Yesterday I published The Trouble with Interfaith Truth. I asked Rev. Ryuei McCormick, who leads the Nichiren Buddhist Sangha of the San Francisco Bay Area, what he thought and this was his response.
A very good question. And feel free to share my response:
In East Asia they sometimes talked about the five vehicles – because they would include the vehicle moral practice to attain a human rebirth, and the moral and meditative practices for attaining a heavenly rebirth. These were of course considered provisional and preliminary to Buddhism. Nichiren Shonin alludes to this kind of thinking in the beginning of the Opening of the Eyes (Kaimoku-sho) when he talks about how Confucianism and Brahmanism prepared the way for Buddhism in China and India respectively. In the Pali Canon the Buddha often gave a “progressive teaching” consisting of a review of those spiritual teachings and values that he shared with Brahmanism: generosity, self-discipline, and aspiration for rebirth in the heavenly realms, as well as the dangers of sensual pleasures and the benefits of renunciation. Once his listeners heard and accepted those teachings (almost a Spirituality 101) he would then teach the four noble truths.
And then there is the mutual possession of the ten worlds and the Tiantai teaching that even adverse seeds can lead to buddhahood. And these Tiantai teachings play off such things as Vimalakirti’s admonitions to the voice-hearers.
So, the One Vehicle is actually all the teachings of the Buddha including those he gave that weren’t even particularly unique to Buddhism (such as the above “progressive teaching”) and those he gave as bodhisattvas in times and places where there was no Buddhism but the ground needed to be prepared (Nichiren alludes to this also in Kaimoku-sho by citing Tiantai Zhiyi’s belief that Confucius was just such a bodhisattva).
To be more specific based on what I have discerned from the sutras, the Lotus Sutra, Tiantai’s teachings, and Nichiren Shonin’s teaching (and this is written about at length in my Kaimoku-sho commentary Open Your Eyes), Christianity and other such monotheistic religions are okay insofar as the encourage people to do things that are wholesome and refrain from what is unwholesome. That will enable people to attain a human or heavenly rebirth which is conducive to having the kind of wholesome attitude and way of living that will enable a person to give ear to the Buddha Dharma (including the Lotus Sutra) whereas those in the four lower realms have a more difficult time. Note that among the guardians of the Dharma mentioned in the Lotus Sutra are the eight kinds of supernatural beings, among whom are devas (god realm), asuras (fighting demons realm), nagas (animal realm), and yakshas (spirits considered to exist in the hungry ghosts realm, though I’ll admit it’s kind of odd). It is even possible for bodhisattvas to be born in times and places where there is no established Buddha Dharma and so they will express values and insights that are similar, though they will not turn the Wheel of the Dharma fully (so Jesus is at best a bodhisattva and not a Buddha because he did not teach the four noble truths but a relatively more humane form of monotheism). Now of course, these teachings also perpetuate delusions (like monotheism) and when they come into conflict with Buddhism they then become religions that are no longer preparing the way to Buddhism but blocking it and therefore lead to unwholesome conduct in relation to Buddhism.
Towards the end of Kaimoku-sho, Nichiren makes it clear that there are countries that are just ignorant and evil and then there are countries that slander. I believe the distinction he is making is between non-Buddhist cultures that need to be persuaded to give ear to the Dharma and learn more about it until they are able to take up the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra. This requires shoju or the way of accepting where people are at and encouraging them in their good qualities while leading them gradually to the Wonderful Dharma. Then there are those countries (like 13th century Japan) that were Buddhist and had centuries to digest the Buddha Dharma but they still turn away from the Lotus Sutra. These countries are slanderous because they are not just hostile to Buddhism out of ignorance but are Buddhists misrepresenting Buddhism and they should know better and they had their chance. For them, shakubuku or the way of subduing their arrogant misrepresentations of the Dharma must be used.
So I recognize the Dharma at work surreptitiously in other traditions, but I also see how their are unwholesome teachings that must be criticized not because they slander the Dharma (of which they are largely ignorant and even their misrepresentations lack authority because they are not coming from Buddhists themselves) but because they are inhumane and lead to lower realms because of the obvious harm they cause. For instance, fundamentalist Christians gathering in defiance of the law and endangering their own health and ours because they falsely and arrogantly assume they are immune to disease because they are “bathed in the blood of Christ.” Not on Buddhist or Dharmic grounds but simply on scientific grounds and for our own survival as a species these false religiosities must be opposed. That puts me at odds with fundamentalists but not with people of other traditions who truly are good hearted, open-minded, and share values and even insights with Buddhism (probably because their founders or saints were bodhisattvas or pratyekabuddhas).
With Buddhists I actually use shakubuku more than I expected and more than most people think. When I’m with other Buddhists I usually don’t need to contradict or argue as long as we are talking about shared values, insights, and so on. And there is a LOT of shared ground. However, I am quick to speak up when I think the Buddha Dharma is being misrepresented. More often than not I get admissions that my point is valid. I have pointed out to Zen Buddhists that they all too often pay more attention to the koans than to the sutras. I have pointed out to Pure Land Buddhists that ultimately there is no self- or other-power. I am very quick to point out that the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra are merely provisional sutras and are not the pinnacle of Buddha Dharma. I do this politely but firmly.
Another important point to consider, which those who emphasize the ecumenical implications of the One Vehicle (whether just within Buddhism or between Buddhism and non-Buddhism) is that trajectory is very important. In any given situation, is a teaching or practice leading people to a place where they will be able to appreciate and accept the Lotus Sutra on some level, or is it leading people away from the Lotus Sutra? This requires a lot of discernment and more discussion.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei