Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Minobu »

mansurhirbi87 wrote: Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:38 am I disagree a little bit with Minubu about the role the intelect has in Nichiren buddhism,
ok sort of took for granted that it is understood that PRACTICE is vital.

Some people avoid any actual Buddhist form of meditation or practice as we do.

They study Buddhism from a scholarly point of view.

now where this is extremely helpful for people like me ...they teach me stuff..

in no way is this alone going to bring about Buddhahood.

This practice has a physical aspect to it..

and i don't mean your lungs and vocal cords working in unison...

there is a physical aspect to your Buddha Nature....

it is very much physical as you dwell in Samsara...
Tata1
Posts: 771
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:57 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Tata1 »

illarraza wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:26 am
tkp67 wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:10 pm
Minobu wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:41 pm Problem that arises is how one interprets the idea of what Nichiren Shonin was conveying. What and where is his anger directed at.

I say anger cause that’s the tone of the interpretation
So like is it Buddhism He attacking and calling it mixing. How would Nichiren Shonin detach himself from Buddhism?

So it don’t think it’s Buddhism He is addressing here.
I don't think he was angry, I think that a votary of the lotus sutra acts as a mirror to the minds who interpret his words.

Our age is an age of anger and hunger so the words of the votary will be seen as such at face value yet plants a deeper seed which is why one might be drawn back to the same teaching. There is more to it than appears but it is hard to articulate might describe this.

Although this is not to say the urgency isn't absolutely real. Nichiren was no different than Shakaymuni as far as being the "father" of this world. That is all of his teachings should be considered in that light, as if a father is doing everything he can to save all of his children even those who are at odds with one another and are reliant on each other to escape. In fact a better analogy in the degenerate age would be the children are burning their own house down and blocking the doors and locking each other in and each things they are from a different family.

This is the problem to be pondered and the heart it should be approached from. These are all my children. I am all their fathers. These are all my parents, these are all my teachers, these are all my buddha I am the child to all of these.

The negative emotions expressed by many are simply reflective of a degeneracy everyone possesses equal ownership over. There isn't one savior who will do it for us. The true purpose of this sutra is to impart the boundless storehouse of buddha wisdom one and all without exception. That is why attempting to discuss it now online also encounters a huge paradigm shift which is a big topic on its own.

:anjali:
The Mutual Possession of the Ten Worlds demonstrates that the World of Anger exists in the World of Buddha. The Anger of Buddhahood or Bodhisattvahood is a very real aspect of being, especially when seeing the teachings destroyed. One may call it righteous anger.
People can find many ways to justify their kleshas. Particulary sectarism and anger
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

Brahma wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am In the Lotus Sutra I believe it is clearly stated that the Buddha's purpose is to teach and convert the Bodhisattvas, and it is known to us that Bodhisattvas are found all along Mahāyāna, Vajrayana, and Theravada Buddhism. Therefore I believe that the Buddha was referring to Mahāyāna, Theravada, and Vajrayana as the three "Expedient" vehicles that are preached as One Great Vehicle by Him. He clearly says that there is only one Vehicle, and that He has never and would never be guilty of greed or stinginess in converting someone with a lesser Vehicle.
So we've already been through this. I'll give you the respect of not merely re-posting what I've already said.

You are correct in a way and wrong in a way. The three vehicles that the Buddha refers to in the Lotus Sūtra are the pratyekabuddha vehicle, the śrāvaka vehicle, and the "one buddha vehicle." Theravādins are Śrāvakas and Vajrayānikas consider themselves to be Mahāyānikas. So, yes, those three traditions are present in the three vehicles, but there is no separate Tantra-vehicle in the LS. It is subsumed into the Mahāyāna within. The text refers to the three vehicles as being pratyekabuddhayāna, śrāvakayāna, and mahāyāna. Mahāyāna is the "one Buddha vehicle."

With regard to your last point, in the LS, the Buddha specifies that he uses three vehicles to convert and one to liberate. The pratyekabuddha vehicles and śrāvaka vehicles have as their telos, their endgoal, bodhisattvayāna (which is the ekabuddhayāna, the "one Buddha vehicle") and complete gnosis, not śrāvakabuddhatva or arhatva, because the Buddha converts beings to the Hīnayāna in order to lead them to the Mahāyāna to liberate them. So it is technically incorrect to say the Buddha does not convert via the śrāvaka vehicle. The śrāvaka vehicle is precisely a skillful means to attract sentient beings for conversion.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by tkp67 »

Nichiren discusses intellect and does not equate this intellect or that intellect with superiority. Rather this vehicle will manifest as each intellect requires. This accords to the boundless equanimity of Shakyamuni's enlightenment. Being attached to one's own lack or abundance of intellect or biased by anothers lack or abundance of intellect is not beneficial.

As to the three vehicle controversy. Perhaps the assembly reveals that like the game of thrones these vehicles turn the wheel for one another as well as the rest of the world system(s) they occupy. The significance of their interplay is manifest in this moment of time. The world is reflective of the state of this interplay. What one sees relative to the realms they manifest and perceive whether this is understood or not.

I do know that while at the assembly some of the most important buddhas and bodhisattvas needed to be introduced to each other and they were astonished that they didn't already know them.

Seems even they have provisional and absolute aspects.
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Budai »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:34 pm
Brahma wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am In the Lotus Sutra I believe it is clearly stated that the Buddha's purpose is to teach and convert the Bodhisattvas, and it is known to us that Bodhisattvas are found all along Mahāyāna, Vajrayana, and Theravada Buddhism. Therefore I believe that the Buddha was referring to Mahāyāna, Theravada, and Vajrayana as the three "Expedient" vehicles that are preached as One Great Vehicle by Him. He clearly says that there is only one Vehicle, and that He has never and would never be guilty of greed or stinginess in converting someone with a lesser Vehicle.
So we've already been through this. I'll give you the respect of not merely re-posting what I've already said.

You are correct in a way and wrong in a way. The three vehicles that the Buddha refers to in the Lotus Sūtra are the pratyekabuddha vehicle, the śrāvaka vehicle, and the "one buddha vehicle." Theravādins are Śrāvakas and Vajrayānikas consider themselves to be Mahāyānikas. So, yes, those three traditions are present in the three vehicles, but there is no separate Tantra-vehicle in the LS. It is subsumed into the Mahāyāna within. The text refers to the three vehicles as being pratyekabuddhayāna, śrāvakayāna, and mahāyāna. Mahāyāna is the "one Buddha vehicle."

With regard to your last point, in the LS, the Buddha specifies that he uses three vehicles to convert and one to liberate. The pratyekabuddha vehicles and śrāvaka vehicles have as their telos, their endgoal, bodhisattvayāna (which is the ekabuddhayāna, the "one Buddha vehicle") and complete gnosis, not śrāvakabuddhatva or arhatva, because the Buddha converts beings to the Hīnayāna in order to lead them to the Mahāyāna to liberate them. So it is technically incorrect to say the Buddha does not convert via the śrāvaka vehicle. The śrāvaka vehicle is precisely a skillful means to attract sentient beings for conversion.
You have a lot of good points, I will ponder them through. But I think implying the meaning in where everything is equal in the Vehicle, that all of it is incorporated there, and it is One Great Vehicle. The Buddha had enough clairvoyance to see eons into the future, so the same is with being able to see into modern Buddhism, and where I feel is my strenght in believing in One Vehicle for all. :namaste: Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Minobu »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:34 pm
Brahma wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:23 am In the Lotus Sutra I believe it is clearly stated that the Buddha's purpose is to teach and convert the Bodhisattvas, and it is known to us that Bodhisattvas are found all along Mahāyāna, Vajrayana, and Theravada Buddhism. Therefore I believe that the Buddha was referring to Mahāyāna, Theravada, and Vajrayana as the three "Expedient" vehicles that are preached as One Great Vehicle by Him. He clearly says that there is only one Vehicle, and that He has never and would never be guilty of greed or stinginess in converting someone with a lesser Vehicle.
So we've already been through this. I'll give you the respect of not merely re-posting what I've already said.

You are correct in a way and wrong in a way. The three vehicles that the Buddha refers to in the Lotus Sūtra are the pratyekabuddha vehicle, the śrāvaka vehicle, and the "one buddha vehicle." Theravādins are Śrāvakas and Vajrayānikas consider themselves to be Mahāyānikas. So, yes, those three traditions are present in the three vehicles, but there is no separate Tantra-vehicle in the LS. It is subsumed into the Mahāyāna within. The text refers to the three vehicles as being pratyekabuddhayāna, śrāvakayāna, and mahāyāna. Mahāyāna is the "one Buddha vehicle."

With regard to your last point, in the LS, the Buddha specifies that he uses three vehicles to convert and one to liberate. The pratyekabuddha vehicles and śrāvaka vehicles have as their telos, their endgoal, bodhisattvayāna (which is the ekabuddhayāna, the "one Buddha vehicle") and complete gnosis, not śrāvakabuddhatva or arhatva, because the Buddha converts beings to the Hīnayāna in order to lead them to the Mahāyāna to liberate them. So it is technically incorrect to say the Buddha does not convert via the śrāvaka vehicle. The śrāvaka vehicle is precisely a skillful means to attract sentient beings for conversion.
Where does it state that those are the three vehicles

I always thought it was written “there is not one two or three vehicles only one “. And that refers to all the different teachings brought about by the turning of the Dharma Wheel. Infinite teachings and religions all designed to produce right thought speech and action. They all have the one goal. Produce compassion
So it appears there are differing vehicles but they are all of one purpose
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

Some people read "three vehicles" and "one vehicle" in such a way that they make statements like this:
A User From DhammaWheel wrote:Those that interpret Mahayana as that vehicle are making a large mistake. The single Vehicle encompasses all three Expedient Teachings, as well as many more. Buddha preached about this in the Lotus Sutra, and made it clear that He was always using a Single Vehicle to convert people

[...]

The Lotus Sutra is considered a Mahayana Sutra for example, but it isn't, it's part of a single Vehicle like I mentioned, as mentioned within it's pages, that contained all the other supposed three in an Expedient provisional way.
This is a misunderstanding about the ekabuddhayāna doctrine that is caused by not reading enough of the actual text of the Lotus Sūtra and instead reading interpretive texts on it.

The cultural fluff that has accrued around the Lotus Sūtra is massive, so I really don't blame them for not knowing this. Because of the proliferation of "sūtra schools" in East Asia, sutras that were never intended to serve as a praxis for an entire independent school of Buddhism are stretched into accommodating all of the sūtra schools' doctrines and beliefs. The Lotus Sūtra is so old it predates the theory of the three bodies of the Buddha, yet Tendai and Nichiren Buddhism are full of talk concerning the dharma body, the reward body, and the transformative body. Never, not once in the LS, does it mention the three buddha bodies. If I'm wrong on this, I suppose I'll have to do something funny like eat my hat.

The version of ekayāna that is preached in that first quote up there is directly contradicted by the actual text of the Lotus Sūtra itself. This is the ekayana misconception:
A User From DhammaWheel wrote:The Great Vehicle referred to here is not only referring to Mahayana as some have interpreted it, but also the other two ones that were preached as three as an Expedient Means as mentioned in the Sutra. So Theravada, Vajrayana, and Mahayana all encompass the Great Vehicle.
It is something that is artificially imputed into the text that is contradicted by looking at the text itself. Vajrayāna also you will notice is not one of the vehicles referred to in the text. The three vehicles are Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Mahāyāna. According to the Lotus Sūtra, there are two provisional vehicles and one definitive vehicle -- two provisional vehicles and one buddha vehicle.

In the parable of the burning house, one of the children hears his father speak of an ox cart outside, and in the end he receives the ox cart that he heard tell of. In the parable, the Arhat child and the Pratyekabuddha child, in the end, do not receive deer carts and the like, because all receive, in the end, the ox cart of the bodhisattvas. Why is this? Because, according to its own definitions of itself, Mahayana is the Buddha-vehicle, the vehicle that leads to anuttarā samyaksaṁbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 unexcelled complete awakening), the vehicle that produces Samyaksaṁbuddhas, not Pratyekabuddhas and not Śrāvakabuddhas/Arhats. Early Mahayana used this as a polemical device: "The dispensation to the Śrāvaka produces only Arhats, but bodhisattvayana produces Samyaksaṁbuddhas. Why? It is the longer and more arduous path, for three nigh-endless aeons and over countless lives, to generate the merit for the special buddhaguṇas of the Samyaksaṁbuddhas.

With this in mind, we will look to the text of the Lotus Sūtra to establish that the unfiltered, unmodified, original, and correct form of the ekabuddhayāna doctrine of Mahāyāna Buddhism is that the one vehicle, the only Buddha vehicle, is the Mahayana and is not the vehicles of the Arhats or the Pratyekabuddhas.
「舍利弗!如彼長者,雖復身手有力而不用之,但以慇懃方便勉濟諸子火宅之難,然後各與珍寶大車。如來亦復如是,雖有力、無所畏而不用之,但以智慧方便,於三界火宅拔濟眾生,為說三乘——聲聞、辟支佛、佛乘,而作是言:『汝等莫得樂住三界火宅,勿貪麁弊色聲香味觸也。若貪著生愛,則為所燒。汝速出三界,當得三乘——聲聞、辟支佛、佛乘。[...] 』」

"Śāriputra, this father, though strong in body and arm, uses them not. Instead, he but heedfully applies appropriate methodologies to the ferrying of all of his children from the danger of the burning house. Afterwards, each receives the jeweled treasure of the great cart (大車 mahāratha, mahāyāna). The Tathāgatas are also like this. They are fearless, but use it (i.e. their fearlessness) not. Instead, it is via prajñā and appropriate methodologies that, in the burning house of the three realms, they save beings. They speak of three vehicles: the vehicle of the Śrāvakas, of the Pratyekabuddhas, and of the Buddhas, and thus they say: 'All of you need not frolic, dwelling in the burning house of the three realms. Do not crave its coarse and damaged form, (nor) its sounds, its smells, its tastes, (nor) its textures. If you are attached to, desirous of, or affectionate towards them, you will only burn. You should instead depart the three realms, (by) turning towards the completion of (one of) the three vehicles: Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Buddha. I now for you guarantee that you will attain this matter in the end, and there is no falsehood in this. [...]'"
(Lotus Sūtra, Ch.3, T262.13b4)

So the Buddha himself explains the parable of the burning house thus in the text of the Lotus Sūtra. There are three vehicles: Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Buddhayāna, also known as the Mahāyāna, also known as bodhisattvayāna, the vehicle that leads to samyaksaṁbodhi. He clarifies further in the same section:
「舍利弗!如彼長者,初以三車誘引諸子,然後但與大車,寶物莊嚴,安隱第一;然彼長者無虛妄之咎。如來亦復如是,無有虛妄,初說三乘引導眾生,然後但以大乘而度脫之。[...] 」

Śāriputra, the father who first uses three carts to entice the various children and, afterward, bestows upon them the great cart, the gem-encrusted cart, the majestic and tranquil cart, the utmost cart, truly commits no falsehood and bears no guilt, for he is like the Tathāgatas and the Tathāgatas are like this: first speaking of three vehicles to initiate and edify living beings, and then afterwards using the Mahāyāna (大乘 the great vehicle) alone to liberate them.
(Ibid. T262.13c10)

And lastly, there is this from the Tibetan version:
Thus you (i.e. the Arhats) say that you have passed beyond all pain,
but from the sorrows of saṁsāra only are you free.
You have not yet transcended every misery.
The Buddha's highest vehicle you should now pursue.
Why need they now pursue the "Buddha's highest vehicle" if their Śrāvakayāna was the Buddha's highest vehicle, that singular vehicle he teaches? I will quote myself at the risk of vanity:
Coëmgenu wrote:[...] the ekayāna, "one vehicle," is bodhisattvayāna, and the meaning of the ekabuddhayāna doctrine is that bodhisattvayāna is the essence of śrāvakayāna and pratyekabuddhayāna and that the ultimate destiny of the dviyānikas (二乘之人 "peoples of the two vehicles") culminates in entrance into the Mahāyāna as bodhisattvas. This is why the bodhisattva disciple of the Buddha as characterized as a child in a burning house hears the Buddha speak of the ox cart and finds the ox cart instead of a deer cart, such as the śrāvaka disciple heard the Buddha speaking of, in the parable in the Lotus Sūtra.
The reason why in the gāthā above the Arhats must pursue the "Buddha's highest vehicle" is because they have not yet realized the telos of their Śrāvakayāna practice which, according to ekabuddhayāna doctrine as laid out in the Lotus Sūtra, is the Mahāyāna. Related to the above:
問曰:阿羅漢先世因緣所受身必應當滅,住在何處而具足佛道?

Inquiry: In the Arhats’ past lives, the causes and conditions for being subject to embodiment necessarily ought to have been eradicated. In light of this, they dwell where to perfect buddhahood?

答曰: 得阿羅漢時,三界諸漏因緣盡,更不復生三界。有淨佛土,出於三界,乃至無煩惱之名,於 是國土佛所,聞法華經,具足佛道。如法華經說:「有羅漢,若不聞法華經,自謂得滅度;我於餘國為說是事,汝皆當作佛。」

Response: When attaining Arhatship, the three realms’ myriad outflows’ causes and conditions are exhausted. There is no more birth again in the three realms. There is a pure buddhafield beyond the three realms where not even the word "affliction" has a name. In this kingdom of the Buddha, they hear the Dharma Flower Sūtra [i.e. the Lotus Sūtra]. With this, they perfect Buddhahood as in the Dharma Flower Sūtra’s words: “There are Arhats, for example, who’ve not heard the Dharma Flower Sūtra. Themselves they call 'ones who have attained cessation.' I in another realm for them speak this matter, that they all shall become Samyaksaṁbuddhas.”
(Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa T1509.714a9)
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by narhwal90 »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:25 am
The version of ekayāna that is preached in that first quote up there is directly contradicted by the actual text of the Lotus Sūtra itself. This is the ekayana misconception:
A User From DhammaWheel wrote:The Great Vehicle referred to here is not only referring to Mahayana as some have interpreted it, but also the other two ones that were preached as three as an Expedient Means as mentioned in the Sutra. So Theravada, Vajrayana, and Mahayana all encompass the Great Vehicle.
It is something that is artificially imputed into the text that is contradicted by looking at the text itself. Vajrayāna also you will notice is not one of the vehicles referred to in the text. The three vehicles are Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Mahāyāna. According to the Lotus Sūtra, there are two provisional vehicles and one definitive vehicle -- two provisional vehicles and one buddha vehicle.

In the parable of the burning house, one of the children hears his father speak of an ox cart outside, and in the end he receives the ox cart that he heard tell of. In the parable, the Arhat child and the Pratyekabuddha child, in the end, do not receive deer carts and the like, because all receive, in the end, the ox cart of the bodhisattvas. Why is this? Because, according to its own definitions of itself, Mahayana is the Buddha-vehicle, the vehicle that leads to anuttarā samyaksaṁbodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 unexcelled complete awakening), the vehicle that produces Samyaksaṁbuddhas, not Pratyekabuddhas and not Śrāvakabuddhas/Arhats. Early Mahayana used this as a polemical device: "The dispensation to the Śrāvaka produces only Arhats, but bodhisattvayana produces Samyaksaṁbuddhas. Why? It is the longer and more arduous path, for three nigh-endless aeons and over countless lives, to generate the merit for the special buddhaguṇas of the Samyaksaṁbuddhas.
I looked into Wonhyo on this- unless I'm getting it wrong, he quotes;

.. it is
called the One Vehicle teaching. As the Chapter on Skillful Means says:
These buddhas resort to incalculable and numberless devices, various
causes and conditions, parables, and explanatory prose to explicate the
various teachings to all sentient beings. These teachings all constitute the
One Buddha Vehicle, and so these beings, hearing these teachings from
the buddhas, will ultimately attain omniscience. 46

but I don't see where One Vehicle == Mahayana- perhaps that is an assumption of his that I'm missing? He does work out incorporation of Buddhist and non-Buddhist paths as incorprated into the 3 (which he turns into 5 via some interesting reasoning).
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

narhwal90 wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:19 pm but I don't see where One Vehicle == Mahayana- perhaps that is an assumption of his that I'm missing? He does work out incorporation of Buddhist and non-Buddhist paths as incorprated into the 3 (which he turns into 5 via some interesting reasoning).
It is in the text of the LS itself that the claim "one vehicle = Mahayana" is made. Commentary by Vens Wonhyo or Zhiyi can say whatever. There is a long tradition of imposing hermeneutics onto the LS and trying to get it to say what one wants, whether its "The LS talks about Theravada and Vajrayana" or its "opening the provisional to reveal the real" or it's "Ven Nichiren is a primordial Buddha" -- all these things are said by different people to be included among the ideas the LS presents its readers. Another thing not found in the LS is a "Triple-bodied Buddha with all three bodies from the beginning possessed." That being said, there is nothing wrong with believing that these ideas are important, etc.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:33 pmCommentary by Vens Wonhyo or Zhiyi can say whatever.
This came off a bit more harsh than intended. I am not dismissing claims found in commentaries and not explicitly stated in the LS out-of-hand. I am just pointing out that these are "secret teachings" or esoterica essentially, and cannot be divined by an uninitiated laymen uninstructed in the secrets from just reading the LS text. It's not that these are "secrets" in the Tantra/Tibetan style. You can learn about "opening the provisional to reveal the real," it's not a "secret" in the sense that someone withholds it until you have a certain ordination or what-have-you, you just won't explicitly learn it from reading the Lotus Sutra.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by narhwal90 »

Good lord, its obvious when you look for it... sorry for the dumb question lol At least the translations I usually pick up are actually aggressively triumphalist from that perspective. Clearly I have the remains of many assumptions still to be rid of... thanks!
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

I myself used to be persuaded by these well-meaning but poorly-thought-out twistings of ekayana doctrine.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 61#p434661

Here you can see me literally arguing the opposite of what I have said here, and users are rather rightly accusing me of postulating a "fourth yana" that is the one yana that is the Buddhayana. I didn't consider myself to be doing that in the thread, but it is essentially what I am doing at the start of it. The way in which I "didn't consider myself to be doing that" is that my stance was "all three vehicles are the one vehicle" not "the one vehicle transcends the three." It is still, conventionally, even only-in-name, positing a fourth yana though, and I can see that better now. This was the linchpin of my former argument:
Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:09 am
Another User wrote:I don't think that the ekayana is found in all three provisional paths so much as all three provisional paths are means to the end of leading beings to Mahayana and hence Buddhahood. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference.
In the LS Ch2, the activities of the Buddhas, in teaching, is described as in responce to the needs of sentient beings, and is described as the application of 3-way distinction in a 1-way vehicle for liberation, in a loose paraphrase obv.

When you read "applies distinctions to the ekayāna, preaching as though it were triyāna" (paraphrase of 於一乘道、隨宜說三 @ 17b18, Watson has: "apply distinctions to the one buddha vehicle and preach as though it were three"), do you read this as "applies distinctions to the Great Vehicle, preaching as though it were three?"

If so, how is the Great Vehicle an example of an applied distinction of itself?
Some Buddhisms have made it a point of doctrine that the one vehicle is not to be found in the three vehicles, yet is its essence nonetheless. This is from the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, an entry concerning "the three capacities" (三階教) of Venerable Xìnxíng's now-extinct Pure-Land/Flower-Garland fusion school:
1. capacity for practice of the ekayāna 一乘 teachings for those of superior capacity,

2. capacity for practice of the triyāna 三乘 for those who, while not of the superior capacity of the ekayāna 一乘 bodhisattvas, are yet capable of accurate discernment and discrimination of truth from falsity, and

3. no capacity, or rather the lowest capacity, the capacity for breaking the precepts and holding false views; the first two categories are called the 別法 biefa, teachings which distinguish or separate truth from falsity and the last category, the teachings for the beings of the third level capacity, are referred to as the 普法 pufa, the teachings based on the universal truth of all things as dharmakāya 法身, appropriate for those who, 'blind from birth 生盲 ' are unable to tell true from false.
So we can see here this Chinese teacher from ~500AD loosely contemporaneous with Ven Zhiyi considers ekayana and Mahayana/bodhisattvayana to be separate things.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Queequeg »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:09 pm I myself used to be persuaded by these well-meaning but poorly-thought-out twistings of ekayana doctrine.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 61#p434661

Here you can see me literally arguing the opposite of what I have said here, and users are rather rightly accusing me of postulating a "fourth yana" that is the one yana that is the Buddhayana. I didn't consider myself to be doing that in the thread, but it is essentially what I am doing at the start of it.

Some Buddhisms have made it a point of doctrine that the one vehicle is not to be found in the three vehicles, yet is its essence nonetheless. This is from the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, an entry concerning "the three capacities" (三階教) of Venerable Xìnxíng's now-extinct Pure-Land/Flower-Garland fusion school:
1. capacity for practice of the ekayāna 一乘 teachings for those of superior capacity,

2. capacity for practice of the triyāna 三乘 for those who, while not of the superior capacity of the ekayāna 一乘 bodhisattvas, are yet capable of accurate discernment and discrimination of truth from falsity, and

3. no capacity, or rather the lowest capacity, the capacity for breaking the precepts and holding false views; the first two categories are called the 別法 biefa, teachings which distinguish or separate truth from falsity and the last category, the teachings for the beings of the third level capacity, are referred to as the 普法 pufa, the teachings based on the universal truth of all things as dharmakāya 法身, appropriate for those who, 'blind from birth 生盲 ' are unable to tell true from false.
So we can see here this Chinese teacher from ~500AD loosely contemporaneous with Ven Zhiyi considers ekayana and Mahayana/bodhisattvayana to be separate things.
My impression is that you have been right in both instances. What the Lotus says is more nuanced than either the Mahayana is Ekayana or Mahayana is not Ekayana positions.

In the Lotus, Ekayana is in some respects presented as the same as Mahayana, but its also distinguished from the Mahayana as its conceived in the three vehicles convention. I would put it this way - Ekayana is the Mahayana that is the real Mahayana path underlying the three paths (all upaya paths). To the extent that one thinks the three paths are distinct paths (I think Yogacara posits it this way), the Mahayana in that scheme is distinguished from the Ekayana. The composers of the Lotus appear to have been addressing this controversy that we can infer was a dispute in the early Mahayana community - is Mahayana separate or integrated?

This distinction between Mahayana as one of three paths and Mahayana as Ekayana is illustrated in the distinction between the ox cart promised by the father to some of his children and the ox cart that is actually given to all of the children. Its also presented in the other parables - the Rich Man and Poor Son, Dharma rain, the Phantom City, the Wish Granting Jewel in the hem of the robe, King's Top Knot, the great Physician, as well as the overall narrative where the Buddha gives prophecies of Buddhahood to all the sravakas, the dragon girl, Devadatta, etc. All of these characters are revealed to actually be on the path to Buddhahood, not mere arhatship or doomed as icchantika. The most complete description of the Ekayana is probably in the Life Span chapter where the Buddha explains he teaches whatever is needed to lead beings to Buddhahood, even if it means setting out arhatship or even a lesser idea of nirvana as intermediate goals.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Queequeg »

As a follow up - if you understand Ekayana as presented in the Lotus, it embraces all paths, even Devadatta, integrating them all into the path to Buddhahood.

Nichiren did something peculiar in taking the all embracing stance of the Lotus and turning it into an exclusive path. I think there is a lot of context that went into that decision and without judgment you can connect the dots from this all embracing path to an exclusive path. Its theoretically feasible because of the relation between microcosm and macrocosm. That said, I think its misleading because it ignores half of the relationship between provisional and essential and turns it into a one way dynamic. This is not acceptable from the perspective of ichinen sanzen unless you take this deliberate reduction itself as upaya, but that is something Nichiren would need to reject on the terms of his own interpretation.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:57 pmAs a follow up - if you understand Ekayana as presented in the Lotus, it embraces all paths, even Devadatta, integrating them all into the path to Buddhahood.
But there is also the matter as to how. Is Devadatta's path accepted as-in, or is it saying that he will embrace Mayahana eventually, like all the arhats supposedly? When we say that the three vehicles are Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, and that the three are the one, we are saying that Śrāvakayāna is Mahāyāna. Is this accurate, or does Śrāvakayāna lead to an underlying essence that is devoid of its provisional and expedient aspects, i.e. Mahāyāna as "distinct" from Śrāvakayāna? I think more of an argument can be made on terms of the Mahāyāna being the "essence/entity" of the three functions of the three paths than the three paths being the essence of the three paths (i.e. Śrāvakayāna is complete in-and-of-itself, i.e. arhatva is absolutely equivalent to samyaksaṁbuddhatva without qualification).

Reading this way, we read "applies distinctions to the ekayāna, preaching as though it were triyāna" as "applies (provisional) distinctions to the great vehicle to produce two provisional vehicles and one vehicle unaltered by convention and provision." Reading this way, we actually conclude that there are no provisional or expedient teachings in the Mahāyāna, which is not technically true. There are many provisional and expedient teachings in the Mahāyāna. So now we come full-circle, and ask, is the ekayana equivalent to Mahāyāna full-stop, or is the ekayana equivalent to Mahāyāna in only its ultimate and definitive teachings (i.e. the provisional teachings in Mahayana are like Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna and are not "the one vehicle" in its essence/entity)?
Queequeg wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:57 pmNichiren did something peculiar in taking the all embracing stance of the Lotus and turning it into an exclusive path. I think there is a lot of context that went into that decision and without judgment you can connect the dots from this all embracing path to an exclusive path. Its theoretically feasible because of the relation between microcosm and macrocosm. That said, I think its misleading because it ignores half of the relationship between provisional and essential and turns it into a one way dynamic.
I recently started a thread here about something I found in Makashikan:
The Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings says, "The Buddha does not have any of the five elements of the earth and so forth or skandhas or sense realms," but this means that the Buddha has none of the skandhas, sense entrances, or sense realms of the first nine destinies. Now, to say that the Buddha does have skandhas and so forth means that he has the constantly dwelling skandhas, sense realms, and sense entrances of nirvāṇa.
This passage from Makashikan seems to more or less contradict the dominant modes in both Tendai and Nichiren Buddhism of interpreting interpenetration and the ten realms/ichinen sanzen. The bolded text is a significant scandal IMO in how Ven Zhiyi's teachings were interpreted by his Tiāntāi and Tendai successors. That interpretation is then inherited by the schools of Nichiren Buddhism. If you are so inclined, you may wish to comment there on your opinion with regards to this.
Last edited by Caoimhghín on Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Minobu »

the more i read about the creation of sutras and the confusion surrounding them and so on...my faith gets distorted.

so I think Nichiren shonin understood more about what Buddhism was really about...the influx of what appears new teachings hundreds of years after Buddhist councils and the Parinirvana of Lord Sakyamuni Buddha...

So He just took the stories...and created an entirely different form of Buddhism...He borrowed from sutras and ancient Vedic teachings and created a Gohonzon...then taught how to access these qualities inside one's being...

I think this is the true meaning of Mappo and the teachings becoming counterfeit Dharma predicted in sutra.

I think Nichiren was appalled at the reality that quite possably this stuff is all just made up and turned into religion..

Government policies used religion..

the romans had their version of the Happy hunting ground elysium , the Christians heaven , the Buddhist pure land open to all for a few coins and a few chants...

the whole thing to me is a nightmare....maybe he saw it as i do now...

so He leaves something that actually works in mappo...with the help of Buddhas and Bohdisatvas and the gods.....and teaches us what we are and what people do in the name of government and religion...

my faith in Nichiren Shonin just blossomed to what He Is...and created...well maybe not created...it's prolly the same thing over and over....kalpas and big bangs over and over...we get conned He comes and leaves a viable path during the defiled ages.....
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Minobu »

so like i gotta thank Q for talking about the sutras like they are Aesop Fables with stuff to learn from ..

he got me here..ta very much..

it's rough to absorb but it is what it is...stories ....to learn by...made in the name of Buddha...
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:41 pmThe most complete description of the Ekayana is probably in the Life Span chapter where the Buddha explains he teaches whatever is needed to lead beings to Buddhahood, even if it means setting out arhatship or even a lesser idea of nirvana as intermediate goals.
Another good ekayana scripture which is not generally considered an ekayana scripture IMO is the Far-Reaching Perfection of Wisdom in One Syllable: "ah."

A certain Venerable Kakuban was the would-be founder of a New Kamakura single-practice school, like Jōdo Shinshū or the various Nichiren demoninations. Unlike modern day Japanese Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhism, which came from Tendai-offshoots, Venerable Kakuban was a Shingon offshoot. He taught a focussed practice of contemplation on and recitation of the mantric syllable "āḥ" adapted from Shingon meditative traditions.

Here are some words of Venerable Kakuban concerning the practice of the syllable āḥ:
The three poisons and ten evils will change into the merits of the maṇḍala. The four pārājika offenses and five heinous deeds will transform and return to the secret practices of yoga. The hundred and sixty deluded attachments, without being cut off, will end of themselves; the eighty-four thousand defilements, without being countered, will at once expire. The practice to achieve buddhahood requiring three incalculable aeons is condensed into half a thought-moment; the extended practices of the six perfections are encompassed within this single contemplation. The dark sleep of delusion and samsara is now forever ended; the moon of enlightened wisdom and nirvana here for the first time appears. Those of shallow contemplation and limited practice shall, without discarding their present body, achieve the highest grade of superior birth in the Pure Land, while those of deep cultivation and great assiduity shall, without transforming their mind, become great radiant Vairocana of the realm of Hidden Splendor. In its ease of cultivation and realization, no path could surpass this practice.

But what dharma could be more difficult to encounter?
This one I found particularly interesting, linking the one-syllable "A" mantra with speech itself, any speech, any sound with the voice really, and beyond that. He places "āḥ" not as a particularly articulated vowel with aspiration (ḥ) following it, but more as the sound the voice makes when it isn't up to anything in particular. The "natural" exclamation, if you will.
From the moment you are born into this world crying “A!,” whenever you are delighted you laugh “A!,” and whenever you are sad you grieve “A!” There is not a single occasion when you do not say “A!” This A is the seed mantra representing the natural principle endowed with the truth of suchness. Thus all sorts of sounds and voices produced by any phenomenal existence, either good or evil, or by any non-sentient existence, such as the land, mountains, rivers, the earth, sand, pebbles, as well as the birds and beasts, are nothing other than the natural dhāraṇīs of the letter A.
Venerable Kakuban further, as part of his Shingon education, was engaged in Kamakura-Era veneration and elevation of Amitābha Buddha. Amitābha Buddha, the saviour figure of peasant and "common folk" Buddhism in Japan, is merged in his teaching, as in the Tendai-derived teachings of his contemporaries like Venerable Shinran, with the Root Buddha (本佛) of Mahāvairocana, the dharmadhātu which finds itself no different than the mind.
Apart from this sahā world, there is no Land of Utmost Bliss to contemplate. How could it be separated by tens of billions of other lands? And apart from Vairocana, there is no separate Amitābha. [...] Amitābha is Vairocana's function as wisdom. Vairocana is Amitābha's essence as principle. [...] When one contemplates in this way, then, without leaving the sahā world, one is immediately born in the Pure Land of Utmost Bliss. [...] This is the subtle contemplation for realizing buddhahood with this very body.
And lastly, I think it would be interesting to actually quote that "Far-Reaching Perfection of Wisdom, the Mother of all Tathāgatas, in a Single Syllable," which has the equally lengthy Sanskrit title of Ekākṣarīmātāprajñāpāramitāsarvatathāgatanāmamahāyānasūtra:
Thus have I heard: At one time, the Lord was at the Vulture Peak in Rajgir, together with eighty-three fully-ordained monks, and many hundreds of thousands of millions of bodhisattvas, who were all abiding together in one company.

Thereupon, at that time, at that moment, the Lord gave teaching to the Venerable Ānanda thus:

“Ānanda! This is the Far-Reaching Perfection of Deep Insight in a Single Syllable. For the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings, you should retain this!

And it goes thus:ཨཱ། [āḥ]."

The Lord spoke those words, and the monks, bodhisattvas, and all the assemblies of gods, humans, demigods and celestial spirits, along with the entire world, rejoiced: they deeply praised what had been spoken by the Lord, the transcendent and accomplished Jina.
This is old news to people who have been reading this forum for a while, but ཨཱ།, āḥ, a-, is the negation particle that forms avidya out of vidya, asatva out of satva, anitya out of nitya, and can be thought of as a "syllable of emptiness." In English, it forms atypical out of typical, asexual out of sexual, and atheist out of theist.

The above quotations save for the sutra from 84,000 was from this article.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Queequeg »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:07 pm
Queequeg wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:57 pmAs a follow up - if you understand Ekayana as presented in the Lotus, it embraces all paths, even Devadatta, integrating them all into the path to Buddhahood.
But there is also the matter as to how. Is Devadatta's path accepted as-in, or is it saying that he will embrace Mayahana eventually, like all the arhats supposedly?
The Buddha actually explains that Devadatta played an essential role in his own path to Buddhahood when he was a king and Devadatta was a brahmin who promised to teach the Lotus. So I suggest that Devadatta's actual path is embraced without reservation in the Ekayana. You can see this same dynamic throughout the Jatakas where Devadatta is always the Buddha's foil. The thing is, without Devadatta presenting obstacles or opportunities to embody perfections, does the Buddha still proceed on the path? I think you can find this fully expressed in, for instance, the Vimalakirti where its explained that those who challenge bodhisattvas are not actually demons like Mara, but are bodhisattvas appearing as demons to present adequate challenge to bodhisattvas. Only bodhisattvas are powerful enough to actually challenge bodhisattvas.
When we say that the three vehicles are Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, and that the three are the one, we are saying that Śrāvakayāna is Mahāyāna.
Depends on the vantage point. The sravaka, as well as bodhisattva of the provisional Mahayana, thinks they, the sravaka, are following the path to Arhatship. Full stop. From the Buddha's perspective, he is preparing the sravaka for the revelation of the true Mahayana, ie. the Ekayana. To the extent bodhisattvas think the sravaka is headed to terminal arhatship, then that is provisional Mahayana.

In the Lotus, Sariputra thinks he is in his last birth until the Buddha says, "You'll be a buddha named so and so..."
Is this accurate, or does Śrāvakayāna lead to an underlying essence that is devoid of its provisional and expedient aspects, i.e. Mahāyāna as "distinct" from Śrāvakayāna?
Again, I think the answer to that would depend on which perspective we are taking. If the perspective of the Ekayana, then, the Nirvana of the sravaka is a phantom city and they are really on the Ekayana from the start. If we are sravaka arhats before hearing the Lotus, we think we are in our last birth.
I think more of an argument can be made on terms of the Mahāyāna being the "essence/entity" of the three functions of the three paths than the three paths being the essence of the three paths (i.e. Śrāvakayāna is complete in-and-of-itself, i.e. arhatva is absolutely equivalent to samyaksaṁbuddhatva without qualification).
Well, the argument goes, the Mahayana started as forest dwellers who took the Jataka tales and the story of the bodhisattva path seriously, aiming for that goal instead of just arhatship. In that view, the paths are different with qualitatively different ends, even as there might be some equivalence between arhatship and Buddhahood. Then, the Lotus can be seen as a reaction to resolving that duality.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think you might be stumbling because you're not thinking of this text as an artifact of history, which the Lotus itself seems to implicitly acknowledge at points; there are several points in the text where the "fourth wall" between narrative and reader/hearer is broken.

Reading this way, we read "applies distinctions to the ekayāna, preaching as though it were triyāna" as "applies (provisional) distinctions to the great vehicle to produce two provisional vehicles and one vehicle unaltered by convention and provision."
That's what the text says and that's how its generally interpreted AFAIK.

Its the Nichiren excusivity angle that has the muddying effect.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Non-exclusivist independent Nichiren Buddhism

Post by Queequeg »

Caoimhghín wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:41 pm]Another good ekayana scripture which is not generally considered an ekayana scripture IMO is the Far-Reaching Perfection of Wisdom in One Syllable: "ah."
You get all of that out of "A"? I suspect you need a lot of commentary to get from "A" to "Ekayana."

:rolling:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”