Yesterday I published The Trouble with Interfaith Truth. I asked Rev. Ryuei McCormick, who leads the Nichiren Buddhist Sangha of the San Francisco Bay Area, what he thought and this was his response.

A very good question. And feel free to share my response:

In East Asia they sometimes talked about the five vehicles – because they would include the vehicle moral practice to attain a human rebirth, and the moral and meditative practices for attaining a heavenly rebirth. These were of course considered provisional and preliminary to Buddhism. Nichiren Shonin alludes to this kind of thinking in the beginning of the Opening of the Eyes (Kaimoku-sho) when he talks about how Confucianism and Brahmanism prepared the way for Buddhism in China and India respectively. In the Pali Canon the Buddha often gave a “progressive teaching” consisting of a review of those spiritual teachings and values that he shared with Brahmanism: generosity, self-discipline, and aspiration for rebirth in the heavenly realms, as well as the dangers of sensual pleasures and the benefits of renunciation. Once his listeners heard and accepted those teachings (almost a Spirituality 101) he would then teach the four noble truths.

And then there is the mutual possession of the ten worlds and the Tiantai teaching that even adverse seeds can lead to buddhahood. And these Tiantai teachings play off such things as Vimalakirti’s admonitions to the voice-hearers.

So, the One Vehicle is actually all the teachings of the Buddha including those he gave that weren’t even particularly unique to Buddhism (such as the above “progressive teaching”) and those he gave as bodhisattvas in times and places where there was no Buddhism but the ground needed to be prepared (Nichiren alludes to this also in Kaimoku-sho by citing Tiantai Zhiyi’s belief that Confucius was just such a bodhisattva).

To be more specific based on what I have discerned from the sutras, the Lotus Sutra, Tiantai’s teachings, and Nichiren Shonin’s teaching (and this is written about at length in my Kaimoku-sho commentary Open Your Eyes), Christianity and other such monotheistic religions are okay insofar as the encourage people to do things that are wholesome and refrain from what is unwholesome. That will enable people to attain a human or heavenly rebirth which is conducive to having the kind of wholesome attitude and way of living that will enable a person to give ear to the Buddha Dharma (including the Lotus Sutra) whereas those in the four lower realms have a more difficult time. Note that among the guardians of the Dharma mentioned in the Lotus Sutra are the eight kinds of supernatural beings, among whom are devas (god realm), asuras (fighting demons realm), nagas (animal realm), and yakshas (spirits considered to exist in the hungry ghosts realm, though I’ll admit it’s kind of odd). It is even possible for bodhisattvas to be born in times and places where there is no established Buddha Dharma and so they will express values and insights that are similar, though they will not turn the Wheel of the Dharma fully (so Jesus is at best a bodhisattva and not a Buddha because he did not teach the four noble truths but a relatively more humane form of monotheism). Now of course, these teachings also perpetuate delusions (like monotheism) and when they come into conflict with Buddhism they then become religions that are no longer preparing the way to Buddhism but blocking it and therefore lead to unwholesome conduct in relation to Buddhism.

Towards the end of Kaimoku-sho, Nichiren makes it clear that there are countries that are just ignorant and evil and then there are countries that slander. I believe the distinction he is making is between non-Buddhist cultures that need to be persuaded to give ear to the Dharma and learn more about it until they are able to take up the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra. This requires shoju or the way of accepting where people are at and encouraging them in their good qualities while leading them gradually to the Wonderful Dharma. Then there are those countries (like 13th century Japan) that were Buddhist and had centuries to digest the Buddha Dharma but they still turn away from the Lotus Sutra. These countries are slanderous because they are not just hostile to Buddhism out of ignorance but are Buddhists misrepresenting Buddhism and they should know better and they had their chance. For them, shakubuku or the way of subduing their arrogant misrepresentations of the Dharma must be used.

So I recognize the Dharma at work surreptitiously in other traditions, but I also see how their are unwholesome teachings that must be criticized not because they slander the Dharma (of which they are largely ignorant and even their misrepresentations lack authority because they are not coming from Buddhists themselves) but because they are inhumane and lead to lower realms because of the obvious harm they cause. For instance, fundamentalist Christians gathering in defiance of the law and endangering their own health and ours because they falsely and arrogantly assume they are immune to disease because they are “bathed in the blood of Christ.” Not on Buddhist or Dharmic grounds but simply on scientific grounds and for our own survival as a species these false religiosities must be opposed. That puts me at odds with fundamentalists but not with people of other traditions who truly are good hearted, open-minded, and share values and even insights with Buddhism (probably because their founders or saints were bodhisattvas or pratyekabuddhas).

With Buddhists I actually use shakubuku more than I expected and more than most people think. When I’m with other Buddhists I usually don’t need to contradict or argue as long as we are talking about shared values, insights, and so on. And there is a LOT of shared ground. However, I am quick to speak up when I think the Buddha Dharma is being misrepresented. More often than not I get admissions that my point is valid. I have pointed out to Zen Buddhists that they all too often pay more attention to the koans than to the sutras. I have pointed out to Pure Land Buddhists that ultimately there is no self- or other-power. I am very quick to point out that the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra are merely provisional sutras and are not the pinnacle of Buddha Dharma. I do this politely but firmly.

Another important point to consider, which those who emphasize the ecumenical implications of the One Vehicle (whether just within Buddhism or between Buddhism and non-Buddhism) is that trajectory is very important. In any given situation, is a teaching or practice leading people to a place where they will be able to appreciate and accept the Lotus Sutra on some level, or is it leading people away from the Lotus Sutra? This requires a lot of discernment and more discussion.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Next: The Example of Kenji Miyazawa

Gene Reeves’ The Stories of the Lotus Sutra was published by Risshō Kōsei Kai in 2010 as a companion to Reeves’ updated translation of the threefold Lotus Sutra. This is the second Kōsei kai book I’ve read that brings up the concept that all religions share a common, inter-faith truth. As Reeves puts it:

[W]ithout the nourishment of the Dharma [as revealed in the Simile of the Herbs] we would dry up and die. But this Dharma that nourishes all is not something to be found only in the Buddhist religion. It is universal. It is everywhere. The Dharma can be found even in the ordinary food that we eat and the water we drink, making it possible for us to live.

Or this conflating of Jesus and Krishna with the Eternal Buddha:

[E]ven when we think we cannot see him, the Buddha can be found right next to us. The Buddha may not even go by the name of a buddha. Sometimes perhaps he goes by the name of Christ, or Krishna, or even Jane. Belonging to a Buddhist temple or organization is not, in itself, the Buddha Way, nor is it the only way to enter or follow the Buddha Way. The “universal gate” is many gates, many more than you or I could possibly know in a lifetime.

Reeves comes at this whole issue of inter-faith Dharma from a number of directions.

One of the important insights to be gained from the teaching of skillful means is that many things that are not the whole truth are nevertheless important truths. Just as we should seek the potential to be a buddha in ourselves even though we are far from perfect, we should seek the truth, even the hidden truths, in what others say, in their words and in their stories.

“Others” includes of course other religions and their followers. Followers of the Dharma Flower Sutra can be glad when they encounter people of other faiths who have found carriages appropriate for themselves. The Sutra teaches that there are many successful ways, some, no doubt, beyond our imagination.

Or this:

Apart from the Buddha and blind to the Buddha Dharma, we are like someone wandering around, destitute, impoverished, without purpose, miserable. In a sense, this is the destiny of those who do not, in some way, follow the Buddha Way. This does not mean, however, that one has to be a Buddhist in the ordinary sense. To follow the Buddha is to put one’s trust in and devote oneself to the happiness of others and the life of the whole. It is to share in a kind of common human faith that life is meaningful, a faith that finds expression in a variety of religious and other forms.

I struggle with this concept that the One Buddha Vehicle includes Christian chariots along with the Śrāvakayāna sheep cart and Pratyekabuddha deer cart and Bodhisattva bullock cart.

Stretching the One Buddha Vehicle to cover all of the Buddha’s teachings is, for me, the essence of the Lotus Sutra. I view the Lotus Sutra as the blueprint that allows the practicer to gather from all of the building materials (other sutras) what is needed to create a hall within which one can practice the Buddha way. The Lotus Sutra is the ocean into which all streams have flowed. But I’m unable – or perhaps just unwilling – to stretch it further to include all religions.

These ideas troubled me and it occurred to be that someone who had a statue of a Roman Catholic saint eye-opened for his Buddhist altar might be able to share some insight. I sent this as an email to Ryuei McCormick.

Ryuei McCormick’s response