Is it normal for ones' faith to wax and wane over time?

[narhwal90]

I had to look on google to find Nichiren example of no self/ separation. However Nichiren practitioners can better help.
https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/40

I think opening our very heart could support faith, our very heart which is not a fleshi location.

Unless I'm forgetting something, Nichiren didn't particularly take up issues around self/non-self in a doctrinal way- he clearly accepted and discussed impermanence and suffering. He is generally orthodox Mahayana, as expressed through the Tiantai and Tendai lineages, so my guess is he didn't view considerations self/non-self as immediately relevant to his followers as impermanence and suffering. Perhaps Q will drop in and tell us the real deal.

But this is an interesting topic, if there is interest in pursing it I'd be glad to split it off from the wax & wane question.

[bcol01]

Thanks Q! I appreciate what you said, and I totally agree. For some reason, over time (I say "some reason" but now I get the reason which is good), when I return to practicing Buddhism and put myself in alignment with it/practice consistently and study, I feel more "me" and more connected to who I really am, my own Buddha-nature. That's pretty telling isn't it? For me, it really solidified things and made me realize; this is the way and if you want that self-actualization, you must do the work and stay consistent. Looking back now, I feel less concerned with how much I've gone back and forth with studying and being involved in other religions because it all led up to this place--a place of peace, authenticity, equanimity, etc etc.

Also, the wonderful members of this online forum have helped me a ton in my own journey as well, which I feel cannot be overstated. I'm grateful and far more secure in what I feel works. Thanks for your pesos, Q!

I've found that over the years, my faith in the Lotus Sutra has come and gone, but I always return to Odaimoku. It's not so much what Nichiren Buddhism teaches as it is the experience of it that keeps me returning to it. I've studied so many different types of religions over the years and honestly I've gotten a lot out of each one. But the practice is why I keep returning. I feel it on an experiential level within my being. I feel more me, happier, grounded, healthier, etc and life just seems to go much smoother with it than without it. Much like other Nichiren Buddhists who have shared the same experience, I tested this practice and what it teaches. I compared chanting consistently and devoting a reasonable amount of time to it each day, each week and so on, to not practicing at all and completely turning from Buddhism to some other distraction or hopeful quick-fix, just to be shown the door back to this practice. It works, even if it's not easy. Though, staying consistent again is key.

Distractions, karma, inner garbage etc would pop up (and luckily I see it for what it is now and can deal with it) like:

I use to feel silly being a Buddhist and being white, I wasn't sure if I wanted to "identify" as a Buddhist. I felt out of place kinda, growing up in middle America as a white Christian. So, that thought of not knowing if I could "see myself being a Buddhist" was in a way silly to me but also, it hindered me (hindrance?) and I let it sway me off course. What does it matter? <<This kind of thinking.

And another distraction:

Some religions just looked "cool" and I wondered if I'd feel "at home" sticking with whatever it was I was. But I'd soon feel inauthentic.

I'd return to Buddhism and to our practice. Has anyone else experienced any of this in the beginning of practice or at all? I'm sure people have, just would love to hear some of your thoughts and experiences. Hope you are all doing well. With Gassho

For sure. Though my practice has evolved beyond Nichiren, I can relate to faith and motivation vacillating over time, from a robust, energetic practice, to questioning what I was doing. In the end, though, the experience of practice is real. I may not understand it, but the experience of practicing is not deniable.

[Queequeg]

I had to look on google to find Nichiren example of no self/ separation. However Nichiren practitioners can better help.
https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/40

I think opening our very heart could support faith, our very heart which is not a fleshi location.

Unless I'm forgetting something, Nichiren didn't particularly take up issues around self/non-self in a doctrinal way- he clearly accepted and discussed impermanence and suffering. He is generally orthodox Mahayana, as expressed through the Tiantai and Tendai lineages, so my guess is he didn't view considerations self/non-self as immediately relevant to his followers as impermanence and suffering. Perhaps Q will drop in and tell us the real deal.

But this is an interesting topic, if there is interest in pursing it I'd be glad to split it off from the wax & wane question.

It is an interesting topic... and a fraught one.

So, in Lotus teachings, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is considered an elaboration of the Lotus Sutra. In that text, the Buddha explains that Nirvana is marked by True Self, Permanence, Purity, and Bliss. This is in contrast to Samsara that is marked by No Self, Impermanence, Defilement, and Suffering. Before people get the wrong idea that Lotus Buddhists believe in a True Self in the sense that we somehow truly possess a unique and enduring self, we need to stop. This topic has led to scorched earth debates here on DW and back through the centuries by people who think that somehow the Mahaparinirvana Sutra resurrects the Self as a real entity. This is not the case, at all. This True Self is still marked by Emptiness. However, it is, as I understand it, advanced as a cure for those who have sunk into what I would call emptiness sickness, a kind of existential, nihilistic funk that an incorrect understanding of Emptiness can lead to. It points us back to the path, and what is that path? Its elaborated in many ways, but, in what has come to be Western, English speaking Nichiren terms, its to see Myoho as your life. In Tiantai/Tendai, the mind is the path, the object of a non-dualistic contemplation - the Sudden and Perfect Contemplation (Endon Shikan). All the various practices are for settling into a non-dual experiential insight into what is happening. That's a poor explanation. Excuse me.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest something that might not sit well with some people...

No self is elementary level Buddhism. We tend to get caught up with this audacious sounding teaching, but its really not a big deal. Once you understand and accept it, you move on. There are much more challenging and interesting things.

The teaching on no-self doesn't make you disappear, so clearly it's not about nothing-ness and nihilism. All it is saying is that dharmas are compounded. This is clearly explained in the Tripitaka and by Nagarjuna. I know of no one whose suffering was ended because of the teaching of anatman (no self) alone. All that Anatman and Emptiness does is cut off incorrect ideas about things. Reality as it is still must be understood.

I think this is why Nichiren stressed jisso 実相 - The Thus Aspect.

[narhwal90]

Nichiren did discuss Eternity, Happiness, True Self, and Purity as per a fragment of gosho- apparently accepting the Nirvana sutra argument- but unfortunately it just a bit of text oriented towards contrast with Theravadan doctrine.

[Queequeg]

Nichiren did discuss Eternity, Happiness, True Self, and Purity as per a fragment of gosho- apparently accepting the Nirvana sutra argument- but unfortunately it just a bit of text oriented towards contrast with Theravadan doctrine.

See also Conversation between a Sage and Unenlightened Man, where the narrator comes to the valley where the sage resides. That's at least one other place Nichiren mentions it.

Main point is, Nichiren emphasized Jisso. IMHO, much more profound teaching than no-self or emptiness.

[narhwal90]

Its funny, I really don't know what "thusness" is- I suppose I can accept that things are "thus", and "thus" things are, and we also have 10 Suchnesses, which seem related to "thusness" and so on, but compared to what seems to me exacting and clear commentary on emptiness, non-self, impermanence found elsewhere, I still don't get it.

[muni]

Unless I'm forgetting something, Nichiren didn't particularly take up issues around self/non-self in a doctrinal way

Ha! I see the teaching of anatman or no self is not so explicit in Nicherin. I know nothing about Nicherin. However I was reading that part I posted here above, and found it interesting. Then no need to extra mention 'no separation/self' since there is already an impossibility.

I read: All beings and environment from Hell, the Lowest, to Buddhahood, the Highest are without exception Manifestations of Myoho Renge Kyo.

It is interesting to come to peep in other traditions' expressions. Again may Nichiren practitioners throw their light..

[Queequeg]

Unless I'm forgetting something, Nichiren didn't particularly take up issues around self/non-self in a doctrinal way

Ha! I see the teaching of anatman or no self is not so explicit in Nicherin. I know nothing about Nicherin. However I was reading that part I posted here above, and found it interesting. Then no need to extra mention 'no separation/self' since there is already an impossibility.

I read: All beings and environment from Hell, the Lowest, to Buddhahood, the Highest are without exception Manifestations of Myoho Renge Kyo.

It is interesting to come to peep in other traditions' expressions. Again may Nichiren practitioners throw their light..

Yes, emptiness/anatman is taken for granted. It is integrated into the view through the threefold inclusive truth, a formulation of emptiness, conditionality, and middle way where each is subsumes the other views. 10 worlds, 100 worlds, 1000 factors, and 3000 worlds in a single thought are all founded on this threefold truth.

This is all from Tiantai. Without understanding Tiantai, Nichiren is not intelligible.

[narhwal90]

Unless I'm forgetting something, Nichiren didn't particularly take up issues around self/non-self in a doctrinal way

I read: All beings and environment from Hell, the Lowest, to Buddhahood, the Highest are without exception Manifestations of Myoho Renge Kyo.

This is Nichiren proposing his interpretation of the Lotus Sutra on top of Tiantai and Tendai doctrine, there are a number of foundational principles in play.

I've found his evolution of practice a bit confusing, some of his earlier writings accept or even emphasize practices other than chanting the sutra title, later documents deprecate them. Some of that could be upaya I suppose, evolution of practice or possibly Nichiren differentiating his practice from Tendai. The quote you mention is from a somewhat later gosho written to another Tendai monk he communicated with a number of times- so this could be viewed as a more technically literate argument about Nichiren's view of the Lotus Sutra's supremacy.

[illarraza]

Can Tathāgatagarbha or Buddha nature be considered a 'self'?

No, because it is the opposite of a self.
That’s like asking if a brightly lit room can just be regarded as a different type of shadow, because notion of “self” is a type of obstruction in that it can only occur as something clung to or grasped. Tathagatagharba is originally free of all grasping.

Could Buddha nature be considered a "self" in any Mahayana tradition, or Is this unheard of?
Can there be more than one definition of self? Ego as opposed to Buddha nature? Something possibly along those lines.
Could someone possibly get that from say, the Mahaparanirvana Sutra, or absolutely not? Or references in the Lotus Sutra to monks (Arahants) who believed they were not self and passing into extinction, and Shakyamuni says this isn't the case (ch.3), can "not self" possibly be seen as an expedient/skillful means or provisional teaching, or probably not?

Actually, the Lotus tradition posits not only emptiness or non-substantiality (mind), temporary existence (body), but the middle way or entity of both mind and body) whereby through transmigration, there retains a self though drastically different from the previous lifetime (yet retaining karmic tendencies through the eighth level of consciousness (ayala conciousness).

We can glimpse this reality even in one lifetime...Baby Johnny only thinks of succking on mama's breast, feeling uncomfortable when he poops or has to burp, or smiling and cooing when dady speaks baby talk to him. Then, as a teenager, we can hardly recognize Johnny, long hair, he likes to play his guitar, work out with weights, and smoke weed with his friends. He aspires to be a rock star. Middle aged Johnny is even less recognizeable than baby Johnny and even to teenage Johnnny. He has a big belly and is a car salesman having a myriad of worries about his finances, family, and even health issues, Lastly we see old man Johnny, frail, emaciated, and living in a nursing home. He looks upon his obese unattractive aide as a bathing beauty and doesn't even recognize his own children half the time. Despite these monumental changes in Johnnies mind and body, one can not say that baby Johnny is not old frail Johnny. This thread that connects baby Johnny to old man Johnny is the Middle Way that propagates throughout the Three Existences of past, present and future.

Non-substantiality, and emptiness is but part of the story. The truth of the Middle Way is that the true nature of phenomena is that they are neither non-substantial nor temporary, though they display attributes of both.

M

[Lotomístico]

No, because it is the opposite of a self.
That’s like asking if a brightly lit room can just be regarded as a different type of shadow, because notion of “self” is a type of obstruction in that it can only occur as something clung to or grasped. Tathagatagharba is originally free of all grasping.

Could Buddha nature be considered a "self" in any Mahayana tradition, or Is this unheard of?
Can there be more than one definition of self? Ego as opposed to Buddha nature? Something possibly along those lines.
Could someone possibly get that from say, the Mahaparanirvana Sutra, or absolutely not? Or references in the Lotus Sutra to monks (Arahants) who believed they were not self and passing into extinction, and Shakyamuni says this isn't the case (ch.3), can "not self" possibly be seen as an expedient/skillful means or provisional teaching, or probably not?

Actually, the Lotus tradition posits not only emptiness or non-substantiality (mind), temporary existence (body), but the middle way or entity of both mind and body) whereby through transmigration, there retains a self though drastically different from the previous lifetime (yet retaining karmic tendencies through the eighth level of consciousness (ayala conciousness).

We can glimpse this reality even in one lifetime...Baby Johnny only thinks of succking on mama's breast, feeling uncomfortable when he poops or has to burp, or smiling and cooing when dady speaks baby talk to him. Then, as a teenager, we can hardly recognize Johnny, long hair, he likes to play his guitar, work out with weights, and smoke weed with his friends. He aspires to be a rock star. Middle aged Johnny is even less recognizeable than baby Johnny and even to teenage Johnnny. He has a big belly and is a car salesman having a myriad of worries about his finances, family, and even health issues, Lastly we see old man Johnny, frail, emaciated, and living in a nursing home. He looks upon his obese unattractive aide as a bathing beauty and doesn't even recognize his own children half the time. Despite these monumental changes in Johnnies mind and body, one can not say that baby Johnny is not old frail Johnny. This thread that connects baby Johnny to old man Johnny is the Middle Way that propagates throughout the Three Existences of past, present and future.

Non-substantiality, and emptiness is but part of the story. The truth of the Middle Way is that the true nature of phenomena is that they are neither non-substantial nor temporary, though they display attributes of both.

M

Refreshing to see the position of the Nichiren school in the Nichiren section.
Really shame people couldn't just answer the OP's post with práctical advice, this is a fascinating topic that we've diverted into, though only because people responded by waxing philosphical and trying to sound clever saying things like "this is not that and that is not this" and discussing emptiness or whatever, comes off slightly pretentious, and is probably why so many view Buddhism as the realm of abstract ideas having no práctical application or relevance to everyday life.
Glad you clarified the Lotus Sutra/Nichiren school position on the matter, hopefully the faith of the OP has been strengthened as well.

[illarraza]

Could Buddha nature be considered a "self" in any Mahayana tradition, or Is this unheard of?
Can there be more than one definition of self? Ego as opposed to Buddha nature? Something possibly along those lines.
Could someone possibly get that from say, the Mahaparanirvana Sutra, or absolutely not? Or references in the Lotus Sutra to monks (Arahants) who believed they were not self and passing into extinction, and Shakyamuni says this isn't the case (ch.3), can "not self" possibly be seen as an expedient/skillful means or provisional teaching, or probably not?

Actually, the Lotus tradition posits not only emptiness or non-substantiality (mind), temporary existence (body), but the middle way or entity of both mind and body) whereby through transmigration, there retains a self though drastically different from the previous lifetime (yet retaining karmic tendencies through the eighth level of consciousness (ayala conciousness).

We can glimpse this reality even in one lifetime...Baby Johnny only thinks of succking on mama's breast, feeling uncomfortable when he poops or has to burp, or smiling and cooing when dady speaks baby talk to him. Then, as a teenager, we can hardly recognize Johnny, long hair, he likes to play his guitar, work out with weights, and smoke weed with his friends. He aspires to be a rock star. Middle aged Johnny is even less recognizeable than baby Johnny and even to teenage Johnnny. He has a big belly and is a car salesman having a myriad of worries about his finances, family, and even health issues, Lastly we see old man Johnny, frail, emaciated, and living in a nursing home. He looks upon his obese unattractive aide as a bathing beauty and doesn't even recognize his own children half the time. Despite these monumental changes in Johnnies mind and body, one can not say that baby Johnny is not old frail Johnny. This thread that connects baby Johnny to old man Johnny is the Middle Way that propagates throughout the Three Existences of past, present and future.

Non-substantiality, and emptiness is but part of the story. The truth of the Middle Way is that the true nature of phenomena is that they are neither non-substantial nor temporary, though they display attributes of both.

M

Refreshing to see the position of the Nichiren school in the Nichiren section.
Really shame people couldn't just answer the OP's post with práctical advice, this is a fascinating topic that we've diverted into, though only because people responded by waxing philosphical and trying to sound clever saying things like "this is not that and that is not this" and discussing emptiness or whatever, comes off slightly pretentious, and is probably why so many view Buddhism as the realm of abstract ideas having no práctical application or relevance to everyday life.
Glad you clarified the Lotus Sutra/Nichiren school position on the matter, hopefully the faith of the OP has been strengthened as well.

Agreed Lotomistico. You must be a good friend to Nichiren and his disciples and believers.

[muni]

Queequeg:

All the various practices are for settling into a non-dual experiential insight into what is happening.

Narhwal90:

The quote you mention is from a somewhat later gosho written to another Tendai monk he communicated with a number of times- so this could be viewed as a more technically literate argument about Nichiren's view

Thank you both to throw a light for an innocent on yours tradition. Very Interesting. Even words and technics can all differ very much, nature just is. Narhwal, I saw the quote as well as inspiration for meditation.
"All beings and environment from Hell, the Lowest, to Buddhahood, the Highest are without exception Manifestations of Myoho Renge Kyo."

[narhwal90]

I've also often found encouragement and inspiration to practice in his goshos.

[bcol01]

Thank you.
That faith is back and forth a lot, but these days I find myself just witnessing the inner tug of war and then just going back to chanting again. So far, I'm staying the course and if it's true that all we really ever have is this moment, then I resolve to continue chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.

Could Buddha nature be considered a "self" in any Mahayana tradition, or Is this unheard of?
Can there be more than one definition of self? Ego as opposed to Buddha nature? Something possibly along those lines.
Could someone possibly get that from say, the Mahaparanirvana Sutra, or absolutely not? Or references in the Lotus Sutra to monks (Arahants) who believed they were not self and passing into extinction, and Shakyamuni says this isn't the case (ch.3), can "not self" possibly be seen as an expedient/skillful means or provisional teaching, or probably not?

Actually, the Lotus tradition posits not only emptiness or non-substantiality (mind), temporary existence (body), but the middle way or entity of both mind and body) whereby through transmigration, there retains a self though drastically different from the previous lifetime (yet retaining karmic tendencies through the eighth level of consciousness (ayala conciousness).

We can glimpse this reality even in one lifetime...Baby Johnny only thinks of succking on mama's breast, feeling uncomfortable when he poops or has to burp, or smiling and cooing when dady speaks baby talk to him. Then, as a teenager, we can hardly recognize Johnny, long hair, he likes to play his guitar, work out with weights, and smoke weed with his friends. He aspires to be a rock star. Middle aged Johnny is even less recognizeable than baby Johnny and even to teenage Johnnny. He has a big belly and is a car salesman having a myriad of worries about his finances, family, and even health issues, Lastly we see old man Johnny, frail, emaciated, and living in a nursing home. He looks upon his obese unattractive aide as a bathing beauty and doesn't even recognize his own children half the time. Despite these monumental changes in Johnnies mind and body, one can not say that baby Johnny is not old frail Johnny. This thread that connects baby Johnny to old man Johnny is the Middle Way that propagates throughout the Three Existences of past, present and future.

Non-substantiality, and emptiness is but part of the story. The truth of the Middle Way is that the true nature of phenomena is that they are neither non-substantial nor temporary, though they display attributes of both.

M

Refreshing to see the position of the Nichiren school in the Nichiren section.
Really shame people couldn't just answer the OP's post with práctical advice, this is a fascinating topic that we've diverted into, though only because people responded by waxing philosphical and trying to sound clever saying things like "this is not that and that is not this" and discussing emptiness or whatever, comes off slightly pretentious, and is probably why so many view Buddhism as the realm of abstract ideas having no práctical application or relevance to everyday life.
Glad you clarified the Lotus Sutra/Nichiren school position on the matter, hopefully the faith of the OP has been strengthened as well.