Day 5: On the Hanukkah menorah, there are two sets of 4 rows of candles flanking the shamash, the master candle that sits above these two rows, in the center. It does not sit on one end to symbolize a progression from lowest to highest, but sits, rather, in the center, symbolizing the uniting of two flanks, not simply sitting above the rest but acting only to guide them to shine their own lights. Hence, it is a symbol for democracy, in which individual rights and the greater, common purpose are harmonized. On day 5, Jews who celebrate Hanukkah, light the first candle on the other side of the shammas, having completed the first row and now moving on to the second. We, in this discussion, have proceeded quite differently, my point being to see the commonality of each of the branches on either side. In the traditional 6-branched candelabra which is one of the many symbols of Judaism, each of the 3 candle holders on both sides is connected with its corresponding one on the other side. The Hanukkah menorah, with 8 branches, is sometimes constructed this way. This is the image I had for my 10-fold comparison. So, in effect, we've lit all the other candles and now it's time to focus on the shamash itself, the candle which is used to light all the other candles.
Nichiren Daishonin speaks of the three kinds of proof necessary for any teaching or belief system to prove its validity. These are documentary proof, theoretical proof and actual proof. Documentary proof refers to a statement's validity in light of a commonly accepted document of authority. In Nichiren's case, he was referring to the Buddhist texts as a means of proving or disproving any Buddhist school's teaching and practice as being a teaching and practice that accords with the text of the sutras. Obviously, that does not hold in the west since almost no one regards Buddhist texts as the authoritative text upon which to base one's truth or truths. We would want to use a text that most people hold in authority, such as the Bible, which is one of the reasons I have gone through great pains to shed light on the relationship of Buddhism to Judeo-Christian teachings. Of course, in today's world, many people do not accept the Bible so it's function as a source of documentary proof is now very limited. In the United States, the text of the Constitution is used as documentary proof to judge any law passed by Congress or action taken by the executive branch. But obviously, for our purposes, we would need something else. Perhaps, if there is one thing secular humanism has eliminated is the validity in the modern world of any form of documentary proof. Nonetheless, it still has a limited value because limited numbers of people hold certain texts to be sacred or at least greatly revere the words in them. Great writers like Shakespeare are often held up in conversation to help prove or make a point. The second proof, theoretical proof, refers to whether something makes sense or not. Of course, “sense” is very relative. What makes sense to me may not make sense to you. Nonetheless, because we all have to survive together and moreover because we actually need each other to survive, we have evolved and must conform to certain commonly accepted perspectives on life and on the universe. Not that these can't be challenged. Obviously, postulating that the earth is round went against the grain of common sense at the time it was first postulated, but it, as we know, turned out to be of much greater use to all of us to change that accepted notion of common sense, and now, today, there is no one in the world who still believes what everyone believed in 1400, that the earth is flat and has edges. Hence, even theoretical proof cannot be completely relied on because it too has flaws and limitations.
The third criteria of proof, actual proof, is the only solid basis for establishing the validity of any teaching or thought system. And believe me, I have speculated, based on Plato's dualistic allegory of the cave, that everything we perceive is really untrue, especially in that it has formed the basis of most of western thought right on up to the present day. Yes, it is true that our senses can lie or deceive us. But what else have we? Otherwise, the universe would be entirely random and nothing would be reliable or authoritative. However, that cannot be but sheer nonsense since everyday we live based on beliefs either proven by what we have perceived with our senses or, more often than not, based on faith in what others have told us. We have to rely on both perception and faith in order to survive. And we do. Otherwise, we'd live totally outside pattern and totally random, with no assurance that we'd even make it through the next minute. Maybe if I drive through that red light with traffic whizzing across my path, I'll make it. How many of you really believe the law of perpendicular collision of two moving objects is not reliable? I didn't think so. Hence, we use the best of what we have and it works! By golly!
So now that we've agreed that actual proof is a good criterion for judging the validity or truth of something, let's now examine the four systems of thought we have talked about in the preceding chapters. We've already seen that while the human freedom of choice of Judeo-Christianity caused Adam and Eve a lot of suffering, it still protected them and gave them a much better outcome than the mythological determinism of ancient Greek thought gave Oedipus. We also saw that Christian mercy and latitude gave a starving man a happier ending to his Sabbath than strict, unwavering adherence to Jewish law did. And we saw that countries which translated the Bible into their vernacular and gave their people a direct relationship to God fared better than those which kept them ensconced in ritual and shrouded in mystery, relying on a clergy to be the intermediaries between them and God. We continued to examine history and saw that as people put man at the center of their activities that they enabled more people to become even happier and live better. Hence, we've already seen 4 examples of actual proof that certain systems worked better than others.
There are also great examples of human beings evolving toward better more compassionate ways of treating each other. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac on the altar, to show his faith. Nothing unusual about that. All the people of that land—and many other lands in ancient times—sacrificed their first-born in order to appease gods so they would give them a good harvest. After all, if the gods got angry and many people starved, that would make sense as a worse outcome. So killing one's first-born would be a way of sparing many others. But, all of a sudden, at the last minute, God orders Abraham to stop it, just as he's about to let the knife come down. God doesn't need Abraham to show that to prove his faith. Thus, human sacrifice is outlawed. Also, the great contribution of Christianity toward humanism in the west has been greatly underestimated. Two years ago, when the Olympics were about to happen, PBS had a program on the ancient Greek Olympics. It was far from the friendly competition we see today. The games were cutthroat, bloody and often to the death. The Roman practice of going to the Coliseum and watching people bludgeon each other to death was quite common. These things today and even 1,000 years ago are and were considered quite barbaric. The Christian spirit of love towards one fellow human beings, partially from Judaism and partially, as modern theological historians have discovered, derived from eastern ideas, including Buddhism, which had become quite prevalent in the now connected worlds of ancient Greece and India (thanks to Alexander the Great) after the very humane Buddhist-propelled rule of King Ashoka in the first century C.E. The impact of this spirit, as Christianity, unlike anything else, became prevalent in Europe, changed western civilization forever into one in which even today it is hard to transgress basic rules of consideration and respect for others so as at least not to inflict injury on them unless provoked. The impact of free commercial exchange that came out of the Reformation led to the growth of wealth for many people, thus making Protestantism a clear winner in the battle to show actual proof in terms of its ability to benefit many people, and the effect of the scientific revolution based on secular humanism led to advances so unfathomable in terms of anything that came before that more people than ever have been and are able to be free of hunger and poverty, there being food banks and shelters at the very least to take care of the less fortunate, who are still, in many ways a lot more fortunate than people used to live, who had to get up at 3 or 4 in the morning, often in extreme cold, without any heat, just to labor hard in order to survive. The benefit today of vaster literacy than ever that leads to more mobility and ability to be part of the network of commerce, as well, is a clear indication that secular humanism—which parallels the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra that Buddhahood is an ever-present reality in the lives of all people—is the biggest winner in showing which way of thinking displays the most actual proof of benefit both of individuals as well as of enabling society to live better.
But! What about the fact that there is still, despite the philosophical basis for absolute equality, still great disparities among people? Why, if man—humans are the center, the starting point of all endeavor, are so many of us being left out, living in poverty, in fear, unsatisfied even despite having all that one could desire? Why, even though at the push of a button or two, we can communicate with someone around the world or be in Beijing within 24 hours, are people still killing both themselves and others? What is missing?
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 4
Day 4: In talking about the trends of human religious evolutionary consciousness, as I mentioned earlier, it is dangerous and oversimplifying to think of specific time periods in history as belonging completely to one mode of thinking versus another. As I already pointed out, some of the major religious evolutionary developments we are heirs to involve progressions of consciousness that we ourselves struggle with on a daily basis and that most of us have thought patterns belonging to each of the 5 different modes of thinking identified in Nichiren's and my comparisons. It is necessary to say this now because in examining the period of the Renaissance, which we started to get into last week up to the time we're currently living in, the ability to identify clear trends of a particular period is not that easy. Notable achievements of the Renaissance, from Galileo's and Copernicus' identification of astronomy in a way challenging orthodoxy to Shakespeare's deep understanding of human beings and his ability to get inside the heads of everyone from pagans to Jews to Christians to skeptics—in fact, to see the unique ways each person thought—in many ways define the next trend in human consciousness that will be identified today.
In terms of Nichiren's 4th Buddhist comparison, he identified it as the difference between the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra and the essential teaching. The Living Buddhism article from the Nov-Dec 2010 article on page 96 talks about two big differences, (1) the difference between merely possessing the Buddha nature and actually being able to manifest it, and (2) the difference between cause and effect time-gap and cause and effect simultaneity. Nichiren identifies the first half, the first 14 chapters of the Lotus Sutra, as the theoretical teaching in which the fact that all people have the Buddha nature, is elucidated, and the second 14 chapters as the essential teaching, in which, in the 16th, Life Span chapter, Shakyamuni reveals that whereas everyone understood him to have attained enlightenment when in a deep meditation at the age of 30, in actuality, he had really attained his enlightenment eons ago and the many lives he had previously lived as an unenlightened person, as he had told his disciples about throughout his teachings as parables, were actually lives he had lived while already a Buddha. The significance of this is that Buddhahood is not something separate from ordinary life. We don't become a Buddha through Buddhist practice, nor, as the theoretical teaching maintains, do we manifest the Buddhahood we already have as something apart from an unenlightened state, and then enter nirvana, never to return to this world again. Rather, the real implication and significance of this Life Span chapter is that we are always both a Buddha and an ordinary person. Remember how I told you in the last segment not to become attached to labels and titles? Well now more than ever is when you're going to need that understanding. All of a sudden, in saying this, everything was turned on its head. No wonder, as Nichiren lamented, no one in the Buddhist world got it right. No wonder they had lapsed into worshiping statues of images of Buddhas hoping to attain salvation that way.
I thought long and hard about how I would categorize and name the corresponding western development to the Essential Teaching of the Lotus Sutra's Life Span chapter, and clearly the term, “secular humanism” won the day in my mind. The word secular can be misleading, however, because this does not mean atheism necessarily, although I would probably place the more orthodox observants of Christianity among Protestant denominations, including today's popular Evangelical movement, more closely with the 3rd group which corresponds to the Theoretical Teaching of the Lotus Sutra, but there are definitely developments in the Christian world that challenge the dualism of orthodox Christian thinking enough to be considered in this 4th group, the secular humanists. These range from many of the leading thinkers of the Renaissance, such as Montaigne, to pull a name out of a hat, who were Christians, to England's Queen Elizabeth who, ahead of her time, and probably due to the intense religious persecution she experienced, almost being put to death more than once, established the first English kingdom where freedom of religion prevailed (though, unfortunately such freedom was short-lived), to Shakespeare, who I already mentioned, and of course many people today, both Christian and non-Christian, both religious and non-religious fall into this category. I think what clearly defines it, keeping in mind how the Life Span chapter turns everything on its head by getting rid of the distinction between Buddha and non-Buddha, establishing that Buddhist practice exists within regular society, not just in religious practices alone, is the coming together of God and man, or humans, as one and the same. Pantheism is a great example, the teaching that God is in everything. The spirit of America's founders clearly is in this group, and of course, the many who reject religion altogether, are clear examples of this. What unites them all is their belief that humans are central to everything. Of course, scientific endeavor is central, the seeking out of the truth through observation, reason and experiment. I really should have started talking about science in the last installment because embedded in the thinking of the Reformation was also the understanding that God's works and truth are communicated through everything, not just through religious texts. However, perhaps, this installment is the better time to speak about science because the big achievement of the Protestant movement was making God's word more accessible, i.e. making the Bible's very word more accessible. However, the beginnings of seeing the natural world as not divorced from the supernatural or metaphysical world was also a feature of the Protestants and it is not surprising that the economies of these countries in northern Europe took off while those of Catholic southern Europe did not to the same degree.
But what separates the aspect of the scientific movement that goes with part 4 from that which goes with part 3 at the time of the scientific revolution (in which scientific thinkers were not challenging the words of the Bible) is that these were and are willing to take up inquiry and discovery that may challenge the understanding of the Bible and to challenge it. Hence, while the Reformation afforded one the ability to understand and know God on a personal level through direct contact with His word, the scientific revolution enabled people to explore their world with no holds barred, even if it meant, or means, coming up with a completely different truth. Hence, this opened up a mode of understanding, that is only today becoming more accepted and common, that of pluralism and relativism. Contact with other cultures in the world in the last 200 years has speeded up the breakdown of absolute “truths” as we discover an amazing variety of them. In fact, my article, as well as the work of Joseph Campbell, has been to discover the common elements in seemingly uncommon and belief systems, even that seem to contradict each other but may not do so as much as we think.
To conclude this comparison, we have seen the increase of human freedom progressively and the current development, both in terms of Buddhism and in terms of western thinking, effectively closes both the temporal and the spatial gap between what is seen as the great and the ordinary, the highest and the lowest, as one is both instantly a Buddha and there is no God outside of man himself.
In terms of Nichiren's 4th Buddhist comparison, he identified it as the difference between the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra and the essential teaching. The Living Buddhism article from the Nov-Dec 2010 article on page 96 talks about two big differences, (1) the difference between merely possessing the Buddha nature and actually being able to manifest it, and (2) the difference between cause and effect time-gap and cause and effect simultaneity. Nichiren identifies the first half, the first 14 chapters of the Lotus Sutra, as the theoretical teaching in which the fact that all people have the Buddha nature, is elucidated, and the second 14 chapters as the essential teaching, in which, in the 16th, Life Span chapter, Shakyamuni reveals that whereas everyone understood him to have attained enlightenment when in a deep meditation at the age of 30, in actuality, he had really attained his enlightenment eons ago and the many lives he had previously lived as an unenlightened person, as he had told his disciples about throughout his teachings as parables, were actually lives he had lived while already a Buddha. The significance of this is that Buddhahood is not something separate from ordinary life. We don't become a Buddha through Buddhist practice, nor, as the theoretical teaching maintains, do we manifest the Buddhahood we already have as something apart from an unenlightened state, and then enter nirvana, never to return to this world again. Rather, the real implication and significance of this Life Span chapter is that we are always both a Buddha and an ordinary person. Remember how I told you in the last segment not to become attached to labels and titles? Well now more than ever is when you're going to need that understanding. All of a sudden, in saying this, everything was turned on its head. No wonder, as Nichiren lamented, no one in the Buddhist world got it right. No wonder they had lapsed into worshiping statues of images of Buddhas hoping to attain salvation that way.
I thought long and hard about how I would categorize and name the corresponding western development to the Essential Teaching of the Lotus Sutra's Life Span chapter, and clearly the term, “secular humanism” won the day in my mind. The word secular can be misleading, however, because this does not mean atheism necessarily, although I would probably place the more orthodox observants of Christianity among Protestant denominations, including today's popular Evangelical movement, more closely with the 3rd group which corresponds to the Theoretical Teaching of the Lotus Sutra, but there are definitely developments in the Christian world that challenge the dualism of orthodox Christian thinking enough to be considered in this 4th group, the secular humanists. These range from many of the leading thinkers of the Renaissance, such as Montaigne, to pull a name out of a hat, who were Christians, to England's Queen Elizabeth who, ahead of her time, and probably due to the intense religious persecution she experienced, almost being put to death more than once, established the first English kingdom where freedom of religion prevailed (though, unfortunately such freedom was short-lived), to Shakespeare, who I already mentioned, and of course many people today, both Christian and non-Christian, both religious and non-religious fall into this category. I think what clearly defines it, keeping in mind how the Life Span chapter turns everything on its head by getting rid of the distinction between Buddha and non-Buddha, establishing that Buddhist practice exists within regular society, not just in religious practices alone, is the coming together of God and man, or humans, as one and the same. Pantheism is a great example, the teaching that God is in everything. The spirit of America's founders clearly is in this group, and of course, the many who reject religion altogether, are clear examples of this. What unites them all is their belief that humans are central to everything. Of course, scientific endeavor is central, the seeking out of the truth through observation, reason and experiment. I really should have started talking about science in the last installment because embedded in the thinking of the Reformation was also the understanding that God's works and truth are communicated through everything, not just through religious texts. However, perhaps, this installment is the better time to speak about science because the big achievement of the Protestant movement was making God's word more accessible, i.e. making the Bible's very word more accessible. However, the beginnings of seeing the natural world as not divorced from the supernatural or metaphysical world was also a feature of the Protestants and it is not surprising that the economies of these countries in northern Europe took off while those of Catholic southern Europe did not to the same degree.
But what separates the aspect of the scientific movement that goes with part 4 from that which goes with part 3 at the time of the scientific revolution (in which scientific thinkers were not challenging the words of the Bible) is that these were and are willing to take up inquiry and discovery that may challenge the understanding of the Bible and to challenge it. Hence, while the Reformation afforded one the ability to understand and know God on a personal level through direct contact with His word, the scientific revolution enabled people to explore their world with no holds barred, even if it meant, or means, coming up with a completely different truth. Hence, this opened up a mode of understanding, that is only today becoming more accepted and common, that of pluralism and relativism. Contact with other cultures in the world in the last 200 years has speeded up the breakdown of absolute “truths” as we discover an amazing variety of them. In fact, my article, as well as the work of Joseph Campbell, has been to discover the common elements in seemingly uncommon and belief systems, even that seem to contradict each other but may not do so as much as we think.
To conclude this comparison, we have seen the increase of human freedom progressively and the current development, both in terms of Buddhism and in terms of western thinking, effectively closes both the temporal and the spatial gap between what is seen as the great and the ordinary, the highest and the lowest, as one is both instantly a Buddha and there is no God outside of man himself.
Friday, December 3, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - Day 1
Day 1, The Real Day 1: I greatly apologize for sending and posting my article before I found out that the 8 day festival of Hanukkah actually starts tonight, not last night. But, as thoughts have gone through my mind regarding what I am trying to do and what I am trying to shed light on, perhaps having an extra 3 days to wrap up might not be such a bad thing after all, for those actually interested in moving civilization forward, a premise upon which I base my thoughts and beliefs and something which is common to Nichiren Buddhism, western religion and secularism, particularly from the 1800s through 1970s, when elements of despair and cynicism greatly challenged the notion of progress which people such as John F. Kennedy championed.
And what better way to intro into the first comparison, in which I will present a way of thought and living that was so very different from the progressive spirit of continual advancement that characterizes the three above noted traditions. Nichiren's first comparison is between Buddhism and non-Buddhist teachings (of which, of course, we are talking about the non-Buddhist teachings he was familiar with, not the ones we are). It is noted as the “internal way” vs. the “external way” (Living Buddhism, Nov-Dec 2010, p. 94). “Buddhism teaches that the principal cause determining our happiness or unhappiness lies within our own lives, that we are the protagonists with the power to decide our own destiny.” (ibid.) “By contrast, a closer look at the non-Buddhist religions and philosophies revelas...that some do not recognize the principle of causality... [while others] expound doctrines of determinism or fatalism...” (ibid.) In order to avoid getting a challenge, since some of the readers of my article may have different perceptions of the various eastern philosophies and religions than do I or did Nichiren, I will avoid specifically naming all those he mentions except to briefly illustrate my point by comparing the Hindu concept of karma and the Buddhist one. Whereas Hinduism recognizes the concept of karma, and even did before Buddhism existed, as most of you probably can surmise from the caste system, the Hindu concept of karma views actions (which is what the Sanskrit word karma means) as being increasingly more powerful depending on whether they were made earlier rather than later. Hence, over the transmigration of countless numbers of lives, so much karma was created that our ability to change it in the present one is all but impossible, the actions taken over these uncountable number of lifetimes being too many for anyone to even think of overcoming through all one's actions in the present, no matter how “perfect” they are. Hence, if you are born an untouchable, an untouchable you will stay for countless lifetimes in the future and there's nothing you can do about it. In Buddhism, on the other hand, actions at any time carry equal weight and the effects of causes made are exhaustible, hence allowing present good causes to effect future good effects in like measure. This is a very scientific definition of freedom, that our present actions are totally up to us and therefore we are not bound by anything in our past or external to us in our present. Of course this also carries with it the weight of not being able to blame our past or anyone else for our circumstances.
Now what comparison in our western heritage corresponds to this? I can clearly state that the comparison we are looking for is that between Judeo-Christian monotheism and the religions which preceded it. I can already hear some people buzzing how the existence of an “external” God enables us any greater freedom than the existence of many “external” gods and goddesses? And, to a large degree, the fact that the Canaanites killed their first-born sons to supplicate these gods and goddesses so that they would favor them indicates a clear belief that their actions must have had at least a chance of having some impact on the deities. But the thing you must remember is that in order to elucidate the progression of our civilization from a child-slaughtering one into one in which we currently believe only terrorist-slaughtering, self-declared enemy slaughtering and serial killer slaughtering is justified (and one which many of us hope to progress further to one in which no killing whatsoever is justified), we need to understand that everything moves in gradations and shading and not in absolutes, even if God told Abraham to kill his first-born and then told him not to. I'd like to illustrate why this comparison nonetheless applies by a look at the Book of Genesis, looking at two of its features. In the first feature, the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we will look at how it compares with the story of Oedipus Rex. Let's take the latter story first, as presented in the play of Sophocles. In it, an oracle comes to Oedipus' parents, telling them that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. In an effort to avoid this, his father travels to another country and gives the baby away to a poor family so that it will be impossible for him to get anywhere near his parents and do those horrible things that the oracle predicted lay in store for him and them. As this ancient myth, upon which Sophocles' play is based, recounts, however, somehow Oedipus later on in life ends up doing those very things that was predicted without him or his parents being aware that it is him. Before I contrast this with Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, I must forewarn you that, while it might seem easy to dismiss this story as an example of the misguided thinking of extreme fatalism, which it indeed is, there is nonetheless wisdom contained within in. How many times do we end up against the very thing we put all our effort into avoiding? While I definitely agree that there is a much greater limitation in viewing life, the world and the cosmos as seeming to have a mind or logic totally independent of what we consider to be reason or good, than there is in believing we have power to alter destiny in favor of what we consider to be our unique ability to create value, good and happiness, I think it would be extremely unwise not to heed the wisdom contained in this ancient Greek perception of life by thinking “I can do anything” and that the trials and pitfalls that seem to accompany most endeavor are simply the result of a way of thinking. One need only observe the countless examples of people suffering with chronic issues who sincerely and even desperately try to reform only to fall flat on their face in the pitfall of their past behavior or circumstances once again to understand and respect the extreme difficulty that accompanies the endeavor to be free and in control of one's destiny.
Now the story of Adam and Eve is also a story that does not have a happy ending (although both Bibles, Jewish and Christian, as well as Milton's Paradise Regained all present a future that indeed does end very happily). But I think what makes this story not as gut-wrenching as that of Oedipus is only secondarily the fact that it does not contain an actual murder and maternal incest. For the subsequent story of Cain and Abel does contain a murder and you will agree that this story does not seem half as horrendous as that of Oedipus. The answer is simply thus: Adam and Eve choose to take the action that has dire consequences, not to avoid it. The story of Oedipus definitely conveys to us the sense that life is completely out of control and we are at the mercy of a relationship an all powerful universe has with us, who are totally lacking in power, like when a child, unaware of how to drive is at the wheel and we are in the passenger seat. The story of Adam and Eve on the other hand, as painful as the consequences are of their action, still yet contains the comfort that they understand that their suffering wasn't inevitable but something they freely brought about through an action they took. This brings us to the second significant point in the Book of Genesis, the fact that God created Man, and Woman, in His Own Image. In the original Hebrew text is the word, or phrase, “B'Atzmo”, which means ones own or same self. The reason this is important is because we're not just talking about a physical or visual resemblance but rather the possession of all the same attributes. In Buddhism there is the expression that one who practices as the Buddha teaches will attain all 32 attributes of the Buddha. This symbolizes the same totality that is envisioned uniquely in humans in the Book of Genesis. And, in terms of the argument I am making today, it is the attribute of freedom and power that God, in making Adam and Eve just as He Is, that is one of the defining qualities here attributed to humans, one, by contrast, lacking in the ancient Greek view of humans. God commands Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree containing the knowledge of good and evil but God deliberately chooses not to prevent them from doing so, should they so choose. Because their freedom is too important to sacrifice in order to save them from the suffering that will follow. In this, I can see the same entreaties of a parent to his or her child not to engage in actions that they know will cause them suffering in the future, fully knowing that they may engage in them anyway and that nothing they, as parents, say or do, can prevent them from doing so and experiencing the consequent suffering. For at least from suffering can come a lesson and wisdom, whereas to deprive one of freedom is to stunt one's growth, one's full development as a human being. It is for this reason I believe that the ancient religions eventually died out while the Judeo-Christian tradition survived and still survives very strongly even today. I believe it is has nurtured the more fully human side of us than those previous, more fatalistic world views. Perhaps it may partly explain the victory of the Jews over the much more powerful Syrians in the battle for control of the Jerusalem temple that underlies the celebration of Hanukkah. Of course, a little over 200 years later, the Jews fell at the hands of the Romans, who razed all but one piece of the western wall of the temple, a site at which Jews today pray fervently. I believe part of the explanation of why people sometimes win and sometime lose, even if they believe in their own autonomy and freedom, can be explained by the next comparison we discuss tomorrow, and I will set it up for you by leaving you with the question, even with our freedom, what makes it truly meaningful? Is being free alone enough?
Take care and hope you enjoyed tonight's discussion.
Marc
And what better way to intro into the first comparison, in which I will present a way of thought and living that was so very different from the progressive spirit of continual advancement that characterizes the three above noted traditions. Nichiren's first comparison is between Buddhism and non-Buddhist teachings (of which, of course, we are talking about the non-Buddhist teachings he was familiar with, not the ones we are). It is noted as the “internal way” vs. the “external way” (Living Buddhism, Nov-Dec 2010, p. 94). “Buddhism teaches that the principal cause determining our happiness or unhappiness lies within our own lives, that we are the protagonists with the power to decide our own destiny.” (ibid.) “By contrast, a closer look at the non-Buddhist religions and philosophies revelas...that some do not recognize the principle of causality... [while others] expound doctrines of determinism or fatalism...” (ibid.) In order to avoid getting a challenge, since some of the readers of my article may have different perceptions of the various eastern philosophies and religions than do I or did Nichiren, I will avoid specifically naming all those he mentions except to briefly illustrate my point by comparing the Hindu concept of karma and the Buddhist one. Whereas Hinduism recognizes the concept of karma, and even did before Buddhism existed, as most of you probably can surmise from the caste system, the Hindu concept of karma views actions (which is what the Sanskrit word karma means) as being increasingly more powerful depending on whether they were made earlier rather than later. Hence, over the transmigration of countless numbers of lives, so much karma was created that our ability to change it in the present one is all but impossible, the actions taken over these uncountable number of lifetimes being too many for anyone to even think of overcoming through all one's actions in the present, no matter how “perfect” they are. Hence, if you are born an untouchable, an untouchable you will stay for countless lifetimes in the future and there's nothing you can do about it. In Buddhism, on the other hand, actions at any time carry equal weight and the effects of causes made are exhaustible, hence allowing present good causes to effect future good effects in like measure. This is a very scientific definition of freedom, that our present actions are totally up to us and therefore we are not bound by anything in our past or external to us in our present. Of course this also carries with it the weight of not being able to blame our past or anyone else for our circumstances.
Now what comparison in our western heritage corresponds to this? I can clearly state that the comparison we are looking for is that between Judeo-Christian monotheism and the religions which preceded it. I can already hear some people buzzing how the existence of an “external” God enables us any greater freedom than the existence of many “external” gods and goddesses? And, to a large degree, the fact that the Canaanites killed their first-born sons to supplicate these gods and goddesses so that they would favor them indicates a clear belief that their actions must have had at least a chance of having some impact on the deities. But the thing you must remember is that in order to elucidate the progression of our civilization from a child-slaughtering one into one in which we currently believe only terrorist-slaughtering, self-declared enemy slaughtering and serial killer slaughtering is justified (and one which many of us hope to progress further to one in which no killing whatsoever is justified), we need to understand that everything moves in gradations and shading and not in absolutes, even if God told Abraham to kill his first-born and then told him not to. I'd like to illustrate why this comparison nonetheless applies by a look at the Book of Genesis, looking at two of its features. In the first feature, the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we will look at how it compares with the story of Oedipus Rex. Let's take the latter story first, as presented in the play of Sophocles. In it, an oracle comes to Oedipus' parents, telling them that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. In an effort to avoid this, his father travels to another country and gives the baby away to a poor family so that it will be impossible for him to get anywhere near his parents and do those horrible things that the oracle predicted lay in store for him and them. As this ancient myth, upon which Sophocles' play is based, recounts, however, somehow Oedipus later on in life ends up doing those very things that was predicted without him or his parents being aware that it is him. Before I contrast this with Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, I must forewarn you that, while it might seem easy to dismiss this story as an example of the misguided thinking of extreme fatalism, which it indeed is, there is nonetheless wisdom contained within in. How many times do we end up against the very thing we put all our effort into avoiding? While I definitely agree that there is a much greater limitation in viewing life, the world and the cosmos as seeming to have a mind or logic totally independent of what we consider to be reason or good, than there is in believing we have power to alter destiny in favor of what we consider to be our unique ability to create value, good and happiness, I think it would be extremely unwise not to heed the wisdom contained in this ancient Greek perception of life by thinking “I can do anything” and that the trials and pitfalls that seem to accompany most endeavor are simply the result of a way of thinking. One need only observe the countless examples of people suffering with chronic issues who sincerely and even desperately try to reform only to fall flat on their face in the pitfall of their past behavior or circumstances once again to understand and respect the extreme difficulty that accompanies the endeavor to be free and in control of one's destiny.
Now the story of Adam and Eve is also a story that does not have a happy ending (although both Bibles, Jewish and Christian, as well as Milton's Paradise Regained all present a future that indeed does end very happily). But I think what makes this story not as gut-wrenching as that of Oedipus is only secondarily the fact that it does not contain an actual murder and maternal incest. For the subsequent story of Cain and Abel does contain a murder and you will agree that this story does not seem half as horrendous as that of Oedipus. The answer is simply thus: Adam and Eve choose to take the action that has dire consequences, not to avoid it. The story of Oedipus definitely conveys to us the sense that life is completely out of control and we are at the mercy of a relationship an all powerful universe has with us, who are totally lacking in power, like when a child, unaware of how to drive is at the wheel and we are in the passenger seat. The story of Adam and Eve on the other hand, as painful as the consequences are of their action, still yet contains the comfort that they understand that their suffering wasn't inevitable but something they freely brought about through an action they took. This brings us to the second significant point in the Book of Genesis, the fact that God created Man, and Woman, in His Own Image. In the original Hebrew text is the word, or phrase, “B'Atzmo”, which means ones own or same self. The reason this is important is because we're not just talking about a physical or visual resemblance but rather the possession of all the same attributes. In Buddhism there is the expression that one who practices as the Buddha teaches will attain all 32 attributes of the Buddha. This symbolizes the same totality that is envisioned uniquely in humans in the Book of Genesis. And, in terms of the argument I am making today, it is the attribute of freedom and power that God, in making Adam and Eve just as He Is, that is one of the defining qualities here attributed to humans, one, by contrast, lacking in the ancient Greek view of humans. God commands Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree containing the knowledge of good and evil but God deliberately chooses not to prevent them from doing so, should they so choose. Because their freedom is too important to sacrifice in order to save them from the suffering that will follow. In this, I can see the same entreaties of a parent to his or her child not to engage in actions that they know will cause them suffering in the future, fully knowing that they may engage in them anyway and that nothing they, as parents, say or do, can prevent them from doing so and experiencing the consequent suffering. For at least from suffering can come a lesson and wisdom, whereas to deprive one of freedom is to stunt one's growth, one's full development as a human being. It is for this reason I believe that the ancient religions eventually died out while the Judeo-Christian tradition survived and still survives very strongly even today. I believe it is has nurtured the more fully human side of us than those previous, more fatalistic world views. Perhaps it may partly explain the victory of the Jews over the much more powerful Syrians in the battle for control of the Jerusalem temple that underlies the celebration of Hanukkah. Of course, a little over 200 years later, the Jews fell at the hands of the Romans, who razed all but one piece of the western wall of the temple, a site at which Jews today pray fervently. I believe part of the explanation of why people sometimes win and sometime lose, even if they believe in their own autonomy and freedom, can be explained by the next comparison we discuss tomorrow, and I will set it up for you by leaving you with the question, even with our freedom, what makes it truly meaningful? Is being free alone enough?
Take care and hope you enjoyed tonight's discussion.
Marc
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The 5-fold 10-fold comparison - An introduction, by way of the Hanukkah Menorah, to my contention that both eastern and western religions all lead to
Day 1: The magazine Living Buddhism in its November-December 2010 has an article on The Fivefold Comparison (p94). As now is the 8-day festival of Hanukkah that Jews celebrate around the world, and because the menorah, the candelabra that is lighted each of the 8 days, is a perfect symbol for the unity of eastern and western religious traditions in progression toward Nichiren Buddhism, I would like to introduce my contention that Judaism and Christianity (and probably Islam, though, being ignorant of it, I cannot talk authoritatively about it) are not really non-Buddhist but rather are provisional teachings, of equal stature in terms of the True Buddhism of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as are the 79,999 teachings that Shakyamuni taught prior to the Lotus Sutra. In doing so, I hope to shed light in what is significant in our own heritage as Westerners that is of a progressive nature as well as clarify how much the truth of Buddhism that is revealed by the practitioner chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is already contained within the earlier teachings of our own heritage and is not, in fact, something foreign to it.
Now, although there are 10 comparisons I am presenting, just as there are 10 adjacent relationships between any 2 adjacent candles on the 9-candle menorah, I intend to present them in the subsequent 8 days because in actuality, just as each of the candles of the menorah, when viewed carefully, is on the same branch or stem as that equally farthest from the shamash, which is the central candle that is used every day to light each of the other 8, so, too, is each comparison mentioned in the Buddhist concept of the 5 Comparisons equivalent to one of the 5 western comparisons I am matching up with it. That will enable me to present each comparison on 5 of the 8 days, leaving 3 days left to introduce, which I am doing today, sum up and to wrap up.
As a final note for today's lecture, since I am bringing in the Festival of Hanukkah, which I know most of you are unfamiliar with, I would like to very briefly summarize its significance. In approximately 165 B.C.E., the Jews, in their long history of being persecuted by powerful people, were then being persecuted by the kingdom of Syrian under a king named Antiochus, who, trying to have the Hellenic culture of the ancient Greeks prevail in his kingdom, banned this very culturally different religion known as Judaism. The Jewish temple at the time was seized and converted into a Greek shrine dedicated to the god Zeus. The Jews, led by a leader named Judah Maccabee, revolted and eventually won back control of their temple. In rededicating their temple to their own religion, they needed to light a special lamp. But the oil they had would only last one day. Miraculously, however, this oil managed to last 8 days, giving them enough time to maintain the lights of the temple and to secure enough additional oil for the future. Thus, since that time, this miracle has been celebrated as the festival of Hanukkah, which literally means dedication. In fact, the holiday has been so inspiring to Jews throughout history as an example of faith, courage and dedication to an ideal that even my atheist Jewish parents lit a menorah every year for 8 days in our house while we sang songs, had special Hannukah chocolates and received money. After practicing Nichiren Buddhism, two other things related to Buddhism struck me about this holiday. There is a writing of Nichiren Daishonin called General Stone Tiger, in which Nichiren, using the example of a general who was so determined to avenge the killing of his mother by a tiger shot an arrow into a boulder he believed to be the tiger that he was able to penetrate and split it, illustrates the power of strong faith in the Gohonzon. I feel that the story of Hanukkah, in which a lamp that was by reasonable standards supposed to burn only for a day last for 8 instead, illustrates equally the power of the human spirit to move things previously thought unmovable. Nichiren says that if even these occurrences prove the power of faith in a non-Buddhist setting, how much more so then should our own practice of faith prove its tremendous power if only we practice with this same spirit of determination and resoluteness. The second thing that touches me is the name given to the holiday, which commemorates the re-dedication of the temple, symbolizing the ability to restore that which was damaged and start anew, which means “dedication”. The reason I think it is deep and significant is that Nam (Namu) of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo means exactly that—to dedicate one's entire life to something. Perhaps there is no way other than to begin this first courageous attempt on my part to light the candle shedding light on the deep parallels between western religion and Nichiren's Buddhism than in illustrating this fundamental Buddhist spirit which is so illustrative of this Jewish holiday.
I hope you will enjoy my insights and learn from them. If you respond, I probably will not be able to respond to you because my time is very limited. So don't be upset. I respond to many people who mass email me and never hear back from them. If you do not wish to receive this, please be comforted that there are only 7 more of these coming and all you have to do is simply click on the delete button. Once again, I apologize in advance for any disturbance and hope you understand it is not intentional.
Sincerely,
Marc Ginsburg
Now, although there are 10 comparisons I am presenting, just as there are 10 adjacent relationships between any 2 adjacent candles on the 9-candle menorah, I intend to present them in the subsequent 8 days because in actuality, just as each of the candles of the menorah, when viewed carefully, is on the same branch or stem as that equally farthest from the shamash, which is the central candle that is used every day to light each of the other 8, so, too, is each comparison mentioned in the Buddhist concept of the 5 Comparisons equivalent to one of the 5 western comparisons I am matching up with it. That will enable me to present each comparison on 5 of the 8 days, leaving 3 days left to introduce, which I am doing today, sum up and to wrap up.
As a final note for today's lecture, since I am bringing in the Festival of Hanukkah, which I know most of you are unfamiliar with, I would like to very briefly summarize its significance. In approximately 165 B.C.E., the Jews, in their long history of being persecuted by powerful people, were then being persecuted by the kingdom of Syrian under a king named Antiochus, who, trying to have the Hellenic culture of the ancient Greeks prevail in his kingdom, banned this very culturally different religion known as Judaism. The Jewish temple at the time was seized and converted into a Greek shrine dedicated to the god Zeus. The Jews, led by a leader named Judah Maccabee, revolted and eventually won back control of their temple. In rededicating their temple to their own religion, they needed to light a special lamp. But the oil they had would only last one day. Miraculously, however, this oil managed to last 8 days, giving them enough time to maintain the lights of the temple and to secure enough additional oil for the future. Thus, since that time, this miracle has been celebrated as the festival of Hanukkah, which literally means dedication. In fact, the holiday has been so inspiring to Jews throughout history as an example of faith, courage and dedication to an ideal that even my atheist Jewish parents lit a menorah every year for 8 days in our house while we sang songs, had special Hannukah chocolates and received money. After practicing Nichiren Buddhism, two other things related to Buddhism struck me about this holiday. There is a writing of Nichiren Daishonin called General Stone Tiger, in which Nichiren, using the example of a general who was so determined to avenge the killing of his mother by a tiger shot an arrow into a boulder he believed to be the tiger that he was able to penetrate and split it, illustrates the power of strong faith in the Gohonzon. I feel that the story of Hanukkah, in which a lamp that was by reasonable standards supposed to burn only for a day last for 8 instead, illustrates equally the power of the human spirit to move things previously thought unmovable. Nichiren says that if even these occurrences prove the power of faith in a non-Buddhist setting, how much more so then should our own practice of faith prove its tremendous power if only we practice with this same spirit of determination and resoluteness. The second thing that touches me is the name given to the holiday, which commemorates the re-dedication of the temple, symbolizing the ability to restore that which was damaged and start anew, which means “dedication”. The reason I think it is deep and significant is that Nam (Namu) of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo means exactly that—to dedicate one's entire life to something. Perhaps there is no way other than to begin this first courageous attempt on my part to light the candle shedding light on the deep parallels between western religion and Nichiren's Buddhism than in illustrating this fundamental Buddhist spirit which is so illustrative of this Jewish holiday.
I hope you will enjoy my insights and learn from them. If you respond, I probably will not be able to respond to you because my time is very limited. So don't be upset. I respond to many people who mass email me and never hear back from them. If you do not wish to receive this, please be comforted that there are only 7 more of these coming and all you have to do is simply click on the delete button. Once again, I apologize in advance for any disturbance and hope you understand it is not intentional.
Sincerely,
Marc Ginsburg
Monday, October 4, 2010
Why? Because...
To smell a beautiful fragrance of flower, you have to go right up to it and put your nose against it. But shit can be smelled 100 miles away. The evil and the stupid will always drown out the wise and the good and influence a lot more people. Unless the wise and the good are smart and really understand that fact at every moment. We scream in whispers of encouragement while they pound back with bombs and huge amplifiers. But they themselves have neither fists nor voices worth anything. It's all a sham.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)