Induction and Deduction -
"PeeWee" <Peewee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<3fa2f72d_2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
| >
| > "PeeWee" <Peewee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
| > news:3f9f8f41_2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| >
| > ..., but in the Lotus Sutra, it says to "discard
| > the provisional pre-Lotus Sutra teachings". Those sutras were for
a
| > different time, not today.
| >
|.
| As I know it, when you have attained perfect enlightenment, you
discard ALL
| teachings and religions.
No, this is incorrect. That is Zen, and is NOT Buddhism
What Shakyamuni calls "upholding the Law" means to discard as
provisional all the sutras, EXCEPT the Lotus Sutra. To uphold that
teaching and only that teaching as the Buddha's highest, and to cast
aside as transient any other sutra, but the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus
Sutra reveals the truth that the Buddha came to share.
| As I understand it, the Lotus Sutra may be the one for the present
but those
| provisional teachings form the foundation of the Lotus Sutra. I
think if you
| read the chapter on the conduct of the Bodhisattva, the provisional
| teachings lay the basis for it.
No, this is incorrect. For the people of that time, there was a
building process. This is inappropriate now, since the Saha World is
now drastically impure, made impure by the spread of those provisional
teachings, the very ones you cling to. The cir***stances and times are
different, and the capacity of the people is different because of
those cir***stances and the times.
| And I think discard is the wrong word used for the translation. It's
like
| when you do Mathematics at the University level, you do not really
discard
| the basic foundation of addition, multiplication, division and
subtraction.
| At the lower level you must have already mastered the foundation
before you
| can move on to the higher level. Those basic arithmetics must have
become a
| part of you, a snap of your fingers when you do the higher
Mathematics. But
| still, you do not discard it. You just move on over it because you
have
| mastered it.
This is not Mathematics, or a branch of it.
Mathematics is based upon logic, either constructively, or by some
inductive or extrapolated technique, if not constructed. Aristotelian
Logic is based upon the Ideal realm (a priori), which is also revealed
by Plato. Syllogisms are only vulnerable at their premises and their
analysis. As Russell and Whitehead proved in Principia Mathematica,
only Logic is required to construct 1+1=2 (at the end of volume one),
and the rest of constructive Mathematical theory can be created from
that construction and rules of Logic.
But there is no discarding of constructive Mathematics. It is
constructive, and removing the foundation makes the house fall down.
That is Deduction.
Science is based upon the Real realm (a posteriori) and is purely
inductive, since the next experiment can destroy ANY scientific
theory. What are called scientific "facts" are really only the
products of well-accepted theories, that are less likely to fall, but
almost certainly will at some point. So Science is more like the
phenomenon you describe, since building the next theory requires the
experiment that wrecked the house of the last theory.
That is Induction.
(The "Scientific Method" is to let the experiments precede the
theories and to only create theories based upon some set of
experiments, as opposed to "Creationism", which is based upon faith-
based premises.)
Religion, which is different from Mathematics, is basically Deduction
based upon premises acquired from Faith.
Once you accept a premise, by Faith, no induction should be required.
So when Shakyamuni states to (1) "honestly discard provisional
teachings" and to (2) "cast aside the transient and reveal the true",
then that is the basic premise, and requires no building or
construction, you simply take that basic premise of Buddhism on faith.
Or, you are not practicing Buddhism, since that was the Buddha's final
set of admonitions. Then you are practicing someone else's -ism, and
should stop calling it Buddhism, or even based upon Buddhism.
Shakyamuni Buddha got to choose, and he has so chosen.
| What I'm pointing out is that you must have mastered the provisional
| teachings first before you go on to the higher Sutras and given that
the
| Lotus Sutra is the one that all Buddhas depended upon to achieve
perfect
| enlightenment, your provisonal foundation must be solid before you
can
| proceed to that level.
Like I said, that only worked 2500 years ago, before the world was
made impure by the very provisional teachings you cling to.
| So, for those of you who have made the provisional teachings a
natural part
| of you that you do not even have to think about it, I give you my
respect
| for being able to move on to the Lotus Sutra.
Casting aside provisional teachings is not intuitive, and requires a
determination to eradicate slander of the true teachings in one's
thoughts, words and deeds.
| But be careful because if one misses the true meanings of the Lotus
Sutra
| and instead turn its head around, one may well fall into the realms
of the
| unwholesome. Which is why it is stated in it that the Lotus Sutra
should
| only be expounded to those who are ready for it.
And this is precisely why Nichiren Daishonin gave his followers the
practice of chanting the Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra or Nam-Myoho-Renge-
Kyo, to avoid misreading the Lotus Sutra's intent. By chanting, and
the rest of Nichiren Daishonin's practice outlined in the Gosho, and
by following the 26 admonitions of Nikko's Fuji School, we can
overcome any obstacle, no matter how fearful.
| Are we all Bodhisattvas who are ready for the Lotus Sutra???
To be on earth at this time, yes.
Indeed, no other teaching will do the job in this time, the world is
too impure for lesser teachings to be effective.
| All the Buddha Dharmas contain the truth.
| Some only lead to partial enlightenment, yes. ( a diploma level, if
you will
| have it - that's the provisional teachings)
| Some lead to perfect enlightenment, yes ( Like the Lotus Sutra and
the
| Avatamsaka Sutra)
| Some are stepping stones to perfect enlightenment, yes ( Pure Land
school)
| Some are safe but the route is long and tough ( Avatasamka Sutra)
| Some give the shortest route but it could be treacherous if one is
not
| careful ( Lotus Sutra)
|.
| So, choose what is suitable for you and not just follow blindly.
|.
| Is the Lotus Sutra the only one suitable for the present times?
| Look within.
I defer to your enlightened wisdom as to which path you will take at
present, in the certain knowledge that you will navigate inescapably
towards the Buddha's highest teaching, the Lotus Sutra, according to
your cir***stances.
-Chas.
________________________________________
From "The Entity of the Mystic Law", Writings of Nichiren Daishonin,
p. 426 ...
In the final analysis, the meaning of the Lotus Sutra is that the
metaphor is none other than the entity of the Law and that the entity
of the Law is none other than the metaphor. That is why the Great
Teacher Dengyo in his commentary says: "The Lotus Sutra contains a
great many metaphors and parables. However, when it comes to the major
parables, we find that there are seven of them. These seven parables
are none other than the entity of the Law, and the entity of the Law
is none other than these metaphors and parables. Therefore, there is
no entity of the Law outside of the metaphors and parables, and there
are no metaphors and parables outside of the entity of the Law. In
other words, the entity of the Law refers to the entity of the truth
of the essential nature of phenomena, while the metaphors and parables
represent the entity of the Mystic Law as manifested in actual
phenomena. The manifestations are none other than the entity of the
truth, and the entity of the truth is none other than the
manifestations. Therefore, it can be said that the Law and its
metaphors constitute a single entity. This is why the passages from
the treatises and the annotations by the Tendai school all explain the
lotus as both the Law itself and a metaphor for it."
|
