On politics Robin and I frequently Butt heads. But one thing I like about his posts to date is that when it comes to Nichiren he seems to have an open mind.
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/rbeck/archives/000703.html
The reason I note this is that he is zeroing in on an important confusion in Nichiren buddhism. That confusion is between what the founder wanted and what the six elder priests actually did. To me there can be no doubt that the ambition of those priests came into conflict with the will of the Daishonin. That is what those documents are referring to. To continue the discussion:
Chris:
> Robin, I think you are partly right here. In all probability Nichiren intended
> an organization headed by consensus of the six elder priests. Nissho being
> senior would have been the intended "lead."
Chris;
> **Nikko was intended to facilitate a rotation at Minobu which would enable
> this "federation" to function as a unit.**
`````````````````````````````````````````````````
Robin:
> That appears to have been the agreement, but that is not un the Will.
Chris:
No, you are right on that. As you noted, if Nikko had had an assigning transmission he would have asserted that early on during the period after the Daishonin's passing. Even as early as during the funeral procession.
Chris;
> **Nikko's claim to being the "lead" arose initially from their failure to keep
> their promise to Nichiren and work together with consensus.**
````````````````````````````````
Robin:
> There is no evidence he made such a claim.
Chris
I'm not talking about the period from 1282-1289 or so, but to after. It's pretty obvious he made the claim to being "true disciple" once he had settled at the Fuji area.
Robin:
> **I also think he felt that Nissho's efforts to rewrite the Rissho Ankoku Ron
> was rash and his retreat when it resulted in persecution was cowardly.**
````````````````````````````````````````````
Robin:
> If so, he waited 20 years to complain. He expressed support for Nissho in
> late 1284.
He started criticizing the other priests as early as 1284 Robin. You just forget that the Japanese are so polite that even the slightest hint of a criticism is usually about the best you will get out of them until an overt break -- and that they take no prisoners. It's "we wish to continue to work for peace," until Pearl Harbor, with them. In 1284, in that "Reply to Mimisaka" he asks for news on what happened to the revised Rissho Ankoku Ron that Nissho had submitted. That coupled with his complaint about the dilapidated state of the temple grounds in the same letter, is pretty strong criticism by Japanese standards. We don't know what happened completely. We do know in 1284 Toki kicked out his son as well. With all these issues we have evidence and spin about the evidence from rival gangs. We need to piece the evidence together and see if a real crime was committed.
Historical evidence that tells us that Nissho was balking at visiting Minobu (and keeping Nichiren's wishes that they tend his grave) and that year decided to instead submitted the Rissho Ankoku Ron. All this tells me that this letter contained a strong indirect criticism of Nissho.
More importantly it contains the germ of later criticisms. Who seriously criticizes a beloved comrade while in the middle of the fray? One gives him every chance to correct his ways.
Anyway; You make me get out my copy of Jackie Stone's book. Please refer to page 335. It says "After Nichiren's death, the six senior disciples established a rotating guardianship. The watch was soon reduced from two months to one...For logistical reasons the additional monks came largely from among Nikko's followers.... Within two years the custodial system seems to have broken down completely.... When Nikko arrived in 1284 for the founders third annual memorial service (that is two years after Nichiren's death), he found the gravesite desolated and neglected... and resolved to reside permanently on the mountain in order to protect it." Jacqueline believes that Nikko probably left because the Jito putsed him in favor of Niko. This is also what many other scholars seem to believe. The letter you quoted, Reply to Lord Hakiri was written in 1289 around the same time he departed -- which was at the beginning of the year. The five elder priests met that same year to ratify Niko's selection in his place -- on Nichiren's 8th memorial service (7 years after his death). By that time Nikko was severely criticizing them all.
Chris: **I don't think he trusted Nissho or Niko's judgement.**
``````````````````````````````````
Robin: Clearly
> **And on that he might have been following the lead of others including
> Nichiren himself.**
````````````````````````````````
There is a letter written to one of Nichiren's disciples in the Fuji area that refers to the unreliability of Nichiren's Kamakura disciples. I'm speculating.
Robin: Definitely not "Nichiren himself."
Chris: Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows? On that I'm going on a limb anyway. No sense doing that. It's neither here nor there.
Chris: **Whatever their excuses, the intent and the appearance matter. It looked bad that they didn't tend Nichiren's grave.**
``````````````````````````````
Robin: House arrest is not a lame excuse.
Chris: First: The Reply to Mimisaka refers to about the time of Nichiren's 1284 anniversary. Nissho wasn't under house arrest until after he submitted his revised Rissho Ankoku Ron and the Government retaliated.
Second: Even if Nissho himself could not visit Minobu, it was incumbent on him to seek to send someone in his stead. Nikko seems to have felt that he was remiss in doing this. This is very unfilial.
Chris: **And it was bad that they were not able to bring about a debate. I do believe that Nikko may even have taken a portion of Nichiren's ashes, because he definately left Minobu in disgust at this and other points.**
``````````````````````````````````````````
Robin: Nikko failed to keep his turn, citing illness. In 1284, October, he shows up and is shocked at conditions.
Chris: There is a difference between missing a turn due to illness and avoidance. Nikko appears to have sent disciples to Minobu. During that period Hakiri and his brother's seem to have forgotten about his friend Nichiren and his grave. Here is the key however, 1284 was an important anniversary, which everyone had agreed should be shared at Minobu. Nissho decided to do his ceremony in Kamakura. Maybe his arthritus was bothering him. Nikko seems to have excused him in 1284. But reply to Mimisaka registers his complaints. Nikko was humble enough to realize that nobody is perfect.
Chris: **Later, after all the other senior priests were dead, and the unity was not re-established, Nikko and his disciples came to the opinion that their school should be number one because Nikko was the last of the first tier still alive.**
`````````````````````````````````````
Robin: So they forge proof, while fighting with one another?
No, the first tier of disciples wouldn't have needed to forge anything except hagiographies and rewrites -- which are "pious forgeries" and represent editing on their part not what they would have considered "forgery."
After Nissho and Nichiro and Nikko and Niko died -- that is when the incentive for pious forgeries came in. Nikko, while alive had seniority. It would have been Toki's school and the others seeking legitimacy. Both Nitcho's however passed away and Nikko started training a new generation -- that new generation would have been setting the stage for it's own stake-holdings while Nikko was still alive.
So the disciples of Nikko's rivals had an incentive to try to memorialize their position while Nikko was still alive. Much like Kempon Hokke today or any other group each temple needed something to hang it's claim to independence on. They took actions like sending missionaries to Kyoto to try to establish their legitimacy.
After Nikko died there were disputes within his own school. There was a four way dispute between rival claimants for Taisekiji and Omosu. This happened while Niko's disciples, Nissho's and Nichiro's were temporarly reunited. It's all too complicated for me to even retain in my memory. That is why we should discuss it.
Robin:
> **But by then each of the other 3 remaining disciples had disciples who
> were actively disputing this assertion.**
`````````````````````````````
4, counting Nakayama.
By then, it was a lot more than four.
Chris
Posted by cholte at November 14, 2005 12:53 AM