Stories of the Lotus Sutra - Chapter 6: Shariputra

[Bion]

I feel I’ve come home. (Who knows, maybe I was Buddhist in a past life? I’m joking…sort of.)

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

Who can even guess the karmic entanglement at play? Who knows how long and winding your journey on the Buddha's way has been?

Gassho
sat lah

[Tenryu]

Shariputra’s joy is very present. Realizing he too will become a buddha seems to bring him relief. Being called a child of the Buddha, nourished from the Buddha’s mouth, surrounded by compassion, it feels warm and almost familial. His realization feels familiar. Not arriving somewhere, but beginning again. Finding a path and seeing that it’s already under your feet. It reminded me of my own Jukai, a strong joy that is steady and lasting, not finished, just stepping fully onto the path. Reeves' stairway image lingers too. Not an elevator, just steps.

Reeves calls the Sutra “good news for everyone,” saying we are already bodhisattvas on the way to buddhahood. I had to smile and shake my head a little at that over-enthusiastic tone. “Good news, everyone!” One of these days we might need an ice pick to get through all that enthusiasm to reach the underlying point, yet the point itself still resonates.

I noticed stepping back a bit whenever he draws parallels to Christianity. It’s not religion itself that gives me pause, but the “collaterals” of it, if that makes any sense. Using it to avoid responsibility, to mask anger, or to simplify the world by explaining things away. Of course dogmatism and rigid thinking show up in many traditions, not just Christianity.

Maybe that’s why I got positive chills from the image Bion mentioned in the Zoom meeting, the Hindu gods at Shariputra’s deathbed. For me, it shows that truth and the Buddha’s compassion can reach beyond sectarian or dogmatic limits and points to clarity of mind and direct experience, letting go of concepts.

And maybe noticing that the path is already underfoot is itself enough good news for today.

Gasshō,
Tenryū
st Lah

[Chikyou]

Who can even guess the karmic entanglement at play? Who knows how long and winding your journey on the Buddha's way has been?

Gassho
sat lah

Innumerable eons, it seems like!

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[Myojo]

Thanks to everyone for a thoroughly enjoyable discussion of chapter 6 and related topics....
Gassho,
Menmoku

[Seiraku]

The way Sariputra reacts to the Skillful Means and Great Vehicle teachings make it seem like that's the main substance of the Lotus Sutra that then gets self-referenced so much after that. Found it! Haha.

Gassho,
Seiraku
SatLah

[Hokuu]

A few thoughts after the conversation on Saturday.

On Mahayana
Bion, I think you said something like, "Mahayana is far away from the incipient Buddhism". For the sake of fairness, I'd complement that with the statement that all modern Buddhist schools - including Theravada - are pretty far away from the original Buddhism. Even though modern science is able to reconstruct early Buddhism relatively well, and it's beneficial for us to learn it, it would be a mistake to assume that the modern schools are worse or less "clean" than the early version.

A modern combine harvester and an Audi E-tron are both very different from each other and from the first car developer in the 19th century. It doesn't make them worse or somehow lose their original meaning; vice versa, they're creative adaptations to their time and needs.

On religion
It's interesting how my approach to the question of whether Zen Buddhism is or is not a religion seems to differ from the rest of the group. For me, the question itself is inapplicable. If there is a scholarly consensus that Zen Buddhism in particular - and Buddhism in general - is a religion, I accept it. I don't see much sense in questioning that without a degree in comparative religious studies.

I do have and value my opinion, but I put the opinion of professionals in the first place. I guess this "what does it mean for me? what do I think about it?" framing feels mostly characteristic of the USA mindset. Probably a bad example, but in the soviet union, there were no anti-vaxers - we did as it was prescribed by professionals in health management.

gassho
satlah

[Bion]

A few thoughts after the conversation on Saturday.

On Mahayana
Bion, I think you said something like, "Mahayana is far away from the incipient Buddhism". For the sake of fairness, I'd complement that with the statement that all modern Buddhist schools - including Theravada - are pretty far away from the original Buddhism. Even though modern science is able to reconstruct early Buddhism relatively well, and it's beneficial for us to learn it, it would be a mistake to assume that the modern schools are worse or less "clean" than the early version.

In most cases, I don’t think it’s a matter of better or worse, or cleaner versus not. Modern Mahayana is quite different from early Mahayana, and early Mahayana was itself quite different from earlier approaches. For example, the Mahayana that entered China was not the same as that depicted in the early bodhisattvayāna sūtras. This is simply the historical reality of how things changed and evolved—sometimes for the better and sometimes not. We are fortunate to have access to enough information to apply critical thinking and gain a deeper understanding of our traditions.

Gassho
sat lah

[Seido-nigo]

Forgive me, everyone, my thoughts are all over the place and I’m struck by multiple things across the original Sutra (Ch.3 A parable) and reading for this week (Ch.6 Shariputra) and they don’t necessarily connect.

From Ch.6 Shariputra:

I too noticed Reeves drawing parallels between Christianity and the Buddha. Particularly this section:

“

He is the father of us all, the Compassionate One…we owe our lives not only to our biological parents and ancestors, but even more to the process, the Dharma, by which we live and are sustained…And those of us who are significantly drawn to the Buddha Dharma will be especially aware of our indebtedness both to the Buddha and to the tradition that has made his Dharma available to us. In an important sense, we ourselves are children of the Buddha.”

The Compassionate One - Owing our lives, indebtedness - being a child of the Buddha: For me, this brought to mind idolatry, hierarchy and paternalism. None of these concepts align with my experience of our practice and yet for Reeves who - for all our frustrations with his pacing and unrelenting exuberance - clearly walks the same path we do, this is how he experiences the Buddha and Dharma.

There’s apparently a sutra called “Introduction to the Domain of the Inconceivable Qualities and Wisdom of the Tathagatas” that says the Buddha appears to people in the way that they need. How have my needs shaped the way this practice appears to me? It’s a question that still sits with me.

And equally, how have other people’s needs shaped the way the Buddha appears to them? Understanding that our needs are unique to us, maybe the things that seem so alien and repulsive to me will be critically important to another. Still, we walk this Way together.

There is a great example of this in an interview I watched recently between two authors: Stephen Batchelor and Donald S. Lopez Jr. They have both written books about the Buddha, but have taken radically different approaches and reached radically different conclusions. Nonetheless, when you watch them speak about the Buddha, there is no doubt of their deep love and respect for our tradition. And there is a moment about 3/4 of the way in where the interviewer asks them to compliment each other - and they do! There’s also some good-natured ribbing back and forth - it’s heartwarming to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/live/9HRPEK4A2wg?si=rZHeXqBgCIcS2Uln

From Ch.3 A parable:

There were two sections that particularly stuck with me in this chapter:

“Shariputra, what do you think about this? Is that elder, in giving equally the rare treasure of great carriages to his children, guilty of falsehood or not?”

Shariputra said: “No, World-Honored One. That elder only made it possible for his children to escape the disaster of the fire and preserve their lives.

I remember reading this and immediately thinking, ooooooooh, my medical license would not survive that kind of logic. And that led me to think about the ways in which we might interpret historical texts as justification for current, contemporary choices we face. For example, a very unfortunate and dangerous interpretation of this part could be: the ends justify the means when “offering” Buddhist salvation to others, particularly when “I know better”.

The second section that stuck with me:

What’s more, Shariputra,
Do not teach this sutra
To the arrogant or lazy,
Or to those attached to the idea of the self….

It continues with 35 verses of what is essentially ‘Damn you to hell (literally)’ poetry, to which my brain responded with: O_O. WTF.

There’s an excellent exploration of this in the book ‘Two Buddhas Seated Side by Side’ by Donald Lopez and Jacqueline Stone, which follows each chapter of the original Sutra and explains the historical context at the time as well as Chinese and Japanese historical interpretations that followed. I’m taking the above as Passive Aggressive (or just Aggressive Aggressive?) Take 2, following on from the arhats who left, to the arhats who stayed but don’t believe.

And this brings us back to Shariputra and Bion’s question at the end of our meeting yesterday: Why is it that Avalokiteshvara (Kannon) shares the wisdom of the Heart Sutra and not Shariputra? From Lopez and Stone, in the Lotus Sutra Shariputra has been co-opted as a prop for evolving Mahayana practice. A symbol of wisdom amongst arhats, he’s the established tradition facing the turning of the Dharma wheel, what Reeves has referenced as a continuity of old tradition with new Mahayana emergence (p.64). Is a similar thing happening in the Heart Sutra? Avalokiteshvara sharing transcendental wisdom with Shariputra as a symbol of this growth process in our tradition??


What stayed with me after reading?
No matter how alien Reeves’ perception may seem, its alien-ness comes from my own perception meeting his. If I let go of my perception, there is just Reeves’ perception, nothing alien.
Also, we still haven't reached the actual Sutra.


Omake Though #1:

All living beings
Are my children

The Lotus Sutra was definitely written by a bunch of men. Seriously, Dude(s), you distinctly lack the necessary lady parts. Also, childrearing does not equal sitting under the Bodhi Tree.Just saying.


Omake Thought #2:

I tell you, Shariputra,
You and the others
Are my children.
And I am your father.

This image came to mind. (I feel like the arhats cursed to hell might relate to the Lotus Sutra as Darth Vader?)
ff198b96a653b697c00a22126efba1cd.jpg

Gassho
Seido
Sat Lah

[Bion]

The Compassionate One - Owing our lives, indebtedness - being a child of the Buddha: For me, this brought to mind idolatry, hierarchy and paternalism. None of these concepts align with my experience of our practice and yet for Reeves who - for all our frustrations with his pacing and unrelenting exuberance - clearly walks the same path we do, this is how he experiences the Buddha and Dharma.

I'd like to offer a bit of a challenge and suggest that perhaps it is not Reeves alone who uses that language. In the Jukai ceremony, as the preceptor and monks circle the person receiving the precepts, the lines, "One who receives the Buddha's precepts stands at the same level as Gautama Buddha; he is now a child of a Buddha," are recited repeatedly.

We speak of students inheriting the dharma, and the entire system of dharma inheritance is closely related to the Chinese ideal of filial piety. We even call the ancestors the Patriarchs, and that familial language is embedded in our Soto Zen teaching and practice.

Couldn't we also say that, in a sense, Shakyamuni Buddha's awakening and his turning of the wheel of dharma "gave birth" to shravakas, arhats, and bodhisattvas, making him a dharma father to all who come to practice? In the Lotus Sutra, it is explained that these bodhisattvas, guaranteed to become Buddhas in the future, will in turn "birth" or bring forth their own innumerable arhats and bodhisattvas. One of my favorite scholars, Jan Nattier, has even remarked that it is literally the "job description" of a Buddha to create arhats.

Just a bit more food for thought—as if you didn’t already have enough.


Gassho
sat lah

[Maro]

And equally, how have other people’s needs shaped the way the Buddha appears to them? Understanding that our needs are unique to us, maybe the things that seem so alien and repulsive to me will be critically important to another. Still, we walk this Way together.

During the long and winding path of my practice :-) I have come to understand skilful means as a manifestation of great compassion! And, again for me, true great compassion cannot be seen as a "separate quality" from great wisdom.

Now that I am writing these few words I find myself bowing in gratitude and awe to this great compassion.
Personally, I am very happy to be a child of the Great Compassionate One Buddha

Gassho
Maro
satlah

[Chikyou]

Seido I really enjoyed reading your comment!!! You echoed a lot of my feelings about Reeves, especially about the “damn you to hell” passage. That is one that challenged me (I am still sitting with that challenge - I don’t know quite what to do with it to be honest. I feel like it exists just to remind me that reading sacred texts isn’t supposed to be easy. )

Thank you so much for the book recommendation!!! I was about to ask for a recommendation for a more direct commentary of the Lotus Sutra after our discussion on Saturday. But I see you have beaten me to the punch. I will add this to my list to read after I have made it through the Sutra itself.

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[Bion]

Seido I really enjoyed reading your comment!!! You echoed a lot of my feelings about Reeves, especially about the “damn you to hell” passage. That is one that challenged me (I am still sitting with that challenge - I don’t know quite what to do with it to be honest. I feel like it exists just to remind me that reading sacred texts isn’t supposed to be easy. )

Thank you so much for the book recommendation!!! I was about to ask for a recommendation for a more direct commentary of the Lotus Sutra after our discussion on Saturday. But I see you have beaten me to the punch. I will add this to my list to read after I have made it through the Sutra itself.

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

ha! Well, the Lotus Sutra insists quite a bit on punishment in the Avicii hell for those who reject or slander the sutra. Reeves merely related the facts

gassho
sat lah

[Shujin]

On religion

I do have and value my opinion, but I put the opinion of professionals in the first place. I guess this "what does it mean for me? what do I think about it?" framing feels mostly characteristic of the USA mindset. Probably a bad example, but in the soviet union, there were no anti-vaxers - we did as it was prescribed by professionals in health management.

Yes, this is a massive challenge for Americans, and something we should moderate. Our social institutions are dying due to a variety of factors, but this is one of the primary reasons. Many of my peers have a habit of wanting a religion to agree with all of their personal values. As you can imagine, this agreement doesn't occur often. As a result they're on a never-ending search for the perfect religion.

Gassho,
Shujin
st/lah

[Seido-nigo]

I don’t know quite what to do with it to be honest. I feel like it exists just to remind me that reading sacred texts isn’t supposed to be easy. )

Oooooh, yes, I do think you're right. In any case, I'm in the same boat with you - salty language - it'll ferment, we can come back to it in a few years and see how we feel about it then

Gassho
Seido
Sat Lah

[Chikyou]

ha! Well, the Lotus Sutra insists quite a bit on punishment in the Avicii hell for those who reject or slander the sutra. Reeves merely related the facts

gassho
sat lah

Those who slander the sutra have to listen to electronic dance music for ten thousand kalphas?

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō