part - 8 of 8THE SO-CALLED ‘SHÔJU’ INITIATIVE AND ITS SPONSORS
continued...
Reverend Nikkyo's Shrine
(note 1* below (Photo by S.Polito))
Anticipating the objections of at least some of the ‘shôju’ partisans, I wish to add
here that the exclusive practice here is one based on doctrine; some of the ‘shôju’ proponents have tried to misrepresent Nichiren Shônin’s “exclusive practice” as
being merely a kind of practical concentration rather than the doctrinal exclusion
of the Provisional Teachings. The former assertion is, in fact, typical of the Zen
monk Mujû (Dôkyô Ichien, 1226-1312), Nichiren Shônin’s younger contemporary,
who believed in a syncretistic farrago of Buddhist beliefs and who despised both Hônen and Nichiren for their respective exclusive-practice ideologies (See Tamura Yoshirô Kamakura Shin Bukkyô shisô no kenkyû , 290-291, 292-294, 305-306, esp. pp. 292-293). Nichiren Shônin’s exclusive practice is that of asserting only the Hokekyô and not allowing any Provisional Teachings. (This standpoint can be readily seen
by the fact that Nichiren Shônin repeatedly attacked other sects on doctrinal
grounds, not merely because they were inconvenient for most people).If we now return to the text of the Kyôgyôshô gosho, can we say that it is a shôju document?
After the section on the three eras of this Dharma cycle, mappô and the planting
of the Buddhahood the text begins to show the shortcomings of other sects; I shall outline some of his following the commentary of the Nichiren Shônin (ibun kôgi zenshû, v. 14, 220-277).Other sects’ scholars do not understand that the Hokekyô plants the seed of Buddhahood: “Unskilled, indeed” (tsutanai kana), he calls them (STN, v. 2, 1481 l. 9), for in reality all attainment really comes from the seeds planted by the Hokekyô.
As in the Nyosetsu shugyô shô, discussed above, the point is made from the Daihatsunehangyô that one should rely on the Sutra text, not human teachers’
words (STN, v. 2, 1482 l. 4) and then this work cites the passage from the Muryôgikyô (as above) and says, “Cast them away as ‘not yet having revealed the Truth’”
(STN, v. 2, 1482 l. 5).Further on, we find the refutation of the theory that the Previous Sutras and the Hokekyô are the same again citing the Muryôgikyô text along with an allusion to
verses of the “Chapter of Expedience” :“Through the Buddha Lands of the Ten Directions
There is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle,
There are no two, likewise there are not three
Excepting the Buddha’s expedient preaching
Because only by temporary names
Does He lead and draw in the masses of beings
And preach the Buddha Wisdom”
(T.9.8a17-20) (STN, v. 2, 1482 l.7).Then Nichiren Shônin explains how to answer the claims of the Shingon Sect: he asserts that it is a falsehood (itsuwari) of the Chinese Tripitaka Masters (STN, v. 2, 1482 ll. 10-11).
“No matter what sect it may be, if they speak the doctrine of the Shingon Sect, one should attack (semubeku) the twisted views of the Shingon” (STN, v. 2, 1482 l. 14 -
1483 l. 1).The errors of the Nembutsu patriarchs in abandoning the Real Teaching for Provisional Sutras: “And thereafter they should intensely (anagachi: fully or wholeheartedly) smash the human teachers of that sect” (STN, v. 2, 1483 l. 9).
Asserting the superiority of the Hokekyô to a myriad other sutras, the text attacks
the claims of other sects that their fundamental sutras are equal or superior to the Hokekyô but especially notes the bad ends of the various erroneous and heretical Patriarchs these should be pointed out with proper demeanor: “One should relate calmly but also forcefully, with eyes half-closed and with composed facial expression and quietly that they are such unenviable deaths” (STN, v. 2, 1484 ll. 6-7).Against the Ritsu (Vinaya) Sect it says; “With the Practicer is the Precept
Keeper of the ‘Chapter of the Jewelled Stupa’ one should castigate (inveigh against) these” (STN, v. 2, 1488 l. 2). The word I have translated as ‘castigate’ (nonoshiru) is quite strong and can even mean curse. The passage from the ‘Chapter of the Jewelled Stupa’ 11 referred to is this verse:“This Sutra is difficult to keep;
If there is one who keeps it even for short while,
I shall at once rejoice
And the Buddhas shall likewise do so.
Such a person
Is one whom the Buddhas praise:
This one then is bold and fervent;
This one then is effortful.
This one is named keeper of the precepts,
One who practices the dhûtas,
And so will quickly obtain
The Supreme Buddha Way” (T.9.34b15-18).This passage, cited by Nichiren Shônin even from his early career (STN, v. 1, 70, 135), shows his fundamental position that to keep the Sutra is itself to keep the precepts; other (specific, concrete) precepts are unnecessary and may even hinder the faith of the True Dharma in this age (STN, v. 2 1297 ll. 1-4, l. 9). This position does not mean (as some ignorant “Buddhist” critics of Nichiren Shônin have claimed) that he is urging unethical behavior but indicates that the precepts of other teachings, which
are taken formally and separately are not appropriate to this age and even harmful as detracting from the maintenance of exclusive faith in the True Doctrine. As Myôraku Daishi (Zhanran/Chan-jan) warns, “those who undertake to keep even one precept
are held to that precept and, should they break it, must suffer the dire karmic consequences” (STN, v. 2, 1487 ll. 13-14).Furthermore, the spread of that Great Dharma which has previously remained unknown, is described in realistic, objective historical terms; with reference to and
in the midst of this the Daimoku, which is declared to “gather the merits of the myriad practices and myriad good [acts] of the Buddha of the Three Eras” is said to contain the merits of a myriad precepts: it is the Adamantine (Diamond) Jewel Receptacle Precept and “because it is such an excellent precept, the various precepts of Previous [Sutras] and the Manifestation Doctrine (shakumon) have not one bit of merit”
(STN, v. 2, 1488 l. 11).To suggest, as the ‘shôju’ partisans have done, that the abolition of such former precepts is merely the “opinion of some people” is effectively to dismiss the whole tenor of Nichiren Shônin’s teaching on the subject. It is to insult the Patriarch and his doctrine based on the Sutra.
The final section of the Kyôgyôshô gosho concludes that it is Ryôkanbô’s
behavior that is guilty of self praise while disparaging others (jisan kita) and notes
his excuses for not debating Nichiren Shônin. Nichiren Shônin instructs his disciples to say “without change” (or, in some versions, “without doubt”) that the Ritsu Sect
are rebels against the country (Risshû kokuzoku). He concludes with the passage (cited by the ‘shôju’ advocates) against improper demeanor in a public forum. (If this Kyôgyôshô gosho were a genuine work and dated to the year 1278 this instruction would be in accord with Nichiren Shônin’s expectation of an imminent debate with
the other sects, expressed in the autograph Shônin gohenji (STN, v., 1279)).In any case Nichiren Shônin instruction that, “because in a public forum one
speaks reasonable doctrine, vulgar words and strong words and self-conceited demeanor are not to be seen by others’ eyes; they would be shameful (or base). Be ever more careful of body, speech, and mind and respectfully face the host, face the host”, does not mean --in context-- the abandonment of shakubuku. These are simply the same kind of instructions he had previously given to disciples summoned before the authority. For example, in the Monchû tokui shô (NSIJR, 1135d) (STN, v. 1, 439) addressed to Lord Toki when he was summoned with two others before the Kamakura Shogunate’s Court of Inquiry (monchûjo) in 1269 (Bun’ei), Nichiren Shônin gives somewhat similar advice about proper demeanor and language in such a court even when provoked by enemies.Here, in effect, he is saying: do not act in such a way so as to be found in
contempt of court and thus wreck our case. It has nothing to do with the abolition
or curtailment of shakubuku, which is clearly expressed through much of the rest of this very work. Nor, we may add, does genuine shakabuku have anything to do with personal attacks, misrepresentation or threats that have characterized those who are in or have emerged from the modern Fuji-ha/Sôka Gakkai cult.It is the ‘shôju’ partisans who, having emerged mostly from such a milieu, have most frequently indulged in these tactics:
The shôju practice is based on the “Chapter of the Practices of Peaceful Joy” 14
and this chapter includes the instruction: “When they either expound and preach orally or read the Sutra, they are not to rejoice in preaching the faults of people or sutras. Furthermore, they are not to slight or be arrogant towards the various other Dharma preachers. They are not to preach about other people’s good and evil, advantages and shortcomings” (T.9.38a3).The leaders of this movement claim to follow shôju, arrogating to themselves
the right to declare Nichiren Shônin’s methods invalid and his clear reasoning wrong;
is this not criticizing others’ teaching let alone their own (nominal) master’s teaching? But even leaving that aside, since their ‘shôju’ proclamation, have they not continued their attacks, often ad hominem attacks, on those who do not agree with their policies? How is this shôju? And if it is shakubuku, why is it they denounce shakabuku?Furthermore, they keep no shôju attitude even among themselves: one of them
has openly renounced Nichiren Shônin and, in turn, been denounced by one of his erstwhile allies in vulgar terms. How is this shôju or even common courtesy?We may say then that, contrary to the ‘shôju’ party’s assertions, the Kyôgyôshô gosho, does not authorize the abolition of shakubuku and, what is more, this ‘shôju’ party has little to do with genuine shôju.
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion we can see that:
(1) the criticisms levelled by the ‘shôju’ party have nothing to do with the Kempon Hokke which states its scriptural, actual, and rational shakubuku policy quite clearly in the ‘Fundamental Principles’; any past action by certain ex-Sôka Gakkai members who cleverly insinuated themselves into leading positions in this group have nothing to do with us.
(2) the call for shôju methods, which these people cleverly confuse with mere politeness and ethical behavior (a politeness and ethics they freely ignore whenever
it suits their purpose) is little more than a smokescreen for cementing their own current views (whatever they may be) in place; their actions speak louder than their innocent-sounding words: `shôju’ to them means that no one may differ from them
but they are free to attack with vituperative expressions of any kind those who dare
to question their muddled ideas.(3) contrary to these people’s claims, the era of the latter Dharma (mappô) is
not over and Nichiren Shônin’s religion will last till Lord Maitreya descends from Tushita Heaven to become the next manifest Buddha. There is no reason to conclude from the orthodox Buddhist standpoint that a new era, returning to the age of the Buddha, with its use of Provisional Teachings, has appeared. Likewise, it is clear
that mappô is regarded by both the Sutras and Nichiren Shônin (and even their supposed hero Udana Nichiki for that matter) as an objective historical concept.
To make the statement that mappô is all in your mind and can be safely ignored is a misinterpretation of Buddhist idealism (yuishin engi etc.); it is roughly equivalent to
an ignoramus reading that all things are empty and without self-nature and then thinking he can run in front of a Mack truck unscathed because “it’s only an illusion.”(4) The claims from various texts of Nichiren Shônin that mention shôju do
not really back its use in this era in a major way; it might be used in certain cases
but the overwhelming practice is to be “breaking and subduing” (shakubuku), asserting the inherent superiority and exclusive practice of the Hokekyô against
all other Sutras, Teachings and their derivative sects; this is conversion by opposition or rebellion (gyakke), forced poisoning (gôdoku), forming the condition of the
poison drum (dokku no en wo musubu); the people of this era are overwhelmingly
evil. In contrast to people reborn in earlier eras, where Provisional Teachings might serve as the catalyst (condition: en) to awaken the seed of Buddhahood already planted by the preaching of the Hokekyô in earlier eons, the people of this era are ‘those who have never put down the seed of Buddhahood’ and those who ‘do not
yet have good’; mostly doomed to fall to evil rebirths, they must be seeded with the Essence of the Hokekyô, ‘Namu Myôhô renge kyô’ and if they blaspheme against
this One Truth, they will likewise fall but now with a transcendent reason for the
seed buried within them will lead eventually to Buddhahood.(5) The concept of shakabuku is inherent in the Hokekyô’s assertion of absolute supremacy, ending all expedient teachings; from its very nature as the supreme teaching the Hokekyô ‘breaks and subdues’ all other teachings. In preaching the Hokekyô, the Tathagata Shakya does this ‘breaking and subduing’ of all He has preached previously “for more than forty years” in which he “had never yet
revealed the Truth.” Thus, shakubuku is closely interrelated with the Sutra itself
and with exclusive practice.(6) All we have now are worldling (unenlightened) teachers (bonshi) who
cannot really ascertain the inner capacities of beings; such judgments were
extremely difficult even for advanced, saintly or sagely disciples in the Buddha’s
own time and led to spiritual disasters (as we saw above). Thus we, worldlings acting as the messengers of the Buddha in the Latter Age, have no choice to press ahead with the highest and final teaching.(7) There can be little doubt that Nichiren Shônin urged his followers to polite demeanor in presenting Sutra-based, rational, and empirical arguments in public;
such an attitude did not at all mean the abolition of shakubuku in favor of a shôju policy based on the Provisional Teachings, let alone its replacement by a freewheeling anything-goes policy. Those who propose a so-called ‘shôju’ method are among
the most strident employers of smear-campaigns and ad hominem attacks on
the internet, dragging down any semblance of rational discourse and prolonging
personal vendettas against anyone who dares to question their opinions, sometimes carrying on until even the authorities in their own sects tell them to shut up; they
reject most Sutra-based arguments since at least a number of them have sneeringly dismissed the Hokekyô (and, therefore, the Mahâyâna Canon). Or else they pick and choose what suits their fancy to dress up their own ideas. This process is known
as “adorning one’s own doctrine” (shôgon ko gi) and the “twisted harmonization with human emotional obsessions” (goku e shijô) condemned by Nichiren Shônin himself (STN, v. 1, 584).Occasionally, quite fortuitously, of course, they might actually follow some of Nichiren Shônin’s Sutra-based teachings, but for the most part they seem to dream
of a syncretistic soup of various ideas, carefully edited to their own tastes and topped off with chanting the Daimoku and (perhaps, if useful) the name “Nichiren” for its drawing power. They also try to give themselves a kind of aura of majority rule by using such invented terms as “mainstream Mahâyâna”, a conveniently vague name which gives them a free hand to do whatever they want. At times they claim to be disciples of Nichiren Shônin and at others they claim to represent some amorphous majority opinion within Buddhism. Those who have read some of the above translations can see how this majoritarian argument clashes with Nichiren Shônin
ideal of a “one hammer to a thousand earthen pans” (STN, v. 2, 1634).As the Patriarch remarks:
“Though the people who say the Nembutsu, keep the precepts and so on are many, the persons who rely upon the Hokekyô are few. The stars are many but they do
not illuminate the great sea. Grasses are many but they do not form the pillars of
the Imperial Palace. Though Nembutsus are many, they are not the Way to become a Buddha. Though one keeps the precepts they do not form the seed for going to the Pure Land. It is only the Seven Characters ‘Namu Myôhô renge kyô’ that are the seed for becoming a Buddha. Though, when I said this, people were jealous and did not adopt it, the late Lord Ueno by his believing it has become a Buddha” (STN, v. 2, 1603).As anyone can see, Nichiren Shônin’s doctrine is not a based on majority opinion, either in terms of the Sutras or what most people desire or believe, but only on the Hokekyô; the whole of his teachings are predicated on the idea of the embattled minority. And this is what is prophesied by the Great Nirvana Sutra: “The Buddha in the Nirvana Sutra prophesies that those of the True Dharma shall seem as the dirt
on a finger nail and those who blaspheme against the Dharma as the dirt of the ten directions”(STN, v. 1, 555).The so-called ‘shôju’ leaders, in any case, only pretend to be based on majority rule, though they do, indeed, play to the crowd. When they “study” Buddhism, especially that of Nichiren Shônin, they are not looking for the Truth or salvation or anything of that sort. What they are doing is reminiscent of an anecdote about W.C. Fields. Fields was notoriously anti-religious all his life so when a friend visited him in the hospital during his final illness he was surprised to find the great comedian propped up in
bed reading the Bible. Asked what he was doing, Fields replied in his trademark nasal voice, “Looking---- for loopholes.” That about sums up what these people are doing.We must now pose this question: why do these people not just leave Nichiren Buddhism instead of trying to undermine from within? (Nichiren Shônin cites the Sutra teachings which predict that the Buddha Dharma will be destroyed from within by monks not by external persecution STN, v. 2, 1050-1051): At least past apostates such as infamous Shinchô (1596-1659), who left the Nichiren movement for the Shinzei Branch of Tendai and spent the remainder of his life writing scurrilous attacks on Nichiren Shônin while chanting the Nembutsu, had enough honesty to admit they
did not really believe in the teachings of Nichiren Shônin and that they even resented everything he said; thus they departed for other forms of Buddhism. These ‘shôju’ people, however, want to have their cake and eat it too: having found priestly patrons who gladly receive their toadying and offerings and who, in return, back anything these people say, it would simply be too much of a sacrifice for them to give up their cushy positions and privileges.Finally let me remind honest, sincere Kempon Hokke believers of this fact:
we ultimately come from a group of spiritual forebears who were a minority,
unfairly denounced even by the officials of their own sect. Holding fast and true
to the original teachings of Nichiren Shônin, they suffered untold persecutions and difficulties. Are we now to hold their sacrifice at naught and cave in to those who would efface virtually all that Nichiren Shônin said and did based on the Sutras? Are we now to compromise, nay, sell out the martyrs’ noble principles so as to follow the whims of a few ambitious people? Are we to turn against the Patriarch Nichiren and the Sutras?I know that if you are of the true Kempon Hokke faithful, you can give only one answer. But you, not I, must give it. Consider well what I have presented to you and pray to the Eternal Lord Shakyamuni for guidance.
Next....
Sign our Kempon Hokke guest book.
Note 1* Rev. Kubota top picture.
It is assertive propagation (shakubuku) while undergoing persecution and beating for the Dharma by the Nichijû lineage since the founder, the Orthodox Teacher Nichijû, such as in the Oei Persecution when the Third Abbot of the Head Temple Myômanji, Nichinin, Nichijitsu and others spread the teaching unfazed by the torture of boiling water, the assertive transmission of the way by the Tenth Abbot Nichijun and the Sixteenth Abbot Nittai, and especially the heroic deed of Nittai in establishing the “Seven Village Hokke”, the Persecution at Azuchi Castle of the Twenty-sixth Abbot Nichien, the Persecution of the Keichô Era of the Twenty-seventh Abbot Nikkyô
and so on, that is the peculiarity of our Nichijû lineage, the Kempon Hokke Sect.
In particular, the successors of Nikkyô, who was persecuted for the Dharma by amputation of his ears and nose, incurred the animosity of the Tokugawa Shogunate and day and night suffered persecution after persecution, oppression after oppression for the Dharma. In these they were beheaded, imprisoned, burned, sent into distant exile, exiled on islands for twenty or thirty years and their martyrs’ blood flowed, their noble “life” was extinguished. Those of Nikkyô’s lineage were contemptuously named the “New Disciples” (Shin monto) by the general public but they themselves named themselves “the Congregation of the Orthodoxy of the Original Doctrine” (Hommon shôgi shû) and “the Right Old Doctrine (the Old Orthodoxy) of Nichijû” (Nichijû Koshôgi) and with the boast that they were in the direct lineage of Nichiren Shônin, they went “underground” and continued to keep the fire of the faith burning. The
people of the Right Old Doctrine in order to continue the Right Faith (shô shin) secretly founded the Daimoku Confraternity (called the Confraternity of the Daimoku of Inner Realization: Naishô Daimoku kô) and expounded the doctrine centered on the biographical traditions of the Three Teachers (Lord Shakya, Nichiren Shônin, and our founder Nichijû). It is this very fact that through the storms of religious persecution and suppression lasting three hundred tempestuous years they endured without falling into local folk religion but kept the doctrine that is a living example of the Succession Through the Scrolls of Sutra. It is something we boast of to other lineages and religions.”October, 1981 (Fifty-sixth Year of the Shôwa Era) At the Hermitage of Nan’eizan at Iino in the Southern Bôsô Peninsula.
Rev. Tetsujô Kubota
Translation by H. G. Lamont
(Compilation and translations by H. Graham Lamont; formatted here by
Steven Polito. Copyright ©2000-2001 H.G.Lamont all rights reserved)