Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:52 pm
tkp67 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:03 pm
Queequeg wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 3:41 pm
No. Not extraneous. At least that's my opinion. Within the Nichiren community there is disagreement about Trace and Original teachings. The groups you are associated with privilege the Original Teachings and take the slogan of dropping the provisional literally. IMO, its a poorly considered view because you knee cap yourself and actually end up with a Honen type heresy of dismissing everything but the single practice you select.
One does not need to recite every writing by every master that existed in the lineage of Lotus teachings to recognize and honor them.
What? I really don't understand how that is a relevant response. That goes for most of your reply.
In order to evaluate trace and original one needs the capacity, cause and conditions to do so. Digesting that knowledge completely does not guarantee it will lead to any meaningful understanding. The individual relevance of dharma teachings isn't measured by the teaching but the conditions, capacity and cause of the individual.
Capacity for liberation does not nor need be equal to one's capacity to digest the teachings beyond what is applicable in the moment.
Nichiren wrote goshos encouraging different levels of engagement based on a person's capacity. He aided his follows without discrimination due to learning capacity.
There is no separation between latent and manifest capacity in terms of sentient value except in the conditioned mind.
I'm not talking about value. And, actually, there is a distinction between latent and manifest effect. That's why they're distinguished.
Well I am not talking about distinction between latent and manifest effect. I made it clear this was in accord to Shakyamuni's desire to make all sentient beings equal.
Sentient life is the only true important element here for which Shakymanui expressed pure equanimity. The distinctions between latent and manifest effect don't denote the value of sentient life itself. If it did why would the buddha seek to make all beings equal if they weren't? So some might figure it out and the rest perpetually be reborn in hell?
Everything Shakyamuni taught was ultimately for the purpose of liberating sentient beings. The lotus sutra represents the vehicle without distinction capable of saving all beings.
It guess these subtle discriminatory limits that are beyond by capacity to recognize are relative to the mind perceiving them.
Now since you reference that chapter remember bodhisattva never disparage was Shakyamuni and he reported expending an existence bowing to everyone claiming their buddhahood.
It was this behavior as a human being that reperesents the "original gateway" does it not?
Not quite. You're referring to this:
Thus even a ruler on a throne must take care not to give unreserved expression to his thoughts. The worthy man Confucius held to his belief “Nine thoughts to one word,” which means that he reconsidered nine times before he spoke. Tan, the Duke of Chou, was so earnest in receiving callers that he would wring out his hair three times in the course of washing it, or spit out his food three times in the course of a meal [in order not to keep them waiting]. Consider this carefully so that you will have no cause to reproach me later. What is called Buddhism is found in this behavior.
The heart of the Buddha’s lifetime of teachings is the Lotus Sutra, and the heart of the practice of the Lotus Sutra is found in the “Never Disparaging” chapter. What does Bodhisattva Never Disparaging’s profound respect for people signify? The purpose of the appearance in this world of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, lies in his behavior as a human being.
Not quite the actions. It was the thought behind the actions that mattered.
As is often said, karma is intention. It was because Sadaparibhuta believed that all beings have buddhanature that he bowed to them. Shakyamuni appeared and taught beings because he knew all beings have buddhanature. That words and actions are derivative of the thought. So again, its the thought, faith, that finds expression as words and actions. Faith comes first.
Actually I was quoting the LS bodhisattva never disparage chapter directly because everything Nichiren taught is proofed by it. Since so much is not reliable in so many eyes I proof everything he says through the lotus. How is my statement falsified by the sutra itself?
“Gainer of Great Authority, what do you think? The bodhisattva Never Disparaging who lived at that time—could he be unknown to you? In fact he was none other than I myself! If in my previous existences I had not accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I would never have been able to attain supreme perfect enlightenment this quickly. Because in the presence of those earlier buddhas I accepted, upheld, read, and recited this sutra and preached it for others, I was able quickly to attain supreme perfect enlightenment.
“Gainer of Great Authority, at that time the four kinds of believers, the monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, because anger arose in their minds and they treated me with disparagement and contempt, were for two hundred million kalpas never p.311able to encounter a buddha, to hear the Law, or to see the community of monks. For a thousand kalpas they underwent great suffering in the Avichi hell. After they had finished paying for their offenses, they once more encountered the bodhisattva Never Disparaging, who instructed them in supreme perfect enlightenment.
Making what up? A difference in perspective? Having proofed my understanding with the Lotus and a teacher? A specific statement as categorically untrue?
You're constantly making it up as you go along and constantly getting corrected.
How do you know what I make up versus how I perceive the world? Doubting how genuine is doubt. I don't engage in such thought processes in light of the louts.
If you have a list of corrections where it perceived that I have made it up I would gladly be receptive to seeing it. Without proof it becomes nothing but an empty accusation to me if I am not making it up. Have you considered as much? Do you know me well enough to understand this?
Where has my perspective differed from those who solely practice Nichiren buddhism? The only people questioning my perspective admittedly no longer gain the same benefit form this Buddhism and have deviated elsewhere. Nichiren taught against this.
I don't draw a line between the Nichiren interests regardless of how they perceive Nichiren so I don't see how there is a case for the discord you are expressing.
TKP the authority on all things Nichiren.
Tell, me, lurking Nichirenites, does this guy speak for all of you?
I asked where did I speak against them. I have been very clear I speak on my own behalf and accept all detriment in doing so. If my head needs to be split in 7 pieces or swords be cast I suggest a great gathering of minds do so.
Who said faith doesn't come first? What makes you think that statement denies this?
You keep putting action before intent in all of your explanations.
It would seem that way when quoted out of context.
life and death are inseparable AND yet still sequential. Those traits don't change the phenomenon but if one things something inseparable cannot be sequential it will sound unreasonable.
I cannot make sense of that prose. Sorry.
If nothing else I commend your consistent manner.