What does Buddhism say about how everything came to be?

That is very interesting Aherman, thank you!


Don't Tread on Me wrote:

"i joined a nichirin shoshu temple 20+ years ago and got something of the flavor of the buddhist practice. but they made it very hard to get anything past "chanting daimoku" for a car etc.

i was pretty disillusioned and bailed out and back into the same old nothing."


Can you say more about this?

They chanted to get cars? I am stunned.

Please tell us more about this experience.

And:

" (soka gaki can do that to you..) "



???????????????????????????


This is very intriguing, but I do not understand it.


The nothingness having an origin dilemma is similar, I think, to totally materialist explanations for the universe.


I get dizzy thinking about that one, but, of course, positing a god, simply puts the question one layer down, does it not?

The question simply becomes "how did the god come to be"?


Does anyone else lose themselves in trying to imagine nothing existing? Impossible, of course, for a "something", (however tenuous and delusional that something is) to imagine nothingness.

Nichiren Shoshu is one of the Pure Land sects that evolved originally in Northern China. Today the center of these sects is Korea and Japan, though they have followers everwhere. Nichiren is a Mayana sect that is heavily centered on the Bodhisatva ideal, and to my mind is very far from the core doctrines of Buddhism. Nichiren followers chant "pryars" to a Bodhisatva constantly. Religiosity is measured by the fervor of one's devotional chanting. Nichiren congregations typically believe that by storing up merit through chanting they will go to a "heaven" after death, and will be reborn in a more advantageous social/economic/spiritual life. They skirt very close to transmigration of souls, and probably most layment wouldn't distinguish the difference between reincarnation and transmigration anyway. As extreme as the Nichiren, and other Pure Land sects are, their higher priesthood can often make a reasonable case for their extreme interpretation of the Sutras.

Soko Gai-Kai is a relatively recent breakaway Japanese sect of the Pure Landers. Followers of Soko Gai-Kai are probably the most extreme and most fanatical of any group claiming to be Buddhist. Many Buddhists insist that they should not be considered Buddhist at all. Twenty years ago there was a serious missionary effort by the Soko Gai-Kai to expand into North America, but I believe that the movement has mostly died out now. I could be wrong since I never took them seriously enough to care.

As I've said before, on many occasions, Buddhism is not a single thing. There are major divisions that parallel the divisions in Abrahamic faiths, and within the larger divisions there are sub-divisions. Theravada, the oldest and most austere School is the most unified, but even there some differences can be found from one religious community to another. In Mahayana there are tremendous difference between the mainstream, Tantric, Pure Lands, and Zen. The Tantric Schools vary in ritual, practice and belief, as do the Pure Land Schools, and even Zen.

Rinzai Zen practitioners sit facing the center of the Zendo, and use Koan and Mantras as teaching tools. Soto Zen sit facing a blank wall, emphasize the Great Heart Sutra, and rarely use Koans or Mantras. See what great differences there are! LOL. While both of the best known Zen sects (there are others) are serious means and vehicles designed to prepare one for Enlightenment, they also exhibit characteristics of "regular" religious congregations. There is a "church" hiararchy that ranges from simple monks and nuns, to priests, to "Bishops" and "Grand Masters". Sitting meditation is emphasized, but most congregations sit in pews, sing Buddhist "hymns", hear a sermon designed to educate the congregation on Buddhist doctrine, send their children to Sunday School where they are taught lessons in Buddhist Morality and Japanese Culture, and finally they sit around and discuss personal affairs/gossip, etc. while planning church events, projects and budgets. The great bulk of Buddists are not priests, monks or nuns, they are just regular people whose core beliefs are centered on Buddhist doctrine and the culture of their Asian homelands. Until this level of Buddhism exists adapted to Western Culture, Buddhism will remain a minority religion in the West. Once Buddhism has adapted Western Culture, it may well give the Abrahamics a run for their money.

Hmmm...here it is avery rapidly growing religion.

I am not sure if it is THE most rapid?

asherman, again, covered the important parts of the nichiren school.

in addition to soka, at least here in l.a., there was a somewhat more reasonable nichiren group called "ryukai".

the "chant for a car" bit that i mentioned fit in with the concept of accumulating "credits" toward good things. of course, the han (sic?) that i joined was based in hollywood, so there were lots of actors, musicians and artists. most were without wheels... so....

also, i found their intimations that, since my girlfriend has no inclination to get involved, perhaps i should dump her more than a little bit.. uhh, un-buddhist. i thought we were trying to alleviate suffering, not cause it.

my girlfriend became my wife. it was soka that got dumped.

also, i'm sure asherman knows this, but at one point, around 1990, there was a huge rift between the nichiren shoshu priesthood and the soka organization led by george williams. as i understand it, they believed that he was stting himself up to become the latest bodhisatva, which would have put nichiren into the catagory of "historical buddha" along with shakyamuni. from my experiences, they were probably right.

a co-worker of the wife's sent me a message that "it's okay to come back, everything is straightened out". apparently the organization has returned, but from what i can tell, it is greatly diminished.

guess george needs to "chant for followers"...

prospero, the thing about god? who created god? man, i've messed with that idea and it only takes us down more layers, as you say. the best i xame up with is that existence of ny kind is a complete mystery and nobody knows or has the true answer to any of this.

that's why in my own beliefs, i'm more or less content to leave it at one.

Hi Prospero,

Posulating either an Eternal God, or eternal matter present much the same problem with our limited intelligence being unable to figure out how either one could exist.

The difference is, if there is an Eternal God, then you have a sufficient explanation of how all else could have happened.

If there is only eternal matter, then you do not have a sufficient cause to explain the origin of the present universe, the origin of life in the Earth, etc.

there is the possibility that the creator(s ?) is not an eternal being, as well.

we just don't know anything for certain.

But you do not have a sufficient explanation of how he could have came to be.



Well, if God has always been, why not matter?

There is no reason that one should not refer to Ultimate Reality as God, so long as you fully recognize that in this definition of God, there is no separate being, no intelligent design, no time/space or change from essential and indivisible emptiness. Our Perceptual World (time/space, multiplicity, etc.) is illusion arising from infinite emptiness. We do not, and can not know from what caused the Illusory World to arise. There is the Dream, but no Dreamer. God, in this definition, is just a convienent term to identify the Great and Indivisible Emptiness from which the Illusory World arises.

There is nothing so glorious as to shuck off the "Self", and the world of multiplicity, to merge into the all-embracing singleness of Ultimate Reality. Only in that "state of being" is suffering completely absent and in timelessness there is eternity.

The thing is that if one becomes preoccupied with trying to define God (the indefinable), we can not help but fail and suffer as a result. People get caught up in causation, and that leads to the mistaken notion of beginnings and endings, ultimately defining the Universe in finite terms. God is greater than that, God is all encompassing and everything that emminates from God is just as timeless. If the Perceptual World were conguent with Ulitmate Reality, nothing but contradictions will be found. However, if All is infinite then time/space and multiplicity are necessarily illusory. Being indivisable and without form Ultimate Reality IS, and everything must be a part of that Ultimate Reality without form or substance.

Far better than trying to intellectually grasp this, which can really only be completely known by having an Enlightenment experience, one should take things one step at a time. Live so as to cause as little suffering as possible, and direct one's thoughts, words and actions to the mitigation of suffering. Live a moderate life, without undue attachments or uncontrolled emotional swings. Pay attention to each moment, leaving the past to bury the dead, and the future to bring what it may. Pay attention! Develop self-discipline and tend to your own weedy garden while leaving your neighbor to work his own plot. Indulge yourself in random acts of kindness ... annonymously. Listen, pay attention.

Still reading along. Thank you all for your insightful posts.

hence, buddhism.

As a Nichiren Buddhist and 24 year "Soka Gakkai" member may I comment? Neither Nichiren Shoshu nor Soka Gakkai are "pure land schools". On the contrary, Nichiren himself denounced the Pure Lands schools. Happiness or enlightenment is to be found in this lifetime within our own lives. We possess many conditions of life. The highest condition we possess is the Buddha nature. Happiness cannot be found in a new car or worldly possessions though we do not discourage members from enjoying such things. There is a wealth of online information about Buddhism at http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/ There is far too much to say in one post.

George Williams did not create the rift between the priesthood and the Gakkai. The high priest came to regard himself as the original Buddha and claimed that members could not get benefit from the practice without revering him as such. This Buddhism does not worship a person. It is based on the law of causality that permeates the universe.

Finally, how did everything come to be? Perhaps the Universe has always existed in some form or another. It's difficult for us to imagine something having no beginning though we like to think of our lives as being eternal and without end.

So, Asherman, you have some knowledge of Buddhism but I suggest you study up on Nichiren.

Lani's pacific comments and Asherman's always impressive scholarship have given this thread the value it has. We must remember not to ever discuss ("fundamental") as if it were just another "religion" in the Abrahamic sense. Buddha's sole purpose was enlightenment, i.e., liberation from existential suffering. Mythologies, rituals, hierarchies were extraneous and, as far as I'm concerned, superfluous developments.

I was just saying that Asherman does not have the foggiest understanding of Nichiren Buddhism. Overcoming suffering and attaining elightenment are the purposes of Nichiren Buddhism. Every human being possesses the Buddha nature.

According to all versions of Buddhism everything has buddha-nature, but we do not all have buddha-mind; we have the potential for it. Frankly, I cannot relate to Nichiren or Pure Land versions of Buddhism. They are worlds away from what I can relate to: Zen Buddhism.