are immeasurable, its meanings are likewise immeasurable. These immeasurable meanings are born from a single Law [Myoho Renge Kyo], and this Law is without aspect. [quote is from immeasurable meanings sutra, not OTT]

So there is a law (origin, i.e. Myoho Renge Kyo) which gives birth to immeasurable meanings (i.e. everything and anything, including all of the buddhist concepts)

...this title of the sutra as it has just been explained and the title of the Lotus Sutra, Myoho-renge-kyo, form a single entity that is not dual in nature,

So although the law of origin (or the lotus) gives birth to immeasurable meanings, they are in fact different ways of viewing the same thing. The lotus is the essential teaching which gives birth to the provisional although the two are in essence non-dual - in other words the product is the same as the sum of its constituent parts. This is further illustrated below:

...But now for the moment we use the character sho to indicate that which gives birth, and then the “immeasurable meanings” will be designated as that which was given birth. In this way we designate the sho, “the origin [of immeasurable meanings],” as it relates to the distinction between the true and the provisional teachings.

The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings says: The eight volumes of the Lotus Sutra correspond to the word “origin,” while the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra corresponds to the words “immeasurable meanings.”

So now that I've illustrated how Myoho Renge Kyo gives rise to, whilst being the same as the immeasurable meanings, it becomes obvious that all the teachings of the buddha are subsumed into the title of the immeasurable meanings sutra as it represents the immeasurable dharma's that arise from the one true law of Myoho Renge Kyo. Now I'd like to look closer at how the other teachings are subsumed into the immeasurable meanings sutra (mu ryo gi)

The Tripitaka teaching and the connecting teaching are subsumed under the character mu of muryōgi;the specific teaching is subsumed under the character ryō; and the perfect teaching is subsumed under the character gi.

And this is the crux of my argument. If you follow my logic then it is obvious how the provisional teachings are subsumed into the essential. The provisonal teachings are all parts of the immeasurable meanings which are born from the law of origin (NMRK).

One last quote, which I found interesting:

The “immeasurable meanings” are the three truths, the threefold contemplation, the three bodies, the three vehicles, and the three categories of action.

[Queequeg]

Your guidance are somewhat discouraging, Queequeg, but that's what I appreciate about you - you give me food for thought.

I'm sorry. I'll try to be gentler. When I started digging through and trying to make sense, I wish someone had guided me.

But I think I'm on to something regarding the connection between NMRK...

Not to burst your bubble, but this is quite explicitly the case. You will find this conversation has been going on since long before you or I made our appearances.

The way I'm seeing it, Immeasurable meanings sutra (mu ryo gi) is preparation for the lotus sutra.

You might want to read the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and the Lotus Sutra...

The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra is an introduction to the Lotus Sutra. It literally explains that the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra was taught to prepare the assembly to hear the Lotus Sutra.

The Lotus sets forth what is called the Ekayana, or Single Vehicle. All of the Buddha's various teachings are expedient iterations of the Single Vehicle, preparing them to hear the Single Vehicle.

It is the interface between the lotus sutra and everything else. I'll try my best to illustrate this with various quotes (from the orally transmitted teachings mainly - I'm not willing to throw them out as forgery's - the OTT are pretty important in SGI):

Understandable, but your standard should be truth, not what one teacher or another, or one text or another relates.

So now that I've illustrated how Myoho Renge Kyo gives rise to, whilst being the same as the immeasurable meanings, it becomes obvious that all the teachings of the buddha are subsumed into the title of the immeasurable meanings sutra as it represents the immeasurable dharma's that arise from the one true law of Myoho Renge Kyo. Now I'd like to look closer at how the other teachings are subsumed into the immeasurable meanings sutra (mu ryo gi)

No. Myohorengekyo, the title of the Lotus is the essential teaching. All dharmas are subsumed in the Title of the Lotus.

Nichiren would vigorously disagree with you.

[nichiren-123]

You might want to read the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and the Lotus Sutra...

I've read a couple of commentaries on the threefold lotus sutra. Only read bits and pieces of the original sutra as it can be hard to understand

I'm starting to realize that you can't just put the teachings into neatly organized boxes. Everything inter subsumes everything else; everything is non-dual; there's no set point where one thing starts and another thing ends; any single viewpoint is just one facet out of many.

[Queequeg]

I'm starting to realize that you can't just put the teachings into neatly organized boxes. Everything inter subsumes everything else; everything is non-dual; there's no set point where one thing starts and another thing ends; any single viewpoint is just one facet out of many.

Spoken like a true Lotus Tradition Buddhist. You've even got the lingo.

Life inside the kaleidoscope...

[ItsRaining]

I'm starting to realize that you can't just put the teachings into neatly organized boxes. Everything inter subsumes everything else; everything is non-dual; there's no set point where one thing starts and another thing ends; any single viewpoint is just one facet out of many.

Spoken like a true Lotus Tradition Buddhist. You've even got the lingo.

Life inside the kaleidoscope...

Doesn't Zhi Yi classify everything with the Four Teachings scheme? Though he does admit that many teachings (Eg. Avtamsaka) contains more than one type of teaching.

[nichiren-123]

Queequeg
On your comment about the ongi kuden, I've been reading up and found that nichiren made his own personal annotated notes on the lotus sutra?
Are these still extant? Are they available in English?

[Queequeg]

quote="nichiren-123"]Queequeg
On your comment about the ongi kuden, I've been reading up and found that nichiren made his own personal annotated notes on the lotus sutra?
Are these still extant? Are they available in English?[/quote]
I believe the original is at Minobu. It is available online but only in Sino Japanese.

[Queequeg]

[
Doesn't Zhi Yi classify everything with the Four Teachings scheme? Though he does admit that many teachings (Eg. Avtamsaka) contains more than one type of teaching.

Yes, all Buddhist teachings are classified in terms of the four teachings.

Some sutras contain all four teachings. Some three, two or one.

Avatamsaka does contain the perfect, but it is mixed with other teachings, as well as mixing sudden and gradual teachings.