What are your thoughts on this comment regarding the Lotus Sutra?

[Fortyeightvows]

the timing just seems a lil off to us commoners..but to the immortals..meh whats a few centuries inbetween Sutras.

well, in heavenly time that is only like one day, so ...

[Fortyeightvows]

Basically, the Lotus is considered the highest teaching for the reason Minobu's lama told him there is no highest teaching, but rather, whatever teaching is drawing you along the path is the highest teaching.

Mahayana people will still say that the mahayana is 'higher' than the hinayana, and vajrayana people will still say that vajrayana is 'higher' than mahayana.

Honen taught that it was too difficult to attain enlightenment in this life through the teachings left by the Buddha, particularly in Mappo, and so he taught faith focused exclusively on Amitabha to seek rebirth in his land, Sukhavati. Nichiren paraphrased Honen adding the gloss that Honen said ignore all the teachings except Amitabha's vow to save people. Without parsing the rhetoric and fact checking it, Nichiren himself did not say ignore all other teachings.

Interesting, so did Nichiren misunderstand and/or misrepresent Honen's teaching ?

I'll just add this: some brilliant people spent their whole lives learning and studying Buddhist doctrines. Many of them agreed that the Lotus presented the most profound teachings - higher teachings than some of the other teachings mentioned by the OP. And not just because it claims that place. Like I said - its a teaching at a different level than didactic philosophy or practical instruction. It takes all that for granted, and works it at another level of fluency.

This is well put

[tkp67]

Nichiren declares the lotus superior because it opens the doors to all sentient beings including icchantika. It is superior because of what it fulfills.

When he says all buddha achieve buddhahood through this sutra and mentions other sutras say the same this is not a contradiction of the golden words of Shakyamuni nor does it change the superiority of the sutras.

[Queequeg]

Basically, the Lotus is considered the highest teaching for the reason Minobu's lama told him there is no highest teaching, but rather, whatever teaching is drawing you along the path is the highest teaching.

Mahayana people will still say that the mahayana is 'higher' than the hinayana, and vajrayana people will still say that vajrayana is 'higher' than mahayana.

I pointed out that the Lotus addresses these points. Whatever someone needs to do now is their highest teaching. But if someone says that they have the truth exclusive to every other truth... If they don't know, they're just espousing beliefs. Zhiyi points out, if you do know, then there is no need to argue about it.

There's one scene in the Lotus where 5000 people get up and leave because they think they already know the highest teaching, and so don't need to sit through another sermon. The Lotus clearly embodies a lot of experience.

Honen taught that it was too difficult to attain enlightenment in this life through the teachings left by the Buddha, particularly in Mappo, and so he taught faith focused exclusively on Amitabha to seek rebirth in his land, Sukhavati. Nichiren paraphrased Honen adding the gloss that Honen said ignore all the teachings except Amitabha's vow to save people. Without parsing the rhetoric and fact checking it, Nichiren himself did not say ignore all other teachings.

Interesting, so did Nichiren misunderstand and/or misrepresent Honen's teaching ?

He glossed. I don't think he misunderstood. Maybe some of Honen's followers said things along the lines Nichiren glossed, which is probably true. Honen had to warn his own followers about their conduct. Honen's movement was rejected from Tendai. Nichiren I think can be understood as taking up that Tendai critique. From what I've read of Honen, he does quote people like Shandao to assert the futility of most practices. I think Honen's idea was sharpened even more by Shinran - though Nichiren never mentioned Shinran. Although they were contemporaries and in the same general geographic location, he didn't seem to be particularly aware of Shinran. Shinran probably just wasn't that famous at the time, just as Nichiren probably wasn't very famous at the time. But, Shinran taught an even more sharpened focus on Amitabha than Honen, and so maybe that was representative of the Pure Land ideas circulating at the time? I don't know. My speculation.

[Minobu]

"QQ" thank you ever so much for being you and putting the time in your life to actually study this whole thing and help people like me who seek the truth..This man has dedicated his life to Lotus Buddhism...

So like yeah Nikko shonin got the property given to him at taisekiji ...but it was only after his death that this whole Daigohonzon ,Buddha of Kuon Ganjo was produced from taisekiji...
Look at what people think of Lord Buddha Sakyamuni..incredible...they think he is like a back seat driver to someone else..

and yet this is the sect that is responsible for world wide growth...

but we are now here...at this juncture when the most people ever are chanting and doing gongyo...

We know the historic facts....for the Serious Student it's all there to see and figure out..

all the hoops one has to go through ,brought on by the false doctrine of Shoshu is out in the open..People know !!!

it's fantastic...only a matter of time when people awake from the coma...

[_johnarundel_]

I appreciate your insight. Are you a Nichiren Buddhist?

Hi!

Thank you. Yes, I practice with Nichiren Shoshu.

[bcol01]

And what about this reply to what you said:

Yes, it is interesting - psychologically. The text claims to convey things unheard of previously, a couple of centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana, where he had said, "The Tathāgata does not hold back anything, keeping a closed fist, thinking, 'I will teach this in my old age, at the last moment.'"
The Mahayana sutras - not the Lotus sutra only - IMHO are afterthoughts, pious theories about the Dharma as conveyed in the palicanon. Such things can be helpful, but when they start to announce the original to be provisional - then they should be taken with a grain of salt ...

What if St. Augustine or somebody else in the 4th or 5th cty. had written a gospel
with the message that the earlier gospels were merely provisional?

You will find exactly the same message in the Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, the Garland Sutra … "this Sutra is the greatest, ignore everything that you have read so far anywhere else". This kind of textual one-upmanship was standard practice among the early Mahāyāna Sutra writers, just part of their brand-building strategy. So there's nothing to see here. Also, something like the Diamond Sutra is not earlier than the Lotus Sutra, but a few centuries later. Thus, by your logic, it declares the Lotus Sutra provisional.

The Buddha in the Lotus teaching does not teach that all other teachings should be ignored, or, as far as I know, does he teach anything like that in any other sutra. Let's be clear about this: The Buddha never taught that any one teaching should be embraced to the exclusion of all else. In fact, he counseled against embracing anything exclusively to the exclusion of all else when actual knowledge is not attained. Once one knows, one knows, and there is no uncertainty. Until then, one is not safeguarding the truth if they declare, "this is true, all else is false", when they don't actually know this to be the case. See Canki Sutta.

Honen taught that it was too difficult to attain enlightenment in this life through the teachings left by the Buddha, particularly in Mappo, and so he taught faith focused exclusively on Amitabha to seek rebirth in his land, Sukhavati. Nichiren paraphrased Honen adding the gloss that Honen said ignore all the teachings except Amitabha's vow to save people. Without parsing the rhetoric and fact checking it, Nichiren himself did not say ignore all other teachings. He said all the teachings, from the moment of Shakyamuni's enlightenment under the Bodhi tree until his parinirvana, all of them composed a single sutra. He did teach that one should not be confused about the relative merits. How he determines the relative merits - that's another story. I'll punt on that discussion.

Basically, the Lotus is considered the highest teaching for the reason Minobu's lama told him there is no highest teaching, but rather, whatever teaching is drawing you along the path is the highest teaching.

That's actually what the Buddha explains in the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus is where the Buddha draws back the curtain and tells the assembly what he's actually up to.

He says, "No, this one really is the ultimate teaching!" And then he goes on to explain his whole life, from his conception to that day on Vulture Peak was all an expedient he engaged in to teach beings according to their capacities - whatever they needed to hear to get them out of the burning house (Chapter 3), to see know their own real identity (Chapter 4), whatever they need to grow (Chapter 5), to find peace and rest (Chapter 7), to realize what they've had all along (Chapter 8), to receive the supreme jewel of Buddhahood (Chapter 14), to get people to take the medicine of Dharma (Chapter 16), and more. He says, I've always been here, and I always will be - my whole life is a means I contrived to get near you, win your trust, so that I could share bodhi with you. He also give prophecies of enlightenment to everyone (this may not be a big deal to most of us, but it would have been quite surprising if you were steeped in pre-Mahayana teachings). Everything he taught previously was to give his followers the tools to understand what he revealed in the Lotus. Without that framework, not only is the full meaning of the text not readily apparent, it lacks the contrast to define itself.

I'm not doing the text justice and the subtle teachings it conveys. If you haven't read it, you should. The more Buddhism you know, and the more you think you know, the more surprising its message is. But you don't need a deep background to get something from the text. Just read it like a story and let it unfold. You may not see why its such a great teaching if you're looking for some practical instructions. That's not the level its aimed at. Its a big picture text. Its a text that places everything else into context, and it needs that context to explain its place. (This is an expansion and practical application of the Two Truths teaching, later elaborated by Zhiyi as Three Truths.)

I'll just add this: some brilliant people spent their whole lives learning and studying Buddhist doctrines. Many of them agreed that the Lotus presented the most profound teachings - higher teachings than some of the other teachings mentioned by the OP. And not just because it claims that place. Like I said - its a teaching at a different level than didactic philosophy or practical instruction. It takes all that for granted, and works it at another level of fluency.

Happy reading!

[Queequeg]

And what about this reply to what you said:

Yes, it is interesting - psychologically. The text claims to convey things unheard of previously, a couple of centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana, where he had said, "The Tathāgata does not hold back anything, keeping a closed fist, thinking, 'I will teach this in my old age, at the last moment.'"
The Mahayana sutras - not the Lotus sutra only - IMHO are afterthoughts, pious theories about the Dharma as conveyed in the palicanon. Such things can be helpful, but when they start to announce the original to be provisional - then they should be taken with a grain of salt ...

LOL. Do you think Buddhism is anything but "psychology"? This is all Mind.

And again, you're putting words in the Buddha's mouth that are not there. You're constructing a Buddha in your mind conditioned by your own attachments and biases. So let's separate out your idiosyncratic projections and the textual record.

Now, if you must, I suppose you will find yourself going down that rabbit hole looking for the authentic, original Buddhism. You've bought into the Theravada dogma. Based on your questions here over the years and your comments, I will point out that you have no idea what you are rejecting when you say the Mahayana is an afterthought. Without knowing what you reject and what you embrace, you say, "This is true - that's just a pious theory." Beware the prison of a closed mind. Buddha most definitely warned against that in the Pali Canon.

Your task is a waste of time, but you'll have plenty of company. In any event, that phantom you chase will be your highest teaching. The Lotus will be right again. You will attain Buddhahood someday.

Keep in mind - all of the texts we have attributed to the Buddha were not written until at least 4 or 5 hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana, and the Pali texts were written down even later. You will find yourself up against a futile task of trying to find the original Buddha in writing.

Buddhism is a living tradition. The texts are supports. Nichiren understood this; its what underlies his teaching of Daimoku.

[bcol01]

Quee,

I must say that this is simply a reply from someone else on the topic. I am just trying to understand more so that when these points come up, I can address them correctly. I am just trying to understand more, which is why I love this forum.

I was actually going to msg you directly before viewing your last reply in order to tell you that I thank you for being such a good teacher here. You have much wisdom and experience and insight, and I enjoy reading what you have to say. It is a huge help for me, so thank you.

With Gassho

And what about this reply to what you said:

Yes, it is interesting - psychologically. The text claims to convey things unheard of previously, a couple of centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana, where he had said, "The Tathāgata does not hold back anything, keeping a closed fist, thinking, 'I will teach this in my old age, at the last moment.'"
The Mahayana sutras - not the Lotus sutra only - IMHO are afterthoughts, pious theories about the Dharma as conveyed in the palicanon. Such things can be helpful, but when they start to announce the original to be provisional - then they should be taken with a grain of salt ...

LOL. Do you think Buddhism is anything but "psychology"? This is all Mind.

And again, you're putting words in the Buddha's mouth that are not there. You're constructing a Buddha in your mind conditioned by your own attachments and biases. So let's separate out your idiosyncratic projections and the textual record.

Now, if you must, I suppose you will find yourself going down that rabbit hole looking for the authentic, original Buddhism. You've bought into the Theravada dogma. Based on your questions here over the years and your comments, I will point out that you have no idea what you are rejecting when you say the Mahayana is an afterthought. Without knowing what you reject and what you embrace, you say, "This is true - that's just a pious theory." Beware the prison of a closed mind. Buddha most definitely warned against that in the Pali Canon.

Your task is a waste of time, but you'll have plenty of company. In any event, that phantom you chase will be your highest teaching. The Lotus will be right again. You will attain Buddhahood someday.

Keep in mind - all of the texts we have attributed to the Buddha were not written until at least 4 or 5 hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana, and the Pali texts were written down even later. You will find yourself up against a futile task of trying to find the original Buddha in writing.

Buddhism is a living tradition. The texts are supports. Nichiren understood this; its what underlies his teaching of Daimoku.

[Queequeg]

Quee,

I must say that this is simply a reply from someone else on the topic. I am just trying to understand more so that when these points come up, I can address them correctly. I am just trying to understand more, which is why I love this forum.

I was actually going to msg you directly before viewing your last reply in order to tell you that I thank you for being such a good teacher here. You have much wisdom and experience and insight, and I enjoy reading what you have to say. It is a huge help for me, so thank you.

With Gassho

And what about this reply to what you said:

Yes, it is interesting - psychologically. The text claims to convey things unheard of previously, a couple of centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana, where he had said, "The Tathāgata does not hold back anything, keeping a closed fist, thinking, 'I will teach this in my old age, at the last moment.'"
The Mahayana sutras - not the Lotus sutra only - IMHO are afterthoughts, pious theories about the Dharma as conveyed in the palicanon. Such things can be helpful, but when they start to announce the original to be provisional - then they should be taken with a grain of salt ...

LOL. Do you think Buddhism is anything but "psychology"? This is all Mind.

And again, you're putting words in the Buddha's mouth that are not there. You're constructing a Buddha in your mind conditioned by your own attachments and biases. So let's separate out your idiosyncratic projections and the textual record.

Now, if you must, I suppose you will find yourself going down that rabbit hole looking for the authentic, original Buddhism. You've bought into the Theravada dogma. Based on your questions here over the years and your comments, I will point out that you have no idea what you are rejecting when you say the Mahayana is an afterthought. Without knowing what you reject and what you embrace, you say, "This is true - that's just a pious theory." Beware the prison of a closed mind. Buddha most definitely warned against that in the Pali Canon.

Your task is a waste of time, but you'll have plenty of company. In any event, that phantom you chase will be your highest teaching. The Lotus will be right again. You will attain Buddhahood someday.

Keep in mind - all of the texts we have attributed to the Buddha were not written until at least 4 or 5 hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana, and the Pali texts were written down even later. You will find yourself up against a futile task of trying to find the original Buddha in writing.

Buddhism is a living tradition. The texts are supports. Nichiren understood this; its what underlies his teaching of Daimoku.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was your response!

"This is true - all esle is false." Foot in mouth.

[bcol01]

It's ok lol
I probably could have specified context better!

Quee,

I must say that this is simply a reply from someone else on the topic. I am just trying to understand more so that when these points come up, I can address them correctly. I am just trying to understand more, which is why I love this forum.

I was actually going to msg you directly before viewing your last reply in order to tell you that I thank you for being such a good teacher here. You have much wisdom and experience and insight, and I enjoy reading what you have to say. It is a huge help for me, so thank you.

With Gassho

LOL. Do you think Buddhism is anything but "psychology"? This is all Mind.

And again, you're putting words in the Buddha's mouth that are not there. You're constructing a Buddha in your mind conditioned by your own attachments and biases. So let's separate out your idiosyncratic projections and the textual record.

Now, if you must, I suppose you will find yourself going down that rabbit hole looking for the authentic, original Buddhism. You've bought into the Theravada dogma. Based on your questions here over the years and your comments, I will point out that you have no idea what you are rejecting when you say the Mahayana is an afterthought. Without knowing what you reject and what you embrace, you say, "This is true - that's just a pious theory." Beware the prison of a closed mind. Buddha most definitely warned against that in the Pali Canon.

Your task is a waste of time, but you'll have plenty of company. In any event, that phantom you chase will be your highest teaching. The Lotus will be right again. You will attain Buddhahood someday.

Keep in mind - all of the texts we have attributed to the Buddha were not written until at least 4 or 5 hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvana, and the Pali texts were written down even later. You will find yourself up against a futile task of trying to find the original Buddha in writing.

Buddhism is a living tradition. The texts are supports. Nichiren understood this; its what underlies his teaching of Daimoku.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was your response!

"This is true - all esle is false." Foot in mouth.

[Budai]

We must remember that the Buddha has not "yet" entered parinirvana in the conventional leaving the Saha world behind sense... (in all respects)...

Since I attained Buddhahood
the number of kalpas that have passed
is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands,
millions, trillions, asamkhyas.
Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting
countless millions of living beings,
causing them to enter the Buddha way,
all this for immeasurable kalpas.
In order to save living beings,
as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana
but in truth I do not pass into extinction.
I am always here preaching the Law.
I am always here,
but through my transcendental powers
I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement
do not see me even when close by.
When the multitude see that I have passed into extinction,
far and wide they offer alms to my relics.

All harbor thoughts of yearning
and in their minds thirst to gaze at me.
When living beings have become truly faithful,
honest and upright, gentle in intent,
single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha
not hesitating even if it costs them their lives,
then I and the assembly of monks
appear together on Holy Eagle Peak.
At that time I tell the living beings
that I am always here, never entering extinction,
but that because of the power of an expedient means
at times I appear to be extinct, at other times not,
and that if there are living beings in other lands
who are reverent and sincere in their wish to believe,
then among them too
I will preach the unsurpassed Law.
But you have not heard of this,
so you suppose that I enter extinction.
When I look at living beings
I see them drowned in a sea of suffering;
therefore I do not show myself,
causing them to thirst for me.
Then when their minds are filled with yearning,
at last I appear and preach the Law for them.
Such are my transcendental powers.
For asamkhya kalpas
constantly I have dwelled on Holy Eagle Peak
and in various other places.
When living beings witness the end of a kalpa
and all is consumed in a great fire,
this, my land, remains safe and tranquil,
constantly filled with heavenly and human beings.
The halls and pavilions in its gardens and groves
are adorned with various kinds of gems.
Jeweled trees abound in flowers and fruit
where living beings enjoy themselves at ease.
The gods strike heavenly drums,
constantly making many kinds of music.

Mandarava blossoms rain down,
scattering over the Buddha and the great assembly.
My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude see it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear and other sufferings
filling it everywhere.
These living beings with their various offenses,
through causes arising from their evil actions,
spend asamkhya kalpas
without hearing the name of the Three Treasures.
But those who practice meritorious ways,
who are gentle, peaceful, honest and upright,
all of them will see me
here in person, preaching the Law.
At times for this multitude
I describe the Buddha's life span as immeasurable,
and to those who see the Buddha only after a long time
I explain how difficult it is to meet the Buddha.
Such is the power of my wisdom
that its sagacious beams shine without measure.
This life span of countless kalpas
I gained as the result of lengthy practice.
You who are possessed of wisdom,
entertain no doubts on this point!
Cast them off, end them forever,
for the Buddha's words are true, not false.
He is like a skilled physician
who uses an expedient means to cure his deranged sons.
Though in fact alive, he gives out word he is dead,
yet no one can say he speaks falsely.
I am the father of this world,
saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people,
though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction.
For if they see me constantly,
arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds.
Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the
five desires
and fall into the evil paths of existence.
Always I am aware of which living beings
practice the way, and which do not,
and in response to their needs for salvation
I preach various doctrines for them.
At all times I think to myself:
How can I cause living beings
to gain entry into the unsurpassed way
and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?

-Lotus Sutra, Chapter 16, The Life Span of the Tathagata.

[Shoho]

According to the Kanjin Honzon Sho, the Shakyamuni that attained enlightenment for the first time in India (shijoshogakku) has died, along with his emanation (funjin) Buddhas and their lands. The saha world is the eternal pure land, which is impervious to the four time periods.
Gassho
正法

[seeker242]

Thus, by your logic, it declares the Lotus Sutra provisional.

Not if it teaches the same things.

[Queequeg]

Thus, by your logic, it declares the Lotus Sutra provisional.

Not if it teaches the same things.

Not quite. If it presents the Perfect teachings mixed with provisional teachings, then those teachings are not equal. If it teaches the the same Perfect teaching and nothing else, then it is an iteration of the Lotus.

[Queequeg]

According to the Kanjin Honzon Sho, the Shakyamuni that attained enlightenment for the first time in India (shijoshogakku) has died, along with his emanation (funjin) Buddhas and their lands. The saha world is the eternal pure land, which is impervious to the four time periods.
Gassho
正法

Where does it say that? If it does, then it contradicts the Lotus Sutra.

This is a uniquely Shoshu doctrine.

[Shoho]

According to the Kanjin Honzon Sho, the Shakyamuni that attained enlightenment for the first time in India (shijoshogakku) has died, along with his emanation (funjin) Buddhas and their lands. The saha world is the eternal pure land, which is impervious to the four time periods.
Gassho
正法

Where does it say that? If it does, then it contradicts the Lotus Sutra.

This is a uniquely Shoshu doctrine.

On page 148 of the noppa doctrine 2 English gosho translation.
Pg714 stn
Further on in noppa version it explains that the shijo shogakku Shaka from India and the eternal Buddha are not the same thing.
The Lotus Sutra in mappo is not the sutra translated by Kumarajiva. It is the one great secret law.
The daijikyo or daishutsukyo (however one wants to pronounce it)
states that the Lotus Sutra will expire and the pure law will arise.
This is the basis of the fourfold rise and fall. (shiju kohai).
Gassho

[Queequeg]

I don't have the NOPPA translation anymore. Can you quote the relevant passages?

Just a suggestion - you've been critiquing views, making reference to passages in texts few people have, or quoting Chinese. You're going to have to make allowances for the people you're addressing here and not just have an attitude like everyone else should just know what you're talking about, and if not too bad for them. You want to change people's minds, that burden is on you.

[seeker242]

Not quite. If it presents the Perfect teachings mixed with provisional teachings, then those teachings are not equal.

Ok, so does the heart sutra, diamond sutra teach provisional teachings?

[Queequeg]

Not quite. If it presents the Perfect teachings mixed with provisional teachings, then those teachings are not equal.

Ok, so does the heart sutra, diamond sutra teach provisional teachings?

According to Tiantai classifications, it presents both. There are so-called "Five Flavors" of teachings in the Tiantai system: Avatamsaka, Hinayana, Vaipulya, Prajnaparamita, Lotus. The reason Prajnaparamita is classified as an incomplete teaching (provisional) is because the Buddha taught the Prajnaparamita in his incomplete appearance - the person who was born at Lumbini, awakened at Gaya, first taught at Sarnath, and passed at Kusinagara. At that point he had not yet taught that he is nitya. Some people understood this intuitively, but most had not. Also, it was not clear that all beings have Buddhanature. Similarly, Avatamsaka, which was said to be taught spontaneously when the Buddha first awakened, without regard to the capacity of listeners, reveals that he is nitya and all beings have buddhanature, but mixes sudden with gradual teachings (the stages taught in the latter part of the sutra). The Hinayana teachings neither hint at the Buddha's eternal life nor universal Buddhanature, and teach a gradual path. The Vaipulya teachings present an array of teachings, including buddhanature, but do not explicitly teach the Buddha is nitya, also their method is gradual. Prajnaparamita mix sudden and gradual, mix perfect and provisional teachings. The Lotus and Mahaparinirvana are paired, with the latter understood to be an elaboration of the former. These teach universal buddhanature, the boundless lifespan of the buddha, and are sudden in method.

This is a particular interpretation of the Buddhist canon. This is the interpretation accepted in the Nichiren school as it is a derivative school of Tiantai/Tendai.