Much daimoku is needed and will be needed

by E.B.O.N.I.C.Y.

Namaste,
Awhile back I posted a somewhat esoteric item supporting daimoku as
an example of superstring theory. It involved something called the
Global Conciousness Project, out of Princeton University. In short, a
collection of random number generators located around the world have
become less random just prior to catastrophic events.

One way the degree of randomness, or its lack, is represented is that
the less random the numbers generated, the louder and more frequent
are sounds generated by the experiment.

I just checked the website below:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/bsktobsrv/basketobserver.wall.html

The experiment is sounding like a geiger counter on steroids, with an
occasional loud whistle thrown in, when its general state is quiet.
I'm afraid were about to witness the erasure of New Orleans,
accompanied by massive loss of life and property destruction
throughout the deep South.

It might be an appropriate time to chant significant daimoku to
facilitate the best possible outcome for the catastrophe seeming to
be unfolding in slow motion.

It is my fear, that , without a massive infusion of daimoku, in the
short term, the outcome is as inevitible as the last 90 minutes in
the life of the Titanic.

How many kinds of Buddhism exist?

by Nichirenschild

When people use the term Buddhism, they imply a body of teachings or philosophy expounded by Prince Sidhartha Shakya, also called Shakyamuni, the muni being an honorific title following the family name Shakya. Shakyamuni pondered the meaning of all existence and then told those who asked, except once, his conclusions. Those whose questions he answered perceived him to be "The Buddha" because of his profound wisdom. He called himself, "a buddha" because he stated he was manifesting a wisdom capacity inherent but not manifesting in everyone. He said that the purpose of his being was to inform everyone else how to transform the inherent hidden powers into manifest volitional powers. Concurrently, he admitted that everyone at thesame time is not ready to know the truth about themselves. This of course is similar to the experiance of David Oates, not everyone wants to know the truth. For those who want to know the truth, the means to transforming the theory to manifest is simple and straightforward. To those who want to hide from the truth, the pathways of self-deception are infinite and convoluted.

In fact, the more convoluted the better, as such allows people to think they are on the high road to enlightenment without really ever having to endure the brilliant light and arguable burden of total self-responsibility.As I said, Shakyamuni taught in response to the questions of his disciples. He never wrote anything down. His disciples, chief among them, Ananda, wrote down his words. In the time of Shakyamuni, there were no books as we know them but various portions of his teachings were gathered together in "volumes" and called sutras. All the sutras, except one, are the gathered together transcriptions of conversations Shakyamuni had with his disciples in response to questions they asked him, generally THREE times before he would respond.

Not all disciples stayed for the full message however. Many from time to time, depending on their attention span and thirst for truth, took some of the sutras and went home to preach the word to others.Nowthen, Shakyamuni, SPONTANEOUSLY spoke to his disciples only at one time and after telling them he was about to tell them something important FOUR times.

But even though two extraordinary things had occurred, Shakyamuni spontaneously speaking and Shakyamuni stating 'this is important' four times, a remarkable number of disciples left for home, stating we've heard enough! Shakyamuni was not disturbed by their leavetaking, he rather welcomed it stating "Now in this congregation I am free from useless twigs and leaves, and have nothing but all that are purely the true and real." [pg 55]

So here is the hard heart of the matter. Many call themselves "Buddhists" but in Shakyamuni's own words, only those who know and follow the message he spontaneously delivered are truly "Buddhists". Many otherwise "good and sincere" people who call themselves Buddhists, whether Hinayana Vietnamese, or Mahayana Tibetan, or, neither fish nor fowl, Zen are NOT practicing BUDDHISM because they are not practicing what, from the "horse's mouth", Shakyamuni, "the Buddha", said Buddhism is.Might this be my interpretation of reading between some obscure lines? Absolutely not. The one sutra spontaneously expound by Shakyamuni is the Lotus Sutra. The translation of Lotus Sutra takes on many different sound vibrations in various languages but the most crucial vibratory pattern for profound reasons is the Japanese.

In Japanese, the Lotus Sutra, translates as "Myoho Renge Kyo". Renge is the translation of white lotus blossom, the short hand title of the sutra and a metaphor, for the simultaneous manifestation of cause and effect, as lotus plants, seed and flower simultaneously. The full title is also a metaphor. Myo means mystic in the sense of having a connected, logical, provable explanation but simultaneously very hard to understand. Ho means a law. Kyo is onomatapoeia for a sound, a sound sometimes translated by extention to mean sutra, but at the most profound level a sound.

Inherent in sound is the fact of its formless form. Sound exists simultaneously as matter and energy. Sound exists and yet cannot be said to exist at any specific location. Sound is the ultimate metaphor for the nature of all existence and the nature of a discovered quantum of existence know as the "superstring".

So, the meaning behind the metaphor of Myoho Renge Kyo is a mystic (hard to understand) law of cause and effect modified by a sound vibration. Simultaneously, (that word comes up a lot in Buddhism) the title of the sutra explains why the law it describes works if the title is chanted aloud. By extention, it describes why anything spoken has an effect, even if a very weak in manifesting effect.

Now here is a difficult part to understand superficially and impossible to understand unless one is manifesting the Buddhahood state of being. Buddha and Myoho Renge Kyo are synonymous. There is only ONE activity which defines those who are truly Buddhist from those who mistakenly believe themselves to be Buddhists and that is to chant aloud "Namu Buddha" in coded words and "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" in actual practice.My personal interpretation? Absolutely not.

Shakyamuni said, " The nine divisions..Are but the intoduction to the Great-Vehicle, Hence I preach this sutra...[pg 63] and "there is no other vehicle, but only the One Buddha-Vehicle"..."there is no such thing as a (buddhist priest) who has really obtained (enlightenment) if he has not believed this Law" [pg 61]..."For at length after the Buddha's preparatory teaching He must now proclaim the perfect Truth"...[pg 55] ..." the Buddha has declared only one principle of emancipation"...[pg 55]

What is the One Buddha-Vehicle, the Law, the perfect Truth, the one principle of emancipation? Is the explanation of these terms found in any other sutra, thus permitting devoutees of other sutras to practice Buddhism? To answer the latter question first, No. Within the Lotus Sutra is found the statement, "from of yore I have never heard such a discourse from the Buddha." [page 55] meaning this is the only sutra that the instruction about the law and practice of true Buddhism can be found.To answer the former question we must look at the heart and soul of the Lotus Sutra, found on page 69, "If any..cry but once 'Namu Buddha' They have attained the Buddha-way"

To re-iterate and amplify. The whole purpose of Buddhism is to teach the fastest way to obtain a state of being called Buddhahood. The fastest way to obtain Buddhahood is also said to be the only way to obtain Buddhahood and that way, that law, that perfect Truth, that one principle of emancipation is to chant (cry aloud) 'Namu Buddha" e.g. "Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo" which sounds to the western ear like "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo".

Paradoxically, any "Buddhist" who does not chant "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" is not a Buddhist or Shakyamuni, "the Buddha" is not a Buddhist! Non-dai-moku Buddhist may achieve through their techniques some type of emotional state which they define as enlightenment but they don't and can't achieve Buddhahood. More precisely they achieve a high state of conciousness or bliss, Buddhist define as rapture. But rapture is an inferior state of being to Buddhahood or true enlightenment.

Is Buddhism a Religion?

Buddhism is a teaching which has spread worldwide absorbing the culture
of each country it arrived in, which has resulted in many expressions
of Buddhism. Each strand, no matter how varied in nature and practice,
holds a common emphasis on the impermanence of human life. The worldwide
spread of Buddhism means that it is now practiced by over three hundred
million people worldwide, and thus, is generally considered to be a
world religion. However, its authenticity as a religion has often come
under scrutiny by intellectuals in the Western world. To explore whether
Buddhism can in fact be counted as a religion we must acknowledge that
the main problems arise when looking for a definition of what a religion
is. Either, definitions have proved too narrow excluding many belief
systems which people believe are religious, or they become too broad
which means that any structure can be counted. When applying varying
definitions of religion to Buddhism we come up with some very contradictory
answers; some which say that Buddhism is simply a philosophy or
teaching, whilst others will prove that it is in fact, a religion in practice.

To determine whether Buddhism is a religion or not, we must also note
that we, as Westerners will have different views and concepts of
religion to those practicing in the East. We must ask the question, is it even
possible for Westerners to understand the religious life of Asia? What
we view as Asian religion and religious activity is for most of the
people practicing it a natural part of daily life; our ideas and concepts
vary so greatly that perhaps someone observing Buddhism from a Western
perspective may never truly grasp the religiosity of the group.

For one attempting to provide a definition of religion these practices
would need to be described in a manner which did not exclude one
religion from the definition. There needs to be one thing that is attributed
to all religions, a common factor. For many, the common factor is God.
However, if we conclude that God is the focus of all religion then much
of the material found in Asia must be excluded because there is no God
here, and occasionally not even Gods. From the perspective that
religion entails belief in a God, Buddhism is excluded from having the title
of religion. Many outsiders to the Buddhist tradition may claim that the
Buddha held some divinity and is elevated to a Godly position, but the
Buddha himself refused to be regarded as divine. For the Buddha,
humanity is here to improve ourselves and achieve liberation rather than
worrying about ultimate questions. Buddhists would argue that knowledge of
a God or the afterlife does not matter as neither help in the quest for
nirvana.
If Buddhism is not counted as a religion then what is it? Buddhism can
be thought of as a way of life, a philosophy, a psychology, a way of
thinking through which we can take responsibility for our present life
and lives.

Like all major religions Buddhism contains a morality, rituals and
behaviours, certain ethical values and an origin of existence, yet because
Buddhists do not believe in an all knowing creator God some claim that
Buddhism fails to be a religion. The large variety of definitions of
religion shows that we can never give a solid, one answer description of
what it is that religion is and does.

We must remember that previously Buddhism has many names such as the
Buddha’s teaching or message, or the Buddha’s way or the path of
attainment. Although the religious status of Buddhism has come under constant
attack, we could argue that the questioning is in fact, not necessary.
If we were able to ask the Buddha if Buddhism was in fact a religion or
not he would probably answer with the response that it does not matter.
To the Buddhist, their beliefs are essentially a philosophy by which
individuals can attain release from the world of karma and rebirth.
Knowing whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not cannot lead to
salvation, only through practice and understanding can one be led to a
happiness which is not transient.

Copyright © 2005,buddhismnews.com. All rights reserved.

Helen Wyre an expert in Buddhist studies writes regularly for the daily
updated Buddhism News website. For more information, news and articles
on Buddhism, visit Buddhism News at http://www.buddhismnews.com

Rebuking Slander of the Law and Eradicating Sins

Rebuking Slander of the Law and Eradicating Sins: "Slander of the Law, on the other hand, is like white leprosy, which does not appear to be so serious at first, but bit by bit becomes very serious indeed."

AFRICA: The final true home of Buddhism!

While pages 26 and 27 of the Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin states,

"As for this question, the Lotus Sutra states, "After the passing of the Tathagata, I will cause this sutra to spread widely throughout the continent of Jambudvipa and never allow it to perish." This passage means that the Lotus is a sutra related to the people of Jambudvipa, the continent of the south.

Bodhisattva Miroku said, "There is a small country in the eastern quarter whose people are related solely to the Mahayana." According to this passage from his treatise, within Jambudvipa, there is a small country in the eastern quarter where the capacity of the people is especially suited to the Mahayana sutra.

Seng-chao in his commentary remarks, "This sutra is related to a small country in the northeast." This indicates that the Lotus Sutra has a connection to a country in the northeast. The Eminent Priest Annen states, "All in my country of Japan believe in the Mahayana." Eshin in his Ichijo Yoketsu says, "Throughout all Japan, all people share the same capacity to attain Buddhahood through the perfect teaching [of the Lotus Sutra]."

Thus, according to the opinions of my virtuous predecessors, such as Shakyamuni Buddha, Bodhisattva Miroku, the Tripitaka Master Shuryasoma, The Tripitaka Master Kumarajiva, the Dharma Teacher Seng-chao, the Eminent Priest Annen and the Supervisor of Monks Eshin, people in the country of Japan have a capacity suited solely to the Lotus Sutra.",

from the perspective of E.B.O.N.I.C.Y., the reverse navigation of the Daishonin's deduction is what we seek.

If Japan is the country to the northeast based on its relative position to Jambudvipa, then "the continent to the south", the only major continent to the southwest of Japan is AFRICA!

Why are we Baptists, not Buddhists?

The fifth volume says: "the people will resent [the Lotus Sutra] and find it extremely difficult to believe."

from "The Votary of the Lotus Sutra Will Meet Persecution", MWND, vol. 6, pg. 79

If this Buddhism is so great, then why . . .?

"... the Lotus Sutra promises that those who practice the Law of the Buddha 'will enjoy peace and security in this life and good circumstances in the next.' If this is so then why is it that the priest Nichiren, though he calls himself a votary of the Lotus Sutra, should meet with so many difficulties?"

The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Vol. 6, pgs. 51 - 52. (NSIC version 1990)