> I recently re-edited an essay, "On Refuting Other Schools." > This has Gosho citations, historical context, gratuitous sex & > violence, and outside links. It might be useful in responding to > those who attack Nichiren as a fire breathing fundamentalist, as > well as those who promote Nichirenist fundamentalism.
Robin, this subject is probably worth discussing.
I happen to believe that Nichiren was a fundamentalist. However, what that means is far different in Buddhism than it is in popular Western religions. Fundamentalism as a pure concept is a good thing. It gets it's bad name from the unscientific an authoritarian attitude of the fundamentalists.
Basically the error that fundamentalist make is that when they seek the fundamentals they seek them with a shallow mind and out of context. We are right to seek the context of Nichiren's refutations. We are wrong to apply modern categories of thinking to that context. Saying that anyone of that time could be a "fire breathing fundamentalist" is applying modern categories to people of that time.
When bringing alive a man of a certain time, one has to consider the context.
Nichiren's critiques of Buddhism in his day were entirely valid for his day. They are valid for the present day also -- but only if shifted to correct the context.
> Perhaps we should, as I suppose SGI does to an extent, clarify > the distinctions between various models of religious practice, > and maybe refute models that are counter productive; but even > that should not be an emphasis, and should not transparently > point fingers at specific schools. Nichiren's own criteria was "slander of the Sutra" specifically the lotus Sutra. What this means is important. He laid out pretty clearly what distinctions to apply. And he noted that the scholars and teachers of his time were nearly universally guilty of such slander. As a religious founder his job was to accomplish two things. One was to distinguish his teachings from those of others; to say what his religion "is" and what it is "not." The second was to make the case for why that distinction matters. The purpose of his Gosho was to establish that case. Robin: > such critiques [should not be] be too simplistic, and thereby > conducive of cultivating or encouraging bigotry, self > righteousness, fundamentalism, etc. However, the problem here is that in order for a critique to be understood it must be simple enough to be understood. That is why Nichiren relied on disciples to do the debates and teach the nuances. Unfortunately disciples work from the world of Shomon and thus tend to arrogance, anger and animosity. They fear their flock will go to others, they want others to join and admire them, and so they tend to misapply Nichiren's clear reasoning, often more aimed at rivals or enemies than other schools. You see some people going around talking about "refuting Christianity" but when they do they often don't know what the hell they are talking about. The trouble is they think they do. That is because they are applying misunderstandings of Nichiren's method and analysis outside of it's Japan context. And this debate goes back to the founders and their debate over the role of Shinto. It represents an undigested understanding of Nichiren's method of criticism and the reason he was criticizing those things. And that probably reflects considerable transmission loss due to the 200 years of intense warfare and chaos that followed Nichiren's death. > For example, a nuanced critique of esotericism can be > illuminating. And, IMO, statist theocracy is close to an > absolute evil. When religion is established as part of the > state, it tends to be subsumed, as a tool of the state. The key error that any religious person makes is that when his vision is intense and specific, he tends to think it is the only vision of ultimate reality that is correct and wholesome. Thus he tends to see competing visions as wrong visions. A religious person however, has to take his enlightenment up another step, to Eagle Peak, where that vision can encompass the universal "meta level" understanding of religion. Nichiren's criticisms were focused on this meta level. He didn't criticize the four sects for being "wrong" so much as being wrong and slandering the Lotus. Slander of the Lotus is slandering this "meta level" reality that lies behind all religious making and practice. It is criticizing the dyke engineers rather than the dyke planners, funders, and authorities. Nichiren didn't critize Nembutsu for teaching mantra chanting but for Honen teaching that his followers should discard the Lotus and distorting the sutras. If one is to criticize Christianity, it's not for teaching Paul and Jesus, but for teaching authoritarianism, Papal infallibility, or distorting those teachings. > On the other hand, I am not sure I want leaders who are > a-spiritual or anti-spiritual. As long as people follow and obey the Law, have some ethical precepts, and society enforces those things, then whether people are spiritual or pragmatic doesn't matter. We don't want anti-spiritual anymore than we want anti-materialistic. We want human beings who think independently enough to know what the right thing is and do it. I don't know if that is a spiritual thing or not. Spiritual matters can help one determine what the right thing is, but there is not necesarly a direct connection. > And esoteric teachings about mudras, mandalas, and mantras > certainly have practical value. Esotericism is about teaching the "inner secrets" Robin. The mudras, mandalas and mantras are just tools aimed at helping folks get in touch with those inner secrets. Joseph Campbell has done a good job making a connection between these symbols, cosmological symbols and our inner psychology. We understand the world through aphorism, stories, metaphors, similes, narratives and example. When we get the right metaphore we "get it." Like Shakyamuni taught, sometimes it's a matter of teaching the "beating impurities out of life" to a Black-smith rather than the wrong metaphor. Classic esotericism takes this process further and is rewarding to those who have the time to go through that process -- which can take years. > If Nichiren would disagree with that, about which I am not 100% > clear, then I would disagree with him. I tend to think that > Nichiren, in his critiques, was most concerned with those Priests > and Schools who were competing with one another for secular power, > as opposed to working for universal salvation. Had Tendai Buddhism not gotten entranced with Shingon Esotericism, his teachings would have been firmly in line with Tendai Buddhism. The reason that Dengyo had been able to accomplish so much was that the Emperor of Dengyo's time had been under assault from secular authorities backed by the six Nara sects that were already established. They had a reason to back a reformed Buddhism. And Dengyo provided the reasoning for the reform. The Nichiren sect had a completely different case to make and circumstances under which to make it. The Shingon School had managed to ingratiate itself and insinuate itself into the entire fabric of Japanese life. It's influences even extended into Zen and Nembutsu; Zen with the elitist esotericism and Nembutsu with the mudra and mantra. Dengyo had been entranced by those teachings as well. He had hoped that he could reconcile the other-worldly and elitist teachings of the Shingon school with the universalist teachings of Tendai -- but he was unable to accomplish this. In the end he had to break with them. Nichiren didn't identify those issues early in his career partly because he was swimming in them. His analysis of Kobo Daishi contained in the Ho'on Sho was even more brilliant than his deconstruction of Honen in the Kaimoku Sho. And it is based entirely on the Ebyo Shu and probably secret teachings developed later by some of Dengyo's disciples which expanded on those teachings. That is why he refers to it in that work. Nichiren kept the Ho'on Sho secret himself, because he knew that it's thesis was revolutionary -- and would pit him against the "powers that be" of his time. Shingon Esotericism bears some superficial similarities to Masonry. And in Nichiren's time it's initiation played the role of blessing the power elite as well as "opening eyes" of individuals to a wider view of life. The only difference between Tendai and Shingon was where they claimed they got their esotericism. Jikaku Daishi had specifically gone to China to seek independent esoteric teachings from those of Kobo Daishi. But the esotericism was virtually the same. As a commoner Nichiren recieved some of these initiations but not all of them. As a man of deep and penetrating intellect he sought to receive those initiations through rediscovering them outside the master / disciple "direct mind to mind" channel. This is what led him to the Ebyo shu. He had to be an "independent practitioner" in order to achieve anything because the help he received from established teachers was limited due to his low status and poor birth station. Dengyo was right in saying that one cannot be denied enlightenment by making it the province of only human to human interaction. Nichiren claimed to reach his own enlightenment directly in the story of receiving a Jewel from one of his masters. His real life masters could or did only offer him limited help. The Nirvana Sutra recounts how Sessen Doji writes his revelations on rocks, trees and mountain sides, he resolved to share what he had learned with others. To do that he had to develop a new school of Buddhism because the older ones were either entranced with esotericism or degraded and elitist. Nichiren had realized that this elitist way is wrong -- and that it slanders the message of the Lotus Sutra of universal salvation. Yes, we all need teachers and "masters" -- but self styled masters only offer lies and cheats to people seeking enlightenment if they follow an elitist path. Enlightenment is about having an independent heart and 'standing up alone' -- not following lock-step some cause, person or narrow ideology. Still, the cause of spreading enlightenment involves creating an understandable message -- and Nichiren was a master of that. As he recounts in the Kaimoku Sho "I have not the wisdom and ability of Tendai or Dengyo, but in terms of my compassion for others I think I'd put them to shame." The goal of Nichiren Buddhism is to make Buddhism available to all humans. That is why the refutations, that is why the simple practice. Not because somehow complex practices don't "work" but because this simple practice works well enough and is simpler. That is why Nichiren simplified the practice the way he did. He realized that those "inner secrets" don't require all that BS to get to. Still it's not a secret if it's easy to figure out. It takes real work to understand esotericism enough to be able to "refute it". Part of enlightenment is waking up to the purpose behind all the BS. When the student punches his master, (according to one story I heard) he's finally "figured it out." Nichiren just tried to make it easier to get to that point. Waking up is a first step. All these are part of the reason why Nissho was confused about how to deal with the Tendai-Shingon Sect. He thought that he could simply refute them by letter (revised Rissho Ankoku Ron) as had been done in previous ages. However, conditions had changed. Japan had become a place where the elite drew their sustenance and power from their connection to the combined Buddhist/Shinto religious complex. Only a carefully conducted campaign was going to change that -- and it never happened.Posted by cholte at November 6, 2005 01:08 PM