The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 2

Day 2: Before making the next comparison, I wish to make it clear that in talking about events and trends in human history and imagination from centuries ago that the progression in human spiritual evolution is not as simple as a division in historic periods, as modern history and these religions themselves, do. And while it is helpful (otherwise I wouldn't do it) to pinpoint changes in human consciousness collectively at certain time periods, I think it would do us a lot better to identify these different patterns being elucidated by each comparison in ourselves with the understanding that each progression we identify is still an aspiration on some level for ourselves to strive for. It would not be incorrect at all to say that luminaries such as Siddhartha, Moses and Jesus were not simply ahead of their time—they are still way ahead, in many ways, of our time. And, if you look closely at yourself and those around you, how many times have you encountered the thought pattern, “It's all because of [so-and-so]...”, or “Because I did [such-and-such] at the age of 18, 20 years ago, I'm screwed for life...” The concept that causes we didn't make but others made or causes we made in the past have more power than our present causes is a very powerful human trait and not so easily dismissed as a phenomenon of what we consider a “less enlightened time period”. The responsibility for Adam and Eve's action rests squarely with them in the Bible's presentation of it, not with the snake, who is really Satan (although Satan is obviously blamed for making a bad cause, and, as well, the snake is just a snake in the actual text of the Bible; that it was Satan doesn't get introduced until many interpretations later).

But enough of that. I'd like to set up the next comparison with a parallel between the Biblical story we are referencing and the story of Prince Siddhartha leaving the palace against his father's wishes. Both involve disobedience and both involve an encounter with suffering. For those who don't know it, Prince Siddhartha, who is also known to us as Shakyamuni Buddha, grew up living the privileged life of a prince, obviously wanting for nothing. One day, as a young man, he happens to be at one of the gates, at which he encounters a beggar. He goes to the other 3 of the 4 gates, at which he encounters an old person at one, a sick person at the third, and a corpse at the 4th. Fascinated by this glimpse into 4 lives totally alien to his, his curiosity propels him to venture outside the gates against his father's wishes, upon which begins his quest that leads to his enlightenment. Is this not the same thing as wanting knowledge of good and evil and is not disobedience the action that is taken? Obviously, it's cast in a very different light. I paralleled it to show the biblical story in a different light, as humankind's quest—thirst—for knowledge...for wisdom. Ignorance is not bliss. We only see it as bliss when knowledge enlightens us to some of the hard facts of reality.

Siddhartha's quest eventually leads him to the doctrine of the 4 sufferings, upon which he clarifies the 4 noble truths. Without going into detail, his discovery is that earthly desires, which are human tendencies, such as greed, anger and foolishness, are at the root of all suffering and that if only they can be eradicated, humans can experience bliss. Thus began Shakymuni's (I'm going to use this name now, since we are identifying him as the Buddha sharing his enlightenment, as opposed to the prince seeking it) teaching of practices to eradicate desires.

However, trying to eradicate desire requires pretty much an eradication of one's entire being since desire is interwoven so intricately in all lives. It became a practice that was observed by a very limited number of people because, as Shakyamuni himself said, the capacity to maintain such a practice is just too difficult for most. To enable the rest of his followers to attain enlightenment, therefore, Shakyamuni switched to a different kind of teaching, one which “instead of urging the elimination of earthly desires, state[s] that by opening up and manifesting the wisdom of enlightenmnet in our lives...we can properly control those desires and construct a pure, strong, self-motivated life”. (Living Buddhism, Nov-Dec 2010, p 95). These two different teachings, which came to be identified in later ages as Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle because of the tiny amount of people who can practice them) and Mahayana (Greater Vehicle), is what we are comparing today in our second comparison.

There is a second part of the Mahayana that is noteworthy. Hinayana practitioners were taught to seek their own enlightenment. But in Mahayana, the desire to enable others to attain enlightenment is of paramount importance. One of the key elements that resounds through these teachings is that the happiness of others is our own happiness. As SGI President Ikeda states, “Nichiren Daishonin writes, 'If you light a lantern for another, it will also brighten your own way' (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1598). Please be confident that the higher your flame of altruistic action burns, the more its light will suffuse your life with happiness. Those who possess an altruistic spirit are the happiest people of all.” This change was obviously and still is obviously a radical departure from the vantage point of many people.

Which brings us back to the question of why the Jews weren't as successful against the Romans in defending their land and their temple in 70 C.E. as they had beeen against the Syrians in 165 B.C.E. Obviously, Flavius Josephus' account of this history is much more authoritative than I can hope to be, but as we talk about lighting candles in this season of the burning of many lights, not just one, the contribution of each person can help shed greater light than just the one who is held in authority. Which is a good way to bring me to a book that may help shed light on this lack of success in defending their land, a book in fact which is one of the most if not the most widely read books ever—The New Testament. Particularly the 4 Gospels. For it is in this, or these, writings that we can get a glimpse into the society and religiosity of that time period. We see those in charge of the Jewish religion at the time concerned more with ritual than meeting the problems and difficulties of the people head on. A notable example of this that comes to mind is the person starving, for whom the cultivation of wheat for bread on the Sabbath would abate his hunger and maybe even save his life. Jewish Law, if followed literally, prohibits this. Jesus, on the other hand, demands that saving people or enabling them to become happy is more important. Hence, we see the same disparity here that exists between the Hinayana Buddhist teachings and the Mahayana ones. One is concerned with ritual and the following of rules to the letter while the other is concerned with helping people. I apologize to my Jewish friends for this stern critique. If it makes you feel any better, most Christian authorities today are just as guilty of departing from their own original teacher, Jesus, as were the Pharisees at the Temple. But we will get to that in the subsequent comparisons. The point is that acting for the sake not just of oneself but for others as well is the surest path to happiness and a much more evolved and advanced way of living. I can already see many, myself included to a large degree, in our current time period, already dropping out of the running. For, as hard as individual freedom is, to come back to the question I posed at the end of yesterday's session, meaningful freedom, i.e. one in which the discourse and sharing among people is central to living, is even harder. I think it is obvious to see that today looking at the world, and even penetratingly at ourselves.

Another point I wish to bring up as we are moving progressively through humankind's past, present and future evolution in spirituality, thinking and living, is—despite their limitations—the 3 time periods identified in both Christianity and Buddhism as the Former, Middle and Latter Days. In Buddhism, the Former Day is a time when Shakymuni's teachings are very strong and able to help people and Hinayana is the main practice, the Middle, a time when Hinayana can save no one because people's capacities have become less and Mahayana is required, and the Latter a time when none of Shakymuni's teachings have any power because people are completely lacking in capacity (in his own words, by the way, not someone from a later time period) but the “True Law” which Nichiren taught as Nam-myoho-renge-kyo can save anyone. In Christianity, the Former period is the time of the Old Testament, the Middle, the time when Jesus' salvation held out promise to save all people, and the Latter (upon which the Mormons have even named their church) the “end time” when everything is going to get stirred up and Jesus will return to lead people to salvation. It is remarkable how similar both religions' views, written up in earlier time periods when there was little to no contact between them, and how true they've played out. Well, we'll get to the “end time” or the actual nature of the Latter Day and Nam-myoho-renge-kyo later on in this lecture. For now, I would like to end noting that the practices of Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism, both focusing on becoming better people, self-control without the extreme of precepts or commandments as in their respective earlier teachings, and in doing good for others, are still quite widespread in the world.