The Three Proofs; Actual Proof of Experience 現証

Actual Proof [現証]

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
traditions, by scriptureby logical conjecture, by inference, by
analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability,
or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you
know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these
qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the
wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm
& to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' "
-- Kalama Sutta Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Nothing is more certain than actual proof." -- Nichiren

The final test of a Sutra is a practical one, does it actually work? In other words, does the teaching actually produce Enlightened human beings? Also, since the Buddha's intent is that everyone attain enlightenment, is the teaching universally accessible? From what I can gather, prior to Nichiren, the general attitude was that the Lotus Sutra was superior in theory, because it proposed Universal Enlightenment. However, the esoteric methods of Shingon or Mikkyo, based on the Dainichi Sutras, were viewed as superior in practice.

Nichiren's contribution was to tease out the practice of the Three Great Hidden Dharmas or 三大秘法 (sandai hiho) from the text of the Lotus Sutra. This practice is simple and accessible to all; whereas Mikkyo, by definition, is only available to initiates who take the vows of the Samaya. Therefore, thanks to Nichiren Shonin, we can say that the Lotus Sutra is superior to Mikkyo both in theory and practice.

This is not to say other practices in Buddhism have no value at all. Practices such as observation of the ethical code known as the Vinaya, as well as the loving kindness & compassion cultivation (metta-karuna bhavana), and the concentration meditations (samatha), among others, are quite useful. Mindfulness meditation (satipatthana) is particularly a valuable supplement. This is not to say that the primary practice is in any way lacking, or needs supplementation. If I recall correctly (iirc), Nichiren compared the primary practice of the Three Great Hidden Dharmas (sandaihiho) to rice, and the supplementary practices to seasoning.

However, if they do not lead all people directly to awakening; they are provisional or supplementary practices, and, as such, are not prerequisites or requirements for practice. On the one hand, those practices do provide skills that enhance one's practice of the Lotus Sutra. On the other hand, becoming attached to them, becoming confused by them, or feeling they are necessary, can be an impediment to the primary practice, which is cultivating reverent faith in the Wondrous Dharma of the Lotus Sutra.

In the next segment, I plan to discuss another set of threes -- the Three Kinds of Wisdom. This is a concept I sort of came up with on my own. While it is implicit in the way terminology of the Dharma is employed, in at least some texts; I have never seen the concept elaborated. In fact, commentators tend to either ignore or gloss over the distinction between three main terms translated as wisdom. They are commonly given as synonyms, with no further explanation..

The Three Proofs; The Evidence of Reason and Logic 理証

Note: Due to length. I broke the original entry down into four (4)

The Evidence of Logic and Reason [理証]

"Rely on the Dharma and not the person.
Rely on Sutras of Ultimate Truth
and not in Sutras of Incomplete Truth.
Rely on the meaning and not the word.
Rely on Jnana and not on Discrimination."
-- Source Unknown

In addition to passing literal or documentary proof, a teaching must be consistent with the principles of logic & reason. In fact, Buddhism teaches us to look beyond words into the meaning, and even behind the literal meaning into possible figurative or metaphorical meanings. Even the more literal Pali Suttas, and especially the Mahayana Sutras, describe fantastic or impossible events, and these can not reasonably deemed to be literal accounts.


By the way, I am not sure of the source of the above quote on the Four Reliances. I think it is the Nirvana Sutra, but not sure which one, as there are several by that name. Also, depending on which terms are translated as wisdom and consciousness, the last sentence could have completely different meanings. One of those possible meanings strikes me a counter intuitive, another would be contradictory. I am guessing wisdom there is prajna; inferring using ones skilled judgment or discernment, and consciousness is vijnana; indicating, in this context, sense perception rather consciousness. At any rate, there is always some amount of ambiguity in Buddhist terminology; which might be a challenge for those seeking dogmatic certainty.

"It is the way of scholars these days to
assert that only those who possess superior
wisdom and strenuously exert themselves in the
practice of meditation have the capacity to benefit
from the Lotus Sutra, and to discourage persons who
lack wisdom from even trying. But this is in fact an
utterly ignorant and erroneous view. The Lotus
Sutra is the teaching that enables all living beings
to attain the Buddha way. Therefore, the persons
of superior faculties and superior capacity should
naturally devote themselves to contemplation and to
meditating on the Law. But, for persons of inferior
faculties and inferior capacity, the important
thing is simply to have a heart of faith."
-- Nichiren Shonin

One other thing, being a scholar is not at all required to practice Buddhism. I do think improved cognitive skills or discernment {prajna} can be a desirable side effect of practice. However, if we think the mere academic acquisition {jnana} of accurate knowledge {vidya} will enlighten us, we are likely mistaken. I see those more as effects, rather than causes. Knowing helps overcome ignorance; but if we become too attached to book learning, this can create another obstacle. Just as an example, artistic and musical skills are not required either. However, those skills are good and useful, I wish I had some. Instead I have clumsy hands and the voice of a frog. That said, when my practice is better, my fingers become more nimble and my voice more melodious. On the other hand, if I had to be a skilled calligrapher, or have the voice of an opera singer, to attain enlightenment, I would have abandoned the pursuit long ago.

The Three Proofs; Documentary or Literary Evidence 文証

Documentary or Literary Proof [文証]

"ask them if there is documentary proof in the
teachings of any of the Buddhas"

-- Nichiren Shonin

Nichiren Shonin placed a lot of importance on recorded teachings or bunsho 文証; he was highly critical of the concept of 'transmissions outside the Sutras.' Of course, we now know that the Pali Suttas were composed well before thay were recorded; they were codified and subsequently passed down orally, for several centuries, before they were finally committed to writing. Moreover, the Mahayana Sutras, such as the Lotus Sutra, were composed in Sanskrit, centuries after the Buddha's passing. Some of the Mahayana Sutras were even likely composed in Chinese, and back translated into Sanskrit.

It is unclear if Nichiren was aware that the Buddha did not literally preach the Lotus Sutra per se. There are indications Nichiren did know that the Historical Buddha did not literally preach the 28 chapter Lotus Sutra as it was known to Nichiren and is still known to us. He mentioned that the original Lotus Sutra known in India was different than the Kumarijiva version he used. Nichiren also talked about different versions of the Lotus Sutra spoken by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas before Shakyamuni Buddha.

Moreover, the important point is not if the Lotus Sutra is a literal record of an actual event, but whether it teaches core Buddhist principles; does it concur with the Buddha's intent; does it speak with the Buddha's voice? Even in the Pali Canon, some Suttas were preached by the Buddha's disciples on his behalf. In these cases, the people who had heard the Sutta would sometimes later meet the Buddha, and relate what they had heard. The Buddha would then give his stamp of approval. For example, Dhammadinna the Nun taught the Culavedalla Sutta to a male lay follower named Visakha. That Sutta concludes with:

"Then Visakha the lay follower, delighting & rejoicing in what
"Dhammadinna the nun had said, bowed down to her and,
keeping her to his right, went to the Blessed One. On arrival,
having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side.
As he was sitting there he told the Blessed One the full extent
of the conversation he had had with Dhammadinna the nun.
When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "Dhammadinna
the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment. If you
had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the
same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is
how you should remember it." -- translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu [link]

Of course, these days we can not just go ask the Buddha if a Sutra speaks with his voice. Instead, Nagarjuna [iirc] established a protocol called the Four Seals of the Dharma. These are; does a Sutra teach the Principles of anicca {impermanence}, anatta {no self}, dukkha {stress}, and Nirvana or cessation of stress? We can also check to see if it avoids the extreme views rejected by the Buddha; such as eternalism or annihilationism, Idealism or Materialism, hedonism or self mortification, and so on. If so, a Sutra passes the test of documentary or literal proof; and it can be said to speak with the Buddha's Voice.