Commentary on Question and Answer 56
Nichiren Shoshu Question 56
- The Gakkai says that the passage from "Hyaku Rokka Sho (One Hundred Six Articles)" which reads, "Since Nikko and the direct successors are the High Priests who have inherited the Law, they are to be looked up to as the Head Priest by all, from the central figures to the newest dissciples unanimously, until the end of time, as when I was alive," was later arbitrarily added by someone, so it is not part of the Daishonin's Gosho. Is That True?
A statement like, "This passage from 'Hyaku Rokka Sho (One Hundred Six Articles)' is not part of the Gosho" are the words of someone who is ignorant of the Buddhism bequeathed to Nichiren Shoshu. **The Gosho Zenshu incudes many Gosho not written in the Daishonin's own hand.** These include "Ryusenji Moshijo (Petition to Ryusenji Temple)," the latter part of which was written by Nikko Shonin on behalf of the Daishonin, and "Hakiri Dono Goho (Report to Lord Hakiri)," the entirety of which Nikko Shonin wrote on behalf of the Daishonin. There are also oral teachings, such as "Ongi Kuden (Record of the orally Transmitted Teachings)" and "Verbatim Lecture Notes (Oko Kikigaki)." That is all the more reason why it is quite natural for transfer documents such as "One Hundred Six Atricles" to explicitly state what is implicit in the Daishonin's doctrines, and for them to appear in a form that differs from the Daishonin's usual literary style.
If one reads Jackie Stone's book "Original Enlightenment and the transformation of Medieval Tendai Buddhism" or her Doctor's thesis "Some Disputed Writings in the Nichiren Corpus;" one sees that the question of forged writings is important in Nichiren buddhism and not just an academic matter. There is quite a collection of works attributed to Nichiren Daishonin. The works in dispute read like a list of favorite Gakkai/NST Gosho. These include the "Sandai Hiho Sho (on the three Great Secret Laws") and nearly all the documents that Nichiren Shoshu bases it's succession on. Thus it is not a matter that can be settled with a pronouncement that even forged writings are orthodox writings, because such a statement is not an honest approach.
Such an approach is a "bury the head in the sand" approach and can only lead to mischief. If NST can define Buddhism one way, why not the Gakkai another? If the standard isn't the truth but a "spirit of orthodoxy" then who determines that orthodoxy? The result of the attitude in the above statement from the priests is only illogical and circular dogmas that cannot be called proper doctrines because they are afraid of critical reasoning or literary criticism.
Nichiren pioneered a form of literary criticism. His teachings were not just triumphalist assertions but based on a keen understanding of the writings of the various teachers of his time. He saw how their teachings were at variance from the sources and how they borrowed ideas from one sutra and gave the credit for those ideas to sutras that they then held up as "supreme" when in fact they were at best supplemental teachings. He taught (In the Gosho Repaying Debts of Gratitude) to paraphrase: that teaching such doctrines was like piling up a mountain of BS. You can call it incense but when burned it still smells like BS. Likewise we cannot allow ourselves to take the attitude that thinking or logic is somehow evil or not part of Buddhism. Nichiren himself advocated using the "three proofs" and literary proof for him was very similar to what is now known as Literary Criticism. The priests should be at the forefront of authenticating and validating their works. And if they are forgeries they should find another basis for their doctrines than citations of forged documents, reinterpretations of passages, and other "reading into's" of meaning into Nichirens thought.
So when the priests respond in the following way, they are undermining their own positions:
If one says that, "Unless a document was written in the Daishonin's own hand, it cannot be called the Gosho," then none of the extant copies of transfer documents are the Daishonin's Gosho. Concerning the passage in question, Fifty-ninth High Priest Nichiko Shonin stated in "Collection of Study Essentials for the Fuji School," "In terms of doctrine, it's justifiable." (Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 25)
Nichiko Hori (Reverend Horigome) was a wise high priest, but that statement, taken out of context, shows that he understood that some of the basis for the Fuji Sect lay in disputed texts. He wasn't happy with this at all and he made a strong effort to include as few disputed texts as possible. NST has a traditional story that the "5 elder priests" burned Gosho written to ordinary people, but that doesn't account for all of the issues or justify a circular reasoning. Some of the disputed writings were the above referenced writings that justify the High Priests inheritance and others are writings such as the Shoho Jisso Sho that were written to Sairenbo. That the school approves of a Gosho is not enough to resolve the various issues of truth and legitimacy that might surround it. At least the priests understand they have a problem on their hands. The following solution just doesn't work:
As this passage indicates, a High Priest who inherited the entirety of the Daishonin's Buddhism through the bequeathal of the lifeblood received by only a single person himself recorded this as the Gosho, so it contains no mistakes in its doctrine. For example, even if it were not written by Nichiren Daishonin or Nikko Shonin, in terms of its orthodox spirit and meaning, One Hundred Six Articles is an excellent Gosho.
Justifying that writings are "orthodox" because the High Priest says they are orthodox. And then using those very same writings to justify the High Priests authority is circular reasoning. It doesn't fly if you think about it.
The issues with the Kawabe memo show that they are aware of these issues. I'd suggest that they drop the backwards valoration of the infallibility of priests and instead talk about the value of being able to adapt to the times while conserving the truths of Buddhism. That would involve redefining the role of the priest to more of a "treasure" of keeping and studying the Dharma, and less emphasis on priests as defining doctrinal purity. It would also involve less arrogance and less hypocrisy on everyones part. Correcting mistakes is not any more shameful than surrendering to a superior opponant after a genuine conflict of interest when both parties recognize the Buddha nature of their opponant. There is no need for Kamikaze attacks to defend the indefensible. Just fix it and move on!
And the worst of it is that, with such a dishonest attitude, the priests undermine their own authority and bring shame on Nichiren Shoshu. There are authentic works of Nichiren in their possession, and the things that they have are venerable even if they weren't directly from Nichiren himself. The notion of a "lineage" is based on the very notion -- that the Dharma is supreme -- that informs Nichiren's teachings. It just doesn't work the way the priests say it works. One of their priests understood the general principle and the true meaning of a "specific" inheritance when he said; "The Buddha follows the Dharma, and the "Sangha" follows the Buddha." This is informed by Nichiren's Quote that "Because the Dharma is supreme, the person is respectworthy, because the person is respectworthy, the land is sacred." It flows that way. The land is sacred only, and specifically, due to the efforts of votaries to believe, embrace, copy and spread the Lotus Sutra.