Twenty Six Admonitions

The twenty six admonitions are contained in a terse work attributed to Nikko Shonin towards the end of his life. According to tradition they were penned just before Nikko died in 1332. They may also have been penned posthumously as were many works attributed to the scholars of the various schools but there are no real issues with these because they represent the "sense" of the school. Even so, the admonitions they contain have been important in defining the Fuji School since its inception. They have been a primary source for students of the Fuji School for they summarize some of the doctrines and beliefs of that school -- at least understood by the Taisekiji lineages:

These lineages are:

The Sokagakkai

Nichiren Shoshu

Shoshinkai

Kenshokai

Interpretation and Meaning

As is usually with a terse document, some of the commands can be read in more than one way, and even more so, because they are written in the indirect language of classical Japanese, they can even be translated differently. This has led to a difference in how the Fuji School, Nichiren Shoshu in the USA and Sokagakkai interpret their meaning. We'll go into this in this document a bit. But first lets simply present them:

For differing versions of what they mean you might want to read these pages:

Soka Gakkai Study Page

Formatted

Richard Causton:

http://www.eaglepeak.clara.co.uk/26lecturebydc.html

Nichiren Shoshu version:

Purportedly of Nichikan

Now please note the differences in translation between the Nichiren Shoshu version and the Sokagakkai -- expecially with respect to Admonition 17. We will look at this issue more later

The twenty six admonitions as translated by the Gakkai:

The doctrines of the Fuji school must not differ in the least from the teachings of the late master.

The doctrines of the five senior priests differ in every regard from the teachings of the late master

There will [in the future] appear persons who slander our school, saying that the Gosho are forged writings. You must not associate with such evil priests.

Those who produce forged writings and say that they are Gosho, or who practice with the view that the essential and theoretical teachings [of the Lotus Sutra] are the same, are parasites in the lion's body.

You should refrain from indulging in poetry or non-Buddhist works, or from engaging in idleness and chatter without [having the aim of] rebuking slander.

Lay believers should be strictly prohibited from visiting [heretical] temples and shrines. Moreover, priests should not visit slanderous temples or shrines, which are inhabited by demons, even if only to have a look around. To do so would be a pitiful violation [of the Daishonin's Buddhism]. This is not my own personal view: it wholly derives from the sutras [of Shakyamuni] and the writings [of Nichiren Daishonin].

Disciples of ability should be allowed to devote themselves to the study of the Gosho and other doctrines of Buddhism, without being pressed to perform miscellaneous services for their teachers.

Those of insufficient learning who are bent on obtaining fame and fortune are not qualified to call themselves my followers.

Until they are well versed in the difference between the provisional and true teachings, followers of later generations should visit this temple, setting aside the debt of gratitude they owe to their parents and teachers, and undertake various studies in order to free themselves [from the sufferings of birth and death] and attain the Way.

Unless you have a thorough understanding of, and firm faith in, the teachings [of Nichiren Daishonin], you should not study T'ien-t'ai's doctrines.

Followers of this school should engrave the teachings of the Gosho in their lives and thereby inherit the ultimate principles expounded by the master. Then, if they have any leisure time, they should inquire into the doctrine of the T'ien-t'ai school.

You should be inclined to engage in discussion or deliver lectures [on Buddhism], and you should refrain from pursuing secular concerns.

Until kosen-rufu is achieved, propagate the Law to the full extent of your ability without begrudging your life.

As for practitioners who treasure the Law more highly than their own lives, even if they are but humble teachers of the Law, you must hold them in great esteem, revering them as you would the Buddha.

You should revere a teacher of the Law who engages in its propagation as a sacred priest, even though he may be your junior.

Even though they may be lowly, you should deeply respect and regard as your teachers those whose understanding of Buddhism surpasses your own.

Do not follow even the high priest if he goes against the Buddha's Law and propounds his own views [Selfish doctrines that contravene the dharma].(Note this is mistranslated by NST).

Even if a view is set forth unanimously by a conference [of believers], the high priest should repudiate it if it goes against the Buddha's Law.

Black robes should not be worn [by priests].

Jikitotsu should not be worn [by priests].

You should not sit together with slanderers of the Law [at religious ceremonies] for fear of suffering the same punishment as they.

You must not accept offerings from slanderers of the Law.

Carrying a sword or staff in order to protect the Buddhist Law is permissible. However, [weapons] should not be worn when presiding over religious services, though accompanying priests may be permitted to carry them [to protect themselves and others].

[At religious ceremonies] young acolytes should not occupy seats lower than those of high-ranking lay followers.

My disciples should conduct themselves as holy priests, patterning their behavior after that of the late master. However, even if a high priest or a priest striving for practice and understanding should temporarily deviate from [the principle of] sexual abstinence, he may still be allowed to remain in the priesthood [as a common priest without rank].

You should treasure those practitioners who are skilled in difficult debate, just as the late master did.

Issues related to the 26 Admonitions

The twenty six admonitions have been used differently depending on the circumstances, and mostly within the religious politics of people connected to the Fuji School. You don't see them relied on by people who don't give any authority to the lineage of the high priests.

The Strictness of Nikko

The doctrines of the Fuji school must not differ in the least from the teachings of the late master.

Some have questioned these admonitions themselves, but most Fuji School Scholars accept them as legitimately from Nikko late in his life and not as apocryphal works. They reflect the deep sense of responsibility of Nikko towards correct transmission of Buddhism, and the misgivings he must have felt at the direction being taken by the priests of the various offshoots of his school. Already the "five elder priests" were mostly dead or gone by this time, and their next generation disciples were busy debating and competing with each other over turf issues, trying to propagate Buddhism, and were not as strict as Nikko was in seeking to try to transmit the sense of what Nichiren was teaching. Nikko was incredibly strict, and in retrospect you can see why. He is said to have ejected a student simply for watching a leaf fall. This sounds unnecessarilly strict until you see the results of monks not paying attention in the many and multifarious arguments and disagreements of subsequent generations about what Nichiren was teaching. The idea of transmission is based on a simple truth. No teacher can ever put in writing everything that needs to be said in a school. Indeed, he rarely has time to even discuss it. Therefore teachings always have a "sense" that has to be transmitted orally. There was a lot of material to cover and it was vital that each acolyte take seriously the full importance of learning completely each lesson transmitted to him or that lesson would be lost. This material would eventually evolve into something called the "Ongi Kuden" and be enshrined into doctrines that would be different from anything that was written -- and this could well be the result of generations of monks not paying serious attention to transmitting what they received accurately.

This admonition reaffirms his attitude on this. Some of the non-fuji school teachers sometimes mention that Nikko regarded himself as "Nichiren's secretary" as if that were demeaning him. But that actually simply just shows the importance that he put on accurate transmission. Nikko's claim to being Nichiren's true disciple initially referred to his claim to being the designated rector of Minobu Kuon-ji, and later referred to his disputes with the other six priests. It was his disciples who may have turned these claims into "forged writings"/apocrypha

Getting it Wrong

The doctrines of the five senior priests differ in every regard from the teachings of the late master

One of the explanations for the "deviations" of the five elder priests later offered by Fuji School scholars is that these priests were far too busy propagating Buddhism to be properly studying it. If you visit my pages on the six elder priests you can see why Nikko might have criticized their teachings. And we still see that going on with priests and lay leaders of the Nichiren schools to this day. With the ideas of Buddhism it is easy to get side-tracked by political considerations or by personal feelings.

However, one of the reasons that some have questioned the authorship of this document is that if it was indeed written in 1332, it cannot refer directly to the original five senior priests, but must by then have been referring to the schools founded by them. This is because by 1332 Nitcho had come to repent of initially working with Nichiro and Toki Jonin and had come to live next door to Nikko Shonin and his brother (also Nitcho) had been the instructor at Omosu Seminary until 1317. Nikko thus is probably referring to the schools founded by them, which by then had become five schools; Hama, Ikegami, Hikigayatsu, Mobara and Minobu lineages. Later each of these would have colonies in Kyoto.

Issues of Authenticity and issues of Transmission:

There will appear persons who slander our school, saying that the Gosho are forged writings.

Early on after Nichiren's death, Gosho were being listed and used as source materials for debates and arguments between the various early lineages. Nikko created lists of Gosho, and tried to make copies of those he considered valuable. He and Toki Jonin are our principle sources for lists of which Gosho are genuine. Toki Jonin himself preserved the "Rokunai" list. But knew that there were additional works that he hadn't encountered yet. And he also asserted editorial rule over the Gosho knowing full well that other schools would challenge that rule in the future. He knew that some Gosho had been written by him or another disciple such as Nichiji (who authored the Dialogue between a Sage and a Fool), and that some originals would someday be lost. He also knew that some disciples valued only certain Gosho. For instance those written before Sado were devalued, and those writings of Nichiren from early in his career were sometimes not even listed.

Additionally those that were written in common Japanese rather than classical Kanji were either disparaged or copied into Kanji by disciples who didn't see their importance. For Nikko all the Gosho were sacred and should be preserved for posterity.

Additionally, because the leadership asserted "editorial" rights they knew that some people would not accept as Gosho works not proven to be from Nichiren himself. Nikko tried to cover that in his next admonition.

Those who produce forged writings and say that they are Gosho

Nikko was very diligent in saving or writing down what he heard, to the point where other schools disparage him as having been Nichiren's "secretary" at meetings and such. Soon after Nichiren's death however, various monks began taking it on themselves to speak in Nichiren's name (or in the name of first generation disciples). Nikko himself rewrote Gosho as he copied them to try to reflect revised understanding of what Nichiren taught. However, he was very careful to distinguish between his own writings and those of Nichiren. What he needed to transmit contained a lot of volume. And much of it was oral in nature and involved understanding Tendai Doctrine, and so was not easily transmitted in writings. This would lead to trouble later.

From the beginning Monks would often assert editorial authority and rewrite or simply create "pious forgeries" and then attributed to the person whose authority they claimed. This editorial assertion might have been acceptable, if the various priests had all agreed on what those doctrines should be. However, the chief priest of a particular line would often assert his views in the name of the "Late Master" -- at odds with the views of another school. This meant that some of the forged writings were written for convenient purposes. Nikko lived a very long time after Nichiren's death, and outlived many of the other direct disciples of Nichiren and it appears this process had already started before his death. Some of the works attributed to being transcribed by a third generation disciple Nisshin caled the "Risshokan Jo" are directly at odds with works attributed to Nikko's disciple Nichijun Sammi. Before he died Nikko witnessed acrimoneous debates and found himself in a deep conflict with four of his fellow Nichiren Disciples. One of the causes of that acrimony was the hot water that Nissho and Nichiro got into when Nissho rewrote the Rissho Ankoku Ron to reflect what he thought Nichiren would have said had he written it after Sado Island. He included criticisms of Shingon and Tendai which made it impossible to fairly debate those schools once they were widely known.

see

nichirenism.html, fujischool

disputed, disputed.html or apocryphal.html, and literal.html).

It is ironic that years later it would be a Fuji School institution, the Nichiren Shoshu, who would stand accused of using forged writings to justify its teachings, but it was probably inevitable for the simple reason of the drifting of time and human hubris. No piece of paper will endure forever, no human being is infallible, and many Gosho are transmitted to us only because of copies made of them. This became an issue with one set of documents in particular. For a discussion of them visit transfer.html

Issues about Admonition number 17

Do not follow even the high priest if he goes against the Buddha's Law and propounds his own views [Selfish doctrines that contravene the dharma].(Note this is mistranslated by NST).

We had always heard this one of the 26 admonitions referred to in conflicts between the priesthood and the Gakkai. The first mention was when Tsunesuburu Makiguchi referred to it in refusing to worship Shinto Talismans during World War II. But when the "split" occurred we found out that the priests translated this section differently, i.e:

17. Though he be the head priest of the time, he is not to use a person who sets forth his own doctrines which deviate from Buddhism.

Well what does it literally mean?

A clue was given when the subject was discussed in ARBN in this thread by Mike Bowman and others:

Toki no (of the time) kanzu (head priest) nari (become) to iedomo (although) [Though he becomes the head priest of the time] Buppo (Buddhism) no soui shite (differs from) kogi (selfish doctrine) wo kamaeba (sets forth) [should someone set forth a selfish doctrine which differs from Buddhism] kore (this [person]) wo yuu bekarazaru koto (must not be used).

He then said:

Someone out there may very well argue that "kore" is usually rendered as simply "this," but my Iwanami published "Kogo Jiten" ("Dictionary of Ancient Language") renders "kore" as, among other things, "this person."

I replied that this amounted to saying:

"Toki no Kanzu, nari to iedomo. Though he be head priest of the time, Buppo no soui shite kogi wo kamaeba kore wo yuu bekarazaru koto!"

If his teachings differ from Buddhism with a selfish doctrine set forth this [person] should not be used (followed as an example, followed, listened to) Now this seems thorny with interpretations, because it is "indirection." The meaning comes from the context. However, the context is clearly in the first clause of the sentance. "Kore" clearly refers to "head priest" in this case. (Mike Bowman), the Hokkeko and Nichiren Shoshu would imply that this "person" means someone other than the high priest, but the words themselves say simply that selfish doctrines should not be used. The meaning clearly implies that any selfish doctrines should not be used -- even if they come from the high priest himself. This meaning is further clarified when the context is added. Nikko is said to have said in another letter to the effect that "if I ever get old and senile and start mouthing the nembutsu, abandon me."[I'm looking for my source for this so this may get corrected]. The key is that this is also the spirit embodied in Sutra and Gosho which constantly admonish us to follow the law and not person. And of course the best "proof" that this interpretation is correct is how the quote has been used over the years -- and mostly it has been used to justify rebellion against the High Priest, such as that by the or the sokagakkai.html

Indeed the long time member Allan Billups (who is a Nichiren Shoshu member) refers to it translated the right way as far back as 1960. And Dave Cole, once he stopped apologizing for Nichiren Shoshu has been repeatedly pointing out the convenience of this "new translation" which is in fact the worst kind of distorted spin, a stupid one.

Sources:

This site contains a lecture on this subject by President Ikeda One copy of this is at:

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/SokaGakkai/Study/26Adm/index.html.

I'll add more later

back to index

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws