Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Re: Buddha Dharma and free thinking Message-ID: <1990Dec11.022234.11006@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 11 Dec 90 02:22:34 GMT Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Organization: University of Houston Lines: 133 Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov >If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, >then he also is a slanderer. That is the whole point of explaining >the superiority of the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren Daishonin (we hav hardly >toughed on him, yet) and Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. >Nichiren Daishonin was Bodhisattva Jogyo reborn (Shakyamuni entrusted >Bodhisattva Jogyo with propagating the Law, which he expounded in the Lotus >Sutra, in the future). After 20 years of studying all Shakyamuni's >sutras, he proclaimed Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to be the true Law that >of Shakyamuni teachings on April 28, 1253. He also fulfilled all the >predictions that Shakyamuni made about this person (Bodhisatva Jogyo >reborn). He also quoted many passages of the sutras that explain the >causes of suffering - incorrect religious beliefs and false ideologies. >Based on the sutras, when the true law is lost, the 3 disasters and 7 >calamities occur. Looking at 13th century Japan, he saw that all but >2 of these disaters had occured already, invasion by a foreign power >and internal revolt. So, based on the sutras, he predicted that these >would occur. Even Japan has only been invaded once (by the US) and >attacked twice (by the us and the Mongols 1274,1280). His predictions >came true. So based on the sutras, one can say that the true Law had >been lost. There were many sects of Buddhism extant in Japan at that >time (and probably still is, although Nichiren Shoshu is the largest) >therefore, the true Law does not come from the sutras but from >Nichiren Daishonin. This is based on the sutras not someone's opinion. -- > Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. > Respectfully, > Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov Keith your unwavering confidence in Nichiren Daishonin is remarkable. I would say keep it up, since you have understood him very well I assume you are following him properly. For me, I have an enquiring mind. therefore, I read everything that I come across according to the time I have, and try to analyse them finding out the validity of them. But I haven't found any material to read about Nichiren Daishonin, in fact I was trying to find books about him and the sect in a library and I could not. So, whatever information about him and his teachings are from what I read from your articles and what I heard from others. In fact, a few years ago after seeing a telephone number for Nichiren sect in the telephone directory I called them, since I am interested in learning about different sects of Buddhism. The person I talked to told me they perform cultural activities together. From what I understood from your writings, Nichiren Daishonin was concerned about future of Japan (with his predictions on Japan etc.). But for other countries and cultures there would have been other predictions. Tibet, India, China etc. may have their own predictions. (I am not arguing for or against these or any other predictions, because it is a different topic). (from my enquiring mind: What is Nichiren Daishonin's teachings about mindfullness, consciousness, middlepath, investigation, questioning, analysis of nature of things? These are some of the concepts that matters me most in my day to day life. Could you elaborate more on these with respect to Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? These questions are not asked for argumentation or comparisons but for curiosity and knowledge.) >The law is one, not many. So how can you propose that there are many >ways to reach it? In the first 42 years of Shakyamuni's preaching life, >he taught according to the minds of the people, with his bodhisattvas >asking questions and even answering them, too. Ignorant people in this >day and age read them and thinking that since it accords with their mind >that is must be the Way. Also in these earlier sutras, he taught that For some, the search is hard without (since I have confidence in goodness of others I am sure that there are some genuine followers of the Dharma) a physically existing Buddha, but the Buddhist way is a way of wisdom and effort. Therefore, I do not see any point in discouraging others about their investigations. The law is one, this is what one realizes. The way of realisation, the Noble Eightfold Path is only one. The problem is one (the same), the realization (or the ultimate solution) is one. For example, your unsatisfactoriness and my unsatisfactoriness are the same in nature. How we come to think about this may differ due to differences in our cultural background. More people may have got diseases earlier days due to lack of sanitation and lack of widespread use of preventive methods. On the other hand, more people would get diseases today due to stress, pollution etc. The bottom line, both in the past and the present people are subject to diseases. So in summary, the nature of the problem is the same. (As I think that is one reason why a person responding to an earlier question on detachment could refer to Gandhi or Erich Fromm's writings instead of Buddhist texts directly. The other reason is the diversity of experience) The way people go about finding that ther is a problem may seem 'different'. This difference is due to differences among people. Each of our experiences, our way of thinking are different from one another. On the other hand,there are rich,poor, lazy, enthusiastic, dull, keen, wise ,ignorant etc. in this world. Because of this difference, world and countries get into trouble when the freedom is supressed. That is why the freedom of thinking is essential. That is why the Buddhist emphasis is not on converting people but on realization. (Ignorance of people, and accord with mind are more deeper subjects, which cannot be dealt so easily in few sentences) The world is more open and smaller today due to better communication than in the olden days. Because of this, some people are more enthusiastic in making other people act or think as same as they think or act ( as a matter of fact some would like to see the whole world acting or thinking the same, which will never happen). In haste, some try to put people from one mold to another (which fails miserably). But more often we forget the others are also conscious and thoughtful as we are. In this process, we forget about others' capabilities, rights, duties etc. >asking questions and even answering them, too. Ignorant people in this >day and age read them and thinking that since it accords with their mind >that is must be the Way. Also in these earlier sutras, he taught that How do you know exactly how other people understand dharma and think about dharma? From what you have written so far (I am not passing any judgements on your view as to whether it is good or bad) you 'do not beleive' in 'enlightenment in this day and age', that leads to the conclusion that you never tried to understand it. If this is the case how do you know the experiences of those who really practiced mindfullness etc. or those who really tried to attain the realisation. >If a Buddhist sees one slandering the Law and fails to admonish him, >then he also is a slanderer. That is the whole point of explaining The openness to Buddhism came earlier than the openness of the modern world. Historically thinking, that is why it spread everywhere freely. So if you were to find out the falsehood of slandering about Buddha dharma and to admonish others you have to be open, conscious and aware of other cultures etc. (more open than if you were to talk about other global issues). Bandul Jayatilaka