narhwal90 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:43 pm
DGA wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:35 pm
1. What were Nichiren's thoughts on Pure Land practice and doctrine?
Nichiren asserted nembutsu as at best ineffective and at worst, destructive, and focus on Amida as an emmanation vs Sakyamuni is incorrect. I think the bulk of his polemical writings were directed at Pure Land. That said, he was a man of his time writing about issues of the day, it may be some of his language is more about personalities and a literal reading is misleading. I think Q can better address this point.
That about covers it.
DGA wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:35 pm
2. Is it possible to practice Nichiren's Buddhism adequately if one doesn't approve of Nichiren's teachings on particular topics, such as the appropriateness of various practices?
IMHO sure- note the various Nichiren schools. Some of the practices have evolved since Nichiren's time with the requisite skullduggery and politics, so appropriateness is often a relative thing anyhow. Adequately is an interesting term; I think that might mean the practitioner starts seeing transformation in their lives as a result of the practice. If thats happening, the SGI response would probably be "yes, adequate"- I would be surprised if the other schools would say something different though perhaps there would be disagreement related to the individual's practices eg Nichiren Shoshu would not approve of the use of an SGI gohonzon & so on.
Sure, one can practice Daimoku without forming any opinion on Pure Land. Most people have no particular first hand opinion of Pure Land, certainly outside Japan and even in Japan. And whatever people know as Pure Land now is a long way from whatever was the case in the 13th c.
I'd even argue that criticism is a provisional practice - a function of the Relative Sublime, something to be abandoned when the circumstances don't demand it any longer. Some in the Nichiren community would disagree. Many will agree.
No offense to anyone, but in the scheme of things, Buddha Dharma doesn't matter anymore. Most people are indifferent to it. What's the point in critiquing something when it has become little more than a social artifact in the vast majority of circumstances? Critiquing something that no one cares about is the definition of the pejorative sense of 'academic'. And all it does is bring ill repute to the Dharma.
In a robust Buddhist environment, there is a place for critical discussion. These days, it's great if someone sees a Buddha image and for a moment conceives an instant of appreciation, let alone joy or something more.
DGA wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:05 pm
Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:17 pm
Motova wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:50 pm
Why would any Mahayana practitioner ignore Amitabha's Pure Land?
I don't think that Nichiren was telling people to ignore Sukhavati.
This is an interesting topic. I don't know if he did or if he did not.
I do know that many of the contemporary Nichiren Buddhists I have engaged with do not view an aspiration for rebirth in Sukhavati as a good way to use the current lifetime one has. (Am I off base here?)
While Malcolm's take on Nichiren is odd in referring to Gotoba and Wuzong, he's basically correct. The problem Nichiren found was the exclusivist Pure Land teachings. Some might think it ironic that he taught the exclusive Daimoku in response. This is a complex subject related to the discussion of Daimoku as definitive teaching. Simply put, Daimoku is the teaching and practice accessible to all people. It is on the continuum of the Perfect and Sudden teaching in Tiantai. It actually embraces all teachings as opened by the Sudden and Perfect. Another discussion.
There is no aspiration for Sukhavati because we have no affinity for it. That's probably where we ought to leave it. Anything more and emotions get stoked.