Lamont and Rogow speak behind my back
I am sure there is nothing sinister in Mark Rogow's desire to learn about the Lotus Sutra, but since this is my blog, I would like to express my sadness that his heart cannot feel the difference between a lie and truth. When we really understand Nichiren and what he says in the Kanjin Honzon Sho, it is always like a radar goes off when something flies against that, including Nichiren himself in other letters. That letter is so dead on, it must be studied without religious influence. That brings me to the sad news that Lamont has led my old friend Mark Rogow to a dark alley, to the desert of regret.
He says my views about the Lotus Sutra are incorrect because "The Kempon Hokke Shu shugi koshu roku, p. 62, specifically states the opposite to Maltz: the Hommon stands for differentiation and opposition between the Buddha and the unenlightened. If there is no differentiation, what is the use of faith? (ibid., p. 64)."
In 1998 Yasuhara, gave me a book by Rev. Honda of the Kempon Hokke Shu, the “Hokekyo kogi” (“Lectures on the Lotus Sutra”). I had it translated. Here is part of the translation that fits this blog:
Honda on commenting on the “Chapter of the Measure of Life of the Tathagata”: in volume 2, p. 215, specifically states:
“The saintly patriarch relying on the vast numbers preaches the innumerable, and therewith judges it to reveal the Beginningless Really existing Original Buddha of Concrete (or Tangible) Character of the Enjoyment and Response [Bodies], when as he says it ‘is the Beginningless Ancient Buddha of kalpas as many as the dust of countries touched or not by the dust of five hundred of tens of trillions of nayutas of asamkheyas of great trichiliocosms (gohyaku jinden gô) and so on to the Three Bodies that are revealed’, it is this.
Although in discussing this Original Buddha there are those who cull out the Buddha Who practiced and manifested the Effect and point to the Ideality (Abstraction) of Unmanifest Original Enlightenment (hongaku no ritai) and take this Abstract Buddha (ributsu) that is the unenlightened worldling (bombu) to be the Original Buddha (hombutsu) and take the Actual Buddha (jibutsu) as the Manifestation Buddha (shakubutsu); this is by no means (kesshite) the conclusion of the faith and practice of [the Bodhisattva] Converted by the Original Buddha (honge). However, among the Saint’s latter lineages they frequently assert this doctrine and advocate that it is the sublime doctrine revealed by the ‘[Chapter] of the Measure of Life’ alone and the Ultimate Theory exceeding the {Bodhisattva] Converted by the Original Buddha (honge); the ignorant heedlessly would follow suit. Alas! This child is to be pitied !”
Honda makes it clear that the Buddha spoken of in Chapter Sixteen is a concrete or tangible character (gutaikaku) relating to the Enjoyment and Response Bodies (hojin and ojin) and he utilizes a phrase from the “Kanjin honzon sho” to describe this Buddha; although there are some who have tried to twist the phrase to mean something else Honda is fairly clear: he believes in the “Actual Buddha” (ji butsu) and dismisses the theory of the Abstract or Ideal (ritai) Original Enlightenment, which, as every scholar should know, is oriented towards the Dharma Body (hosshin) of the Buddha.
Honda’s description is the same with the idea found in the “Kaimoku sho” (STN, v. 1, 5536 8). Nichiren says the feature that separates the “Hokekyo” from all other Mahayana Sutras is the concept of the “revelation of the original” (kempon) of the Enjoyment Body (hojin) and of the Response Body (ojin).
Shigyo Kaishu, (“Nichiren no ‘Kanjin honzon sho’ no busshin ron ni tsuite” p. 181), cites this “Kaimoku sho” passage to show Nichiren was NOT oriented towards the Hosshin based hongaku view of the Buddha.”
Honda then goes on to criticize people who are weak and follow those who take ri hongaku to be the Original or Fundamental Buddha and take the Actual Buddha to be a a mere Manifestation Buddha. By the way, this hongaku doctrine is clearly expressed in “On the Reality of the Dharmas” (Shoho jisso sho) (STN, v. 1, 724 l. 11)), a work much praised by Taisekiji and the Soka Gakkai.
The one thing that the Taisekiji, SGI, Marc Strumpf and Mark Herrik, Ruyeieio McCormick have always done is condemn me for accepting the orthodox view that Hondo is talking about.
If the "Kempon Hokke Shu shugi koshu roku" flies against the Lotus Sutra, and the logic in Nichiren's teachings I am not sure, or if it is Lamont's twisted spin. The Lotus Sutra is superior to Nichiren, to Kempon Hokke and to Lamont.
Also, not once did I ever want or ask to be leader of Kempon Hokke in America. We did all the work, and everyone else wanted to be leader. Marc Strumpf and Marc Herrick asked Kubota if they could be the Priest. Graham Lamnt and one of Kubota's friends in Los Angeles, tried to cook up a plan to make Lamont President. Did I ever ask? no Did I ever mention this to Kubota? no. Did I ever want to be a priest? no. Did I ever recommend anyone become a leader? No. Did I do most of work in the beginning and before I left? Yes! Did I spend $100,000.00? yes! Can I refute all Lamonts lies and allegations against me? YES!!! Am I perfect and a saint? No, thank goodness. If Kubota says anything different, I will challenge him to a lie detector test, btw, he never offered to make me a leader or a priest. My view was to have Kempon Hokke like the internet, a group with no center, no leaders, but forever growing. Now I am glad everyone showed their true colors, it was my bodhi tree, so to speak.
Maltz
I don't think I understand Rev.Honda's comments. Maybe it means that the original enlightenment is not from some other buddha nor does it exist as a seperate entity from the manifest buddha. Too many foreign words and I am easily confused. Maybe you could state in simple english?
Posted by: clown hidden at April 25, 2008 08:46 AMHe is saying there is an actual Buddha, not an Original Enlightenment, but an actual " Really existing Original Buddha ..." Nichiren is quite clear too, that he talks about a Buddha, a real Buddha, an Original Buddha, and that Buddha, that Original Buddha taught all the Bodhisattvas from the Earth, and transfered all his merits to them at the Ceremony in Space. The five major works are quite clear on this, that is why the sects rely on the letters to get off tract and talk about other issues, because this makes them uncomfortable. You don't pray to this Original Buddha, you don't worship this Buddha, you don't treat this Original Buddha like God, this Original Buddha is eternal, transcends time and space, was your teacher, and based on the Lotus Sutra, you are here now to follow through with the plan from the Ceremony in Space.
You have to make sure you understand what the message is, not what the sects are telling you. Even the good hearted translators will slant the meaning and skew everything to their point of view.
TCB
MALTZ