Literal proof and Literary Issues

Literal Proofs are part of the "Three Proofs" of Buddhism. These proofs are:

literal;

Proofs are proofs based on the examination, valorization and validation of textual or "story" sources.

Theoretical Proof;

Proofs based on examining the language and logic of doctrines.

and Actual Proof;

Proofs based on the actuality or results of beliefs or teachings. Actual proof is "proof of actual fact." And is often like scientific efforts, causing us to refine and redefine our understandings of reality.

The three proofs are coupled with the "four assurances" to form a system by which to evaluate religious teachings. Add to that the four distinctions that are known as the "PaRDS" and you have a complete system for systematically understanding religion and philosophy and systematically interpreting religious and other literature and texts.

Proofs of authenticity

Literal proof is basically "proofs" related to religious truth. Thus understanding "literal proofs" involves making two sets of distinctions. One is that from the observation that all religions are based on written and oral teachings, one can derive a "hierarchy" of evaluations of religious texts to guide one in appraising the relative merits of religious literature. This part of literal proof requires one to deal with the "authenticity" and "integrity" of these texts and teachings. Literal proofs on this level involve approaches that can be almost scientific in their rigor. It is here that such issues as forgeries (also known as apocrypha) and the "provenance" of texts can be judged. On that level of "proof" we must pay attention to the facts of the origins of texts, their editing and translation, and the language and logic that has been involved in each phase of this "evolution." Religious texts are usually posed as being "timeless" and unchanging, but the facts of most of them indicate that the authorship, editing and interpretation is an ever changing dynamic. We must weigh these things on this level as objectively as possible and be aware that all "canonical" works are the products of a lineage of editors as well as the original authors, who might be the inheritors of years of oral teachings. Once one is aware of that it is not so easy to "dismiss" a text on the basis of its having been authored that way. And that brings us to the second consideration.

For more on this subject please read the link to the subject of apocryphal writings and a discussion of the issues around apocryphal Gosho.

apocryphal.html,disputed.html

Religious literature is literature

Literal proofs also relate to a central fact of religious teachings, that they are ultimately "literature." Religious literature is not picked for use because it is historically accurate or literally true (though it is often presented that way), but because it is "inwardly insightful" and figuratively true. Religious teachings were picked to help people learn about life. heir often figurative and metaphorical meanings. Their content often makes use of the vehicles of legend, myth and "idealization" for the purpose of teaching insights to people that they then can use in daily life. Thus religious literature is by its nature "figurative," "Imaginary" and "idealized." It is often a creative transaction between the "transmittor" and the "transmittee." Thus seeking Literal Proofs also requires ones understanding to grasp "content," because not only do the authors of religious texts, their editors, and prior commentators, contribute to understanding the meaning of those texts, but we as well contribute to whether those teachings resonate or not with us. The meaning of religious literature changes in the hands of each reader and those who read or listen to him/her. Thus evaluating religious literature for proofs involves more than simply accepting or rejecting them on the basis of arbitrary standards of evidence. The central error of "modern era" thinkers was to throw out the "baby" of "wisdom" with the bathwater of myth and fantasy. One neither has to reject logic to have faith, nor reject faith to use logic. None of these tools can be divorced from our lives without unsatisfying and deletrous results. Rather each is a tool that should be used and "worked" together to create a satisfying and complete "awakening" and live a satisfying and complete life as a result. We will talk about this more as we talk about the "Pardes" and the four assurances.

The Four Assurances

Buddhism taught that religion should be logical, practical, and help people to actually achieve enlightenment. Early on it developed it's own way of evaluating teachings. The three proofs are part of that. And something called sometimes the "Four assurances" are as well. The four "assurances" are also known as "four reliances." They are:

1. "To abide in the dharma and not the person":
2. "To abide in Sutras of Ultimate Truth and not in Sutras of Incomplete Truth"
3. "To abide in the meaning and not the word"
4. "To abide in Wisdom and not in Consciousness"

You can read more on this here:

http://www.buddhistdoor.com/passissue/9602/sources/teach2.htm

I was first introduced to a deeper understanding here:

Language and Logic of the Lotus Sutra.

But Nichiren introduces the "Four assurances" in a number of Gosho including this one:

How Those Initially Aspiring to the Way Can Attain Buddhahood Through the Lotus Sutra

Nichiren writes, quoting the Nirvana Sutra:

A sutra says:

"Rely on the Law and not upon persons. Rely on the meaning [of the teaching] and not upon the words. Rely on wisdom and not upon discriminative thinking. Rely on sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final."

These four assurances, taken directly from the Nirvana Sutra, teach one how to evaluate religion and how to "navigate" competing claims of religious teachers. Before we go further. Lets look at each of these "four assurances" based on reasoning and quotes from the "late master" himself:

Abide in Dharma not person

To abide in the dharma not the person, means that we focus on learning the truths and "means"/"laws" of life, and not on following any individual. We associate as good friends, learning from teachers who "know even a phrase" and "teaching even a phrase" once we learn it. "Abiding" in the dharma is living the dharma. As Nichiren called himself -- becoming a "votary."

Nichiren qualified this teaching as following ^{Kaimoku Sho Volume II 1:}

"Nevertheless, our merciful father Shakyamuni Buddha, when he faced his end in the grove of sal trees, stated as his dying instructions that we are to "rely on the Law and not upon persons." "Not relying upon persons" means that, when persons of the first, second, third and fourth ranks preach, even though they are bodhisattvas such as Fugen and Monju who have attained the stage of near perfect enlightenment, if they do not preach with the sutra in hand, then they are not to be accepted."

The law(Dharma) is what counts in any teaching. Often the principle behind very different seeming teachings is the same. Unfortunately, often people teach absolute balderdash and dare anyone to notice. Conversely a seeming "wise teaching" can be at heart corruptive, misleading, or even destructive. More importantly people often judge a teaching by the personae of the vehicle teahing it. The purpose of relying on "dharma" is to avoid the logical "ad hominem" fallacy which equates the "goodness" or "badness" of an individual teaching with the "goodness or badness" of the teacher. One has to weigh in these factors, but ultimately each teaching stands on an evaluation of its logical and figurative truth.

Abide in Sutras of Ultimate Truth and not in Sutras of Incomplete Truth

To abide in Sutras of ultimate truth and not in sutras of incomplete truth specifically refers to the content of Shakyamuni's teachings. Many of his sutras are short tales, stories, and lessons, they are single lessons. Its not that they are so much missing anything as that that is not their aim. This second injunction tells us generally to focus on those sutras that convey the body of his message, his most important teachings, and how to actually reach enlightenment. Often an entire body of works can be summed up in a few words, and the "ultimate truth" of those words lies in how they affect us and our practice and lives. According to Nichiren it is the Lotus Sutra that is the teaching of the most ultimate and complete truth. And the reason is that it reveals "20 important things" of which the teaching of "enlightenment of all beings" is the most important. Because the other teachings don't reveal these things they are by comparison with the other sutras, incomplete.

And scholars, even from Zen or secular academia,who study sutras agree that the Lotus is incomparable, integrating and completing all that came before it. This principle tells us that when one studies the sutras,(after all they do form a "canon"), each provides us with insights to the next or to the whole. But the key is to "focus" or "abide within" those that give one the most wholistic answers. On this basis Buddhists should "abide" in the Lotus Sutra, and if we really want to be specific, in the 16th chapter of the Lotus Sutra, where it is we who are at the Ceremony in the air -- even as we speak.

Nichiren says about this:

It is also laid down that one should "rely on sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final." We must therefore look carefully among the sutras to determine which are complete and final and which are not, and put our faith in the former. Bodhisattva Nagarjuna in his Jujubibasha ron states: "Do not rely on treatises that distort the sutras; rely only on those that are faithful to the sutras." The Great Teacher T�ien-t�ai says: "That which accords with the sutras is to be written down and made available. But put no faith in anything that in word or meaning fails to do so." The Great Teacher Dengyo says: "Depend upon the preachings of the Buddha and do not put faith in traditions handed down orally." Enchin or the Great Teacher Chisho says: "In transmitting the teachings, rely on the written words [of scriptures]."

To abide in the meaning and not the word

To abide in the meaning and not the word is important in Religious literature in general. Religious literature is usually highly "figurative." It often uses mythological or legendary sounding stories to make its points. It is expecially important when reading the fantastic stories of the Mahayana Sutras, but it is also important in understanding the religious teachings of the various other mainstream and minor religions out there. Focusing on the meaning helps us get to the meat of religion and what is important to us. For instance, once one understands that the Treasure tower is a simile for for our unconscious "alaya storehouse", or our own lives, one understands the images and story of the sixteenth chapter quite differently then if one sees it only as a literal magic tower rising out of the earth to float over our heads or the story as a mere "myth" with no truth.

Many of these stories are meant to be understood on multiple levels. Like a good drama, a child can see the story one way, an adult yet another, and one can come back to good religious literature over and over again carrying off new understandings each time as one apprehends the "meaning" better and better each time one returns to the subject.

Wisdom and not the Consciousness

To abide in the wisdom not the consciousness is a translation of a sentance that emphasized the importance of "jnana" over "vij-nana." While I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around it I feel it to mean that we should value those things we can experience and do over strictly abstract and theoretical ideations. Jnana is like being able to drive. While Vijnana is knowing some of the theory of driving. In other words we should live our lives actually behaving wise, living compassionately, and creatively, as opposed to simply studying Buddhism in books and leaving it there. It is actually what we in the Gakkai have been talking about for years when we talked about "actual proof" "human revolution" "creative life ("Soka")" etceteras -- and then "did them." It is like the difference between a fireman and an expert on the history of fires. In a fire fight which would you want with you?

We are supposed to be learning the principle conveyed by the teaching and not mistake the "vehicle" for what is delivered. Faith in Buddhism isn't literal minded understandings of Buddhist teachings, but the faith that we can reach enlightenment in our present form. It is neither denial of the value of dreams, visions, or intuition, nor abandonment of logic. It is aimed at "breaking and subduing" all sorts of incorrect notions; magical thinking, egoism, arbitrary and shallow judgement, and attachment to "narrow views. While at the same time enabling people to perceive the "essence" of the "human" essentials of their existence. Which are very much human creations.

Thus Buddhism teaches us to use myth and legends, literary fictions, and religious teachings as a "portal" to "higher awareness." What counts: are the essentials and not the "trappings;" Neither the details nor over-broad generalities. Buddhism insists that ideas, new or old, be tested by their "in fact" fidelity to reality. This is essential Buddhism.

Upaya

The four assurances help us clarify the otherwise incomprehensible meaning contained in the word "upaya" or "skillfulness. Once one understands this word in context, the Lotus Sutra's message helps one get to the heart of the central issues of religion and its purpose in human affairs.

Chapter two of the Lotus Sutra has the voice of Shakyamuni teaching:

"Shariputra, the Buddhas preach the Law in accordance with what is appropriate, but the meaning is difficult to understand. Why is this? Because we employ countless expedient means, discussing causes and conditions and using words of simile and parable to expound the teachings. This Law is not something that can be understood through pondering or analysis. Only those who are Buddhas can understand it. Why is this? Because the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, appear in the world for one great reason alone. Shariputra, what does it mean to say that the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, appear in the world for one great reason alone?

"The Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones , wish to open the door of Buddha wisdom to all living beings, to allow them to attain purity. That is why they appear in the world. They wish to show the Buddha wisdom to living beings, and therefore they appear in the world. They wish to cause living beings to awaken to the Buddha wisdom, and therefore they appear in the world. They wish to induce living beings to enter the path of Buddha wisdom, and therefore they appear in the world. Shariputra, this is the one great reason for which the Buddhas appear in the world."

The Buddha said to Shariputra,

"The Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, simply teach and convert the Bodhisattvas. All the things they do are at all times done for this one purpose. They simply wish to show the Buddha wisdom to living beings and enlighten them to it.

The teacher Nichiren constantly emphasized this point, telling people that the door to Buddhahood would be opened with their faith. Truth and faith are not opposed values, but rather one opens the door to the other. Nichiren explains this in a lot of ways, but one of them is with the simile of the ten worlds. Drawing from the Lotus Sutra again he shows how someone who is feeling himself in the world of strife sees the world as a place of strife and woe, and how someone who is tapping into the world of Buddha sees it as a place of "many treasures." The purpose of religious literature is to help people make that creative destinction between the world as it seems and as it can be, which is the difference between a world of faith and a world of faithlessness.

To open the door of Buddha wisdom

Thus the purpose of all religious literature is to "open the door of Buddha wisdom." Entering the "realm of the Buddha" is like entering a "treasure tower" or a "garden" of great treasures. That is why the persian word "pardes" was used by Jewish Mystics to refer to the subject, and why the central "figure" of the Lotus Sutra is the Great Treasure tower that emerges from the earth in Chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra. In the sixteenth Chapter the Buddha goes on to explain that the "Buddha wisdom" itself is ancient, and yet "ever abiding" and to explode the idea that his own attainment of enlightenment was a unique or isolated event. And he shows his disciples the ancient "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" who are all fully realized "Buddha's to be" even as they emerge from the earth. With this simile one realizes that "opening the door" of the Buddha wisdom, is really opening the doors to the "depths" of our own mind. All the similes, stories, and variants on religion are meant to do this. Monks in the Nichiren School would compare this to polishing a mirror. Once the "mirror" is free of tarnish one sees that all along it could have been reflecting an enlightened "face." The sixteenth chapter puts this simile this way:

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.

To allow them to attain purity

The chapter of the Lotus Sutra called Emerging from the Earth" introduces the "Four Bodhisattvas. These are named; "Superior Practices," "Boundless Practices", "Pure Practices", and "Firmly Established Practices". They are described as the "foremost leaders and guiding teachers among all the group." (Sangha). These names are instructive and there are many interpretations of what they mean. The purpose of religion in general, and of Buddhism in particular is to "transform" our lives, both inwardly and through our influence on our surroundings, externally. The leader of this change is called "superior practices" because the process of creating and following "superior practices" is the primary purpose of religious leadership, and literary materials are the expression of such leadership. No teaching is without words, and without words very little of clear substance can be conveyed. "Superior practices" is the function of creating "practices" or methods that actually address the times and the situation of the practitioners. Superior practices is who "opens the door of the Buddha wisdom."

Boundless practices is the extensive and openminded approach to reality and wisdom. Having Boundless practices is the same as having an "ever seeking mind" towards new understandings of truths and realities.

Pure Practices is what establishes Purity. Purity is not the same as ignorance or being innocent of experience or of knowledge. Purity is the ability to avoid bad behaviors, bad thoughts, and thus bad consequences. A pure person is calm, serene, not easily angered. And a "pure land" is a place where people are happy and secure in their living. Opening the door of the Buddha wisdom is for the sake of improving the world. And we can't do that through ignorance. The "innocent" are untested. The truly pure are those who have been through the fire and come out stronger for it. That is another reason for the simile of "arrising from the earth." The "earth" is our unconscious unformed reality. But the four bodhisattvas are like the gems of the earth, they emerge pure from the impurities and ignorance there-in. The metaphor is of them springing directly into the air. Our transformation, like that of the Dragon-Queen, can be that fast.

To show the Buddha wisdom to living beings

The final of the four Bodhisattvas is "Firmly established practices." The purpose of the Buddhas advent is to "show the Buddha wisdom to living beings." How does that happen? By example as well as by teaching. "Firmly established practice" is manifest in those who are practicing Buddhism to their best ability. That is why Nichiren, in his Gosho "On Flowers and Seeds" compares his master to the Bodhisattva Firmly Established practices. Though his function was less than perfect, he was the example that started Nichiren's own practice. And even if it was a flawed example. It still showed enough of the Buddha wisdom to living Beings to open the door so that Nichiren would want more.

Religious literature that doesn't leave one filling "full of wisdom" and at the same time seeking more, is not "complete and final" wisdom.

To awaken to the Buddha wisdom

The purpose of practicing Buddhism, of studying religion, is to awaken to the "Buddha nature." That has two parts. The first is recognizing that their is an alternative to the mundane or twisted understandings that one presently has. And the second one is to awaken that wisdom within. Nichiren compared us humans to "vessels." When we awaken to the Buddha wisdom, it fills us like light. It then should emmanate out of us and be shared with others.

To enter the path of Buddha wisdom

For that to happen, people have to act as a votary of the wisdom they are awakening to. The path of Buddha's wisdom is the path of enlightenment. In Buddhism there is a profound notion called "kyochi Myogo". Which means to fuse wisdom and reality. When all beings enter the path of "Buddha wisdom" that is the fusion of Wisdom and reality. In the meantime we suffer.

Nichiren writes:

"The Lotus Sutra states that Bodhisattva Superior Practices and the others will appear in the first five hundred years of the Latter Day of the Law to propagate the five characters, the embodiment of the two elements of reality and wisdom. The sutra makes this perfectly clear. Who could possibly dispute it? I, Nichiren, am neither Bodhisattva Superior Practices nor his envoy, but I precede them, spreading the five characters to prepare the way. Bodhisattva Superior Practices received the water of the wisdom of the Mystic Law from the Thus Come One Shakyamuni and causes it to flow into the wasteland of the people's lives in the evil world of the latter age. This is the function of wisdom. Shakyamuni Buddha transferred this teaching to Bodhisattva Superior Practices, and now Nichiren propagates it in Japan. With regard to the transfer of teachings, it is divided into two categories: general and specific. If you confuse the general with the specific even in the slightest you will never be able to attain Buddhahood and will wander in suffering through endless transmigrations of births and deaths."^Gosho

This concept of "general" and specific" is related to the notions of "ji"(actuality) and "chi" (wisdom) and "ri" (theory). When our "chi" is trictly "theoretical", "mediated, discursive consciousness (vij~naana)" we don't have "direct or immediate knowledge (j~naana)" of Buddhist principles. However without the Buddhas wisdom, that "direct knowledge" is unreliable. When we have both the Buddhas wisdom, and that wisdom is directly part of us, then we are fusing "kyo" and "chi" and creating the cause for Buddhahood. This is the goal of Buddhist teachings. However, our limited existence is such that when we see the "light" of the Buddha it is easy to be intoxicated by that light and think it is coming from the one who is teaching us. In order to fully experience that light, we must ourselves enter the "path of Buddha's wisdom."

For more on this see sobetsu.html

Finding the Meaning

Thus, as a partial (and very incomplete) explanation of just one part of the wonderful Lotus Sutra shows, it is the meaning of these passages that the Buddha intends people to focus on. That meaning is sometimes conveyed by the literal words, their "primary" meaning. But what are the elements of any teaching that convey this meaning? Buddhism hints, but the Jewish tradition is explicit. They have a term called "PaRDS" associated with a brief and cryptic story. This word literally means a "Garden" or Arbor in Hebrew, but in actuality is an acronym. The acronym is universal, you find it in one form or another in all traditions. And it is important to understand and use the terms of this acronym when analyzing religious (and secular texts). Here it is:

1.	P	Peshat =	Literal meaning or Primary, Simple meaning.
2.	R	Ramez =	Metaphorical or Figurative meaning.
3.	D	Drash =	"Interpretive" meaning.
4.	S	Sod =	Secret, struggled with meaning, or Esoteric meaning

These expressions are associated with both strait Judaism and with Jewish Esotericism, and it is not appropriate to go into too much detail on this page about that story. Though I think that understanding the story associated with the term will really help people understand better both Nichiren's words and the Lotus Sutra. It really is a teaching that should be part of the Lotus Sutra. According to the Talmud there were four Sages who went into the Pardes (literally orchard); One of them gazed at the divine and went mad. Another one gazed and died. The third became an apostate, and only one -- Rabbi Akiva -- "departed in peace" and emerged wiser and more experienced. The Pardes here is virtually the same essential (archetypal) metaphor as that of the treasure tower. And the story is a warning about the dangers, joys and meaning of the experience of studying Religious literature. For more on this see pardes.html

The point of these "four methods" of understanding religion is that all religions use them. Sometime back in classical times, the Greeks (or maybe their own teachers) developed the understanding of the power of allegory and metaphor to transform people's lives. People have been using these tools ever since. Often not realizing just how much they were flying on air.

Texts as Storytelling

In ancient times, before the rise of Religious authority, there was no clear differentiation between "History", "Story telling" (The latin word Historia is the root word for both "history" and "story). Most stories had elements of "allegory", "commentary", and made no clear differentiation between their legendary, mythical, and "historical" elements. They were all told for the sake of educating and "converting" students to become mature human beings. In the days before their were formal religions, there also was no formal notion of "truth" or either insistence that stories be accurate, nor incentives to tell lies within such stories. Because of this, an honest examination of most religions, finds at the basis of those religions stories told that are clearly "legendary" and were never intended to be purely "historical" in the modern sense. For that reason, it is completely appropriate that such texts be interpreted by moderns in a modern context with "modern" concerns, and that new stories be told to supplement or clarify them based on "better understandings." Buddhism has always fully understood that. Some elements within the Jewish, Christian and Moslem heritages have always understood this, but the key to enlightenment for our present age is paradoxically in understanding the "place" of our religious texts in this context. And conversely we should be aware that many teachers have never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Keeping it real

One of the paradoxes of religious literature, is that often the most allegorical and fantastic seeming stories are really talking about mundane reality and how to live within that. We see that in the above mentioned sutras and stories and we see a similar purpose in the Vimilakirti Sutra. In that Sutra Vimilakirti uses his powers of teaching to show people that because all things are "empty" of independent existence, a Bodhisattva can enlarge himself to fit a giant chair, shrink Mt. Sumeru to the size of a speck, and various other seemingly magical things. He shows the student that our attachments, miseries, and problems, are often a matter more of perspective than reality. Change the perspective and the reality changes in turn. Not because the reality itself changes, but because the original perspective was delusional in the first place.

Thus viewed this way, alll the tales, stories, similies, allegories,...skillfulness,... of religion are meant to help people survive, thrive, and live in this world we are in. As Akiva warned "those who speak falsehood will not be established." The purpose of religion is to help us "transcend" and transform this world -- while keeping it real. This world may be so complex, and we so limited in our natural state, that we need these allegories and "metaphysics" in order to "see" the "higher reality" or "hyper-reality" of our lives; So we can live within the ordinary reality and understand it!

There is a movie, "It's a Wonderful World" that is a love story about a father his wife and his son and his efforts to keep his son alive. In the story the father tells his son that he is part of a game in which the winner will receive the greatest tank that ever was. To me that is a retelling of the story of the Burning house. The Son's understanding is too limited for him to conceive of the horror and nature of the real "game" the adults are playing. But by putting the situation in terms that the son will understand the Father is able to guide his son through an impossible situation. The son may even know it is a fiction, but he also knows the wisdom of going along with that fiction. It is the same with the great stories and parables of our world religions. The stories were told for a purpose. We should understand that purpose if we are to live and repay the debt of gratitude we owe these teachers for their efforts.

Magical Thinking

Failure to understand both the dangers and purpose of these things can easily lead people to misinterpret Religion, whether it is Buddhist and other literature. The result of such misintepretation is that people get lost in magical thinking or they reject the wisdom of religion as magical thinking. Both paths are incorrect. By taking the words literally when they are meant to convey meaning. Or by failing to focus on the "essentials" and over-intellectualizing ones studies it is the student who betrays the teachings. There is a story of the teacher Ben Akher that he had a student who knew all about his "incorrect teachings" and yet prized his wisdom. This is the principle of eating the meat and not eating the "stones" inside the meat. It is up to us to be "good disciples" or bad disciples.

The teachings of Buddhism are meant to be taken seriously, but the fantastic, dreamlike and "magical seeming" teachings of Buddhism while meant to be taken seriously are not meant to lead one to a path of delusional thinking. The parables of the Lotus Sutra about upaya.html are designed to hammer down this point. If we fail to penetrate the deep psychological and "human" meanings of these texts or get caught up in an eternally infanticized relationship with a teacher on account of being mislead by him, we are nearly as at fault as he is. We should follow the dictums of the four assurances and take Nichiren's teachings seriously.

For more on this see upaya.html>

Nichirens Attitude

Nichiren's approach to Buddhism, inspired by the Lotus and the Nirvana Sutras is very much in line with what moderns would call literary criticism. But unlike much of academic or editorial literary criticism, it is criticism with a purpose. Nichiren's teachings, using the guidelines of the three proofs and four assurances, lead him and us to first from simple and incomplete teachings, to deeper and deeper appreciations of religion and finally to the great Lotus Sutra. He tells us that one should embrace the Lotus Sutra and the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra because of their "in fact" wisdom and assurance of enlightenment. Following his logic one sees that Nichiren Buddhism is not the highest teaching of Buddhism on his say so, but on the basis of this message of the Lotus Sutra that all human beings have the potential for Buddhahood. It is the "wisdom" of teachings that makes them great. This practical wisdom becomes a source for a way of life that is a truely magical way to live.

, but of the validity of those claims. For that reason seekers after truth need to be careful to examine the sources of offered doctrines, and be aware of their history and context. Sometimes for various reasons writings can be apocryphal or forged. Or they can be alleged to be forged when they are in fact genuine. This is even an issue with the writings of Nichiren Daishonin himself. Some of those writings or "Gosho" are disputed.

One doesn't have to be a scholar to be aware of these issues or keep them in mind. Nor does awareness of such issues need to be an obstacle to learning from Buddhist teachings or even from religious teachings in general. One teacher said of his own teacher that he "ate the fruit while discarding the hard pit" of the persons teachings. Nichiren also did this with his own investigations. His own teacher, Dozenbo was a teacher of a "Mikkyo" Tendai School dominated by Nembutsu believers. All of the philosophies he later critiqued were things he'd been exposed to by his own teachers from an early age. For him as with others to come later the teaching of the "three proofs" and "four assurances" informed him on how to understand religion.

In the opening passages of the Gosho "Ho'on Sho"--Repaying Debts of Gratitude he says:

The old fox never forgets the hillock where he was born; the white turtle repaid the kindness he had received from Mao Pao. If even lowly creatures know enough to do this, then how much more should human beings! Thus Yu Jang, a worthy man of old, fell on his sword in order to repay the debt he owed his lord Chih Po, and the minister Hung Yen for similar reasons cut open his stomach and inserted the liver of his dead lord, Duke Yi of Wei. What can we say, then, of persons who are devoting themselves to Buddhism? Surely they should not forget the debts of gratitude they owe to their parents, their teachers, and their country.

But if one intends to repay these great debts of gratitude, he can hope to do so only if he studies and masters the Buddhist teachings, becoming a person of wisdom. If he does not, he will be like a man who attempts to lead a company of the blind over bridges and across rivers when he himself has sightless eyes. Can a ship steered by someone who cannot even tell the direction of the wind ever carry the traveling merchants to the mountains where treasure lies?

If one hopes to study and master the Buddhist teachings, then he cannot do so without devoting time to the task. And if he wants to have time to spend on the undertaking, he cannot continue to wait on his parents, his teachers, and his sovereign. Until he attains the road that leads to emancipation, he should not defer to the wishes and feelings of his parents and teachers, no matter how reasonable they may be.

It is a duty of seekers, and those who would call themselves disciples of Nichiren -- or of any of the schools that claim to be derived from his teachings -- to "follow the Dharma.

Fundamentalism and literalism

When we have a text containing important truths, do we accept that text itself as literally the word of "God" or do we seek the meaning in that text?

One of the unfortunate byproducts of the failure of people of the "modern age" to appreciate the internal logic of religion expressed in such stories as the "Pardes" or the Nirvana Sutra, is that they rejected the hyper-rationality of religious literature in their search for rationality. They invented religions based on Idealization of human behavior and notions of human rationality that were both unrealistic and often cynical. Consequently the great materialistic religions of the previous centuries were based on a foundation of delusional thinking and lies. Whether it was the "enlightenment", "Scientific Materialism", "Marxism" or "Ayn Rand style Rationalism" the rational minds of this time period found themselves unable to cope with the gaps between "ends and means," "dreams and present reality", and even within their own hearts. Early Existentialists created a profound depression in human affairs. Nietsche talked of a "God shaped hole" in human hearts.

Unfortunately the "counter trend" "Religious Fundamentalism" also ignores (or is ignorant of) the deeper truths taught by the Lotus, the Nirvana Sutra, and the PaRDeS Story. These fundamentalists would replace fantasy with reality, and turn their own beliefs into a fantasy religion where the highly figurative and emotional experience and language becomes more "real" to them than the reality they live in. In their minds they bring "God" alive, but often as a shadow image of the God that was intended by the Founders of their own religions. In their effort at "fundamentalism" they are unwilling to go "fundamental enough" and neglecting the fundamentals inject blind faith and fantasy into their beliefs.

Both those who would discard "truth" for the sake of "higher truth" and those who would discount religious texts because of their figurative and mythic content, are in error. Rather the key to understanding religion is to remember its profound link to our unconscious minds and our inward reality.

More Fundamental than Fundamentalists

Those seeking both inward and existential truth, by applying these principles of literary, theoretical and actual criticism to religion, find that most religions are seeking to convey similar underlying principles, no matter what "vehicle" or specific stories they use to convey them. Moreover, they find that most religions have passed through editors, sages, and councils and so are rarely the unvarnished light of the original source. And indeed, since that original source is -- for most of the west -- the font of all things him/her/itself, it is not appropriate to treat religious texts any other way than the way they were intended. They are guides to helping us see the truth, not the truth itself. When we look at religious truth with this attitude we are no longer confused by competing claims. They are all to be taken seriously. And all claims passing through fallible human beings.

One of the habits of people faced with "texts" that seem to contradict "facts" is for the people who wish to believe those texts to throw out the "facts" and cling to those texts as if they were the facts instead. This is a false approach and leads to bad examples. The Pardes story would say that such people are violating the biblical injunction "he that does not speak truth will not be established." Buddhism would say that such teaching errors almost inevitably will lead people to cling to "person" versus "dharma." The approach of genuine religion is to focus on the underlying truths and once one takes that approach and sees those universals one can evaluate legends and myths as they were intended. For example the Donmeh of Turkey have a story that goes as follows:

"Amirah [i.e., Sabbatai Zevi] one morning goes to the seaside ( in Izmir) and while he was there a DRAGON named Semachmen (spelling may be wrong) comes out of the sea and Amirah fights with it all day long and finally kills it and the whole sea becomes red with the blood of the dragon.When he returns home his mother meets him at the door of the house and asks him if he had eaten anything. In fact he had not eaten anything the whole day. His mother had prepared fresh Borekas (a typical Turkish savoury pastry filled with cheese or meat well known to the Sephardim Jews of Turkey and also made by them. Thus the name Borekas,instead of Turkish name Borek) and she immediately puts one into his mouth to eat."

If one takes such a story literally then one would see only another mythic story. Like an episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer. But it gets interpreted as follows:

Amirah indeed went to the seaside away from the noise of the town to meditate and find solutions to various problems of his flock. The Dragon was his own self, his own ego with which he fought through his meditation to spiritually elevate himself. By this time the day had come to end and the sun was setting. Coast of Izmir faces West and when the sun sets the sea does turn red indeed. The followers accepted this day as a fasting day and broke their fasts with Borekas.

Interpreting such messages literally actually destroys their meaning. And yet with most such stories the "unconscious" works on the story and interprets it much the same as the above story, even if the conscious just thinks its a comic book story. Even stories that are "presented" as literally true, often in fact, are selected for their "figurative" "mythic", or "creative" content. And as a result some stories appear again and again, like urban legends. Often with those who play the hero in the stories completely unaware that they are playing out a mythic or archetypical story. A good example of this is the "Robin Hood myth" which is repeated again and again in the literature of oppressed communities, from Jesse James to Al Capone, to modern Gangstas. Even if a legend or myth really happened as it is told, the story is kept and retold for its figurative value to the story tellers and their audience.

Thus while the Creation myth is a myth that is also allegory, that is also a retelling and refutation of the Gush Emannum myth, it is not its literal meaning that is the reason the story is told. Kaballists and others interested in "esoteric" or secret meanings will consciously draw out those meanings with word games, games linking meaning and numbers, or other "deep interpretations," but people can enjoy simply hearing the stories, and benefit from the feeling that the world was created with some sort of order or goal in mind and that we are part of that order and goal. Thus the serious meaning of the Creation myth is its figurative meaning. The Pentateuch, Koran or New Testament, may or may not have been transmitted from God himself -- but it was passed through editors before it came to us. And that passage has enriched the meaning. Saying it is from "God" thus becomes a stamp of authenticity and reliability, not a proof of its surface truth.

And this process of transmission is ongoing. The editors and revising scribes of religious texts have often been mysogynist or have changed the stories to suit their purpose. They also have changed the stories to more fully draw out their intended meaning. Yet those stories benefit from this, and we benefit from being aware of this. Feminist or other writers have every right to create their own commentaries or interpolations of wisdom to "fill in the gaps" left by these far too human authorities of the past.

Yet still, once one sees the derivative nature of religious literature, then one can see how modern literature at some level is also religious literature. We may not have Isaiah's preaching, but we have numerous folks who "warn of danger" when danger is imminent and prophets who give us visions of a better future. Taken as "Literary" truth, even Science Fiction or Soap Operas are part of religious life. Any good story can be used as allegory for religious truth, And while the stories about Abraham and Isaac may reveal us much reading them literally, reading them creatively can reveal even more. Once one learns that for example, Judaism teaches that the "Torah" is revealed differently to each generation and sees how generations of Rabbis have used their own inward eye to interpret and reinterpret that wisdom for their generations, one realizes that religious "streams" are bound not by their apparant differences, but by their effort to teach us common truths. To me for 2000 years Jews have been awaiting the teachings of the Buddha and for two thousand years the Buddhists have been seeking the wisdom of the Rabbis. To me Christians and Moslems simply need to understand that "God" works through the inviolate law of causality and Buddhists need to pay more attention to the grounding of universal truth. We can teach Buddhism while acknowledging, recognizing and appreciating their heritage from Western Religion.

The language and logic of religious literature may depend not just on the simple veracity of the stories, but on the "meaning" the stories are meant to convey and the "method" used by the story and its author. Even so there are real issues in all literature in general and with religious literature in specific with "forged writings." There are a number of reasons for forgeries and it is beyond the scope of this page to talk about them here, though when I started this page I did so in detail. Instead I've moved the discussion to two additional pages: apocryphal.html and disputed.html

Appendix

"Creative Hermaneutics"
/teaching methods

Scholars have discovered this ancient material and find it "refreshingly modern." Or perhaps more appropriately "post-modern." In an essay by a Buddhist Thinker Sandra A. Wawrytko called the "Language and Logic of the Lotus Sutra: ¹⁰

"The methodology of Creative Hermeneutics resonates with the "Four Rules of Textual Interpretation" recognized in Buddhist tradition. Important priorities are set by these rules:"

"Four Rules of Textual Interpretation

1. the doctrine (dharma) over the person (puru.sa) presenting it;
2. the spirit (artha) of the text over the words (vya~njana) in which it is presented;
3. the precise meanings (nitaartha) over our interpretations (neyaartha) thereof;
4. direct or immediate knowledge (j~naana) over mediated, discursive consciousness (vij~naana)."

She introduces these rules as "fresh" because scholars, teachers, and religious preachers have an unfortunate tendancy to ignore them. Shifting the focus from "the surface words" to the meaning doesn't negate the need to use care in examining sources. But it does allow us to focus on the things that are essential in religious teachings, and thus distinguish between "fiction" that teaches a message and fictions that have a spurrious relation to reality. Once one makes that distinction it becomes easier to make clear headed comparisons between teachings, thread ones way between them, and understand their "meat" or value even when they contain mistakes or falsehoods.

For instance A.L. Herman writes:

"Edward Conze once observed of the thirty-eight books constituting the Prajnaparamita Sutras that their central message could be summed up in two sentences:"

1. One should become a Bodhisattva (or Buddha-to-be), i e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2. There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva or as all-knowledge or as a being or as the perfection of wisdom or as an attainment.

The Sutra known as the "Sutra of Innumerable Meanings" basically says that all "dharmas" flow from one truth. The Buddha says

"A Bodhisattva, If he wants to learn and master the doctrine the doctrine of Innumerable Meanings, should observe that all laws were originally, will be, and are in themselves void in nature and form; They are Neither great nor small, Neither appearing nor disappearing, Neither fixed or movable, and neither advancing nor retreating; they are non dualistic, just emptiness."

The Thich Naht Hahn's "The Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism," states:

Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

All these teachings are trying to tell people that religious truth and religious thinking are for the purpose of "wisdom" or "upaya" and not things to be taken literally. Seriously yes, but with an understanding of the context, the intention of the authors, and all the various issues around the subject. Looking at religion that way is just common sense. When one hears a story such as the stone-cutter, the author doesn't intend us to start looking for archeological proof that the stone cutter existed, cut stones, or that we then start insisting that he literally transformed into the Sun or clouds. Religious stories were never meant to be read in that fashion. A writer named Isaia Berlin, in a famous essay(See this webpage to buy the book:book), once divided people up into hedgehogs and foxes. In our day there are too many foxes pretending to be hedgehogs, and too many hedgehogs who won't come out of their burrows. But Buddhism teaches that whether one is a fox or a hedgehog, one should be skeptical about "clinging too heavily to any attachments. The purpose of Buddhism is liberation from suffering. That is paradoxically one great truth.

Attitude

Religion and Religious Community

In the West religious communities have often been founded on "dogmatics." A certain "credo" is accepted as canon, and any deviation from that canon is considered "heretical." See post to Irgosho:6731. Unfortunately there are people who are sure that there is only one interpretation of things that is acceptable by their community, and that that is the one passed to them by someone they trust. Usually from the distant past. When confronted with paradoxes or discrepancies between reality and truth, these people reject the truth. People with this orientation are called fundamentalists, and many of them go so far as to present apparant reality as the work of the "Devil." Such people are actually "people of the lie" because they prefer untruth to inconvenient reality. They live in communities that deny the full humanity or legitimacy (correctness) of their neighboring communities, and thus come into conflict with them.

The converse of this approach is to toss out any text that contains apocryphal, mythical or legendary content and to pretend that what remains constitutes the only legitimate basis for religiousity. Both of these approaches are lumped together under the term "fundamentalism, because they are trying to get to the fundamentals of religion.

Philosophy expects it's assumptions to be examined. That is how it works. Philosophers expect to argue, sometimes passionately. Yet dogmatics produces fundamentalism, wihch in turn creates religious conflict and terrorism of one sort or another. By not being willing to question even the most inane "credo" fundamentalists have a predisposition to reject modernity, modern interpretations, and to totally misunderstand both the purpose and intent of their own religious texts. This sort of "dogmatic literalists" are often monstrously incorrect, and yet the authorities who promulgate such teachings insist that they are not only are they nevertheless correct, they are the "one true religion".

Yet the founders of most religions have understood that religious understanding depends on metaphor, allegory and even secret or esoteric understandings of their source texts. Most of these "founders" were human beings who were seeking to transcend their own time and place. They succeeded, and most of them insisted they were not "god" though they may have insisted their words were those of God. We should not emasculate their traditions by dogmatically accepting them.

Literalism and Literalmindedness

If one really thinks about it. The enemy of wisdom is not modernity, it is this very literalism. Ancient people often fully understood the contexts of their teachings. "Literalism" maintains that the text itself and it's "authors" are divine and not to be questioned. It rises when a "story" is challenged by facts. It is based on the faulty premise that a "story" and the wisdom it contains have to be either completely "true" or are completely "False." It is basically a dishonest response to the natural changes in context that have occured as a result of science and modern rationalism. People suppose that for the message of a text to be true, that it must be an accurate rendition of actual events or of the words of the actual teacher. The idea that the ideas of a founder can be improved on is seen as somehow "heretical" or a "profanation" of the perfection of that person and his teachings.

Anyone who studies religious texts sees stories that are universally accepted as allegorical, such as the story of the "Good Samaritan" or of the "Prodigal son" in the Judeo-Christian lineage, or the story of the "Good Physician" in the Buddhist Lineage. Yet they refuse to believe that stories such as Genesis might have such allegorical, mythical, and legendary content. Yet when they take this approach they are basically slandering the wisdom in these teachings. Literal-mindedness forces people into an infantile approach to life and prevents them from growing up, maximizing the value of their lives, or reaching to higher understandings.

The passage on Buddhist Hermaneutics (teaching style) can be generalized to any religion. Many modern Jews are doing so, and other religions would be well advised to follow suit. We don't need to take texts literally, but we do need to take them seriously. The example that he used was in the Biblical rendition of the creation. It was certainly drawn from older renditions of the same subject. Yet it was superior to those renditions because it created a more rational order than they did. What this Rabbi did was to concentrate on the "Wisdom" of the text over the person (the author in antiquity) and the spiritual meaning over taking the words literally. If one understands these passages in context, one can see just how rediculous it is to take them literally and think that "God" literally did these things. He, rather shows, how the authors of those texts took an existing story and applied a "better understanding" to it.

In Biblical times, there were many "prophets" or "seers". Some of them were described in retrospect as "false prophets." Yet all of them claimed to be channelling "God's word." Yet in the context of actual events, their understandings were later shown to be faulty. What was included in the Bible, were the teachings and stories that best represented the consensus of the authors of the Bible. Those authors were men. Likewise the teachings of Buddhism, in each of it's various sects, represent the work, not just of the original "authorities" but of those who "heard them", transmitted what they heard to others, wrote it down, copied what others wrote, and often all of them edited what they heard. Thus we can't be too "literalminded" in understanding any religious text. At the same time we can't discard any religious text either without careful consideration. Each teaching teaches something, and if we don't learn from it, we are condemned to make the same mistakes as prior generations.

Likewise with Buddhism. There is a "kechimyaku" or "lifeblood" that is transmitted from generation to generation, teacher to student. Does that mean that any teacher has everything right? Or that students "receive" that transmission correctly in all cases? Rather religious texts are filtered through current perceptions whether we admit it or not. Whether we reject them or accept them, literal-mindedly interpret them, or re-interpret them conveniently. The person who takes "eye for an eye" literally is just as guilty of misinterpreting that teaching as the person who disregards that ancient teaching of the rules of Justice. Like it or not we ourselves practice "midrash" or "interpretation" everytime we open a "text" or read a passage therein. Christians use the word "allegory" for a story told to make a point and not to be taken as literally true. In a sense most stories have allegorical content, and if we focus on this, we don't get lost in "literalmindedness."

Literary Criticism and literal proof

Most religions are based on apocryphal writings to one degree or another, often written years, even centuries after the events they purport to describe, or the individuals whose teachings they record, taught. There are few purely historical teachers, even in the "historical era" as even the most literary teachers (such as the founder of my school, Nichiren) taught much of their teachings in an oral fashion. And for most of history, disciples have tended to create "homages" (works attributed to someone but actually by someone later), "hagiographies"(works recounting a persons life in an often supernatural fashion), or works that started out as oral ones. Oral histories tend to be less than accurate when they are about a religious figure. Oral teachings tend to be elaborated over time and to "pick up" legendary and even mythic content. Yet foolish people often take these things as if they "actually happened" in real time and to judge their teachers as if they were supermen.

Literary Proofs and Texts

Even with texts we have to be cautious, because no text is ever purely the "word of God" it is a transmission, not only of an author, but of his editors and copyists. Indeed often texts are only marginally the words of their original authors. For more on this visit the page on apocryphal issues. Many texts are indeed the voice of their Sangha and don't really necessarilly represent the actual voice of the founder of that Sangha. This is as true for the teachings of Shakyamuni or Nagarjuna as it is for teachers like Nichiren who have an established base core of proven works. It is also true for many of the works that have found their way into the Bible or Koran.

Examining texts

Nichiren writes in the Gosho Questions and Answers on Embracing the Lotus Sutra:

Question:

What you have just said may apply to the commentaries of the teachers. But what about the sutras preached before the Lotus Sutra that state, "This is the foremost sutra" or "This is the king of sutras"? If one were to go by what you have said, then he would have to reject these pronouncements, which are the words of the Buddha himself. Is this not so?

Answer:

Although these earlier sutras may include such statements as "this is the foremost sutra" or "this is the king of sutras," they are all nevertheless provisional teachings. One is not to rely on such pronouncements. The Buddha himself commented on this point when he said,

"Rely on the sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final."

And the Great Teacher Miao-lo states in his commentary:

"Though other sutras may call themselves the king among sutras, there is none that announces itself as foremost among all the sutras preached in the past, now being preached, or to be preached in the future. Thus one should understand them according to the principle of 'combining, excluding, corresponding and including.'"

This passage of commentary is saying in essence that, even if there should be a sutra that calls itself the king of sutras, if it does not also declare itself superior to those sutras that have been preached before and those that shall be preached after, then one should know that it is a sutra belonging to the category of expedient teachings.

It is the way of the sutras preached before the Lotus Sutra to say nothing concerning the sutras that were to be preached in the future. Only in the case of the Lotus Sutra, because it is the ultimate and highest statement of the Buddha's teachings, do we find a clear pronouncement that this sutra alone holds the place of absolute superiority among "all the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach."

Hence Miao-lo's commentary states:

"Only when he came to preach the Lotus Sutra did the Buddha explain that his earlier teachings were provisional, and make clear that his present teaching in the Lotus Sutra represents the truth."

Thus we may see that, in the Lotus Sutra, the Tathagata gave definite form both to his true intention and to the methods to be used in teaching and conferring benefit.

It is for this reason that T'ien-t'ai states:

"After the Tathagata attained enlightenment, for forty years and more he did not reveal the truth. With the Lotus Sutra he for the first time revealed the truth."

In other words, for forty years and more after the Tathagata went out into the world, he did not reveal the true teaching. In the Lotus Sutra, he for the first time revealed the true Way that leads to the attainment of Buddhahood.

When Nichiren talks about 'combining, excluding, corresponding and including.' he is telling us a general principle of how to examine Buddhist texts or any texts of any religion. When we look at teachings and combine them we are able to see how a + b == c. When we "exclude" teachings, we see how something that is taught later, or that is superior will superscede, override, or implement it's predecessor teaching.

For instance, the formal precepts are superceded by the Mahayana Precepts because they implement higher notions. Or, if one has a practice that generates the benefits of more rigorous practices, such as chanting the Daimoku, then those practices "exclude" the practice of the more difficult teachings. These decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of our own feelings and inner realization but on the basis of the logic of the "Sutras" themselves.

"Corresponding" allows us to see how transcendent notions coming from different directions "smile on each other" or match one another. The Lotus Sutra teaches that there is ultimately only "one vehicle", when one realizes that, one looks at other teachings and sees that those that are wise have "correspondence" with the teachings of the Lotus Sutra.

"Including" means that teachings often include each other or include references to each other. For instance the Lotus Sutra teachings include in a general sense both the Sutra of Innumerable meanings and the Nirvana Sutra while they exclude the things taught in the Pure Land Sutras or Mahavairochana Sutras. When Nichiren uses these concepts it's in the context of proving the superiority of the Lotus Sutra. When we use them, it can be to examine the traditions and teachings of the various religions and beliefs of the modern world.

To illustrate even better, Nichiren uses the same terminology in this quote from "The Doctrine of Attaining Buddhahood in ones Present Form"

Moreover, when we examine these Shingon sutras, we see that they clearly belong to the categories of "combining, excluding, corresponding and including." They do not teach that persons of the two vehicles can attain Buddhahood, nor do they even suggest anywhere that Shakyamuni actually attained Buddhahood in the inconceivably remote past.

As you can see, a teaching has to be judged not just by what it includes, but by what it doesn't include. The Shingon teachings don't teach the eternity of life, and they don't teach the enlightenment of scholars and self-enlightened folks. they thus don't guarantee the enlightenment even of the teachers who were teaching them to their various assemblies since those teachers were mostly men of "learning and absorption". Likewise, we can look at the religions of our day and see where they are lacking in wisdom. Failing to, for instance, understand causality, or lacking the teaching of "Three-Thousand worlds in a single thought moment. This way of examining texts also tells us how to approach religious beliefs. What is there in a teaching that excludes Buddhism? What can we accept from other religions? Do they have anything that is actually superior to our own accepted beliefs? It was for that reason that Buddhists in China and Japan drew their ethics from Confucian teachers. Those sages didn't say anything that was contradictory to the heart of Buddhist teachings. That is why Buddhism is "syncretic" and can be compatible with it's hosts traditions when people use Buddhist Logic to "combine, exclude, correspond and include" what is true versus what is untrue about those teachings.

An Admonition

Honest students and teachers should look into these issues before issuing dogmatic statements based on doctrines that can sometimes even be reversals of the founders teachings. They should also remember, that whatever divine inspiration a teacher receives, ultimately that teacher is human, and so his/her understanding is also limited. If one gets a general vision of things, that vision is "fuzzy" in the details because of transmission. If one gets specific understanding, that understanding is, of necessity limited in it's "scope." So there has to be a caution about using texts written by one teacher but attributed to another. There has to be a caution about using teachings based on assertions of any teacher or committee of teachers, no matter how sage they might be. Any religious group that puts blinders on about such issues or (conversely) refuses to acknowledge the role of the "Sangha" in developing, transmitting, and establishing doctrine, is making a potentially grievious error. The result of such distorted transmissions, dishonesty or narrowness is the production of erroneous doctrines and/or literalminded fundamentalism. Even worse are religions that invent such things to build up their later day teachers. The worst crimes of some of these people, are that they plagiarize and steal the ideas of others and then try to look like great sages.

All texts are the product both of a "transmittor" and a "transmittee". Every teacher teaches students who in turn teach others. When a teacher or his students start mixing their own ideas into that transmission whily nily, the result is something different from what the teacher taught. Sometimes that difference may be a good thing, but often it is not. Because of this we have to be careful to give credit to our teachers and to emphasize wisdom over trust for persons or reliance on oral transmissions or trust relationships. Buddhism teaches the importance of the "vessel" in a transmission. Arrogant teachers are faulty vessels. Buddhism also teaches that you can't eat filth mixed with good food.

Discarding Filth

The principles of Buddhist Teaching (hermeneutics) show that while these issues of "care" are important, they actually point to a way to "preserve" the wisdom in human traditions while discarding the lies, "filth", and poison that has poisoned human relationships and religious endeaver. There is no need to be intollerant if one understands ones traditions in their appropriate context. You have to separate the diamonds (wisdom) from the filth (human interpretation, authority, and transmission errors) that may contain them. At the same time you have to avoid eating the "poison" of such filth, and so you have to ensure that you don't contaminate yourself with the products of ancient rivalries, lies, and conflict, in the process of taking texts literally that were written by very real human beings. Intollerance is the result of people who have absorbed the "negative" along with the positive teachings of their heritage, and who are afraid to seek the wisdom within over the "literal-minded" acceptance of litericity of the words. That is why Buddhists have always placed "actual proof" first among the three proofs. If a teaching is really true, you can see it in the lives of the people who embrace it. If you see conflict and misery, then something is wrong.

Issues in literary truth in Nichiren's teachings

When followers of Nichiren, or any religion, choose to ignore these issues and the standards of literary criticism they get into trouble. By focusing on the literal truth, or placing value on the "person" transmitting the teachings, over what is transmitted. They tend to miss the wisdom of the text and get mislead into treating the teacher as if he were a god. The Judeo-Christian tradition calls that idolatry. Buddhism calls it stupidity. Whether they seek to redefine Buddhism by treating a biography as a text or by basing their literary proofs on the word of a high Priest who has "inherited the law", such reasoning flies in the face of the standards set by Nichiren, much less simple common sense.

Nichiren Shoshu

Nichiren Shoshu actually admits that some of it's documents are apocryphal in their "QA 56", yet they rely on them anyway, justifying this with their oral heritage and their "heritage of the Law". There are a number of issues with this to me (See nstissue.html) Their attitude towards their doctrines and their literary sources and literal, theoretical and actual proof, is both authoritarian and faulty because it relies on the circular reasoning of the doctrines that valorate the opinions of the current high priest having issues that can only be ignored by valorating the opinions of the current high priest. For them the wisdom of the works and of the development of their later day lineage with time, trumphs even the words of the founder himself, and this is an incorrect attitude. Their teacher Nichiko Hori had a better attitude. For more on this visit these pages: Text of Priests Question and Answer 56 and my commentery at: q56comm.html.

Sokagakkai

As a "child" of the Nichiren Shoshu, the Gakkai has inherited some of the same problematical source texts and doctrines. Adding to that, is the attempt by the Gakkai to create a new "lineage" based on it's first three founders; Tsunesuburu Makiguchi, Josei Toda and and Daisaku Ikeda. These founders added their own ideas and insights to Nichiren Buddhism, and those insights and understandings need to be examined critically or they threaten to create a whole new sets of problematical beliefs. The Gakkai started out firmly founded on the Gosho of Nichiren Daishonin and the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, but recently has shown signs of trying to promote the wisdom of it's founders as supersceding or even trumphing that of the great teachers prior to their day. In some cases the process looks like deification with supposed magical powers. The Gosho "On Repaying Debts of Gratitude" talks about this as does the Gosho "Reply to Sairenbo." Repaying debts of gratitude explains how the result of using such BS as follows: (see Repaying Debts of Gratitude (Ho'on Sho):

"You may pile up dung and call it sandalwood, but when you burn it, it will give off only the fragrance of dung. You may pile up a lot of great lies and call them the teachings of the Buddha, but they will never be anything but a gateway to the great citadel of the hell of incessant suffering."

The effort to build up the three founders into "great sages" and to place their wisdom as beyond ordinary question or criticism, is entirely the fault of "followers" who put their trust in their teachers over faith in the Dharma (person over Dharma/Law) and their own self development and reasoning facilities. I think that all three of the founders of both the Gakkai and the three founders of Nichiren Shoshu would find this approach to be wrong. I think that even "great sages" can be mistaken. We need to support them by treating them as our "central figures" pushing into them and being their good friends, not by being fawning syncophants and adulating fanatics.

"Other Nichiren Sects"

The "other Nichiren Sects" likewise sometimes employ faulty reasoning in their teachings because they sometimes valid arguments for arguments based on a narrow interpretation of what the founder was teaching. For these people, the only valid doctrines can be those that they are willing to accept. A teacher named Asai Yorin, seeking to systematize Nichiren's teachings and "prove" that his school owed no debt of thought to the Tendai Sect, rejected "original enlightenment thought" and texts attributed to Nichiren that contained such thoughts. Many apocryphal works attributed to Nichiren and systematized during the "Muromachi" period (which begins about the same time as the death of the last of the first generation disciples of Nichiren in 1333), contain such "original enlightenment thought" and Asai Yorin taught that these teachings were faulty and not from Nichiren. He sought a pure Buddhism sans such thinking. Yet original enlightenment thinking (in it's less extreme form) is found within some genuine texts, and is also derived directly from readings of the Juryo (lifespan of the Buddha) Chapter of the Lotus Sutra. His later day disciples sometimes reject valid arguments, solely, by arguing that the source texts are apocryphal. Both authoritarian interpretations and literal-mindedness lead to sectarian conflict and a focus on secondary issues over gaining wisdom from teachings. Ultimately literal proof cannot be divorced from theoretical and actual proof and these things are often understood individually and experientially. The paradox of Nichiren's teachings is the same one as with all teachings of wisdom. There is often a conflict between our understanding of reality (which is limited, incomplete, and provisional) and the reality itself.

Real Issues

There are very real issues relating to literary proof in true Buddhism. Nichiren wrote a lot of authentic gosho, but a lot of Gosho are questioned as having been written by later followers, forged or altered. There are many Gosho that are unquestioned, you can find links to them at this page: http://www.crosswinds.net/~campross/gosho.html. As with pre-historical teachers and many pre-printing press teachers, there are issues related to the authenticity and validity of some of the texts and documents from him or from his later disciples and attributed to him(See the link apocryphal.html). The authenticity of some Gohonzon are also in doubt from a scholarly perspective. (For more on that follow this link: daigoh.html)

This is partly because there was a tradition of teachers attributing their own ideas to the "late master". Some of this reflected the arrogance of later teachers, and some of this may have reflected the oral origins of some of these teachings. What makes the issue thorny is that, over time texts have been lost or stolen and so originals may well have existed for some of them at one time. Oral teachings (there are two sets of "Ongi Kuden", both similar to one another, one at Mt. Minobu and the other at Taisekiji) attributed to Nichiren himself -- may or may not have originated with him -- but were later written down and are sometimes considered "forged writings" by those who don't agree with their contents.

Yet these teachings were developed by the schools themselves and so should not be entirely dismissed simply because a different school disagrees with them. The founder of the Kempon Hokke believed that these issues were so important that he suggested throwing out all disputed texts (see lineage.html). But this is an effort that can't negates the importance of the "Sangha" and of debate, discussion, theoretical and actual proofs. It's just not that easy. Simply because a doctrine originated (or didn't originate) with Nichiren doesn't itself make it true or not true. What makes it "true or not true" is the entirety of the three proofs and whether or not it is in fact "true or not true." That can only be judged by applying the subjectivity of both logic, "actual proof" and "shikan" or realization.

For more visit:

Disputed page

Gosho page

Conclusion

These issues are important because the disputed writings are the basis of the unique teachings of my school. If they are not entirely true, then the basis of my entire school needs to be rebuilt. The issues relate to issues regarding whether or not Nichiren taught "extreme" "original enlightenment" notions, whether or not Nichiren regarded himself as the "true Buddha," and whether or not the Gohonzon known as the Dai-Gohonzon was actually created by him. I'm still working on these webpages and so I'd appreciate suggestions, but I think that the questions of authority and authenticity posed by "literary truths" need to be examined critically or we are in danger of "getting things wrong" which can only cause us misery.

Top	Overview	Texts as Storytelling	Literal Texts in a Wisdom Based Context	Fundamentalism and literalism	Literalmindedness and Texts	Literary Criticism and literal proof	Literary Issues and texts
An Admonition	Discarding Filth	Issues in Nichiren Buddhism	Scholarship and Links	Actual Proof	Nichirenism	Apocrypha	Nichiren

Further Reading:

Scholars have examined some of these notions. For further reading read these links:

Nanzen link. Here is a list of them from this site:

http://www.ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/ (copies)(I may delete my copies soon so it wouldn't hurt to download your own copies):

Revisiting Nichiren by Jacqueline Stone and Ruben Habito:546.pdf

Nichiren's problematic works by Sueki Fumihiko:548.pdf

Bodily reading of the Lotus Sutra by Ruben Habito:549.pdf

Nichiren's view of Nation and Religion by Sato Hiro:550.pdf

Criticism and Appropriation by Lucia Dolce:552.pdf

Placing Nichiren in the "Big Picture by Jacqueline Stone:553.pdf

Uses of Nichiren in Modern Japanese History:554.pdf

Biographical Studies of Nichiren by Jacqueline Stone:555.pdf

Others (HTML:)

http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/ian.htm

Language and logic of the Lotus Sutra by Sandra A. Wawrytko

New Materials from the "Institute of Oriental Philsophy": http://www.iop.or.jp/index.htm

Link to materials on Joseph Campbell:http://www.jcf.org

Footnotes and sources

Some of the footnotes are also referenced through hyperlinks in the above text. For the sake of readability I've moved some footnotes down to here:

1. Full Passage refers to the Lotus Sutra and says:

Nevertheless, our merciful father Shakyamuni Buddha, when he faced his end in the grove of sal trees, stated as his dying instructions that we are to "rely on the Law and not upon persons." "Not relying upon persons" means that, when persons of the first, second, third and fourth ranks preach, even though they are bodhisattvas such as Fugen and Monju who have attained the stage of near-perfect enlightenment, if they do not preach with the sutra in hand, then they are not to be accepted."

References for Kaballah:

2. Simple Kaballah by Kim Zetter, Conari Press

back to index | back to NST issues page

Buddhism teaches an intense reality approach. Unfortunately Buddhism like most advanced religion has often been corrupted by the influence of "esotericism" or the notion that there is an "inner circles" or a "secret circle" of teachings that only the initiated can understand. Even Nichirenism has had its literary base corrupted by "apocryphal" or forged writings ranging from Hagiographies to a whole genre of oral and piously forged writings that came to be identified under the term "original enlightenment".

Postscript

Nichiren himself advocated the three proofs in his major writings. In a sense he pioneered the field of "literary criticism." His understanding of Buddhism was informed by his own informed examination of the texts of each of the current schools of Buddhism in his country and a thorough grounding in Buddhist Logic. Thus his advocacy of the "Three Proofs" of (literal, Theoretical and actual proof) in judging the merit of teachings was also a profoundly "conservative" and "fundamentalist" approach to religion and to Buddhism. This is not a revolutionary teaching in Buddhism or in Religion in general. But it was a revolutionary approach judging by the standards of his time, and unfortunately still seems so in our own time. It is actually an approach that is based on a profound understanding of the Lotus Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra

This was not revolutionary in Buddhism, but it has not always been the standard of teachers, nor has it been a diligently pursued discipline. To Nichiren, lack of rigor, self-honesty, and honest scholarship by the sages preceeding him was the cause for the disorder that he found in Buddhism. This was the central theme of his work the "Rissho Ankoku Ron" and of many of his writings. He once said that if someone could "refute" his teachings he would gladly become their disciple, and that he came to his conclusions after years of study as a young man. His observations were prescient. We see similar issues of accuracy in transmission in religious texts of all traditions. Indeed one of the defining attributes of "modernity" is the growing awareness that most religious texts were written by human beings, often long after the date they are ascribed to or the events being recounted ocurred.

I'm still working on this page, but I thought the revised material worth sharing enough that I didn't want to wait until all the kinks were out of it before updating.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws