A friend wrote:
"Right now I'm looking for Gosho other than the one I just posted
that might justify fujufuse towards other Nichiren groups. I can't
find any. But I can find Gosho that indicate that when we criticize
each other for slandering the law we'd better be on firm ground or we
are committing slander -- true or false [?]"
True. But I don't see that as an inherent problem. To me fujufuse is
a common sense teaching to avoid complicity in slander. Seen in this
light, where in the Gosho is it not supported? Does it matter if is
supported by the Gosho? I think not. The inherent problem is that
fujufuse is applied in Sectarian way, rather than universally, and
this problem is addressed quite well in the article by Raffaella Di
Marzio:
http://web.tiscali.it/noredirecttiscali/grisroma/inglese/Cesnur_part3.htm
"I was sorry to see how, at times, tolerance towards others is often
missing in those very people who claim it loudly every day as an
unalienable right for their own group."
I see a prime example of this Sectarian attitude in a statement made
recently by a top level Lay Leader of Nichiren Shu in response to the
article referenced above:
"Italy has been a thorn in the SGI's side for a while now. While
they have a secure toehold there, they have lost a large number of
members to the Nichiren Shu over the past few years and have
engaged in the usual chicanery, pitting husband against wife, friend
against friend etc. Some truly unkind and untrue comments have been
made about Rev. Tarabini and the Nichiren Shu as well. Despite all
this and indeed perhaps because of it, they have continued to
hemorrhage members and the Nichiren Shu continues to grow."
Should any of us present or past SGI members think that this is proof
that this practitioner of Nichiren Shu is seizing the opportunity to
slander the SGI and Hail the greatness of Nichiren Shu, you are
right. At the same time, if we fail to acknowledge that a similar
statement is close at hand from the SGI towards Nichiren Shu (and
others), then we are party to the fault that fuels these sectarian
battles. As Raffaella Di Marzio comments below:
"This author has often been forced to see how any dialogue with
many of these groups is impossible, since those who belong to them
are utterly unwilling to do any form of "self-criticism."
"Dialogue in these movements means giving in to the "adversaries",
admitting the "defects" of the group means undermining their
cohesion, disputing the perfection of the leadership means destroying
the certitude of those who belong to them."
While Raffaella's commentary specifically addresses both the SGI and
non-Buddhist religious movements alike, I feel that it succinctly
addresses the character flaw in the natures of most Human Beings that causes Sectarianism to flourish.
I think those of us that have been involved with trying to discuss
the validity of the doctrines of our respective schools, within our
own schools, be it SGI, Nichiren Shu, or others, we know that we hit
a stone wall when it comes to challenging the doctrine of our
schools.
Sectarians, if they are not completely confident that they
will prevail, or find themselves cornered with a difficult question,
they will refuse any further discussion - if in fact one was ever
permitted. No wonder dialogue between different schools is so
difficult - if we refuse to self-reflect among our selves, how can we
imagine the possible merits of being corrected by perceived 'others'?
Truly, the overturned cart on the road serves as a warning to the one
that follows.
Between Nichiren Shu, who's committee of Priests determine
interpretation of doctrine and say that you are welcome to join
them, and 'Gassho' if you choose not to, but, if you do not accept
their doctrines you cannot be an associated Temple or Sangha; the
Nichiren Shoshu who invests sole doctrinal discretion in the body of
the current High Priest and demands its believers follow Him; or the
SGI who shuns or drives it's members away if they don't play 'Follow
the Leader', I will ask, what is the difference?
I would say that essentially there is no difference - some just put
on a friendlier face than others.
A clear example of this (lack of a common standard) is apparent and
reflected in the current American debate regarding the diminishment
of Civil Liberties and Rights to Privacy since the event known as
9/11. Those on the side that say that safety is more important than
personal freedoms and privacy will rationalize and state, "We still
have more freedom and personal rights than any other country in the
World." Setting aside the question of whether (or not) this is true,
the entire line of reasoning is beside the point. In the United
States our standard for comparison is our Constitution - not the
workings of other nation states.
In the same way, just as we, as Americans, should up-hold the
Constitution as our standard in secular affairs, as Buddhists, our
standard should be the Wisdom Embracing all Species, not 'The
Teachings of Our School'.
The Nirvana Sutra holds up the often quoted so-called 'Four
Standards': (1) to follow the teaching, not persons; (2) to follow
the meaning of the teaching, not the words; (3) to follow true
wisdom, not ordinary people's understanding [knowledge]; and (4) to
follow sutras which are complete and final and not to rely on
provisional sutras.
Disagreement by nature means that we are not of the same mind. On
the nature of minds, Nichiren had this to say:
"All the various beings in the nine worlds and the six paths differ
from one another in their minds."
Is this not precisely the reason that Sectarian disputes exit? We
cannot agree on a standard because our minds differ. If we were of
the same mind Sectarian disputes could not exist - but we can't agree
because our minds all differ.
In other words, the problem is not that we do not agree on a standard
for settling Sectarian disputes, the problem is that Sectarian
disputes arise from that nature of our minds; Because our minds
differ, we cannot agree. This is why another seven-hundred years of
Sectarian debate will not bring an end to Sectarian squabbles.
At the same time, isn't Nichiren teaching us here that true unity
exists only in awakening the mind of the Buddha? Now, this raises the
question, "Do we need to agree to common standard to awaken the
mind of the Buddha?"
Nichiren upheld the standard that embraces all beings as the Lotus
Sutra, which he states is the standard set by the sutras themselves.
I uphold that the Lotus Sutra sets the standard of embracing a
single 'four-line verse'. The Lotus Sutra states this as follows:
"Constellation King Flower, if there are those have made up their
minds and wish to gain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, they would do
well to burn a finger or one toe of their foot as an offering to the
Buddha towers. It is better than offering one's realm and cities,
wife and children, or the mountains, forests, Rivers, and lakes in
the 'lands of thousand-million-fold world, or all their precious
treasures. even if a person were to fill the whole thousand-millionfold
world with the seven treasures as an offering to the Buddha and
the great bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas and arhats, the benefits
gained by such a person cannot match those gained by accepting and
upholding this Lotus Sutra, even just one four-line verse of it! The
latter brings the most numerous blessings of all."
In my reading of the Lotus Sutra, it is clear which four-line verse
this is:
"When they have become truly faithful
"Honest, upright, gentle in intent
"Singlemindedly yearning to see the Buddha
"Not begrudging their lives to do so"
And what are the "most numerous blessings of all" that are brought?
They are expressed in the next two lines of verse:
"Then [in this present moment] I and the assembly of Monks
"Appear/together on Eagle Peak"
Fortunately for all, we don't have to agree on this standard to
achieve this standard. It inherently possesses the power to influence
all living beings, to awaken the Wisdom Embracing All Species, the
wisdom unifying all people.
Inherent in this six-line verse are the Three Great Secret Laws.
Sincerely, chikushonin.智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myogaku, myojisokukyo.
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo. 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
(This article first appeared on BuddhaJones.com)
Posted by chikushonin at April 7, 2005 06:59 PMChikushonin -
I am respectfully posing a question here, and not intending to make charges or statements. I am trying to figure out a logical point, regarding your essay.
If I boil all of this down, it seems to me at this time to be saying that you have looked at and discarded all of the various sectarian interpretations of Nichiren's teaching and the Lotus Sutra. You have instead found what you believe to be Nichiren's and the Lotus Sutra's true intent. Thus people, in order to end sectarianism in Nichiren Buddhism and Lotus Sutra practice, should discard any other interpretations beside yours, since yours is the correct and proper interpretation.
If the above is in any way correct, how is it different from any of the other sectarian views, each of which says that one should discard the other interpretations and follow theirs, because they truly believe their interpretation to be correct? Isn't this just another in the line of different interpretations for people to make their decision from? If it is not, what distinguishes this interpretation from all of the others, qualifying this interpretation to be "the only one"?
Finally, how does all of this end sectarianism, rather than adding another sect to the list? If I, or anyone, decides that they do not understand or believe the Sutra in the way you do, then they are just being sectarian, right? In such a case, are you not being just as sectarian regarding your interpretation as the other person is? This seems an unavoidable conundrum to me at this point.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at April 8, 2005 06:26 AMDear Mike,
First, I want to apologize again for deleting your comment on my last article. I am more acquainted with how posting works on this site and it shouldn’t happen again. I was trying to correct (edit) the article and ended up deleting and reposting it but I lost the comments in the process.
I think you are mixing the designation of ‘Sect’ or ‘School’ with the term ‘Sectarianism’.
The definition that I am working with when I state ‘Sectarian’ or ‘Sectarianism’ has to do with attachment to knowledge, which is to say attachment to knowledge of the teaching of a specific school, to the extent that a person or group of persons are unwilling to listen and consider another’s point of view, self reflect, consider the merit of the argument, and openly an honestly acknowledge and correct errors when they have come to light.
Sometimes this unwillingness is born of arrogant attachment to knowledge of the teaching of the specific Sect or Sangha that one belongs to; at other times it is a matter of the arrogance and prideful-ness of not wanting anyone to know that one can be wrong about something. Honest, upright persons appreciate having their errors corrected; persons that cling to falsehood for the sake of appearances cannot be considered honest.
We don’t have to look far to find examples of persons who twist the facts of a matter to avoid the appearance of being wrong. When it comes to the Dharma, slander committed out of ignorance is a mild offence, but ignoring an error when it has been clearly pointed out becomes a grave offence.
The issue has nothing to do with the existence, or the continued existence of various Sects or Sangha, but it does have everything to do with starting at the truth.
The Truth means the Assembly in the Air has not disbursed, and starting at the truth means “At this present moment, I and the assembly of monks appear-together at Eagle Peak.” Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra teach that the way to this truth is “When they have become truly faithful, honest, upright, gentle in intent, single-mindedly yearning to see the Buddha, not begrudging their lives to do so.”
For the sake of argument, if this is correct, can you see the obstacle to awakening the wisdom of all Buddhas in the lives of persons that adhere to Sectarianism as defined above?
Although I arrived at this understanding independent of Nichiren’s writings and the words of the Lotus Sutra, which means that I came to understand this exclusively through reciting daimoku in front of the Gohonzon while “single-mindedly yearning to see the Buddha”, and later found agreement in Nichiren’s recorded teachings and the words of the Lotus Sutra. This arrival is a beginning and not an end. It is starting at the truth and building on it.
Your question as I understand it still remains, “How does all of this end sectarianism, rather than adding another sect to the list?”
Starting at the truth we are of the same mind because we are awakened to the same truth. When we have awakened to this truth, this can only have come about because we have fulfilled the requirements of being truly faithful, honest and upright, single-mindedly yearning to see the Buddha, and not begrudging our lives—or the appearances thereof. Sectarianism, as defined above, cannot exist in the lives of persons fulfilling these requirements. Therefore, there is an end to Sectarianism.
Staring at the truth also means entering the wisdom of all Buddhas. Because this wisdom is the wisdom embracing all species, the exclusivity associated with Sectarianism cannot exist, even thought there are still persons that will continue to belong to various Sects and Sangha in this historical existence.
The wisdom of all Buddhas is manifest in the behavior of persons who’s actions are appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment without thought of self or other, this or that. This is the meaning of autonomous self-practice and manifesting Buddhahood as a common mortal.
Appropriate to Fraught With Peril is the parable of the burning house and the three carts. What the rich man gave them was beyond there expectations--large carriages of uniform size and quality. When they received them, they were free to use them as they saw fit. As the Sutra says,
“These wonderful carriages the man presented to each of his sons alike. The sons at that time danced for joy, mounting the jeweled carriages, driving off in all directions, delighting and amusing themselves freely and without hindrance.”
To my mind, the sons dancing for joy indicates rejoicing at hearing the name and words of the truth (myojisoku); mounting the jeweled carriages indicates accepting the truth; driving off in all directions indicates autonomous self-practice (jigyo); delighting and amusing themselves freely indicates manifesting the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment and, without hindrances indicates Buddhahood as manifest reality.
In conclusion, starting at the truth ends Sectarianism and the conundrum.
“The time will come when all people, including those of Learning, Realization and Bodhisattva, will enter on the path to Buddhahood, and the Mystic Law alone will flourish throughout the land. In that time because all people **chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo together, the wind will not beleaguer the branches or boughs, nor will the rain fall hard enough to break a clod. The world will become as it was in the ages of Fu Hsi and Shen Nung7 in ancient China. Disasters will be driven from the land, and people will be rid of misfortune. They will also learn the art of living long, fulfilling lives. Realize that the time will come when the truth will be revealed that both the Person and the Law are unaging and eternal. There cannot be the slightest doubt about the sutra's solemn promise of a peaceful life in this world.”
Sincerely, chikushonin 智倶諸人, a common mortal of myojisoku
** chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo together: “Depend on the meaning not the words”. (starting at the truth/thus I heard)
大求道心,妙覚,命時僧倶經.
南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
A great seeking mind, mystically awakened, Buddhahood as manifest reality.
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo
"Between Nichiren Shu, who's committee of Priests determine interpretation of doctrine and say that you are welcome to join them, and 'Gassho' if you choose not to,"
Do you have a source for this?
robin
Posted by: robin at April 13, 2005 12:42 AMHello Robin,
The sentence you are quoting ends, "but, if you do not accept their doctrines you cannot be an associated Temple or Sangha".
Perhaps I should have written, 'but, if you do not accept their **core** doctirines you cannot **become** an associated Temple or Sangha'.
As for the source, I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe it was Ryuei. If it was not, though I believe it was, it would have been John Petry. It would be during a discussion of fujufuse at irgosho a couple of years age.
In either case, I am sure Ryuei can correct the essence of it, if it is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Hi,
I think the attempt to read sectarianism in Nichiren Shu is absurd. In fact, the Nichiren Shu even refuses to translate "Shu" as "sect" anymore, at least in official pubs.
There is no committee of priests who determine doctrines. Thatis also absurd. In fact, when I have tried to get some answers on doctrinal matters, I have been rebuffed. Rissho University scholars are the ones who attempt to discern what Nichiren actually and really meant - and they do it through peer reviewed scholarship and in doing so attempt to be unbiased and nonsectarian. They refuse to make pronouncements about doctrine outside of scholarly assertions because they do not have the right to make up doctrinal policies. There is some kind of committee of Nichiren Shu ministers in Japan, but they decide administrative policies and I suppose they had a hand in the revision of the Nichiren Shu liturgy book a couple of years ago. But I have yet to hear of that group making any doctrinal pronouncements. Nichiren Shu is not the Catholic Church with a Magisterium. We are a confederation of lineages. As far as I can see each individual minister is free to discern the true meaning of Nichiren Buddhism from the Lotus Sutra and the gosho just as Chikushonin or anyone else does. They are even free to ignore Rissho U. scholarship if they wish - but will probably not get a serious hearing if they do so.
What can not be done is to go against the clear teachings in the Lotus Sutra and gosho. So we are a big tent, but you will not find us chanting Nembutsu, or enshrining the Diamond World and Womb World mandalas, etc...
Nichiren was very clear on many points - particularly the Gohonzon, the Odaimoku, and the Kaidan (ok, maybe not quite so clear on that) as the standards of our faith and practice. If someone does not want to follow the clear guidelines in the gosho or they do not like the traditions and customs of our Sangha then there is no reason for them to join Nichiren Shu. At that point we would bow respectfully in gassho to show there are no hard feelings, nor do we presume to condemn anyone for their choice. That is hardly sectarianism.
Too many people think we are just like Nichiren Shoshu. We are not. There are hardly any traditional schools like Nichiren Shoshu. They are an aberration in many ways. So presuming that we act or organize ourselves like Taisekiji will only create confusion. Nichiren Shu is much more collegial and is not run by a high priest or some elite committee. It is, again, a confederation of lineages and temples (each with distinctive styles) that all work together to share the common heritage of the Lotus Sutra and the teachings of Nichiren in the gosho and the customs and traditions of the various monastic lineages going back to all Nichiren's major disciples including Nikko.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Dear Ryuei,
Thank you for accepting my invitation to clarify.
When I read comments celebrating one group’s gain due to the mistakes and hardships another, while engaging in gossip, as in “…they have lost a large number of members to the Nichiren Shu over the past few years and have engaged in the usual chicanery…, and in the next breath complain about unkind words spoken in their own direction, or your own comments,
“Finally, if they start a campaign against us the way they have against Nichiren Shoshu that would be the best possible thing for Nichiren Shu as it would alienate many more SGI members who are already tired of having to be involved in sectarian fighting just to be Buddhists, and providing that Nichiren Shu ministers and laymembers respond in their usual civil and evenhanded fashion we will gain the moral high ground and win a lot of sympathy as people who have minded their own business for the most part and are now being slandered for no good reason other than sectarian one-upmanship. So Nichiren Shu only stands to benefit from any attention that SGI wishes to direct our way”,
I would call these divisive sectarian attitudes.
Perhaps it is unfair of me to cite your example when you have clearly explained that this comment of yours above, that began ,“Hi Byrd,” was not really a reply to this person, but was in fact an encrypted warning to the SGI, presumably so they would not repeat the same errors, retain their members, and not lose them to the Nichiren Shu. Clearly I lacked the wisdom to discern your true intent. It was not sectarian after all?
When I speak of ending sectarianism I am not calling for ending the identities of the various sangha, SGI, Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, or any other. What I am calling for is for these various groups, associations of individuals, to free themselves from the attitudes and actions akin to the quotations above. My thought as expressed in the essay at hand is that this can only be accomplish by the willingness to set aside attachment to the teachings of one’s own school in an honest, upright manner that is gentle in intent. Certainly the comments quoted above, when taken at face value, are not gentle in intent.
I am in complete agreement with you that each individual is free to discern the true meaning of the Lotus Sutra and the gosho, but this cannot be accomplish while slithering about like a snake in the grass, trying to avoid the appearance of being wrong about a matter, or behaving like a cat on the prowl for mice.
I should point out that this discussion began because the SGI maligned Nichiren Shu in their publications.
I should also add that I am among those that Engyo Mike Barrett has spoken of that did not know of the existence of Nichiren schools other than SGI and Nichiren Shoshu in the United States prior to my falling out with the SGI. In fact, only since discovering the Internet in the Fall of 2001. While I did not think of it as sectarianism, while I was practice within the SGI, I was always deeply troubled by the divisive nature of the designations of member and non-member.
As always, please feel free to correct my errors. It is a kindness.
Sincerely, chikushonin 智倶諸人
大求道心,妙覚,命時僧倶經.
南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經