Category Archives: Blog

Blog, Books, How Buddhism Began

How Buddhism Began

how-buddhism-began-bookcoverProfessor Richard F. Gombrich gave a series of lectures in 1994. These in turn were turned into a slim volume entitled, “How Buddhism Began; The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings,” which was published in 1996 by the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

Here’s the publisher’s introduction:

This book takes a fresh look at the earliest Buddhist texts and offers various suggestions how the teachings in them had developed. Two themes predominate, firstly, it argues that we cannot understand the Buddha unless we understand that he was debating with other religious teachers, notably brahmins. For example, he denied the existence of a “soul”; but what exactly was he denying? Another chapter suggests that the canonical story of the Buddha’s encounter with a brigand who wore a garland of his victims’ fingers probably reflects an encounter with a form of ecstatic religion.

The other main theme concerns metaphor, allegory and literalism. By taking the words of the texts literally—despite the Buddha’s warning not to—successive generations of his disciples created distinctions and developed doctrines far beyond his original intention. One chapter shows how this led to a scholastic categorization of meditation. Failure to understand a basic metaphor also gave rise to the later argument between the Mahayana and the older tradition. Perhaps most important of all, a combination of literalism with ignorance of the Buddha’s allusions to Brahminism led Buddhists to forget that the Buddha had preached that love, like Christian charity, could itself be directly salvific.

Richard F. Gombrich was the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University. He has written numerous books and articles on Buddhism, in which include The World of Buddhism: Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Society and Culture (1991) and Buddhist Percept and Practise (1991 ). He was the President of the Pali Text Society and was honoured with Sri Lanka Ranjana award in 1994 and the SC Chakrabarty medal from the Asiatic Society, Kolkata.

The 164 pages offer little that I feel I need to copy here, but I found a couple of his concepts worth noting.

For example, he argues, in effect, that Buddhism is Empty – there is no fixed, unchanging essence that is Buddhism.

Buddhists readily accept … that Buddhism as we can now witness it is in decline; they might even accept such labels as ‘corrupt’ and ‘syncretistic.’ They should have no trouble in accepting the proposition on which these lectures are based: that Buddhism as a human phenomenon has no unchanging essence but must have begun to change from the moment of its inception.

This seems, however, to worry some modem scholars. Not long ago I attended a meeting of the British historians of Indian religions at which there was a discussion not, I am glad to say, about the definition of religion, but about the definition of Buddhism. I do not think that most of the participants approached the question in an essentialist spirit: they were ready to accept that Buddhism could be adequately defined, in a nominalist manner, as the religion of those who claim to be Buddhists. But they asked whether the various forms of Buddhism which gave those people their religious identity had any common features. They failed to find any, and reached the rather despairing conclusion that Buddhism was therefore not a useful concept at all.

I think this is to go too far. True, it is not prima facie obvious that there are features common to the religions of a traditional Theravādin rice-farmer, a Japanese Pure Land Buddhist, and a member of the UK branch of the Soka Gakkai International. This may not bother the Buddhists themselves, secure within their own traditions, and I am not aware that they have seriously discussed the problem. But I suggest that the Buddha’s teaching again offers a solution through the doctrine of causation, conditioned genesis. For the Buddha and his followers, things they focused mainly on – living beings – exist not as adamantine essences but as dynamic processes. These processes are not random (adhiccasamuppanna) but causally determined. Any empirical phenomenon is seen as a causal sequence, and that applies to the sāsana too. ‘One thing leads to another,’ as the English idiom has it. Whether or not we can see features common to the religion of Richard Causton, the late leader of the UK branch of Soka Gakkai International, and that of Nāgārjuna, or of the Buddha himself, there is a train of human events which causally connects them. Buddhism is not an inert object: it is a chain of events.

How Buddhism Began, p6-7

I also appreciated Gombrich warning about literalism, having myself admitted to a preference for the literal words of the Lotus Sutra.

The Buddha seems to have had a lively awareness of the dangers of literalism. A short text, AN Il, 135, classifies people who hear his teachings into four types; the terms are explained at Puggala-paññatti IV, 5 (= p. 41). As commonly, the list is hierarchic, the best type being listed first. The first type (ugghatita-ññu) understands the teaching as soon as it is uttered; the second (vipacita-ññu) understands on mature reflection; the third (neyya) is ‘leadable’: he understands it when he has worked at it, thought about it and cultivated wise friends. The fourth is called pada-parama, ‘putting the words first’; he is defined as one who though he hears much, preaches much, remembers much and recites much does not come within this life to understand the teaching. One could hardly ask for a clearer condemnation of literalism. As throughout this lecture, I am merely pointing out that Buddhism provides the best tools for its own exegesis.

In fact there is an extremely famous text in the Pali Canon in which the Buddha criticizes literalism. But I see a great irony here, for the words of the text have been too literally interpreted, so that its point has been missed. I am referring to the simile of the raft in Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN sutta 22), the sermon with the simile of the water snake.

How Buddhism Began, p22

More problematic for me is Gombrich’s discussion of Merit Transfer. As a Nichiren Buddhist, I am quite comfortable with the idea that I can transfer, through my prayers, merit I’ve earned through my practice.

To begin with, it is very difficult to keep reading when Gombrich starts by saying he is discussing “The transfer of kama – in particular of good karma, merit… ” and then describes this “a process” being transferred. I must assume Gombrich is speaking in shorthand. It is too far-fetched to imagine that he actually confuses the actions – good and bad – with the results &ndash merit. Here’s the pertinent quote:

The transfer of kama – in particular of good karma, merit – is a vast topic; much has been written about it and there is no room here for a long digression. However, I cannot resist the opportunity to make three points. First: Buddhologists have tended to ignore the importance of such transfers in Brahminical texts, where they are documented from a very early period. As Professor Hara has pointed out (Hara, 1994), the Mahābhārata, for example, envisages transfer not only of good and bad karma but of such things as long life and dishonor. So the idea that many properties we are accustomed to thinking of as nontransferable can in fact be transferred was probably part of a widespread popular belief, and in partly accepting it Buddhism was moving towards the general norm.

However, too easy acceptance of such transferability would have shaken the foundations of Buddhism as a doctrine of moral responsibility. So far from reifying merit, Buddhist orthodoxy even resisted the reification of the individual, the moral agent. How could a process transfer an aspect of itself to another process? The Sarvāstivāda, showing a tendency to multiply entities, argued that the process which we conventionally talk of as a person was connected to its properties (including karma) by something called prāpti ‘possession’ (in a verbal sense). The Theravāda came to accept the transfer of merit, but apparently tried to evade the problematic notion of transferring a process, karma, by taking over this piece of Sarvāstivādin terminology. This is my second point; I am not aware that it has been noticed before. In Pali, therefore, what is said to be given is not merit but ‘possession’ (of merit) – patti-dāna. Though all Theravādins use the term patti (= Sanskrit prāpti), I suspect that hardly any of them know just what it means (as distinct from what it refers to), since it was borrowed from another school.

It has always been my understanding that my prayers transfer my “possession” of merit to my ancestors.

Even more problematic is Gombrich’s conclusion to his discussion of merit transference:

In early Buddhism, the Buddha was a savior only in the sense that he taught the way to salvation. In the Mahāyāna, both Buddhas and bodhisattvas saved more directly, by transferring merit. My third point is that this transfer of a reified karma seems to me to be what is crucial in turning Buddhism into a religion in which one could be saved by others. It is thus the transfer of merit which takes the place in Buddhism which divine grace occupies in Christianity.

How Buddhism Began, p56-57

I strongly object to – this transfer of a reified karma seems to me to be what is crucial in turning Buddhism into a religion in which one could be saved by others.

In the Lotus Sutra’s Parable of the Burning House, the Buddha explains: “Śāriputra! The rich man did not save his children by his muscular power although he was strong enough. He saved them from the burning house with a skillful expedient and later gave them each a large cart of treasures.”

The Buddha and the Bodhisattvas remain saviors only in the sense that they teach the way to salvation. The merit transfer that I offer to my ancestors, to my family and to all beings should never be confused with salvation. That’s not what I’m offering.

Blog, essentials

Takakusu’s Wheel of Life

Buddhism before the Lotus Sutra was divided into three vehicles – the Śrāvaka vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha vehicle and the Bodhisattva vehicle. These are introduced in Chapter One of the Lotus Sutra when Mañjuśrī explains the teaching of a long-ago Buddha called Sun-Moon-Light.

To those who were seeking Śrāvakahood, he expounded the teaching of the four truths, a teaching suitable for them, saved them from birth, old age, disease, and death, and caused them to attain Nirvāṇa. To those who were seeking Pratyekabuddhahood, he expounded the teaching of the twelve causes, a teaching suitable for them. To Bodhisattvas, he expounded the teaching of the six paramitas, a teaching suitable for them, and caused them to attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, that is, to obtain the knowledge of the equality and differences of all things

Walpola Sri Rahula’s What the Buddha Taught offers an excellent discussion of the Four Noble Truths. Dale S. Wright’s The Six Perfections: Buddhism & the Cultivation of Character outlines the Bodhisattva practice. However, the teaching of the twelve causes is more problematic.

Those Twelve Causes are detailed in Chapter 7 of the Lotus Sutra:

[Great-Universal-Wisdom-Excellence Tathāgata expounded] the teaching of the twelve causes, saying, ‘Ignorance causes predisposition. Predisposition causes consciousness. Consciousness causes name-and-form. Name­-and-form causes the six sense organs. The six sense organs cause impression. Impression causes feeling. Feeling causes craving. Craving causes grasping. Grasping causes existence. Existence causes birth. Birth causes aging-and-death, grief, sorrow, suffering and lamentation. When ignorance is eliminated, predisposition is eliminated. When predisposition is eliminated, consciousness is eliminated. When consciousness is eliminated, name-and-form is eliminated. When name-and-form is eliminated, the six sense organs are eliminated. When the six sense organs are eliminated, impression is eliminated. When impression is eliminated, feeling is eliminated. When feeling is eliminated, craving is eliminated. When craving is eliminated, grasping is eliminated. When grasping is eliminated, existence is eliminated. When existence is eliminated, birth is eliminated. When birth is eliminated, aging-and-death, grief, sorrow, suffering and lamentation are eliminated.’

In the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings this is called the “Twelve-linked Chain of Dependent Origination.”

In the past I’ve relied on Ryuei McCormick’s Understanding the 12-Linked Chain of Causation. Having now read The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, I feel Junjiro Takakusu offers a very accessible explanation of this teaching. This is long, but well worth the read.

The Wheel of Life is a circle with no beginning, but it is customary to begin its exposition at Blindness (unconscious state). Blindness is only a continuation of death. At death the body is abandoned, but Blindness remains as the crystallization of the effects of the actions performed during life. This Blindness is often termed Ignorance; but this Ignorance should not be thought of as the antonym of knowing; it must include in its meaning both knowing and not knowing—Blindness or blind mind, unconsciousness.

Blindness leads to blind activity. The ‘energy’ or the effect of this blind activity is the next Stage, Motive, or Will to Live. This Will to Live is not the kind of will which is used in the term ‘free will’; it is rather a blind motive toward life or the blind desire to live.

Blindness and Will to Live are called the Two Causes of the Past. They are causes when regarded subjectively from the present; but objectively regarded, the life in the past is a whole life just as much as is the life of the present.

In the life of the present the First Stage is Subconscious Mind. This is the first stage of an individual existence which corresponds, in actual life, to the first moment of the conception of a child. There is no consciousness yet; there is only the Subconscious Mind or the Blind Will toward life. When this Subconscious Mind advances one step and takes a form, it is the Second Stage of the present, Name-Form. The Name is the mind, because mind is something we know by name but cannot grasp. Name-Form is the stage of prenatal growth when the mind and body first come into combination.

In the Third Stage a more complex form is assumed and the six sense organs are recognized. They are the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body (organ of touch) and mind.

The Fourth Stage corresponds to the first one or two years after the birth of the child. The six sense organs reach the state of activity, but the sense of touch predominates. The living being begins to come into contact with the outside world.

Now that the living being is able to manifest its consciousness, it begins to take in the phenomena of the outside world consciously. This is the Fifth Stage called Perception, representing the growth scale of a child three to five years old. Here the individuality of the living being is definitely recognized; in other words, the status of the present life has been formed.

The above five Stages are called the Five Effects of the Past appearing in the Present. In these Stages the individual is formed, but the individual is not entirely responsible for its own formation because the causes of the past have effectuated the development of these Stages. From here on, the individual begins to create causes on his own responsibility, or in other words, enters the proper sphere of self-creation.

The first of the Three Causes in the Present is Desire. Through Perception the individual experiences sorrow, pleasure, suffering, enjoyment, or neutral feeling. When the experience is sorrow, suffering, or neutral feeling nothing much will happen. But when it is pleasure or enjoyment, the individual will endeavor to make it his own. This effort is Desire; it produces attachment. The first step of this attachment is the next Stage, Cleaving, the effort to retain the object of Desire. The last state of this attachment is Formation of Being. The term Existence is often used for this Stage, but as it is a link between the present and future, and the preliminary step for Birth, I believe that ‘Formation of Being’ is a more fitting term.

Desire, Cleaving and Formation of Being represent the three stages of the activities of an adult, and together constitute the Three Causes in the Present. While an individual is enjoying the effects of the past, he is forming the causes for the future. While the plum fruit is ripening on the tree, the core in the fruit is being formed. By the time the fruit is ripe and falls to the ground, the core too is ready to bring forth a new tree of its own to bear more fruits in the future.

As to the Future there are two Stages—Birth and Old age-Death, or in short, Birth and Death. When viewed from the Three Causes in the Present, Birth and Death may be termed the effects. But when viewed in the light of the continuous Wheel of Life, we may regard the future as the time when the Causes in the Present open out and close. Also, the Effects of the Future contain in themselves causes for the life still further in the future.

The present is one whole life, and so is the future. Past, Present and Future are each a whole life. In this Wheel of Life, the present is explained particularly minutely with eight stages, but in truth Blindness and Will to Live of the past and Birth and Death of the future have the same constituent stages as those of the present.

Because we human beings are accustomed to make the present the starting point of consideration, naturally the future is regarded as effects of the present. Therefore the life in the future is given descriptively as Birth and Death. And because the past is regarded as the cause of the present, it is given as causal principles, Blindness and Will to Live.

It is quite possible to reconstruct the Wheel of Life in the following manner in which Birth and Death are to be regarded as merely an abbreviated description of a whole life and Blindness and Will to Live are to be regarded as an ideological description of a round of life. Past, Present and Future are relative terms.

It is clear that the Causation Theory of Buddhism is not like the theory of causality of classical physical science which is a fixed theory. In Buddhism every Stage is a cause when viewed from its effect; when viewed from the antecedent cause, it is an effect. It may be also said that there is a cause in the effect, and an effect in the cause. There is nothing fixed in this theory.

The Blindness, which remains after the death of a living thing, is the crystallization of the actions (karma) which the living being performed during its life, or in other words, the ‘energy’ or influence of the actions that remain. One’s action (karma) is the dynamic manifestation of mental and physical energy. This latent energy may be called action-influence or potential energy. Action-influence remains after the action ceases, and this is what makes the Wheel of Life move. As long as there is energy, it has to work, and the Cycles of Causations and Becomings will inevitably—subconsciously or blindly—go on forever.

In other words, a living being determines its own nature and existence by its own actions. Therefore we may say the living being is self-created. The act of self-creation has continued in the past for thousands and millions of lives, and the living being has gone around the circle of Twelve Divisioned Cycle of Causations and Becomings over and over again.

The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, p30-34

For the next month and a half I will be publishing daily excerpts from The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy.

Blog, essentials

Takakusu’s Claim of Violent Nichirenism

In discussing Nichiren’s teaching in The Essestials of Buddhist Philosophy, Junjiro Takakusu has a distinct view:

Nichiren’s attacks against these schools became more violent than ever when he was mobbed, attacked and banished to Izu in 1261. Even after his return to Kamakura and to his native place to see his ailing mother, he did not refrain from his violent protest against the government as well as the religion, and went so far as to say that Tokiyori, the Hōjō Regent who believed in Zen and wore a Buddhist robe, was already in hell and that the succeeding Regent Tokumune was on the way to hell. Upon the arrival of the Mongolian envoys demanding tribute, he again remonstrated the Regime to suppress the heresies and adopt the Lotus doctrine as the only way out of national calamities. In 1271 he was arrested, tried and sentenced to death. In a miraculous way he escaped the execution and was banished to the remote island of Sado at the end of the same year.

The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, p180

I find it fascinating that Takakusu would describe Nichiren’s attacks on the other schools as violent. Violence was what Nichiren experienced at Seichoji Temple on April 28, 1253, when he declared the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra. His non-violent efforts to persuade the rulers of Japan to adopt the Lotus as the teaching of the nation and to shun other sects was answered with exile to Izu.

Takakusu declares that Nichiren was “tried and sentenced to death.” This is not supported by Nichiren’s writings. I’ve also never read another source who suggested that Nichiren was given a trial where he could dispute the charges or that this trial resulted in a death sentence.

I admit to quibbling now, but as a retired editor I can’t abide Takakusu’s suggestion that somehow Nichiren was responsible for the “miraculous way he escaped the execution.”

Takakusu takes this “violent” view of Nichiren and applies it to his later followers:

The school, always colored by a fighting attitude, had many disputes with other religious institutions. In 1532, for example, it had a conflict with Tendai, the mother school, called the war of Tembun. One of the Nichiren sects called Fujufuse Sect (‘no give or take’) refused to comply with the parish rule conventionally set forth by the government and was prohibited in 1614 along with Christianity by the Tokugawa Shogunate.

The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, p181

Again, we have violence against Nichiren followers described as their fault. Rev. Ryuei Michael McCormick offers this description of the dispute in 1532:

Despite the power struggles and doctrinal conflicts, the Kyoto temple militias gained in strength as the Ashikaga Shogunate’s power waned and Japan descended into anarchy. When the Nembutsu based peasant rebellions threatened the city of Kyoto in the summer of 1532, the militias came out in force to defend the city, and for the next four years they ruled the city of Kyoto. This brief rule of the Nichiren Buddhist townspeople is known as the Lotus Uprising (Hokke Ikki) in contrast to the Pure Land Buddhist peasant rebellions known as the Single-minded [Faith in Nembutsu] Uprisings (Ikko Ikki).

The Lotus Uprising ended disastrously in 1536 when a Nichiren Buddhist lay follower challenged and then defeated a Tendai monk in a public debate. Incensed, the warrior-monks of Mt. Hiei descended upon the city in force and burned down all 21 of the Nichiren Buddhist head temples in Kyoto as well as the whole southern half of the city and a good portion of the northern half. This event is known as the Tenmon Persecution.

History of Nichiren Buddhism

As for the Fujufuse Sect, it was not violent in its refusal to support institutions that failed to accept the Lotus Sutra as the supreme teaching of the Buddha. But the response of the regime to their defiance was certainly violent.

Perhaps Takakusu was again influenced by the times. As I explained yesterday, the lectures Takakusu gave in 1937-39 may have reflected the pre-World War II context. The Nichirenism of Chigaku Tanaka in those pre-war years certainly displayed “a fighting attitude.”

Tomorrow: Takakusu’s Wheel of Life

Blog, Books, essentials

The Essestials of Buddhist Philosophy

essentials-bookcover-webYesterday I completed reprinting quotes from Walpola Sri Rahula’s What The Buddha Taught. A trained Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka, the Rev. Dr. Rahula focused entirely on what is taught in his country. Today, I jump to the other extreme, with The Essestials of Buddhist Philosophy by Junjiro Takakusu, a book completely devoted to the Buddhism of 20th century Japan.

Takakusu, 1886-1945, explains the rationale for this Japanese perspective in his Introduction:

A discourse on Buddhist Philosophy is usually begun with the philosophy of Indian Buddhism, and in this respect it is important to trace the development of Buddhist thought in India where it thrived for 1500 years. It should be remembered, however, that before Buddhism declined in India in the eleventh century, its various developments had already spread far into other countries. Hinayana Buddhism, or the Small Vehicle, which emphasizes individual salvation, continued in Ceylon, Burma, Siam and Cambodia. Mystic or esoteric Buddhism developed as Lamaism in Tibet. Mahayana Buddhism, or the Great Vehicle, which emphasizes universal salvation, grew in China where great strides in Buddhist studies were made and the different thoughts in Mahayana schools were systematized.

In Japan, however, the whole of Buddhism has been preserved — every doctrine of both the Hinayana and Mahayana schools. Although Hinayana Buddhism does not now exist in Japan as an active faith, its doctrines are still being studied there by Buddhist scholars. Mikkyō, which we may designate as the Esoteric Doctrine or Mysticism, is fully represented in Japan by Tendai mysticism and Tōji mysticism. The point which Japanese mysticism may be proud of is that it does not contain any vulgar elements, as does its counterpart in other countries, but stands on a firm philosophical basis.

The schools which were best developed in China are Hua-yen (Kegon, the ‘Wreath’ School) and T’ien-t’ai (Tendai, the ‘Lotus’ School). When the Ch’an (Zen) School is added to these two, the trio represents the highest peak of Buddhism’s development. These three flourished in China for a while and then passed away, but in Japan all three are still alive in the people’s faiths as well as in academic studies.

A rather novel form of Buddhism is the Amita-pietism. It is found to some extent in China, Tibet, Nepal, Mongolia, Manchuria and Annam; but it flourishes most in Japan, where it is followed by more than half of the population.

I believe, therefore, that the only way to exhibit the entire Buddhist philosophy in all its different schools is to give a resume of Buddhism in Japan. It is in Japan that the entire Buddhist literature, the Tripitaka, is preserved and studied. …

In the present study of Buddhist philosophy the subject will not be presented in its historical sequence but in an ideological sequence. This ideological sequence does not mean a sequence in the development of ideas; it is rather the systematization of the different schools of thought for the purpose of easier approach.

The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, p9-10

As a result of this Japanese focus, Takakusu’s explanation of Buddhism focuses on six general principles common especially to all schools of Mahayana:

  1. The Principle of Causation
  2. The Principle of Indeterminism of the Differentiated
  3. The Principle of Reciprocal Identification
  4. The Principle of True Reality
  5. The Principle of Totality
  6. The Principle of Perfect Freedom

In discussing Reciprocal Identification, Takakusu offers his explanation of the major difference between the Hinayana and Mahayana.

Hinayana Buddhism is generally satisfied with analysis and is rarely inclined to synthesis. The Mahayana, on the other hand, is generally much inclined to the reciprocal identification of two conflicting ideas. If one party adheres to his own idea while the other party insists on his own, a separation will be the natural result. This is what happens in the Hinayana. The Mahayana teaches that one should put one’s own idea aside for a moment and identify one’s own position with that of the other party, thus mutually synthesizing the opposed positions. Then both parties will find themselves perfectly united. This is really a process of self-denial which is minutely taught in the dialectic method of the School of Negativism (Sunyata, Void).

The word for ‘reciprocal identification’ is more literally ‘mutual’ and ‘regarding,’ that is, ‘mutually viewing from each other’s point, ‘mutual identification,’ which is as much as to say an ‘exchange of views.’ It is indispensable to bring about a reconciliation of conflicting opinions or to effect a syncretism among opposing speculative systems. This trend of thought, in fact, served greatly to restore the original idea of tolerance which was revealed in the Buddha’s teaching but was almost entirely lost in the various schools of Hinayana which resulted from differences of opinion.

The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, p43-44

The material for the book was originally delivered in a series of lectures during 1938-39 at the University of Hawaii, where Takakusu was a visiting professor.

The pre-World War II context is clear in Takakusu’s discussion of the Aryan race in India:

Against the asserted superiority of the Aryan race and the appellation of anarya (non-Aryan) given to the aborigines or some earlier immigrants [in India], the Buddha often argued that the word ‘Arya’ meant ‘noble’ and we ought not call a race noble or ignoble for there will be some ignoble persons among the so-called arya and at the same time there will be some noble persons among the so-called anarya. When we say noble or ignoble we should be speaking of an individual and not of a race as a whole. It is a question of knowledge or wisdom but not of birth or caste. Thus the object of the Buddha was to create a noble personage (arya-pudgala)—in the sense of a noble life.

The Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy, p25

Before returning to Japan, Takakusu gave the university permission to publish this book. The first edition was published in 1947. The third edition, which is the one I read, was published in 1956.

Tomorrow: Takakusu’s Claim of Violent Nichirenism

Book Quotes

Book List

Blog, Books, Buddha Taught

What the Buddha Taught

what-the-buddha-taught-bookcoverIn 1959 Walpola Sri Rahula published a concise summary of the teachings of the Buddha. The Rev. Dr. Rahula, 1907-1997, was a trained Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka. As explained by Paul Demieville in the Foreword:

The book … is a luminous account, within reach of everybody, of the fundamental principles of the Buddhist doctrine, as they are found in the most ancient texts, which are called ‘The Tradition’ (Āgama) in Sanskrit and “The Canonic Corpus’ (Nikāya) in Pali.

As Rahula explains in his Preface:

I have tried in this little book to address myself first of all to the educated and intelligent general reader, uninstructed in the subject who would like to know what the Buddha actually taught. For his benefit I have aimed at giving briefly, and as directly and simply as possible, a faithful and accurate account of the actual words used by the Buddha as they are to be found in the original Pali texts of the Tripiṭaka, universally accepted by the scholars as the earliest extant records of the teachings of the Buddha.

In 1974 a second edition was published which added a number of selected sutras.

Personally, as a follower of Nichiren, I have read this book from the perspective of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. I have set aside a number of quotes from the book which I will be publishing daily through June 12. I’ve selected these quotes as explanations of the foundational teachings of the Buddha.

However, some of what Rahula teaches is problematic for me as a devotee of Japanese Buddhism. In addressing the Buddha’s spirit of tolerance, Rahula writes:

In the third century B.C., the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka of India, following this noble example of tolerance and understanding, honored and supported all other religions in his vast empire. In one of his Edicts carved on rock, the original of which one may read even today, the Emperor declared:

‘One should not honor only one’s own religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honor others’ religions for this or that reason. So doing, one helps one’s own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one’s own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honors his own religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking “I will glorify my own religion.” But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others.

We should add here that this spirit of sympathetic understanding should be applied today not only in the matter of religious doctrine, but elsewhere as well.

This spirit of tolerance and understanding has been from the beginning one of the most cherished ideals of Buddhist culture and civilization. That is why there is not a single example of persecution or the shedding of a drop of blood in converting people to Buddhism, or in its propagation during its long history of 2500 years. It spread peacefully all over the continent of Asia, having more than 500 million adherents today. Violence in any form, under any pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha.

What the Buddha Taught, p4-5

It may be true that “Violence in any form, under any pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha,” but that was not the experience in Japan. As the History of Japanese Religion by Masaharu Anesaki points out, the Tendai soldier monks of Mount Hiei felt compelled to pick up arms and battle Nichiren’s followers.

The last and bitterest of the combats was fought in Miyako in 1536, when the soldier-monks of Hiei in alliance with the Ikkō fanatics attacked the Nichirenites and burnt down twenty-one of their great temples in the capital and drove them out of the city. Shouts of “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō,” the slogan of the Nichirenites, vied with “Namu Amida Butsu,” the prayer of the Ikkō men; many died on either side, each believing that the fight was fought for the glory of Buddha and that death secured his birth in paradise.

History of Japanese Religion

Again, as a follower of Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra, I stumble when I encounter discussions of “Truth.”

Early in the book The Rev. Dr. Rahula addresses this topic:

The question has often been asked: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label ‘Buddhism,’ which we give to the teaching of the Buddha, is of little importance. The name one gives it is inessential.

What’s in a name?
That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet.

In the same way Truth needs no label: it is neither Buddhist, Christian, Hindu nor Moslem. It is not the monopoly of anybody. Sectarian labels are a hindrance to the independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices in men’s minds.

What the Buddha Taught, p5

A few pages later The Rev. Dr. Rahula underscores this with the words of the Buddha:

Asked by the young Brahmin to explain the idea of maintaining or protecting truth, the Buddha said: ‘A man has a faith. If he says “This is my faith,” so far he maintains truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.” In other words, a man may believe what he likes, and he may say ‘I believe this.’ So far he respects truth. But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.

The Buddha says: ‘To be attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior — this the wise men call a ‘fetter.’

What the Buddha Taught, p10-11

Is it a “fetter” to hold that the Lotus Sutra is the supreme teaching of the Buddha, that it encompasses and embraces all of the provisional lessons taught before it?

I will leave it at “This is my faith.”

Book Quotes

Book List

Blog, Books

Handsome Nanda

This continues my discussion of the epic poems of Aśvaghoṣa

asvaghosa-handsome-nandaAśvaghoṣa’s Handsome Nanda is a detailed explanation of how a rich, handsome, happily married young man was persuaded to give it all up to venture upon the good path.

(As this point of the story, Nanda has been told he is to become a monk but Nanda refuses. He is brought to the Buddha, who says:)

What is more, you have seen the flaws of family life, and you have heard of the bliss of giving it up; yet still you have no mind to leave your home, like a death-desiring man who will not leave a place of plague. How can you be so fixated with the wasteland of samsara that you have no urge to venture upon the good path, even when you have been set on that very path? You are like a merchant who has wandered from his caravan!

Only a man who is so stupid that he would settle down to sleep in a house ablaze on all sides, rather than escaping from it, would be oblivious to the world burning with the fire of time, with its flames of disease and old age. It is dreadful that a convicted man being led out for execution should be drunk, laughing and babbling; so too is it dreadful that a man should be careless and contrary-minded while Death stands by with a noose in his hand. When kings and householders have gone, are going and will go forth, leaving behind their relatives and possessions, you give consideration to incidental loves!

Handsome Nanda, p107

Again the Burning House allusion.

Eventually, Nanda is convinced to give up his beautiful wife in exchange for a promise that if he agrees to take vows and follows the path he will be rewarded in heaven where the ápsarases – heavenly beings more beautiful than his wife – will attend him. The futility of this goal is explained to Nanda by Ananda:

́”I understand from your expression your motive in practicing dharma, and knowing it, I am moved to both laughter and compassion on your account. Just as someone would carry a heavy rock on his shoulder to use as a seat, likewise you are laboring to uphold the rules of restraint for the sake of sensual indulgence! Just as a wild ram draws back when he is about to charge, likewise this celibacy of yours is undertaken for the sake of sex. Just as businessmen like to buy goods to make a profit, so you practice dharma as an article for trade, not to become peaceful. Just as a farmer scatters seed to produce a particular fruit, likewise you have let go of sense objects because of your weakness for them.

You are seeking out suffering with your thirst for sensory experience, as though someone would want to be ill just to enjoy the pleasure of a remedy. Just as a man looking for honey does not notice a precipice, so in your focus on the ápsarases you do not see your resulting fall. What is this celibacy of yours? While your heart is ablaze with the fire of lust, you carry out your observances with your body only, and are not celibate in your mind.

Handsome Nanda, p219

I particularly enjoyed the line: “Just as businessmen like to buy goods to make a profit, so you practice dharma as an article for trade, not to become peaceful.” Reminds me of my days in Soka Gakkai: Need something? Chant. Not getting it quick enough? Chant more.

Once Nanda realizes that trading lust for his wife for lust for ápsarases is not a bargain, he goes to see the Buddha. After Nanda explains his change of heart, the Buddha says:

“Oh! This comprehension is the presursor of Excellence arising in you, just as when a firestick is rotated, smoke arises as a precursor of fire.”

Handsome Nanda, p233

The Buddha goes on to explain the role “faith” plays:

When a man believes there is water underground, and is in need of it, then he digs the earth assiduously. If a man doesn’t need a fire, or if he does not believe that fire comes from firesticks, then he would not rotate the firesticks; but when that condition is true, he rotates them. And if a farmer did not believe that corn is produced from the earth, or if he had no need of corn, he would not sow seeds in the ground.

That is why I refer to faith particularly as ‘the hand,’ since it reaches out to the true dharma like an unimpaired hand reaches out for a gift. It is described as ‘the sense organ’ because of its prevalence, and as ‘strong’ because of its persistence, and as ‘wealth’ because it allays the impoverishment of virtue. It is declared to be ‘the arrow’ by reason of its protection of the dharma, and it is named ‘the jewel’ because it is so hard to find in this world. What is more, it is said to be ‘the seed,’ since it causes the arising of Excellence; again, it is called ‘the river’ because it cleanses wickedness.

As faith is the primary factor in the arising of dharma, I have called it different names on various occasions due to its effects. Therefore you should nurture this shoot of faith; when it grows, dharma grows, just as a tree grows when its roots grow. When a man’s vision is blurred and he is weak in resolve, his faith wavers, for it is not operating towards its proper outcome.

As long as reality is not seen or heard, faith is not firm or strongly fixed. But when a man’s senses are governed by the rules of restraint and he sees reality, then the tree of faith is fruitful and supportive.

Handsome Nanda, p237-239

I could have used this definition of faith in my 800 Years of Faith project.

But faith without action has little value. In the chapter describing the Noble Truths, Nanda learns about applying himself to the path.

Just as a substance may be pungent in flavor yet when eaten ripe may prove to be sweet, so an endeavor may be hard in its execution but when it ripens through the accomplishment of its aims, prove to be sweet. Endeavor is paramount, for it is the foundation of doing what needs to be done, and without endeavor there would be no accomplishment at all. All success in the world arises from endeavor, and if there were no endeavor evil would be complete.

Men without endeavor won’t acquire what has not yet been acquired, and they are bound to lose what has been acquired. They experience self-contempt, wretchedness, the scorn of their superiors, mental darkness, lack of brilliance, and a loss of learning, restraint and contentment; a great fall awaits them. When a competent person hears the method but makes no progress, when he knows the supreme dharma but wins no higher estate, when he leaves his home but finds no peace in freedom—the reason for this is his own laziness, and not an enemy.

Handsome Nanda, p313

For me, the discussions covering the law of cause and effect have the deepest resonance. Here are some examples:

The reason for this suffering during one’s active life in the world is not a God, not nature, not time, not the inherent nature of things, not predestination, not accident, but the hosts of faults such as desire. You must understand thereby that man’s active life continues because of its faults. It follows that people who are subject to passion and mental darkness die repeatedly, while someone free from passion and mental darkness is not born again.

Handsome Nanda, p289

Since individuality is produced by conditions, and there is no maker or thinker, and individual activity arises from a network of causes, Nanda saw that this world is empty.

Since the world is not self-dependent and has no power to set things in motion, and no one exercises sovereignty in actions, and since states of existence arise in dependence on all sorts of things, he understood that the world was without self.

Then, like feeling a cool breeze from fanning oneself during the hot season, or like getting fire that is latent in wood by rubbing sticks together, or like finding underground water by digging for it, he reached the hard-to-reach supramundane path.

With his bow of true knowledge, binding on his armor of mindfulness, standing in his chariot of pure vows of moral self-restraint, he stood determined to fight for victory against his enemy, the defilements, which were ranged in the battlefield of his mind. Holding the sharp weapon of the constituents of enlightenment, and standing on the excellent chariot of well-directed effort, with his army which consisted of the elephants of the constituents of the path, he gradually penetrated the ranks of the defilements. With the arrows of the four foundations of mindfulness, each with its own range of application, in an instant he burst apart the four enemies which consist of distorted views, the causes of suffering.

Handsome Nanda, p325

For he who understands that while a particular activity in the here and now is not caused by something else, it is also not without cause, and who recognizes that everything is dependent on a variety of things—he sees the ultimate noble dharma. And he who sees that dharma is tranquil, benign, without age or passion, and unexcelled, and sees that its teacher, Buddha, is the best of the noble ones—he has won insight.

Handsome Nanda, p327

As a postscript I offer this:

Just as a light which is extinguished does not travel to the earth or the sky, nor to the directions or any intermediate directions but, because its oil is used up, merely ceases, so he who has reached nirvana travels not to the earth, not to the sky, nor to any of the directions or intermediate directions, but, because his defilements have ended, just attains peace.

Handsome Nanda, p291

I hope this is my experience when I finally “shuffle off this mortal coil.”

Blog, Books

Aśvaghoṣa’s Epic Poems

I’ve beeen on something of an Aśvaghoṣa kick for the last couple of weeks. I picked up the Clay Sanskrit Library’s Life of the Buddha (Buddhacarita) translated by Patrick Olivelle and published in 2009. This is Aśvaghoṣa’s biography of the Buddha, beginning with his descent from the Tuṣita Heaven into the womb of Queen Maya until his death. I followed that with Handsome Nanda, in which Aśvaghoṣa details the reluctant conversion of Nanda, the Buddha’s half-brother. Linda Covill did the Clay Sanskrit Library’s translation of Handsome Nanda. It was published in 2007.

asvaghosa-life-of-the-buddhaThe Life of the Buddha offered a number of tidbits I wanted to keep here. For example, why Queen Maya died seven days after the birth of Siddhārtha:

But when queen Maya saw the immense might of her son, like that of a seer divine,
she could not bear the delight it caused her; so she departed to dwell in heaven.

Life of the Buddha, p43

Then there’s Aśvaghoṣa’s explanation for Rāhula’s name. Traditionally, it is said the Buddha named his son Rāhula because his son was a fetter or chain to hold him back from the path to enlightenment. Aśvaghoṣa instead suggests Rāhula’s grandfather named him:

Then in time Yashodhara, the “bearer of fame,” bearing alluring breasts and bearing her own fame, begot a son for Śuddhodana’s son, a son who had a face like Rahu’s foe, a son who was, indeed, named Rāhula.

Life of the Buddha, p53

As Olivelle explains in the notes: Rahu was the celestial demon responsible for the eclipses of the sun and the moon.

I was also caught by this reference to escaping a burning house, which plays such a large role in the Lotus Sutra. At this point Siddhārtha has asked his father to allow him to become an ascetic:

To his son making such a hard request, the king of the Śākyas made this response:
“Withdraw this your request, it is inordinate;
An extravagant wish is improper and extreme.”

Then that one, mighty as Meru, told his father:
“If that’s not possible, don’t hold me back;
for it is not right to obstruct a man,
Who’s trying to escape from a burning house.”

Life of the Buddha, p141

Another interesting aspects of Olivelle’s translation is his decision not to translate the word dharma.

One departure from my other translations of Sanskrit texts concerns the pivotal concept of dharma. In my other translations I have regularly translated all Sanskrit terms, including dharma. In Aśvaghoṣa’s vocabulary and argument, however, dharma is used deliberately with so many meanings and nuances that it would have been futile to capture these varying significations in the translation; English does not have a sufficiently rich vocabulary for this purpose. Therefore, I have kept the words dharma and its opposite a/dharma in the translation, inviting thereby the reader to see the different contexts and meanings of this central term.

Olivelle says in his Introduction:

It is within this context of inquiry and debate that we must see the controversies surrounding dharma. Aśvaghoṣa presents the arguments from the Buddhist and the Brahmanical sides as a controversy centered on the correct definition of dharma. It is not so much that some definitions of dharma are considered false. Aśvaghoṣa presents the array of meanings in which his interlocutors used the term, all of them legitimate at some level. What he wants to emphasize, however, is that no dharma can prevent the pursuit of the highest dharma, the dharma that Siddhārtha pursues, the dharma that he preaches once he has become the Buddha. Lower level conceptions of dharma cannot be obstacles on the path to the highest dharma, the “true dharma” of Buddhism called saddharma.

And, of course, it is the Saddharma which is revealed in the Saddharma Pundarika – the Wonderful Law of the Lotus Flower Sutra.

Tomorrow: The Training of Nanda

Blog

Writing Devotion to the Lotus Sutra

And so I again return to the topic of Namu vs. Nam in writing the devotional chant followers of Nichiren voice.

I’m not talking about what I chant. Sometimes I chant “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō” and sometimes it sounds like “Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō.” My son, who was raised under Soka Gakkai influence, soothes his 14-month-old son by chanting “Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō.” I don’t have a problem with that.

But I want the written Odaimoku – the Sacred Title – to be “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”

The Chinese character “Na” or 南 means South. “Mu” or 無 means Nothing. As explained in Journey to the Path of Righteousness:

Characters used in this manner are commonly referred to as non-characters because the meaning of the characters is considered inconsequential. Rather, in this case, this is the transliteration of the Sanskrit word “Namah,” and can be defined as devotion (Kimyo or Kie). Two common definitions for these are: “I ask of” and “I offer up my life to”.

Journey of the Path to Righteousness, p 24-25

Soka Gakkai openly admits that “‘Nam’ is a phonetic contraction of ‘Namu.'” (See Note 117 here. Having adopted “Nam” as the spoken contraction, the SGI editors backed themselves into a corner when writing about the Nembutsu.

Because I, Nichiren, chant and spread Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the power of Namu-Amida-butsu will be like a moon waning, a tide running out, grass withering in autumn and winter, or ice melting in the sun. Watch and see!

concise-history-buddhism-bookcoverI’ve covered this before. What brings this up now is Andrew Skilton’s “A Concise History of Buddhism,” a survey of the history of Buddhism that includes a section on Buddhism Beyond India.

In his discussion of Buddhism in Japan he offers a concise description of the Kamakura period. Speaking of Hōnen’s Pure Land school, he says on page 180:

Dissatisfied with the Tendai teachings of Mount Hiei, Hōnen eventually discovered the work of a previous Japanese Pure Land Buddhist, Genshin, and that of the Chinese teacher Shan-tao. Under the combined impact of these two he began to teach that salvation was only possible through the recitation, with faith, of Amida’s name, i.e. the nembutsu — Namu Amida Butsu. All other practices were secondary to this, for in the present corrupt age no one is capable of attaining Enlightenment through their own efforts, jiriki, but is in reality totally dependent upon the compassionate ‘other-power’, tariki, of Amida.

Skilton offers a reasonable description of Nichiren on page 181:

The last of the new schools to be discussed here had no foreign precedent, and therefore could be seen as the most Japanese development. This grew from the teaching of Nichiren (1222-82). Though trained as a Tendai monk, Nichiren was profoundly distressed by the appalling disasters, both natural and political, that characterized the Japan of his day, and felt that a different approach to spiritual practice was necessary. He came to the conclusion that these disasters were due to the disappearance of the true teaching of Buddhism from the land, and that, for Japan to survive, this true teaching had to be reintroduced. He identified the true teaching with the eternal Śākyamuni Buddha of the Lotus Sūtra, and asserted the identity of Śākyamuni Buddha both with the Lotus Sūtra itself and with all sentient beings. Furthermore, he went so far as to claim that all other forms of Buddhist practice were positively harmful, and agitated for their suppression by the rulers for the sake of the well-being of Japan. He identified himself with the Bodhisattva Viśiṣṭacāritra, praised in the Lotus Sūtra by the Buddha as the Bodhisattva who will restore the true teaching after its future disappearance. Since he was repeatedly persecuted for his views and eventually exiled to the island of Sado, he also identified himself with the persecuted Bodhisattva, Sadāparibhūta, from the same sūtra.

But then Skilton says:

The main spiritual practice advocated by Nichiren was the recitation of the daimoku, Nam myō hō renge kyō, ‘Homage to the Lotus Sūtra’. Nichirenism was to become popular among members of the merchant class.

I had a similar problem at the beginning of the year with Roger J. Corless’ “A Vision of Buddhism.” At least in his case he attempted to write the spoken contraction, offering Nam’Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo.

Blog, Higan, perfections, ugra

Higan: The Art of Giving

Today is the first day of Higan week, the three days before the equinox and the three days after. As explained in a Nichiren Shu brochure:

For Buddhists, this period is not just one characterized by days with almost equal portions of light and dark. Rather, it is a period in which we strive to consciously reflect upon ourselves and our deeds.

The today we consider the Perfection of Generosity. For this I want to return to Jan Nattier’s translation of the “The Inquiry of Ugra,” an early Mahayana sutra that discusses the householder’s Bodhisattva practices and the practices of the renunciant Bodhisattva.

“Moreover, O Eminent Householder, by living at home, the householder bodhisattva should accomplish a great deal of giving, discipline, self-restraint, and gentleness of character. He should reflect as follows: ‘What I give away is mine; what I keep at home is not mine. What I give away has substance; what I keep at home has no substance. What I give away will bring pleasure at another [i.e., future] time; what I keep at home will [only] bring pleasure right now. What I give away does not need to be protected; what I keep at home must be protected. [My] desire for what I give away will [eventually] be exhausted; [my] desire for what I keep at home increases. What I give away I do not think of as “mine”; what I keep at home I think of as “mine.” What I give away is no longer an object of grasping; what I keep at home is an object of grasping. What I give away is not a source of fear; what I keep at home causes fear. What I give away supports the path to bodhi; what I keep at home supports the party of Māra.

“What I give away knows no exhaustion; what I keep at home is exhausted. What I give away is pleasurable; what I keep at home is painful, because it must be protected. What I give away leads to the abandoning of the corruptions; what I keep at home will cause the corruptions to increase. What I give away will yield great enjoyment; what I keep at home will not yield great enjoyment. Giving things away is the deed of a good man; keeping things at home is the deed of a lowly man. What I give away is praised by all the Buddhas; what I keep at home is praised by foolish people.’ Thus he should reflect. O Eminent Householder, in that way the bodhisattva should ‘extract the substance’ [from the insubstantial].

A Few Good Men, p240-241
Blog

An Historian’s View of the Tatsunokuchi Persecution

The Danforth Lecture in the Study of Religion featuring Jacqueline Stone, Professor Emerita, recorded Nov. 30, 2023

The Priest Nichiren’s Miraculous Escape from Death and Its Modern Skeptics: Negotiating History and Myth in a Japanese Buddhist Tradition

In the year 1271, the dissident Buddhist teacher Nichiren was arrested by officials of Japan’s warrior government and taken under cover of night to the execution grounds. Tradition holds that his attempted beheading was foiled when a luminous object suddenly shot across the sky, terrifying his would-be executioners. For more than seven hundred years, this dramatic episode has been celebrated in hagiographies, paintings, kabuki plays, woodblock prints, novels, and manga. In recent times, however, its historicity has been questioned; naturalistic explanations for the “luminous object” have also been proposed. These responses invite reflection on the hermeneutic shifts that occur when religious accounts of miraculous events are assessed by modern critical and scientific standards. They also raise challenging questions about what responsibility the historian of religion bears in analyzing a tradition’s foundational narratives.

The original video with the introductions and Q&A session is available here.