The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 3

Day 3: One thing I really love about Buddhism, particularly Nichiren Buddhism—and of life itself—is the concept of the Middle Way, the recognition that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to our linguistic and mental capacities is our need to define and dualistically contrast things in order to understand them clearly with our mind. But as the Buddha warns Shariputra in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's ultimate teaching, which we will be discussing in this section, “Go chi-e mon. Nange nannyu. Issai shomon. Hyaku-shi-butsu. Sho-i sha ga.” (The Liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism, p. 1), which means, “The door to this wisdom [the Buddha's wisdom] is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it.” (ibid. p. 20) The voice-hearers and pratyekabuddha were the Buddha's disciples from his earliest teaching period, the period we described in the last session as Hinayana, lesser vehicle teachings. Hence, because they were able to practice these very difficult teachings, they were considered the Buddha's foremost disciples. Shariputra, in particular, to whom this passage is addressed, was considered the smartest, the most intelligent of the Buddha's disciples. He was the equivalent of, in modern terms, a philosopher/theologian/rationalist of the highest degree, someone who could do the most complicated mental operations, concentrate well and commit all of the many teachings he learned to memory. Yet, in this passage, he is told he cannot begin to understand (i.e. enter the door) to the greatest wisdom in life. I believe this is so because even though one may master logic and mental calibration, life transcends and does not follow these mental calibrations and methods that we humans have constructed to understand the truth. For example, we say a thing is good or bad, large or small, round or square. Or we give names to everything. But none of these effectively secure for us the knowledge that makes us ultimately free or happy. And while there is a correct and incorrect method for evaluating and defining things to enable us to live together and with ourselves with clarity, when it comes especially to the deepest and most significant matters, such constructs completely fail us. Hence, we commit ourselves to war. And then we commit ourselves to peace. To love. And then to independence. We eventually learn—if we keep an open mind—that none of these things has an absolute value. For example, what if you are forced into a situation in which the absolutely only way to save one life is to destroy another? Although this justification has been used quite liberally in getting people to go to war, it sometimes holds. The point is that you are asking for big trouble if you cling hard to absolute definitions about life.

Thus, we saw in the last installment the idea of devoting oneself to the happiness of others. But unless clearly defined as needing to be coupled with devoting oneself to one's own happiness, all kinds of problems are sure to easily arise, the most obvious of them being the fact that we cannot take good care of others if we are a mess and falling apart and also that it is easy to be duped by unscrupulous people into supporting evil in the guise of helping someone. A pernicious and dangerous example is when an entire large religious institution takes advantage of such sincerity and good-heartedness. The Living Buddhism I have been quoting from defines the 3rd comparison as that between “True Mahayana and Provisional Mahayana” (LB Nov-Dec 2010, p. 96). True Mahayana is the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni's ultimate (although not final) sutra (the Nirvana, which confirms what was taught in the Lotus, being the last), in which he declares unequivocally with respect to every sutra preceding, “I have not yet revealed the truth” (L.S. Chap. 2). The major point and huge significance of the Lotus Sutra is its revelation, unique among all the sutras, that all people possess the Buddha nature, meaning they have the potential for ultimate enlightenment. “The pre-Lotus...teachings...insist that [certain] people, which include] evil people and women...are...incapable of becoming enlightened...On the other hand, the Lotus Sutra...elucidates how everyone...can equally attain Buddhahood.” It explains that while Shariputra, considered foremost in wisdom, was unable to attain Buddhahood through his wisdom, he could nonetheless attain Buddhahood through faith in the sutra, just as anyone else could. Hence, the Lotus is a great equalizer, or, better put, revealer of the inherent equality which is the true nature of all human beings, because all it requires is faith in it, rather than austere and very difficult practices, including the provisional Mahayana perogative to love all people unconditionally. Or better put, faith in the sutra itself, will arouse the Buddha wisdom and compassion that makes us naturally love others, without trying to force it. The ability of all people, equally, to attain this wisdom is what safeguards our being taken advantage of by people claiming to possess religious authority simply because they are in a high position within the religion one believes in.

What is the watershed event/phenomenon in western culture that parallels this opening of the highest spiritual wisdom to all? In 1517, a very brave Christian priest named Martin Luther publicly stated that no priest nor the Pope has any greater authority in Christian faith or understanding than anyone with sincere faith. Around this same time, the printing press had been invented and soon the actual text of the Bible would be available to more people—in their own language, instead of Latin—than ever before. In my last installment, I had spoken about the doing away with ritual and precepts or commandments which were central to Judaism and Hinayana Buddhism when Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism offered a way that was more accessible to so many more people. What happened to these movements that they somehow became ensconced with the very stumbling blocks and shackles they themselves had once overthrown by the Latter Day, during which time Nichiren and Martin Luther made their appearances? Nichiren, in discussing the limitations of the Buddhist temples of his day, clearly and easily identifies the limitations of the pre-Lotus Sutra Mahayana teachings upon which they are based, which do not teach that all people are capable of enlightenment, thus fostering a climate of inequality. In the case of the Christian Church that existed in the Middle Ages and at the time of Luther, I have always been suspicious of the movement of Christianity from the time the Romans took it over from the common people. I have been suspicious of the Roman Church, or, as it is better known, the Roman Catholic Church, as really the last ditch attempt of the Roman emperors to seize control of what, on its own merit, had become the most popular way of life in the empire, and thereby maintain control over the people. The huge weight given to papal authority clearly attests to my argument that the Roman Church, rather than a religious institution, is more of a political one. However, in that the last two popes, beginning with Pope John Paul II, have been so sincere in their efforts to respond to the challenges of the modern world, especially in meeting equally with Jews and Moslems with open arms and an intent to come together, as well as John Paul's brave opposition to the Iraq war, I want to lend my strong support for this expression of a truly Christian spirit.

Nonetheless, historically, an exciting movement was on foot in Europe during this period during the middle of the second millennium, not only in terms of Luther, but also in terms of many other luminaries of the period known as the Renaissance, a period in which not only religious authority buyt political authority underwent much upheaval as things became more democratic. The invention of the printing press not only opened up the words of the Bible to large number of people but also the words of many other people, thus bringing learning to more people than ever. And, although this upheaval involved huge amounts of violence, it is still hugely exciting to think that one's relation to wisdom, to truth, to God, was no longer to be dictated either by a rule book that one had to blindly obey nor by a religious authority who could at will decide for you what God's word was, but only through faith alone. This empowerment of people is something scholars and historians of many belief systems celebrate as they examine this period historically known as the period of the Reformation as well as the Renaissance.