The three most important questions in all religions are “What is the meaning of life?” “What happens after I die?” And, “How can I be happy?” These are questions that have vexed humans since the beginning and exceeds any words, no matter how erudite and eloquent, to explain. Answers can take a lifetime of deep philosophical and religious thought and contemplation. In the end, words fail and one can only experience Life.

I recently came across a December 2, 2011 article in the Scientific American entitled “Why I Don’t Dig Buddhism” by Josh Horgan. I think that some of his issues with Buddhism are worth considering. I won’t presume that I can convince Josh Horgan or anyone else to convert to Buddhism, but I do want to write down why his issues with Buddhism are not my issues.

We often hear people speaking about becoming detached in Buddhism. That life is empty. That nirvana means one gets nothing. Sounds kind of bleak. Does that mean we do all this practicing and then get nothing from it? What does this actually mean for us in the real-world?

I want to share my thoughts about the three vehicles from a historical point of view using some of the questions that have come up during our Sangha meetings. So I will write as a series of questions and answers between an inquirer and various representatives of Buddhist teachings, beginning with a hinayana perspective, then transitioning to a Mahayana one and finally from the perspective of the Perfect Teaching of the Lotus Sutra:

Perhaps the most misunderstood and misquoted chapter in the entire Lotus Sutra, Chapter 14 is considered to have been the last chapter added to the Lotus Sutra by as much as several hundred years and is undoubtedly the most problematic. It stands alone in a few points and in contradiction with other chapters, especially Chapter 2.

Yui Butsu Yo Butsu is talking about how “Ultimate Reality” arises through the continual process-flow-act of Dependent Origination (Causes and conditions in other words, Cause and Effect). There are two meanings, a surface one and a deeper one.

Why do so many Nichiren schools and practitioners come across as rigid, intolerant and bellicose? Why is the Nichiren Tradition so fragmented? Perhaps, a reason for this is that too many Nichiren schools, teachers and practitioners use an aggressive method of propagation called "shakubuku" – literally “to break and subdue” - giving Nichiren Buddhism a reputation for belligerence, authoritarianism, and sectarianism.

If by “real” you mean which has the most fidelity to what the historical Buddha taught, then one must ask fidelity to the letter or to the true spirit? And how does one discern that exactly as we don’t have a time machine to go and check for ourselves.

Nichiren gifted us with chanting the Title of the Lotus Sutra as an essential practice because it is an accessible shorthand practice for people of all kinds for "reciting the sutra." Some say that mantra chanting is uniquely suited for today’s hyper-stimulated culture, where distractions abound, and sensory input is overwhelming. Being able to “sit” and chant allows one to over-ride the chaos of modern societies noise of chaos and constant drone of one’s inner thoughts - one’s ‘default mode’ network - better than silent meditation can.

Silent sitting and Chanting are both forms of meditation. Silent sitting is an act of being. Chanting is an act of doing. Together they are deeply complementary, a balance of being and doing. Silent is an act of inner reflection to calm, quiet and focus our minds and chanting is an outer expression of our intentions.