Nikko | Niko | Six priests | Nichirenism | Nichiren
Lord Hakiri was the "Jito" or local lord of the area where the Nichiren Shu head temple is now located. A place called Minobu. It was a remote and mountainous land and also incredibly scenic. It was too this place that he had invited Nichiren Daishonin to live after he had left Kamakura. He even built a temple for him on his residence, and while Nichiren's disciples had acquired other temples by winning debates or conversion, this was the first and last temple belonging to Nichiren himself where he felt comfortable to teach disciples and live. Nichiren spent his last days there. He constructed a small shrine, named "Kuon-ji" there. Nichiren wrote several letters to Lord Hakiri. Indeed the last fully authentic letter recorded was a thank you note that he sent to him from his death bed. In that letter he expressed how he was truly grateful for his hospitality, and also wanted to ensure the safety and well being of a horse he had acquired. Nichiren so loved Minobu that he wanted his ashes enshrined there and verbally instructed his disciples to tend his grave after he died in much the same manner that Shakyamuni's disciples legendarilly had tended Shakyamuni's grave. It would give them a chance to refresh their minds and spirits after engaging in propagation efforts.
- While he was alive Lord Hakiri received a number of Gosho, including:
- http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/ReplyLordHakiriSaburo.htm
After his death, Nikko had come to Minobu, along with his many disciples, in order to enshrine his ashes, care for the grounds and to instruct disciples there. As generous as he was, Lord Hakiri was a man of his times, and that made him a problematic host for Nikko whose own attitude was sometimes very strict. Nikko saw the uniqueness of Nichiren's teachings as something that needed to be upheld carefully and through thorough instruction of disciples. However Lord Hakiri wasn't so strict, he couldn't resist "covering his bets" about religion. When a Nembutsu temple suffered a calamity, he donated wood for its repair. When he travelled, he reportedly visited Shinto Shrines. And last but not least, he made a statue of Shakyamuni.
This led to controversy with Nichiren's disciples, who had warned about the slander of making offerings to incorrect Buddhist groups. Nikko could work with Lord Hakiri on these things, until his own colleague started making it harder for him.
In 1284, Nikko writes to a disciple named "Mimisaka:"
Even now, my ill health has been preventing me from engaging in many activities. Thus, I have been unable to listen to what you have to say in person and have been left pretty much in the dark. Since the fall of this year, I have consulted Jakunichi-bo on many occasions to arrange to visit you at your residence, but I have been unable to go. More than anything else, it is absolutely deplorable that the 's grave site in the valley of Minobu has totally dilapidated from neglect and is defaced by the hoof tracks of deer. The Daishonin told me in his will:
"If the steward Hakiri turns his back to the Law, my spirit will cease to reside in Minobu." I have not observed any particularly inappropriate behavior on his part, however. Moreover, I, Nikko, have on my person a letter from our Master stating:
"In all of Japan, not a single person was willing to accept me, but Lord Hakiri accepted me. Thus, I would like my grave site to be within Hakiri's domain, since trouble will undoubtedly arise while the head of state is unwilling to embrace true Buddhism."This is a matter that has been determined for generations to come, so how can one even posit the notion that the Daishonin's spirit does not reside in Minobu? After all, if there is unlawful behavior on the part of the steward, then it is only right to set him straight. How, then, can ivy even consider abandoning his tomb? Even the lowest of common folk in society will be critical of us if we forsake the Daishonin, our true Master. while we upheld the doctrine to never abandon the Master." (Nichiren Shoshu Seiten p. 554)
In 1284, Nikko was still defending Lord Hakiri, but by 1285 things started to change. For one thing Nissho, that very year, submitted a revised Rissho Ankoku Ron that criticized Tendai and Shingon, and that also ignited a storm of persecution that he wasn't able to stop except by participating in Government sponsored prayers and by claiming to be fully within the Tendai Tradition. And for another, Niko Returned to join Nikko at Mt. Minobu.
John Ayers, who had studied Japanese and been a Nichiren Shoshu of America member, and then sided with the "Fuji School"/NST when the Sokagakkai and Nichiren Shoshu decided to break with each other, translated part of the letter "Hara-Dono Gohenji" written by Nikko Shonin to Lord Hakiri.
He writes:
Nikko writes about transgressions of Niko. He then says:
"Niko's transgressions are not only those. There have been one or two people who have taken it upon themselves and painted the image of (inscribed the mandala of) Nam' Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo and the "Master of the Teachings, the venerable Sakyamuni", the "Tathagata of the Actual Attaining Enlightenment of Kuon" that was the purpose of the appearance of Nichiren Daishonin.
Yet, no one in this school has ever made a wooden statue of Sakyamuni to worship. In spite of that, Nichi-en Nyuudo, despite his extremely shallow faith, is thinking about making a statue of Sakyamuni. There is no use for a statue so he should stop thinking about it.
I learned that Niko suggested to Nichi-en Nyuudou that they should make a Buddha statue about the size of the one Nichiren had, to replace it, as Nichirou destroyed the will of the Daishonin and walked off with the one that Nichiren had stated in his testament to have placed at his grave.
As far as I am concerned, I have some complaint if it is the statue that Nichiren had placed in a shrine at his grave. But, they went so far as to suggest they worship it. This idea is absurd because that statue is not related to Jogyo Bosatsu of the four Bodhisattvas who (along with Sakyamuni Buddha and Taho Tathagata,) are to be alongside (the "Master of the Teachings, the Venerable Sakyamuni", the "Tathagata of the Actual Attaining Enlightenment of Kuon"). It is the Dhuta (ascetic) Buddha of Hinayana Buddhism. As such, even if one were to make (a copy of) the Buddha statue (that Nichirou walked off with), it would never be an object for worship."
John then writes:
Nikko later states in the letter that, though he cannot understand why he would want one, if he must have one, "He should wait until one of his grand-children could make one for him. Until then, he should worship the Mandala of Nichiren Daishonin."
This statement was made in an attempt to pacify the individual whose faith was extremely shallow and whose view of Buddhism was incorrect.
Now Nikko wrote this after he had left Minobu, but before he moved into the temple built for him by Lord Ueno at Taisekiji at Mt. Fuji.
Lord Hakiri was a pivotal figure in the development of Nichiren Buddhism. It shows how the rift that had already started to develop between Nikko and the other priests was already becoming "final". (see sixpriests.html" for more details.).
This rift reached the breaking point because Niko replied to Nikko's complaints by having Lord Hakiri place a copy of the Lotus Sutra with the statue of Shakyamuni that Nichien Nyudo had carved. This act, placated Lord Hakiri even further, but also had completely undermined Nikko's relationship with him. I suspect that was Niko's goal. This letter appears to have been written just after Nikko's departure from Minobu. Despite all that happened Nikko seeks to encourage Lord Hakiri. This part is translated by someone else (its difficult to get complete translations of materials and the result of partial translations is often slanted):
"I can hardly tell you how ashamed I was and how sorry I was for leaving Minobu creek [where a ref="http://www.geocities.com/chris_holte/Buddhism/nichiren.html"> Nichiren's tomb is located]. However, on further consideration of the matter, it's not important where I am; it is important to accede to the teachings of a Nichiren Sh�nin and to spread it all over the world. All of the [other] disciples are against the Master. They disobeyed the teacher [i.e. NichirenSh�nin]. I believe that only I, Nikk� , am the one who protects the a Sh�nin's doctrine and practices according to His original intention..."One gets a sense of what he was upset about with this passage and his explanations, expecially when you look at it within the timeline and the context. If I ever get a translation of the whole of this letter I'll redo this page again and you might get an even better sense of the issues.
Graham Lamont "General Conditions after Nichiren" writes:
"Because of these various conditions, the rotation system at Minobu had many problems. On the seventh anniversary of the Shonin�s death, the jito, Hakii Sanenaga, proposed the following plan to the Six Senior Disciples:"
"Though this is the will of the Daishonin, the rotation system is not working well. How about appointing a full-time temple priest...?""Five of the six major disciples agreed with the jito but Nikko firmly opposed the idea because the rotation system had been the Shonin�s dying wish."
Yet this is clearly impossible. For one thing Nichiren's parinirvana was in 1283. His first anniversary by Buddhist recognings is 1283, which means that his 7th anniversary falls in the year 1289. Nichiren died in the Fall. Nikko left Minobu in the spring of 1289 and moved into his new temple in October of 1289. Thus he had already left Minobu for good and had written the Letter referenced above before that date. Thus by the time that the anniversary occured Nikko had left Minobu in expressed anger at Lord Hakiri and Niko, it would hardly make sense that he would be at such a conference as Lamont says he was. Lamont is probably not spinning because this is probably what he was told himself. What Lord Hakiri was proposing was basically the final deposition of Nikko Shonin from his defacto position as head of Minobu. By reprinting this we are catching him in a "face saving statement".
Nikko could not have opposed because he had already left. This was simply a way of replacing Nikko as chief priest and putting a consensus face on it. Nikko could not have been at that conference. But those who were there knew how he felt. The rotational system had already fatally broken down, and indeed the Fuji School claims he had taken Nichiren's ashes with him, and that his disciples continued to alternate memorials at his new temple at Mt. Fuji.
Now both groups claim that his ashes. Its entirely possible that they were divided. Its possible that the competing disciples made up stories, and we may never know which version is the correct one. What really counts to me is that Nikko had a point and folks to this day refuse to acknowledge it for fear that they might have to meet Taisekiji half way on the matter and acknowledge that the five priests had acted beasty in 1289.
Punting
Even now all the parties, when they hit a wall of ignorance, seem to prefer punting over saying "well it could be -- or I don't know." If I were involved in a debate I'd have someone from the Fuji School interjecting at this point:
Of course he would have objected to a chief priest -- since he had already been appointed.But the problem with that is that we've already seen demonstrated that if Nikko had had the two "transfer documents" that back that claim, that those priests would have at least mentioned them. At least Nikko would have. His claim to keeping the Daishonin's intention was founded on his feelings, not any written proof that we can trot out to support his claims. An examination of the record can show why he felt justified in those feelings. By the seventh anniversary of Nichiren's death Niko had skillfully undermined his position with the Jito. Nichiji was carving Nichiren's image into a statue. Nissho and Nichiji had unskillfully embroiled themselves in a life and death struggle with Tendai on Tendai's own terms, and as a result they, plus Nitcho (whose temple remained a nominal Tendai one), were taking refuge in being Tendai priests. Lord Hakiri was donating wood to Nembutsu Temples and Toki Jonin was getting ready to tonsure himself and rename himself Nichijo. For someone who cared about the integrity of Nichiren's teachings, this must have been a real let-down.
Nichiju next writes:
Nevertheless Nikko�s opinion was rejected and Sado-bo Niko was chosen as the head priest of Minobu. Soon afterwards, Nikko departed from Mt. Minobu with his disciples.Now, Kubota trotted out his quotes as part of his rebuttal of Fuji School claims that Nichiren had willed Mt. Minobu to Nikko. He has a point, but this also shows that the other five disciples also were indeed departing from Nichiren's will and that they really did misunderstand Nichiren's intentions. Kubota next translates some more passages and says:
"...instead of the statue of Buddha which Daikoku Ajari (Nichiro) has deprived me of...." [Hara dono gohenji] Nikko would hardly have chosen the word "deprive" in referring to the division of mementos if he had been satisfied and happy with the distribution. Certainly if Nikko had the Two Transmission Documents in his possession he would not have grumbled about his allotment of mementos.This spin on what happened is revealing. First Nikko had been complaining that the statue should have been kept at his gravesite, not carried off as a personal possession. So this is a gratuitous slam. Nikko's principle complaint was that the five priests were so busy feathering their own nests, and badly imitating the Daishonin's actions, that they were carving out territories like they were feudal lords. The importance of the rotational system wasn't that Nikko be the chief priest, but that they spend time together in meditation, study and teaching disciples in a unified fashion. As others have accused one another ever since then. They were creating Nissho-Shu's, Niko-shus, etceteras, and forgetting that they were part of a Nichiren-shu. Breaking that system was something that ultimately hurt them and their unity. If Nissho had been at Minobu in 1284, there would have been no "Reply to Mimisaka" and maybe the revised Rissho Ankoku ron would have been a consensus effort.
Leaving Minobu
Nikko had already left. He was wandering. If these later stories were true and he actually was onsite for these discussions he was making a last stand. He would settle in Mt. Fuji in the fall, after the anniversary of Nichiren's passing. This decision was the "coffin nail" in the unity of the priesthood because it reflected a defacto unwillingness of the disciples to work together in any manner close to how Nichiren had wanted them to. And it reflected a simple reality. One more argument for why those transfer documents were probably never penned is one you will never see the partisans trotting out. It is that Kuon-ji was Lord Hakiri's temple. Even Nichiren could only appoint a chief priest with his cooperation. Lord Hakiri should have left Nikko in charge, and the other priests should have ratified that choice. By chosing Niko as chief priest they were breaking not just with Nichiren's will, but with Confucian tradition (Nikko was older than Niko, more senior, and had already been there). If they had made Nissho chief priest that would have made more sense, but one gets the impression that Nissho wasn't willing to leave his Temple in Kamakura where all the hubbub and action was. For them, Mt. Minobu must have been a retreat where to go when not engaged in the real and exciting world of shakubuku and propagation. Nikko, when he went to the Fuji region was seeking a place where he could found a lineage free from the interference of Jitos. He failed to find it -- and in leaving he only perpetuated the divisions. His own disciples would act the same way towards his heritage as these others.
sixpriests.htmlThe rest of the story
The final passage reveals the spirit of a true Buddhist:
Once again Kubota and Lamont translate, "In the letter to Lord Hara [Hara dono gohenji] Nikko writes,"
'The teaching of Nichiren is the one that states that if you have abandoned Shakyamuni Buddha who is the Original Lord and Master of the sentient beings of the Triple World [Saha] and if you rely instead on Amida Buddha and give sole respect to Amida Buddha, then you will become a person who is guilty of the five deadly sins; you will fall into a hell of interminable suffering, [Avichi Hell] isn�t that true?'Niko later wrote an apology for Lord Hakiri explaining that Lord Hakiri had indeed repented of his behavior. But if Niko thought the real issue was about Lord Hakiri reverting to being a Nembutsu believer, he failed to see what Nikko was really doing. Lord Hakiri and the elder priests understood generally that the should follow Nichiren's teachings, but they lived in a time when people were reifying the Buddha, making images of all kinds. Lord Hakiri had flirted with supporting the Nembutsu sect in order to cover his bases. He didn't have deep faith that he himself could reach enlightenment in his present form through practicing the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra. In writing to Lord Hakiri the way he did, he also was showing that he understood this tendancy in his heart and was being more compassionate in the long run than Niko had been in covering for him. However, Hakiri, Niko, and the others really didn't understand what Nikko was trying to tell him. Perhaps Nikko was unable to convey it perhaps Nikko couldn't fully articulate his argument. Perhaps the time wasn't right and they were all just following the dictates of their hearts. In the long run, it doesn't matter who makes a break, breaks have lasting consequences.
Lord Hakiri went on to support Niko Shonin to the end of his life, and the Minobu School, as Nikko had been afraid of, remained under the influence of the Hakiri Family for several generations until the land was purchased and the Minobu School restored during one of the many "reforms" that each of the schools of Nichirenism underwent. Nikko found fear that he'd have the same problem with the Tokimitsu family, went to found Kuonji nearby, and even so, his disciples found problems from family interference from local Jitos over the next few centuries.
For more on these subjects visit the embedded links. As was often the case the surface unity and consensus, rather than reflecting a real effort towards unity and consensus, really represented at least subtly the ambitions of the parties involved. These differences didn't reflect strong doctrinal differences, they simply reflected geography and an inability to imagine a unity not based on queing up or dividing the spoils. Expecially visit:
- Suggested next pages:
- The Fuji School
- The six priests
- Nichirenism
- Outside readings:
- A history of Fujefuse
- http://www.cebunet.com/nst/hmimasaka.html
Footnotes
The source for this was an alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren post by John Ayers and also the resultant back and forth between John and other scholars and "popularizers" of Nichiren Buddhism. But the original is from an untranslated letter written from Nikko to Lord Hakiri. I have verified with others that this is a "true" translation of the letter. I don't know if the letter is original with Nikko or apocryphal. I'm pretty sure it is genuine. Of course the real issue becomes translation.
- Here I've put some links to alternate translations:
- http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Hara+Dono+Gohenji+group:alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=847745019.17789%40dejanews.com&rnum=4
- http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Hara+Dono+Gohenji+group:alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3649D8FB.57CD5A2F%40cris.com&rnum=5
- http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Hara+Dono+Gohenji+group:alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6l25v9%24bi1%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=6
- http://the-eternal-buddha.com/after.html
- http://www.hokke.co.uk/buddhism/okofeb97.htm
- http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bridge/7743/nichijuu2.html