Real Life with Ryuei

Greetings. Today we celebrate Hanamatsuri or the Flower Festival, the Buddha’s birthday. Today is also the Christian celebration of Easter, the day that in the Christian tradition it is said that Jesus the Christ was resurrected or raised from death. The name “Easter” however, comes from the pre-Christian holiday celebrated by the Celts, a celebration of spring and the return of life to the world after the death of winter. This is the reason for the rabbits and eggs, which are fertility symbols. Somewhere, I remember reading that the ancient Celts would color their eggs and roll them down the hills to represent the return of the sun to the world. When the Celts became Christians, they kept their traditional holidays celebrating the seasons of the year, but infused them with Christian insights and values.

In Nichiren’s Kaimoku Sho or “Opening of the Eyes” he cites the Nirvana Sutra where it says, “All of the non-Buddhist scriptures and writings in society are themselves Buddhist teachings, not non-Buddhist teachings.” In chapter 19, “The Merits of the Teacher of the Dharma,” chapter of the Lotus Sutra it says of the good men or women who keep, read, recite, expound, or copy the Lotus Sutra that, “When they expound the scriptures of non-Buddhist schools, or give advice to the government, or teach the way to earn a livelihood, they will be able to be in accord with the right teachings of the Buddha.” Today, I don’t plan on giving advice to the government or recommending how you should earn a livelihood, perhaps to the relief of some of you here. But in the spirit of the Nirvana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra I would like to talk about both Easter and Hanamatsuri together to see if we can more deeply explore what they are both pointing to. In other words, I would like to offer a Buddhist reading of the Easter story, and use the Easter story to suggest the deeper Buddhist meaning of the Buddha’s birth story.

Let’s begin with the birth of the Buddha. According to the account in the Lalitavistara or Multitudinous Graceful Actions Sutra, the bodhisattva or compassionate being who would become Shakyamuni Buddha resided in the Tushita or Heaven of Contentment until the time was ripe to appear in the world for the liberation of all beings. Here is the Lalitavistara Sutra’s account of what occurred next:

The Bodhisattva at this time assumed the form of a huge white elephant with six tusks and descended from the Tushita Heaven. He then passed under Queen Maya’s right arm and entered her womb as she slept peacefully. The palace was filled with joy and peace. Auspicious clouds trailed in the sky and enveloped the tiled roofs of the lofty towers.

One day in the last month of her pregnancy, the queen decided that she would like to pass the spring day in a flower garden. Receiving permission from the king and attended by a retinue of ladies-in-waiting, she had herself driven to the Lumbini Grove. The trees were abloom with beautiful flowers that gave off pleasant fragrances; the deep green grasses were like the tail feathers of a peacock and swayed like the soft fine silk blown by the wind. The queen took a pleasant stroll; she leaned on the limb of an ashoka tree (or sorrowless tree) that drooped down because of the weight of its flowers. At that moment, the Bodhisattva was born, suddenly and yet peacefully. Immediately after birth, he took seven steps in each of the four directions and proclaimed, “In heaven above and earth below, I am the most honored one. I shall dispel the suffering that fills the world.”

The divine beings residing in space praised the virtues of the mother, Queen Maya. The Naga king rained down cold and warm water and bathed the body of the Bodhisattva. The great earth trembled and shook with joy. Shortly thereafter, the queen received the infant, and since everything proceeded without difficulty, the prince was named Siddhartha (Whose Goal is Achieved).  (Buddha-Dharma, p. 5)

It is easy enough to see the connections made in this story between the flowering of spring and the birth of a new buddha or “awakened one” into a world which had for ages been bereft of the Dharma, the teaching that would lead people beyond the sufferings of birth and death. In this story, miracles and divine activity are abundant. In particular, the very self-aware, ambulatory, confident and talkative newborn baby who is able to proclaim, “In heaven above and earth below, I am the most honored one. I shall dispel the suffering that fills the world.” It is hard to connect this paragon with the distraught prince who would leave the palace 29 years later determined to overcome suffering, and yet not at all sure of how to go about it or if he would succeed. That prince seems human, this baby seems like something that goes beyond all human limitation, truly a Buddha in the form of a infant and not simply an infant who would grow up to become the Buddha. The 18^th century Zen Master Hakuin said of this incident that if he had been there he would have washed that presumptuous brat’s mouth out with soap for bragging like that. And yet, Hakuin’s comments are ironic, for he knew that there is something more going on here than a precocious baby’s swaggering self-aggrandizement. What, then, are we to make of such a baby?

For now, however, I would like to turn to the events of Easter, which is not about a birth, but a resurrection, a rebirth of one who was cruelly put to death into a new mode of life that goes beyond birth and death. In the account in the Gospel of John, on Easter Sunday Jesus’ disciple Mary Magdelene visited the sepulcher or tomb where Jesus body had been put to rest.

But Mary stood without at the sepulcher weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher, and saw two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they said to her, “Woman, why do you weep?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have lain him.”

And when she had said this, she turned back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why do you weep? Who do you seek?” She, supposing him to be the gardener, said to him, “Sir, if you have taken him away, tell me where you have lain him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned herself, and said to him, “Rabboni;” which is to say, “Master.” Jesus said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

Mary Magdelene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things to her. Then the same day that evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be unto you.” And when he had said this, he showed to them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace be unto you: for as my Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive you the Holy Spirit: Whoever’s sins you remit, they are remitted from them; and whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.”

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas was with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace be unto you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Reach forth your finger, and behold my hands; and reach forth your hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God.” (John 20:11-28)

In Buddhism we teach that “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.” The things of this world, including our own selves are not to be grasped and clung to. And yet, the true reality is not a blank nothingness, but a wondrous concrete expression of dynamic interdependence that gives rise through each of us to a selfless compassion that is the active side of the wisdom of non-clinging and deep caring. So here in one instance, Jesus says, “touch me not” for there is a deeper reality to be known; but in the other he says to Thomas, “reach forth” so that he can feel the wounds and literally enter into the life of the newly arisen Lord directly.

What is the difference between the Jesus who was put to death and the Jesus who appeared to Mary and the apostles? Paul later wrote:

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (I Corinthians 15: 39-44)

I wonder if this is ringing any bells among us? As Buddhists do we not also teach that the Buddha can be perceived in terms of three different bodies? There is the nirmana-kaya or manifest body that is the historical concrete body of birth and death. This is the body of the Buddha who was born in 463 BCE and who passed away in 383 BCE according to some accounts. This is Paul’s terrestrial or earthly body. Then there is the sambhoga-kaya or reward body, it is a glorified or idealized body that resides in the pure lands. It arises as a result of the meritorious actions of the buddhas and bodhisattvas and this body is not bound by earthly conditions. It is usually imperceptible to all those except the advanced bodhisattvas and those reborn in their pure lands after death. This is a body of wisdom and compassion personified with an unlimited range of life and light that reaches into our own lives when we open our hearts and minds in faith.  This is Paul’s celestial body. Then there is the Dharma-kaya or Truth-body. This is the ultimate true nature of reality that the buddhas awaken to as the true essence of all things. Without the Dharma-kaya, things would not be as they are, there would be nothing rather than the suchness or something that we live. Speaking poetically, it is like a father or parent of all that is. But in the view of Buddhism it is not a person, though not impersonal. It is not a thing, though the source of all things. It is what Paul Tillich called the ground of being, but it is a groundless ground. It is true emptiness and wondrous being. Another name of a Buddha is Tathagata, a word that means both “One who Comes” and “One who Goes.” A Tathagata comes and goes from the Dharma-kaya, from the body of Truth. But in another sense there is no coming or going. There is no birth or death, no appearance or disappearance.

In chapter 16, the “Lifespan of the Tathagata” chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha reveals that from his point of view, he sees no birth or death. There is a deeper view of things:

All that I say is true, not false, because I see the triple world as it is. I see that the triple world is the world in which living beings have neither birth nor death, that is to say, do not appear or disappear, that it is the world in which I do not appear or from which I do not disappear, that it is not real or unreal, and that it is not as it seems or as it does not seem. I do not see the triple world in the same way as the living beings of the triple world do. I see all this clearly and infallibly. The living beings are various in their natures, desires, deeds, thoughts and opinions. Therefore I expounded the Dharma with various stories of previous lives, with various parables, similes, and discourses, in order to cause all living beings to plant the roots of good. I have never stopped doing what I should do. As I said before, it is very long since I became the Buddha. The duration of my life is innumerable, asamkhya kalpas. I am always here. I shall never pass away. (Lotus Sutra, p. 243)

Rabbits, Easter eggs, flower bouquets and other signs of spring all bear witness to the revival of life after the death of winter. They bear witness to the life hidden within the seeming absence of life of the winter months, at least in more northerly climates. The Christian story of Easter points to a new life that springs forth and transcends the cycle of birth and death. There are terrestrial bodies, bodies of birth and death that are the seeds of celestial bodies that transcend birth and death. Buddhism teaches that while the buddhas are born and die with their manifest-bodies, their reward bodies reside in the pure lands and invite us to join them, and their Truth-body is the deepest truth of life that is untouched by birth and death, though hidden within it and making possible the precious transience of life as we know it, the life of birth and death. The Great Master T’ien-t’ai and Nichiren Daishonin both taught that in fact these three bodies, the terrestrial, the celestial, and the True are all integral aspects of a single whole, a whole that we enter by faith through Buddhist practice and insight.

Returning now to the baby Buddha, the infant who immediately after birth, took seven steps in each of the four directions and proclaimed, “In heaven above and earth below, I am the most honored one. I shall dispel the suffering that fills the world.” I now have this question. Who did this and said this? Was it a terrestrial infant, a manifest earthly body of birth and death? Was it a celestial infant, a reward-body buddha in infant form? Or was it reality itself speaking as a newborn knowing that ultimately there is no birth or death to cling to or escape from – just the real in all its non-dual purity? Or perhaps all are at work? Here is a more important question: What if each of us said, “In heaven above and earth below, I am the most honored one. I shall dispel the suffering that fills the world.” Can we say this?

Perhaps the point of Easter and of Hanamatsuri is not so much to direct our minds to what a past infant in India did or even said, or to the resurrection of a beloved Lord as a past event 2000 years ago; but rather to direct our attention, our faith, to the nature of our lives here and now. A new life renewed every moment that we turn away from clinging and false views and instead open our hearts and minds to the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Teaching wherein there is no birth or death, only life abundant and everlasting.

Of the Buddha’s teachings regarding morality and self-discipline, it is my feeling that those regarding right speech are what most of us go against the most often. After all, how many of us have committed murder or would even be likely to? How many of us have taken something that was not given of such significance that it would be a chargeable offense? We might liberate a pencil from our office, but steal a car or rob a bank? Though unfaithfulness in relationships may be more common than most of us would like, I think I can say that most people are faithful most of the time. The precept against intoxication is commonly ignored but then again most people who drink do so responsibly at least most of the time (I have a hard time considering having a single glass of wine or beer with dinner a transgression against intoxication – but maybe that’s just me) and the majority of people do not partake of illegal drugs. Everyone, however, finds themselves in situations where they transgress against what the Buddha would consider right speech, and it happens all too frequently, and all the more frequently if one considers online communication. So I am writing this to reflect upon what the Buddha did teach about right speech. I don’t foresee having to explain or interpret much since this material is extremely straightforward (though I have changed some Pali words in the quotations to Sanskrit as they would be more familiar to American Buddhists).

Let’s begin with how the Buddha explained the right speech portion of the eightfold path:

And what, monks, is right speech? Abstinence from false speech, abstinence from malicious speech, abstinence from harsh speech, abstinence from idle chatter: this is called right speech. (In the Buddha’s Words, p. 239, citing the Samyutta Nikaya 45:8; V. 8-10)

I think that’s pretty straightforward. Now here is the Buddha’s further explanation of right speech in terms of the four parts of the ten courses of wholesome conduct that pertain to abstaining from false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter:

And how, householders, are there four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma? Here someone, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech; when summoned to a court, or to a meeting, or to his relative’s presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family’s presence, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ not knowing, he says, ‘I do not know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I I know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I do not see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I see’; he does not in full awareness speak falsehoods for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from these, nor does he repeat to these people what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide [these people] from those; thus he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices in concord, delights in concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and loveable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to many. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dharma and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial. That is how there are four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma.  (In the Buddha’s Words, p. 159, citing the Majjhima Nikaya 41)

In the following passage from the Sutta-Nipāta, the Buddha contrasts dogmatists with the sage who is free of dogmas.

The person abiding by a certain dogmatic view, considering it is the highest in the world, claims ‘This is the most excellent’, and disparages other views different from that as inferior. As a result, he is not free from disputation.

When he sees personal advantages from the things that he has seen, heard or cognized, or from rule or rite, he clings passionately to that alone and sees everything else as inferior.

The experts say that it is a bond to depend on what one associates with and to see everything else as inferior. Therefore, the disciplined one should not trust in things seen, heard or felt or in rules and rites.

A disciplined man does not engender dogmatic views in the world either by knowledge or by rule or rite. Therefore, he does not consider himself ‘superior’, ‘inferior’ or ‘equal’.

The sage has abandoned the notion of self or ego and is free from clinging. He does not depend even on knowledge; he does not take sides in the midst of controversy; he has no dogmatic views.

For him there is no desire to strive for this or that, in this world or the next. He has ceased to associate with dogmas for he no longer requires the solace that dogmas offer.

To the sage there is not the slightest prejudiced view with regard to things seen, heard or felt. How can anyone in the world characterize by thought such a pure one who does not dogmatically grasp any views?

They neither form any particular dogma nor prefer anything. Dogmatic views are not esteemed by them. The brahman is not led by rule and rite. Thus, the steadfast one has gone to the further shore, never more to return. (Saddhatissa, pp, 94-95, Sutta-Nipāta v. 796-803)

The foolish are those who cling to dogmas and to rules and rituals, who look down on others and enter into all kinds of arguments. The sages, who the Buddha also refers to as the disciplined and even as “brahmans” (the educated priestly caste but here referring to those with the qualities of an ideal brahman), are those who are free of such dogmas and thus of clinging and disputation. It is not that there are not right or wrong views, or things that should or should not be done. The problem is that clinging dogmatically to any view or course of action, even a correct view or wholesome course of action, leads to clinging, self-righteousness, bondage, disputation, and thereby the perpetuation of suffering for oneself and others.

Below is another passage from the Sutta-Nipāta that makes a similar point about the futility and suffering entered into by those who engage in philosophical disputes.

They say that purity is their alone; they do not say that there is purity in the teachings of others. Whatever teaching they have devoted themselves to, they claim that as the most excellent and thus separately hold diverse truths.

The debaters, having entered into the gathering, start disputes calling each other fools; since they are depending on certain teachers, they seek praise, calling themselves experts.

Engaged in disputations in the mists of a gathering, one become frustrated in one’s quest for praise. In defeat he becomes downcast and, seeking for flaws in others, become enraged by their criticism.

When those who have tested his questions say that his talk is faulty, he laments, grieves and wails in his worthless disputes saying, ‘They have defeated me!’

These disputes arise among recluses and as a result of them there is elation and depression. Seeing this, avoid disputation. There is no value in it other than the praise won thereby.

He who is praised in the midst of a gathering for having successfully defended his view, will be thrilled with joy and be much elated in mind for having won his case.

Elation itself is the ground of his downfall; for he still talks with pride and arrogance. Seeing this, one should not dispute; for the wise never say that purification is achieved thereby.

Like the bold one nourished by good food, he goes forth roaring for a rival. Wherever there is such a rival you may go there. But here, there is nothing left as before which could provoke a fight.

Those who have embraced a certain theory and argue over it maintaining that alone is the truth, you may talk with such people. But here, ‘there is no opponent to battle with you’.

Those who fare on, having overcome opposition without countering any one theory with another, what would you obtain, O bold one, from them? For them there is nothing embraced as the highest.

Speculating in your mind on different philosophical views, you have come reflecting on them. But you cannot go along yoked together with the one who is purified. (Saddhatissa, pp, 96-98, Sutta-Nipāta v. 814-834)

In another passage from the Sutta-Nipāta the Buddha clarifies that speculative philosophical views, traditions, knowledge, virtues and rituals do not of themselves bring about purification from the inner defilements that bring about suffering; but neither is purification attained without such things. These are all skillful means that can help if they are not themselves turned into objects of craving. They are means that should not be confused with the end that is their purpose, or that very purpose will be defeated.

The Buddha: O Māgandiya, after studying what the mean hold fast to, I do not say, ‘This I declare.’ Seeing all these views, but not grasping them and searching for the truth, I found inward peace.

Māgandiya: Noble sage, without grasping those judgments incorporated in the speculative systems, you talk of inward peace. How is it described by the wise?

The Buddha: I do not say one attains ‘purification’ by view, tradition, knowledge, virtue or ritual, nor is it attained without view, tradition, knowledge, virtue or ritual. It is only taking these factors as the means and not grasping them as ends in themselves that one so attains and consequently does not crave for rebecoming.

Māgandiya: If you do not say that ‘purification’ is not attained by view, tradition, knowledge and ritual nor by absence of these – it seems to me that your lore is nonsense, because some deem ‘purification’ is from view.

The Buddha: Because of your view you are continually asking these questions. It is because you are obsessed with your preconceived notions that you are holding fast. From this you have not perceived the least sense: that is why you see this as nonsense.

He who thinks himself ‘equal’, ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’ to others, by that very reason enters disputation. But there are not such thoughts ‘equal’, ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’ to him who is unmoved by these three measurements.

Why should the arhat argue with whom he contends saying ‘This is truth’ or ‘That is a lie’? If one has no such thoughts ‘equal’ or ‘unequal’, with whom should he enter into dispute?

The sage who has forsaken his home, not entering upon intimate relations in villages, free from lust, not giving preference [to mundane desire] – he does not engage in disputatious talk with people.

The noble one who wanders in the world, liberated from views, does not grasp them and enter into arguments. As the thorny lotus rises on its stalk unsoiled by mud and water, so the sage, speaker of peace and free from desire, is unsoiled by the world and its carnal pleasures.

That wise one does not become conceited through views or knowledge, for he is not attached to that sort. He is neither enticed by action nor by learning, being detached in every circumstance.

There are no ties to him who is free from ideas, there are no delusions to him who is delivered by wisdom. Those who grasp ideas and views, wander about coming into conflict with the world. (Saddhatissa, pp, 98-99, Sutta-Nipāta v. 837-847)

Again and again the Buddha makes the point once more that the wise do not rigidly hold to their own narrow view and do not enter into disputes.

Standing rigidly to his own view and depending on his own criteria, he enters into dispute in the world. Desisting from all theories the wise one does not enter into dispute in the world. (Saddhatissa, p. 104, Sutta-Nipāta v. 894)

In the following and final passage I’d like to share from the Sutta-Nipāta, the Buddha explains that the noble one is not like the dogmatist who is so partisan and dependent on theories and speculations that cause him (or her) to enter into all kinds of arguments. The noble person is one who has had personal experience of liberation and so is no longer reliant on or concerned about all the various speculative views and systems that others argue so vehemently about. The point being that those who argue about the truth certainly do not know it for themselves, nor are they following the way whereby they could ever know it as they get further and further lost in their speculations, dogmas, and disputations.

Not easy to discipline the dogmatist who says this is the truth, being misguided by views. Saying that good is in such preconceptions, he is given to saying that purity is inherent as he has so seen.

The noble one having perceived things through knowledge, does not enter into speculations. Having learnt of diverse theories that have arisen among others, he is indifferent to them whilst others labor to embrace them.

The sage, being freed from worldly ties, remains peaceful among the restless. He is indifferent among sectarian squabbles, not embracing them whilst others remain attached.

Having abandoned former defilements, not inducing new ones, not becoming partisan, he is free from dogmatic views. Being wise, he neither clings to the world nor blames himself.

By overcoming all the theories based on seen, heard or thought he is a sage who has released his burden and is liberated, not imaginative in views, not aspiring for anything – so said the Buddha. (Saddhatissa, p. 106, Sutta-Nipāta v. 914)

Unfortunately, as today, many people in the Buddha’s day did lose themselves in dogma and polemics. In regard to this, the Buddha taught the parable of the blind men and the elephant to his monks after they had observed the members of other schools of thought arguing with each other about the nature of the Dharma. The Udana says of these disputants that “they lived quarrelsome, disputatious and wrangling, wounding each other with verbal darts, saying: ‘Dharma is like this, Dharma is not like that! Dharma is not like this, Dharma is like that!’ “The Buddha comments that these sectarians are blind and argue because they do not actually know what is or is not Dharma. He then tells the story of a king who, for his own perverse amusement, summoned several men who were blind from birth to his court and had each of them feel a part of an elephant and then asked them all to say what an elephant is like.

Those blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a water-jar.” Those blind people who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing-basket.” Those blind people who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a ploughshare.” Those blind people who had been shown the body replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a storeroom.” Those blind people who had been shown the hindquarters replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.” Those blind people who had been shown the tail replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a pestle.” Those blind people who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail replied, “An elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.”

Saying “An elephant is like this, an elephant is not like that! An elephant is not like this, an elephant is like that!” They fought each other with fists. And the king was delighted (with the spectacle).

Even so, monks, are those wanderers of various sects blind, unseeing…saying, “Dharma is like this!…Dharma is like that!”

Then on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

            Some recluses and brahmins, so called,

            Are deeply attached to their own views;

            People who only see one side of things

            Engage in quarrels and disputes.

            (adapted from The Udana, pp. 91-94)

Many who have heard a version of this parable assume that the point is that we all should admit that we have only a partial grasp of the truth and so should be humble and open-minded or at least tolerant of different views and not argue about them like the blind men fighting over their partial understanding of what an elephant is. But in the original context, the Buddha’s is saying that unlike himself the disputatious sectarians are like blind men because they do not know for themselves what is beneficial or what is Dharma, and that is why they are arguing about it. They do not see the whole picture and are incapable of seeing it. We know from the Buddha’s other discourses that he did claim to know what is beneficial and to know what the Dharma is. In other words, the Buddha is like the king who can see the whole elephant. So his point is not that no one knows the truth and therefore we should all be agnostics. Rather, his point is that clinging to contradictory partial truths will not enable anyone to overcome egoism, and will lead to the kind of arguing and fighting the monks witnessed. The Buddha, however, claims that he and his disciples hold “right view” which is not one-sided or biased but whole and complete because it is not based on speculation but on their own direct personal experience and also because they do not hold “right view” in the wrong way, which would make it into just another dogmatic view.

On one occasion, the Buddhists observed the sectarian infighting among the Jains after the death of their leader and how this sectarianism was so disheartening the lay supporters of the Jain monks. It seems to me that the account of their fighting in the Majjhima Nikaya could very well be a humorous summary of many internet flame wars today.

At that time the Nigantha Nātaputta had just died at Pāvā. And at his death the Niganthas were split into two parties, quarrelling and disputing, fighting and attacking each other with wordy warfare: ‘You don’t understand this doctrine and discipline – I do!’ ‘How could you understand this doctrine and discipline?’ ‘Your way is all wrong – mine is right!’ ‘I am consistent – you aren’t!’ ‘You said last what you should have said first, and you said first what you should have said last!’ ‘What you took so long to think up has been refuted!’ ‘Go on, save your doctrine – get out of that if you can!’ ‘You would have thought the Niganthas, Nātaputta’s disciples, were bent on killing each other. Even the white-robed lay followers were disgusted, displeased and repelled when they saw that their doctrine and discipline was so ill-proclaimed, so unedifyingly displayed, and so ineffectual in calming the passions, having been proclaimed by one not fully enlightened, and now with its support gone, without an arbiter. (Walshe, p. 427, Digha Nikaya 29.1)

The Buddha felt confident, however, that in his Sangha there were teachers who were experienced, trained, and skillful enough to refute any doctrines that were not in accord with the Buddha Dharma. This is interesting because here the Buddha is not just saying that one should not refute wrong views. Rather, he is saying that there is a way to do it that will not turn into the ugly debates entered into by the sectarians of his day, and that he trusts those qualified teachers in his Sangha to resolve disputes in a way that is peaceful and edifying and grounded in the Dharma.

However, there are senior teachers among the monks, who are experienced, trained, skilled, who have attained peace from bondage, able to proclaim the true Dharma, able to refute by means of the Dharma any opposing doctrines that may arise and, having done so, give a grounded exposition of Dharma. (Walshe, p. 431, Digha Nikaya 29.15)

After expressing his confidence that the Sangha has good teachers, the Buddha gives a discourse on exactly how the monks should train themselves to resolve misunderstandings in a way that will preserve harmony and get at, not just the correct meaning, but even the best way to express that meaning.

And thus you must train yourselves, being assembled in harmony and without dissension. If a fellow in the holy life quotes Dharma in the assembly, and if you think he has either misunderstood the sense or expressed it wrongly, you should neither applause nor reject it, but should say to him: “Friend, if you mean such-and-such, you should put it either like this or like that: which is the more appropriate?” or “If you say such-and-such, you mean either this or that: which is the more appropriate?” If he replies: “This meaning is better expressed like this than like that”, or “The sense of this expression is this rather than that”, then his words should be neither rejected nor disparaged, but you should explain to him carefully the correct meaning and expression.

Again, Cunda, if a fellow in the holy life quotes Dharma in the assembly, and if you think he has misunderstood the sense though he has expressed it correctly, you should neither applaud nor reject it, but should say to him: “Friend, these words can mean either this or that: which sense is the more appropriate?” And if he replies: “They mean this”, then his words should be neither rejected nor disparaged, but you should explain to him carefully the correct meaning.

And similarly, if you think he has got the right meaning but expressed it wrongly, … you should explain to him carefully the correct meaning and expression.

But Cunda, if you think he has got the right meaning and expressed it correctly, … you should say: “Good!” and should applaud and congratulate him, saying, “We are lucky we are most fortunate to find in you, friend, a companion in the holy life who is so well-versed in both the meaning and the expression!” (Walshe, pp. 432-433, Digha Nikaya 29. 18-21)

I find it interesting that the Buddha is careful to differentiate between the way a teaching is expressed and the underlying meaning of a teaching. He expects the members of the Sangha to be sensitive to this and to guide those who may misapprehend Buddhism into a better way of both understanding it and expressing it. Also note that while a monk who has the correct understanding and expression is to be applauded, those who don’t should not be rejected or disparaged but rather guided through dialogue into a better understanding and expression by those who (presumably) are qualified to do so. Of course those who are presuming to teach may themselves not have the correct understanding or the best expression, but if both sides are committed to a honest dialectic guided by mutual respect and concern for the truth instead of ugly polemics motivated by a need to be right, then it is more likely that a more peaceful and authentic resolution can be achieved.

The Buddha did recognize, however, that there may be times when one has to “be cruel to be kind” as we sometimes put it. There are times when one must speak the truth plainly to those who may not want to hear it. One occasion was when the Buddha denounced Devadatta in no uncertain terms, refusing to give him the leadership of the Sangha and making it clear that he did not consider him qualified to ever do so, even if the Buddha were to consider appointing a successor. The Buddha went so far as to say to Devadatta, “I would not hand over the Sangha of monks even to Shariputra and Maudgalyayana. How should I do so to such a wastrel, a clot of spittle, as you?” (Adapted from Life of the Buddha, p. 258) Even if one takes the position that this incident is a story that arose after the death of the Buddha in order to vilify the schismatic Devadatta and his followers, it still seems to be so far out of character that one wonders how anyone could have attributed such words to the Buddha. And yet, there is a discourse in which the Buddha’s rivals used this and later condemnations of Devadatta against him. Prince Abhaya, one of the sons of King Bimbisara though not an heir, was a follower of Nirgrantha Jnatiputra, the founder of the Jains. According to the Abhayarajakumara Sutta, Nirgrantha Jnatiputra made the following request to Prince Abhaya:

“Come Prince, go to the recluse Gautama and say: ‘Venerable sir, would the Tathagata utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others?’ If the recluse Gautama, on being asked thus, answers: ‘The Tathagata, prince, would utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others,’ then say to him: ‘Then, venerable sir, what is the difference between you and an ordinary person? For an ordinary person would utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others.’ But if the recluse Gautama, on being asked thus, answers: ‘The Tathagata, prince, would not utter speech that would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others,’ then say to him: ‘Then, venerable sir, why have you declared of Devadatta: “Devadatta is destined for the states of deprivation, Devadatta is destined for hell, Devadatta will remain [in hell] for the eon, Devadatta is incorrigible”? Devadatta was angry and dissatisfied with that speech of yours.’ When the recluse Gautama is posed this two-horned question by you, he will not be able either to gulp it down or to throw it up. If an iron spike were stuck in a man’s throat, he would not be able either to gulp it down or to throw it up; so too prince, when the recluse Gautama is posed this two-horned question by you, he will not be able to gulp it down or to throw it up.” (Middle Length Discourses, pp. 498-499)

It is evident that Nirgrantha Jnatiputra is not being portrayed here as a dispassionate observer. Nor is his inquiry sincere. In order to attack and belittle the Buddha, he spitefully looked for a weak point to exploit. Again, this is perhaps not an accurate portrayal of the founder of the Jains, but it may be a historical fiction based on the kind of rancorous debates that may have taken place between Buddhists and Jains after the passing of their founders. In any case, the Buddha easily overcomes both horns of the dilemma and in the course of doing so also provides an explanation for why he spoke so harshly in regard to Devadatta. Prince Abhaya visits the Buddha and asks:

“Venerable sir, would a Tathagata utter such speech as would be unwelcome and disagreeable to others?”

“There is no one-sided answer to that, prince.”

“Then, venerable sir, the Nirgranthas have lost in this.”

“Why do you say this, prince: ‘Then, venerable sir, the Nirgranthas have lost in this’?”

Prince Abhaya then reported to the Blessed One his entire conversation with Nirgrantha Jnatiputra.

Now on that occasion a young tender infant was lying prone on Prince Abhaya’s lap. Then the Blessed One said to Prince Abhaya: “What do you think, prince? If, while you or your nurse were not attending to him, this child were to put a stick or pebble in his mouth, what would you do to him?”

“Venerable sir, I would take it out. If I could not take it out at once, I would take his head in my left hand, and crooking a finger of my right hand, I would take it out even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have compassion for the child.”

“So too, prince, such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter. Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has compassion for beings.” (Ibid, pp. 499-500)

In other words, the Buddha only speaks what is true, correct, and beneficial; and whether or not it is welcome and agreeable or unwelcome and disagreeable he will only speak such things in the right time and place motivated solely by compassion. In the case of Devadatta, he was certain based upon his knowledge of Devadatta’s character and activities and the law of cause and effect that Devadatta was heading for a fall. In some versions or translations of this event, the Buddha actually calls Devadatta a “lick-spittle” with the implication that Devadatta’s reliance on the very generous patronage of Prince Ajatashatru is comparable to licking the spit of others. In other words, his reliance on Prince Ajatashatru seems good, but is actually a degrading dependence that is leading him further and further away from the true good of liberation. All of this can be taken to rationalize the use of name-calling in a debate or disagreement, but I think the actual principles are quite clear. We should speak in a truthful and beneficial way, and whenever possible in a kind way; but also in a timely and appropriate way, especially if what needs to be said will be unpleasant for others to hear.

Taken all together, we have the Buddha’s description of how to speak in a way that is wholesome and beneficial for oneself and others. Honesty is only one part of it, though a crucial part. We must also be careful to speak the truth in a way that is kind and not abusive. We must not spread stories or the words of others in such a way that it will cause division and bad feelings. We must speak in a way that is timely and appropriate. We should avoid fruitless disputes motivated by self-righteousness, pride, and dogmatism. In cases where we must refute wrong views or correct someone, we should refrain from condemning or disparaging others or their views but instead use a respectful dialectic to explore meaning and expression to get at what actually fits the case or issue at hand. In this way, speech can be an expression of the selfless compassion of perfect and complete awakening and liberation.

Writing of Nichiren Shonin Doctrine 2: pp. 53, 105-106

Kaimoku-shō or Liberation From Blindness: pp. 43, 114,

Writings of Nichiren Daishonin I: 240, 280-281

Twice in Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren expresses his determination in the form of vows. Roughly one third of the way into the work he states, “… it is not easy to uphold even a word or phrase of the Lotus Sutra in the Latter Age of Degeneration. This must be it! I have made a vow that this time I will have an unbending aspiration to buddhahood and never fall back!” (Hori 2002, p. 53) Towards the end of Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren again states his determination in the form of vow or perhaps series of vows to continue to uphold the Lotus Sutra no matter what; furthermore, he vows to be like a pillar, a pair of eyes, or a great vessel for Japan. I think it could be said that this vow is the real climax of the Kaimoku-shō.

I have made a vow. Even if someone says that he would make me the ruler of Japan on the condition that I give up the Lotus Sutra and rely upon the Kammuryō-ju-kyō (Sutra of Meditation on the Buddha of Infinite Life) for my salvation in the next life, or even if someone threatens me saying that he will execute my parents if I do not say “Namu Amida-butsu,” and no matter how many great difficulties fall upon me, I will not submit to them until a man of wisdom defeats me by reason. Other difficulties are like dust in the wind. I will never break my vow to become the pillar of Japan, to become the eyes of Japan, and to become the great vessel for Japan. (Hori 2002, pp. 105-106)

This passage from Kaimoku-shō is sometimes cited in survey books dealing with Japanese Buddhism as an example of Nichiren’s fiery determination. Unfortunately this passage is also used to make the case that Nichiren was a megalomaniac, a fanatic, and a nationalist. Edward Conze summed up Nichiren in the following way in his book Buddhism: It’s Essence and Development:

It is customary to reckon the sect of Nichiren (1222-82) as one of the schools of Amidism. It would be more appropriate to count it among the offshoots of nationalistic Shintoism. Nichiren suffered from self-assertiveness and bad temper, and he manifested a degree of personal and tribal egotism which disqualify him as a Buddhist teacher. He did not only convince himself that he, personally, was mentioned in the Lotus of the Good Law, but also that the Japanese were the chosen race which would regenerate the world. The followers of the Nichiren sect, as Suzuki puts it: ‘even now are more or less militaristic and do not mix well with other Buddhists’. (p. 176)

There are so many things wrong with that mischaracterization (originally published in 1951) that it is hard to know where to begin. How could Nichiren ever be confused with Amidism when that is the very school that Nichiren was most critical of? To this day, though, writers of introductory books on Buddhism continue to characterize Nichiren Buddhism as a form of Pure Land Buddhism simply because it also features chanting as its main practice. This is pure laziness, however, since anyone who has read this far into this commentary or any of Nichiren’s writings will already know that Nichiren Buddhism is no more related to Pure Land Buddhism than is Zen, and in fact it would be fairer to characterize Nichiren Buddhism as a streamlined form of T’ien-t’ai Buddhism. In addition, Edward Conze cites D.T. Suzuki (1870-1966) in confirmation of his opinion, but D.T. Suzuki was himself a rather chauvinistic proponent of Rinzai Zen and the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit (to the point where D.T. Suzuki has been accused of Japanese nationalism by modern critics like Robert Sharf and Brian Victoria). At the very least, D.T. Suzuki was no expert on Nichiren Buddhism and was not predisposed to give a fair or unbiased opinion. Aside from the ridiculous lumping in of Nichiren Buddhism with Pure Land Buddhism and the ludicrous appeal to D.T. Suzuki’s opinions about it, I can see where some people might take some of Nichiren’s statements, such as the above vows, out of context and misconstrue them to support the idea that Nichiren was a megalomaniac (what is today called more clinically a narcissistic personality disorder), a nationalist, and a violent fanatic. It is this that I want to address, because I think the above vows should not be interpreted in such a perverse manner and that in fact they are the high point of the Kaimoku-shō.

Let’s begin with the charge of nationalism. It is certainly true that Nichiren was concerned with the welfare of Japan and its people. This, however, just makes Nichiren a concerned or even a patriotic citizen, it does not make him a nationalist. Now “nationalism” can mean different things. It seems to me that those accusing Nichiren of nationalism are claiming that he believed in the ideology of “my nation right or wrong,” or that Nichiren valued the Japanese nation above all else, or that he believed the Japanese people were somehow unique and superior to all other nations and ethnicities. There is, however, absolutely no basis for such ideas in Nichiren’s writings. Nowhere does Nichiren state that Japan is superior to other nations in any political, economic, or ethnic sense. In fact, he sometimes refers to Japan as a remote and tiny island nation far removed from India, the land of the Buddha (see the beginning of Shugo Kokka-ron on p. 3 of Hori 2003). He refers to the Hōjō regents as “mere rulers of a small island kingdom.” (Hori 2008, p. 24) He even states that the two most important Shinto gods (whom Nichiren included on his calligraphic mandala) are inferior to the Vedic gods of India. “Such deities as Goddess Amaterasu and Great Bodhisattva Hachiman are highly esteemed in Japan, but they are merely minor gods compared to the King of the Brahma Heaven, Indra, the sun and moon, and the Four Heavenly Kings.” (Ibid, p. 37) Nichiren could in fact be quite critical of Japan. A rather blunt example of this can be found in the Sado Gosho (Letter from Sado) that is attributed to Nichiren. The following is not what one would expect to find in the body of works of a nationalist.

According to the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha emitted a radiant light that illuminated the 136th hell underground and revealed that not a single offender remained there. This was because they had all achieved buddhahood through the “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra. What a pity, however, that the icchantikas or persons of incorrigible disbelief, who had slandered the correct teaching, were found to have been detained there by the wardens of hell. They proliferated until they became the people of Japan today. (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p. 304)

Nowhere in his writings does Nichiren suggest that his concern for the power or prestige of Japan, or its Shinto deities, or even the Japanese emperor overshadow that of Buddhism. In fact, to the contrary, Nichiren suggests the opposite: the nations welfare depends upon the Dharma.  This is in fact the major theme of his Risshō Ankoku-ron (Treatise on Spreading Peace Throughout the Country by Establishing the True Dharma). If Nichiren was a nationalist, then so were Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the other Hebrew prophets who risked their lives to warn the nation of Israel that the conduct of their ruling elites was leading it into disaster.

When it comes to religious or spiritual considerations, Nichiren did view Japan as being in a unique position as a nation predisposed to Mahayana teachings and the Lotus Sutra in particular and having a responsibility to return the True Dharma to the rest of Asia and even to India, the homeland of Buddhism. Nichiren comes by these ideas quite honestly. Mahayana Buddhism had in fact been introduced to Japan from the very beginning, as has been discussed. In the Kembutsu Mirai-ki (Testimony to the Prediction of the Buddha), Nichiren cites reports from China that Buddhism has disappeared from India and was on the verge of disappearing in China as well. He then quotes the Chinese T’ien-t’ai monk Tsun-shih who said, “Buddhism at first spread eastward to Japan from China, just as the moon rises in the west shining on the east. Now it comes back from Japan to China just as the sun rises in the east and sheds light on the west.” (Hori 2002, p. 176) It was not nationalism that led Nichiren to believe that Japan’s experience with Buddhism had been Mahayana in orientation from its inception and that it had been preserved (so far) in Japan while disappearing or deteriorating on the mainland. It was simply an observation. Furthermore, Japan’s privileged (from Nichiren’s point of view) position as a Mahayana nation and responsibility to restore the Dharma to the mainland was entirely conditional upon Japan upholding the true Dharma, otherwise Japan would itself be destroyed by invasion from without and civil war within. This is not nationalism. This is simply calling one’s country to task for failing to live up to its potential and fulfill its responsibilities. This is the work of a prophet delivering messages of hope to those who will listen and warnings to those who will not.

Nichiren is also portrayed as an aggressive and even violent fanatic. The extravagant vows that he makes are sometimes cited as evidence of this. For instance, Nichiren vows to never give up the Lotus Sutra even if someone offered to make him ruler of Japan or threatened to kill his parents. Is this unreasoning aggressive fanaticism however? Or is it simply a refusal to cave in to bribes or threats? I would note that Nichiren’s parents had already passed away when he wrote this, so this was a bit of rhetoric on Nichiren’s part. What is often overlooked is Nichiren’s caveat: “… I will not submit to them until a man of wisdom defeats me by reason.” Was this empty rhetoric? Why even put that caveat in there? In fact, the whole of the Kaimoku-shō up to the point where Nichiren expresses this vow is a marshaling of texts to support Nichiren’s case that the Lotus Sutra is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha that should not be neglected, derided, or subordinated to lesser teachings. Now we may or may not accept Nichiren’s reasoning, and may or may not find his proof-texts and the presumption of scriptural authority they rested upon convincing, but I do think Nichiren put in quite a lot of effort to present a well reasoned case and that as far as he was concerned no one had provided him with any adequate response to the case he was making for the Lotus Sutra (and against its detractors). Instead, he had been physically attacked on several occasions, banished twice, and almost been executed. Who exactly was being unreasonable and fanatical about their beliefs? Nichiren, who wrote long essays citing the Buddha’s teachings in order to clarify the Buddha’s true intention? Or those who were trying to silence and even kill him? And what was Nichiren advocating as the ultimate teaching based on the Lotus Sutra? I rather like the way it is put in Hoshina Goro Taro-dono Gohenji (Reply to Hoshina Goro Taro), a letter attributed to Nichiren. “

In Buddhism that teaching is judged supreme that enables all people, whether good or evil, to become Buddhas. Surely anyone can grasp so reasonable a standard. By means of this principle we can compare the various sutras and ascertain which is superior. (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p. 156)

I, for one, am satisfied that Nichiren was not a nationalist, though certainly a patriot and even a prophetic figure. I am also satisfied that Nichiren was not unreasonable. I would even say that according to the standards of his time Nichiren provided ample evidence and plentiful reasons for his advocacy of the Lotus Sutra, and that it was his opponents who were responding to reasoning with violence. The question then remains as to whether Nichiren was a megalomaniac in vowing to become the pillar, eyes, and great vessel of Japan – as if all depended upon him. Doesn’t such an attitude betray megalomania or narcissism on Nichiren’s part? I, for one, do not think so. I believe that Nichiren’s vows need to be understood in the context of the Mahayana tradition of bodhisattva vows, which are often quite grandiose in their attempts to inspire a heroic and even cosmic sense of selfless compassion. In light of this tradition, Nichiren’s vows are actually quite humble and circumscribed.

In the previous chapter dealing with provisional Mahayana, I introduced the concept of the arising of the “thought of awakening” (S. bodhicitta), the initial aspiration to attain perfect and complete awakening and save all sentient beings. I also discussed the four great vows of bodhisattvas that are used in most East Asian religious services, including the Nichiren Shu. The four vows are one way of expressing the initial aspiration of a bodhisattva. Another way of expressing the bodhisattva’s initial aspiration in terms of a general vow can be found in the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra attributed to Nagarjuna.

One who seeks the Path of the Buddha, from the time of first bringing forth the resolve [to realize complete enlightenment], makes a vow, “I vow that I will become a Buddha and cross the beings over to liberation, that I will succeed in realizing all of the Buddha dharmas, that I will practice the six pāramitās, that I will smash the hordes of demon armies as well as of all the afflictions, that I will gain the knowledge of all modes, that I will realize the Buddha Path, and that I shall ultimately gain entry into nirvāna without residue. (Dharmamitra 2008, p. 731)

I also mentioned previously that bodhisattvas also make specific vows. For instance there are the 48 vows of Bodhisattva Dharmakara who became Amitabha Buddha and who is particularly known for his 18th vows that enables anyone who calls upon his name to be reborn in his pure land as long as they have not committed any of the five grave offences or slandered true Dharma. The Flower Garland Sutra also contains many long passages wherein bodhisattvas express their vows and determination to save all beings. The vows and dedications of Bodhisattva Diamond Banner in the Flower Garland Sutra are particularly interesting, as are the vows expressed by Śāntideva (c. 685-763) in his Bodhicaryāvatāra (Guide to the Buddhist Path of Awakening). They both hold much in common with Christian ideas about Jesus as a savior who took up the cross in order to spare others from suffering and who often compares himself in the gospels to bread, water, light, and a way for others. Here are a couple of selections from the vows expressed by Bodhisattva Diamond Banner:

I should be a light for all sentient beings, to enable them to attain the light of knowledge to annihilate the darkness of ignorance. I should be a torch for all sentient beings, to destroy all darkness of nescience. I should be a lamp for all sentient beings, to cause them to abide in the realm of ultimate purity. I should be a guide for all sentient beings, to lead them into the truth. I should be a great leader for all sentient beings, to give them the great knowledge. (Cleary 1993, p. 532)

I should accept all sufferings for the sake of all sentient beings, and enable them to escape from the abyss of immeasurable woes of birth and death. I should accept all suffering for the sake of all sentient beings in all worlds, in all states of misery, forever and ever, and still always cultivate foundations of goodness for the sake of all beings. Why? I would rather take all this suffering on myself than to allow sentient beings to fall into hell. I should be a hostage in those perilous places – hells, animal realms, the nether world, etc. – as a ransom to rescue all sentient beings in states of woe and enable them to gain liberation. (Ibid, pp. 534-535)

The following are Śāntideva’s verses expressing the dedication to the welfare of all beings:

With the good acquired by doing all this as described, may I allay all the suffering of every living being.

I am medicine for the sick. May I be both the doctor and their nurse, until the sickness does not recur.

May I avert the pain of hunger and thirst with showers of food and drink. May I become both drink and food in the intermediate eons of famine.

May I be an inexhaustible treasure for impoverished beings. May I wait upon them with various forms of offering.

See, I give up without regret my bodies, my pleasures, and my good acquired in all three times, to accomplish good for every being.

Abandonment of all is Enlightenment and Enlightenment is my heart’s goal. If I must give up everything, better it be given to sentient beings.

I make over this body to all embodied beings to do with as they please. Let them continually beat it, insult it, and splatter it with filth.

Let them play with my body; let them be derisive and amuse themselves. I have given this body to them. What point has this concern of mine?

Let them have me to do whatever brings them pleasure. Let there never be harm to anyone on account of me.

Should their mind become angry or displeased on account of me, may even that be the cause of their always achieving every goal.

Those who will falsely accuse me, and others who will do me harm, and others still who will degrade me, may they all share in Awakening.

I am the protector of the unprotected and the caravan-leader for travellers. I have become the boat, the causeway, and the bridge for those who long to reach the further shore.

May I be a light for those in need of light. May I be a bed for those in need of rest. May I be a servant for those in need of service, for all embodied beings.

For embodied beings may I be the wish-fulfilling jewel, the pot of plenty, the spell that always works, the potent healing herb, the magical tree that grants every wish, and the milk cow that supplies all wants.

Just as earth and the other elements are profitable in many ways to the immeasurable beings dwelling throughout space,

So may I be sustenance of many kinds for the realm of beings throughout space, until all have attained release.

In the same way as bygone Sugatas took up the Awakening Mind, in the same way as they progressed on the Bodhisattva training,

So too, I myself shall generate the Awakening Mind for the welfare of the world; and just so shall I train in those precepts in due order. (pp. 20-22)

In such a tradition, there is nothing odd about Nichiren making a vow to be a pillar, eyes, and a great vessel for the people of Japan. If anything, it is perhaps odd that Nichiren doesn’t vow to be the pillar, eyes, and great vessel for the whole world, or for all sentient beings. Here, perhaps, Nichiren is being humble in restricting his concern to that which he can immediately address through his remonstrations with the rulers of Japan. Also, remember, that Nichiren believed that if the Japanese people took faith in the true Dharma of the Lotus Sutra, then they would be in a position to restore Buddhism and India, thus returning the favor to those countries that initially transmitted Buddhism to Japan. Nichiren’s far-reaching concern was actually for all sentient beings throughout the world in the Latter Age of the Dharma. It was his hope that all beings would awaken to Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren’s vows are not an expression of hubris, but the expression of the particular vows of a compassionate bodhisattva responding to his own unique historical situation with courage and determination to do what he can to help his fellow countrymen and women.

The Kaimoku-shō could very well end with these vows. They are the culmination of the rest of the whole work. Nichiren had addressed all his doubts and questions in regard to whether he was doing the right thing, whether he was interpreting the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings correctly, and whether the persecutions and hardships he and his disciples and followers had faced and continued to face at the time of the writing of Kaimoku-shō were not somehow evidence that he was not in accord with the Buddha’s teachings. In the end, he demonstrated that what he taught was not just his own biased view but was in accord with the teachings of the Buddha recorded in the sutras, and that those sutras had also predicted that there would be hardships and persecutions faced by those who would dare to uphold the true Dharma in the Latter Age. Having worked through his doubts, or perhaps just the doubts of those he was writing for, Nichiren reiterates his unwavering determination in the form of these vows. In this he expresses his bodhisattva spirit and aspiration to work for the liberation and awakening of all beings. The remainder of the Kaimoku-shō can be viewed as an epilogue in which Nichiren clarifies the methods that are to be used to propagate the Lotus Sutra.

Sources

Cleary, Thomas, trans. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston: Shambhala, 1993.

Conze, Edward. Buddhism: It’s Essence and Development. Birmingham: Windhorse Publication, 2001.

Crosby, Kate and Skilton, Andrew, trans. The Bodhicaryāvatāra. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Dharmamitra, Bhikshu, trans. Nāgārjuna on The Six Perfection: An Ārya Bodhisattva Explains the Heart of the Bodhisattva Path. Seattle: Kalavinka Press, 2008.

Gosho Translation Committee, editor-translator. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1999.

Hori, Kyotsu, comp. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine Volume 2. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2002.

________________. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine Volume 1. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2003.

________________. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Biography and Disciples Volume 5. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2008.

Murano, Senchu, trans. Kaimokusho or Liberation from Blindness. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000.