Talk:Nichiren/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Question about These Questions

Nichiren's life and message were about the equality of all human beings, about the ability of every human being to acheive enlightenment in his/her lifetime, and about the fact that until we each come to understood our own power to create our own happiness, to influence our envirionment, and to resolve our own karmic baggage, until we stopped giving up our authority to a priesthood or a government official, or even a God (capital G), until we see life for what it truly is, we will continue to be stuck in the same endless cycle of sufferring.

He said that because we are all have the same potential for Budhahood within us, that we are all equally worthy of respect. And that means that no one, no person (in the form of priest or politician, or what have you) has any special authority to stand between one and ones attainment of enlightenment. Your enlightenment is already YOURS! It is INSIDE you! Nichiren was trying to shatter the shackles that bind us.

But, you know, there are always those so used to their prison that they are afraid to go out in the light, even if the door is wide open.

All of this over-intellectualized, doctrinal mind f---- is absolutely in oppostition to Nichiren's message. It is like burying ones head in a sandpit of words and dates and doctrine and dogma, and why? To have a truly accurate depcition of the man and his life? Or, is it just an unconcious means of avoiding the light? How is any of this stuff going to help you become happy?

I quote in excerpted form from the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, On Attaining Buddhahood in this Lifetime:

If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured since time without beginning and to attain without fail unsurpassed enlightenment in this lifetime, you must perceive the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings.... Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your life. If you seek enlight-enment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain... That is why the T'ien-t'ai school's commentary states, "Unless one perceives the nature of one's life, one cannot eradicate one's grave offenses.

This passage implies that, unless one perceives the nature of one's life, one's practice will become an endless, painful austerity.

This that you are engaging in, my friends is an "endless, painful austerity." Wishing you well... - R

Reply Whether I agree or diagree with some of your points aside, if people want to mind-f____, as you put it, let them. I have little sympathy for those whose intent is only to discredit—whether it be Nichiren altogether, a particular school, a particular object, or even religion altogether—but sometimes their questions (and such) can be revealing in a positive way as well. In any case, fragments alone—whether quotations from certain of Nichiren's writings, the authenticity or inauthenticity of a few documents or objects, or the accuracy or inaccuracy of a several dates—do not give a full pitcure. It's only when all the fragments come together and can be weighed in the context of the whole that the whole—which includes also the actions, attitudes, and behavior of those involved—comes to light. Jim_Lockhart 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Yeah, I know. Just having a little fun. I do mean what I say, though, it is too easy lose sight of the THE POINT - happiness, self fulfillment, developing compassion, developing self responsibility, developing a sense of responsibility for and to others, all for the sake of creating a (more) peacefule world. I do also believe that we can get bogged down in these kinds of discussions and they can cloud the issue - it is what happens/ed to most religions, I think, turning the message into dogma...then arguing over the dogma and forgetting the message.... But in truth, I also appreciate the discussion, and I know that there is much that is worthy in this kind of discussion as well. Sorry. Something just came over me! :-) - R


Was Nichiren ever respected by the Bakufu?

Upon Nichiren's death, was Nichiren ever respected by the Bakufu government of that time? By the way, what shogunate was it at Nichiren's time? Thanks if anyone got some information. Gammadion 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "Nichiren ... respected by the [b]akufu"? The bakufu of his day was the Kamakura Bakufu, which certainly took him seriously (if that's what you mean by "respected"). If you mean, "did any bakufu ever practice his teachings," I would say that the answer is no. If you mean, "did individuals of a bakufu ever practice his teachings?" the answer becomes a bit complicated. There have been many Nichiren schools since shortly after his death, and all of them have enjoyed a degree of partonisim from indivudual persons in the bakufu, though most have been heavilly persecuted by the various bakufu, mainly for their strident evangelism, which was seen a socially disruptive. It should be noted that this situation was similar for some non-Nichiren Buddhist sects as well. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Would love to know more about this - can you provide some cites?(Attributed most likely to R-Gammadion 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Again, instead of writing and asking with such ambiguity, could people (Don't know who wrote this one liner. Gammadion? R?) please be clearer about what they mean? For instance, the previous paragraph (about the bakufu), touches on several issues, so which does the this refer to? Jim_Lockhart 08:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the one liner.*Bows deeply* What I know was that an official of the shogunate governmentKamakura Bakufu, Hae no Saemon, prosecuted Nichiren Daishonin. What was the official watchword of the shogunate at that time? Was there any direct orders from the shogunate ordering Daishonin to cease and desist in his propaganda activities? Thanks for the information about the individuals in the bakufu.Gammadion 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Question about Last Sentence

The last sentence "the other five disciples to a man turned their back on Nichiren's philosophy." sounds a bit weird. Not sure what it means. --Menchi (Talk)â 05:37, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's basically sectarian speak for "The other five disagreed with our guy" and is one grouping's usual way of explaining Nikko's decision to leave Mt Minobu. Even Nichiren Shoshu (which claims direct descendancy from Nikko) doesn't like Nichiren's religion being referred to a "philosophy"; besides, it wasn't "philosophical" elements that the six elders disagreed on.
This article has several historical inaccuracies and the focus is not as much on Nichiren as on the religious groups that he spawned. It needs to be reworked to present his lifetime and works (something I would like to undertake later) and to leave the sect- and school-specific content to articles on those schools. Just my opinion, of course... Jim_Lockhart 03:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death

Britannica has March 30, 1222 - Nov. 14, 1282. Which is right? Mandel June 30, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

It's possible that Britannica's editors figured out the date according to the Gregorian calendar. The actual dates are "the sixteenth day of the second lunar month of 1222" and "the thirteenth day of the tenth lunar month of 1282", and most temples have their observances on 16 Feb and 13 Oct; some of the "head" temples—those ranked as honzan, regardless of school—following the lunar calendar for these observances (especially that of Nichiren's passing, called o-eshiki), holding them in March and November, with some variation depending on the year.

HTH, Jim_Lockhart 1 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

so which is right, Wikipedia or Britannica? Mandel 18:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, they are both correct: they're both talking about the same dates, only from different perspectives. But the dates most frequently cited (by any source) are those in Wikipedia. Jim_Lockhart 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't get it..."the sixteenth day of the second lunar month of 1222" and "the thirteenth day of the tenth lunar month of 1282" must coincide to historical dates in the Gregorian calender, the one we used in Wikipedia. How can they both be right? We shouldn't bother when the observances are held each year in the lunar month converted to Gregorian (which will vary annually), but on what exact days those dates corresponds to in the years 1222 and 1282. Mandel 13:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the lunar dates must coincide with dates in the Gregorian calendar; but given that the Gregorian calendar was instituted in 1582, how crucial is it that these dates be recalculated? Why not just cite both, given that, regardless of what the exact dates were in the 13th century by the Gregorian, the approximate dates (February 16 and October 13) are commonly used by both scholars and non-scholars? I can imagine that the precise dates by the Gregorian are important to those who are, for example, seeking to pinpoint the coincidence of events.
This also raises a question for me: to what extent are other similar dates (i.e., those of other events that took place in localities or times using non-Gregorian calendars) rendered in Wikipedia in their precise Gregorian dates? If you are going to change these dates for Nichiren's birth and death, I suspect you will have to change the dates for numerous other events as well—events not just in his life, but in the lives of all other historical persons living where the Gregorian was not prevalent as well.
Have fun. Jim_Lockhart 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)