Kazuo Kawai supplied this translation of "Reply to Hara Dono" (see extended entry for URL).
The Reply to Hara dono
I have just carefully read your letter. The origin that has caused
this situation is as follows. In November Mr. Nambu Yasaburo(*1)
came to this temple in order to listen to the lecture on the
teachings of this sutra. At that time he brought the lay priest's
words(*2) that he wanted to ask the reason why believers in Nembutsu
are doomed to the hell of incessant suffering and that he couldn't
think that the benevolent deities who lend their protection aren't
present in this country. I was very surprised to hear these words. I
was caught by a sudden suspicion that the lay priest had changed his
mind. The sage Nichiren told the three rulers(*3) of the Kamakura
shogunate minutely in his remonstrative work(*4) that great or small
benevolent deities have abandoned this country because of the
slanders by Nembutsu, True Word, Zen and Precepts, and that
therefore fierce demons came into the shrines which they left
behind, and that the three calamities of famine, epidemics and the
kingdom of the Mongols would continue in the land until it goes to
ruin. I said that it was the very teaching Acharya Nichiren held in
his mind. For the sake of the nation, for the sake of the Law, for
the sake of all living beings Acharya Nichiren told it, as a
messenger of the Buddha, with his great compassion and without
begrudging his life.
Yasaburo answered, "I have believed that Nembutsu is the cause of
falling into the hell of incessant suffering, but I can't yet clear
up my doubt about the teaching that benevolent deities have
abandoned this land. The disciple(*5) who is in Kamakura says that
benevolent deities are guarding this country and we should pay a
visit to their shrines. The disciple who is in Mt. Minobu firmly
insists that deities are absent in this country. Acharya Nichiren
has already passed away. Whom should we ask this question? How can
we decide which side is right?" Yasaburo told his suspicion like
this. I answered, "There is a means to decide who is right between
two disciples. The teacher has passed away but we have his will. It
is exactly Rissho Ankoku Ron. It is not a private document but was
given to the three rulers of Kamakura shogunate." But he didn't seem
to be satisfied with my words yet and went home.
The background of this meeting is as follows. I once heard that he
was planning to pay a visit to the Mishima Shrine(*6). So one night
I sent Echigobo(*7) to him with my words, "This teaching is what
Ankoku Ron exactly means. Why do you break the Sage Nichiren's great
vow? Don't you know it?" I made him give up his plan permanently
like this. But the lay priest heard this and asked Acharya Mimbu(*8)
about it. He answered that it was certainly said in Ankoku Ron that
the benevolent deities left this country, but Acharya Byakuren(*9)
read partially only non-Buddhist writings and didn't understand the
ultimate. When an upholder of the Lotus Sutra pays a visit to a
shrine, deities will come to meet him too. So you must pay a visit
to shrines. The Lay priest believed this firmly. When I, Nikko,
visited the Lay priest and made arguments with him, he said, as I
had guessed, it was the very teaching of Acharya Mimbu. I, Byakuren,
thought that this is already the invention of the heavenly devil. I
fearlessly told him that Acharya Mimbu would turn against his
teacher and commit the seven cardinal sins when he told that every
time the teacher's disciple Acharya Mimbu pay a visit they will come
back to see him. Because the teacher had told that the benevolent
deities had abandoned this country and wouldn't return. If Acharya
Mimbu would not change his thought and I, Nikko, would follow his
idea, I could not escape the grave sin either. I said that we had
immediately to banish the chief instructor of priests who was
committing such a slander of the dharma.
At next, not long from this meeting, the Lay priest made offering to
build the tower of Fukushi(*10) in the district of Nambu. This is a
very grave fault. On the whole for this twenty years and more, we
haven't seen any traces of upholders of the precepts here but the
Lay priest's faith appears to have weakened somehow. This is because
of Acharya Mimbu. For he is a priest who has a deep greed for the
secular world, curries favor with others and is fawning and devious.
He is a man who, far from establishing the Sage's teaching, would
destroy it exceedingly. Thinking like this, I have watched him these
two or three years. At times I warned him that his sermons were
wrong and without any correct grounds, but he didn't listen to me.
At the Taishi Ko (*11) in November of this year he offered a
prayer:
"May the heaven last eternally. May the earth last
perpetually. May the wish be realized(*12). May the wish of the
ministers of the left and right be realized. May the wish of the
hundred officials of the literary and the military be realized." I
had told him many times not to offer the prayer for now. But he
defied me saying why I didn't know the debt I owed to my country. So
I, Nikko, didn't give the Mondo Ko(*13) this year.
This is not the only fault he made. A few people have drawn the
image of the lord of teachings of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Shakyamuni
Buddha enlightened from remote ages past which is the reason for
Sage Nichiren's advent in this world. But no one has carved a wooden
statue yet. The Lay priest got an idea, "I want to do my bit to make
a formal wooden statue of Shakyamuni." Acharya Mimbu gave him an
unnecessary advice that he should make an wooden Buddha in the place
of the one which Acharya Daikoku robbed. Since then he has clung to
this idea. I, Nikko, told him that I dare not oppose him if he
wanted to enshrine the Buddha which the late Sage had and enshrined
(*14). The Buddha however didn't have the bodhisattvas like Superior
Practices as attendants. It was only the one who attained
enlightenment for the first time in this world. Moreover Acharya
Daikoku has already stolen it. I said to him, "For what reason do
you want a copy of the Buddha who attained enlightenment for the
first time and evanescent. If it is beyond your ability, you should
wait until someone appears among your ancestors and rightly builds
one(*15). Until then you should enshrine the one which the Sage had
built with letters. Why can you break so hastily the wooden statue
(*16) of the lord of teachings of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo which is the
reason for the Sage's advent in this world?" I told him like this
strongly but he might think I was making light of him.
I, Nikko, as a disciple of the Sage, told thus to him because I
highly regard him as an important person in Kai country which pays
honor and follows the successors of the Sage. The spirit of the Sage
may have come into me and made me act thus. I am praising myself for
I have not fawned on him but admonished him as sutras instruct and
the Sage told to do.
As a whole, there are three problems in this case. First, they broke
Ankoku Ron's very intention. Second, the wooden image of the Thus
Come One enlightened from remote ages past was broken in the first
place(*17). Third, they gave alms to slanderers of the right
teachings for the first time. I told the Lay priest, "These are not
the faults of you. They are entirely the mistakes of the fawning
priest. So you should change your mind and from now on you should
believe in the right teachings as Ankoku Ron tells and as you did
for the twenty years while the Sage was alive . You should write a
letter to promise sincerely to come back to the right teachings and
should offer it to the Sage's statue.(*18)" But he did not believe
in me and what is worse he seemed to think that I was making light
of him. I heard later that he was saying he had chosen Acharya Mimbu
Niko as his teacher. Hearing this I concluded that his belief in the
Lotus Sutra had been inverted. The teachings of the Sage Nichiren is
that for the inhabitants of the threefold world, the Thus Come One
Shakyamuni is the very true teacher who makes them set their mind on
enlightenment for the first time. If we abandon this true teacher
and rely on Amida Buddha, we should become a person of the five
cardinal sins and fall into the hell of incessant suffering. Isn't
it his teaching? (If we neglect the teaching -- the translator
inserted) for what reason can we tell that we believe in the Sage?
Nikko is the teacher who has made people in Hakiri, high and low,
set their mind on enlightenment. Thought I can't tell about people
in the future of two or three generations from now, I think that
everyone, high and low has not forgotten it yet.
I can't say how I am in disgrace and sorry about having got out of
Minobu Sawa(*19). But when we think deeply, wherever we are, it
seems to be the most important thing to succeed the Sage's true
teachings and establishing them in the world. Even saying so to
myself, I pondered a lot of things. The disciples all have gone
against their teacher. Nikko is the only person that is holding the
right teaching of the true teacher and will accomplish his original
intention. I think thus and don't forget the true intention. And I
am pleased that any of young men(*20) knows the correct teachings. I
think if you take pains to visit the lay priest, he would not stray
from the right path completely.
Acharya Mimbu's incorrect views are still strange to me. I heard
that when he went down to Awa, he visited the lay priest and
repetitively told that non-Buddhist writings were erroneous(*21).
But the Sage's Ankoku Ron was written using non-Buddhist writings.
The petition written in the eighth year of Bun-ei(*22) was also
written using non-Buddhist writings. What is more, the Lotus Sutra
was written by the person who knew the foreign books the best in
China and it is told to have the most excellent sentences and words
among the all collection of Buddhist scriptures. I am thinking we
must have an expert of non-Buddhist writings to establish and spread
our teachings. It seems difficult to bring peace to our country and
establish the right teachings without great scholarship on both
Buddhism and non-Buddhist knowledge. On the whole you should know
about Acharya Mimbu's idea as it is and bring it to light.
Another unusual thing. He shut himself up in a little house which is
in the residence of the Lay priest Morooka(*23) from the first day
of April of this year. He invited an painter and made him to draw a
mandara on the eighth day of the same month. He said that it was the
birthday of Buddha. Mimbu preached a sermon in the room of the Lay
priest all day. He received not only an offering but also enjoyed
sake. The Lay priest guessed his mind, he called his wife and
children and offered sake to him. He drank so much and uttered a
strange cry. All Morooka's family and retainers cast ridicule upon
him. I can't explain how vexing to hear that. Nothing is more
disgraceful to Nichiren than this. It is known to the public.
Everybody knows it. I have kept it from the Lay priest(*24) but now
that such a thing happened, it is obvious why the Acharya cannot
succeed the teachings of the great Sage. So I, Nikko, wrote this to
inform you that I would abandon the Acharya. How can I hide the
teachings of the sage because of the fear of a companion? The
Acharya will surely tell at the sermon, "You were once a child that
asked me about the meaning of a letter but now you criticize
me."(*25) In the first place if you don't abandon the teacher who
goes against the Sage Nichiren, it is rather an error of you. You
should know this is Nichiren's teaching. Above all I am thinking how
the statue(*26) is seeing over this matter. I cannot tell everything
in my mind without seeing you face to face.
Nikko
the sixteenth day of the twelfth month
Reply respectfully sent to Hara Dono
PS. I brought volume three and volume ninety-two of Nirvana Sutra
with me among my private things after I gave a lecture at Gosho
(*27). They are the sutras which the Sage used, so I sent them back.
The petition which was written when the disciples were ejected from
Shijuku-in temple is at a shelf in the north side of Mido(*28). Will
you please check and send it to me at your convenience? There is
something I want to see in the petition. I will write to you about
other things.
--------------------------------------------------------------
on The Reply To Hara dono -- by the translator [Kazuo Kawai]
This letter was written by Nikko and sent to Hara dono on the
sixteenth day of the twelfth month in the first year of Sho-ou
(1288). It was written probably just after he left Minobu. He was
forty-three years old. Not a long time had passed yet, only six
years, since his teacher's death.
We don't have much information about Hara dono. Here 'dono' is a
courtesy title used very generally those days. Hara is originally
the name of the area to the north of the district of Hakiri. So the
letter was given to someone who lived in the area. Hori Nichiko
wrote "Hara dono may be an important person of Hakiri Sanenaga's
family. He may be Nambu Yarokuro who was recorded in Deshi Buncho
(this is the document Nikko made about his disciples -- the
translator). Or he may be Kiyonaga. It was someone who left the
district of Hakiri and lived around Mimaki in Hara to the north of
Hakiri. But details are not known." (Fuji Nikko Shonin Shoden = The
detailed biography of Nikko Shonin of Fuji).
SGI's "The Lecture on Nichiren Daishonin Gosho, the extra volume"
says about Hara dono as follows. "It is said that Sanenaga had four
sons, Jiro(Sanetsugu or Kiyonaga), Yasaburo(Saneuji or Ienaga),
Saburo(Sukemitsu or Mitsutsune) and Yarokuro(Nagayoshi). Among them
the fourth son Nagayoshi was the only person that could be called a
young man('kindachi' -- the translator), as in this letter. So it is
highly possible that Nagayoshi might have been called 'Hara dono'.
But this is only a quess." We must however be more careful because
the word 'kindachi' seems to be used to direct not a young man but
young men in the letter.
The letter is difficult to read for a modern Japanese. One of the
reasons of difficulty is the style of the writing of Nikko. Long
sentences and a lot of omissions torment the translator. Another
reason is that it is a private letter. We don't have a common
background with the sender and the receiver, and we know very little
about the latter. But the letter is important for studying the
history of the Fuji group of Nichiren's sect because it tells the
reason why Nikko had to leave Minobu which was his old supporter
Hakiri's domain and where his teacher sleeps.
For the translation I used the source text contained in "The Lecture
on Nichiren Daishonin gosho, the extra volume", Seikyo
Shinbunsha,2003.
K.K
2005.11.29
footnotes:
(1) Nambu Yasaburo is assumed to be the second son of Hakiri
Sanenaga. The assumption is based on "The Lecture on Daishonin Gosho
the extra volume", Seikyo Shinbunsha, 2003. The book will be
referred to as "The Lecture" hereafter. All the footnotes below are
based on The Lecture if not otherwise specified.
(2) The person who is called "the Lay priest" here is assumed to be
Hakiri Sanenaga, the Lay priest Nichien, Nikko's old supporter.
(3) Hojo Tokiyori, Hojo Nagatoki, Hojo Tokimune
(4) "Rissho ankoku ron"
(5) The disciples of Nichiren who were in Kamakura at that time were
Nissho, Nichiro,etc. Niko (be careful!! Not Nikko) was also in
Kamakura before but he had already come to Minobu when this letter
was written. But Nikko seems to indicate Niko by "the disciple who
is in Kamakura" in this letter. Perhaps Nikko wanted to indicate
that Niko's idea was the same as that of the disciples in Kamakura.
(6) The Mishima Shrine is located in Mishima city, Shizuoka pref. In
1180, Minamoto Yoritomo, the founder of the Kamakura Shogunate,
offered a prayer for the victory against Heike. Since then the
Kamakura Shogunate and its warriors worshiped it.
(7) Echigobo Nichiben was one of Nikko's direct disciples.
(8) Acharya Mimbu Niko.
(9) Acharya Byakuren Nikko.
(10) The tower of Fukushi was a stone tower built for Amida Buddha
or Nembutsu faith located at Fukushi village in Yamanashi pref. It
doesn't exists any more.
(11) The commemorative lecture meeting for the great teacher T'ien-
t'ai was called "Taishi Ko." "Taishi" means 'a great teacher' and
indicates T'ien-t'ai here, "Ko" means a lecture or a meeting for a
lecture. "Taishi Ko" was held on the twenty-fourth day of the
eleventh month, i.e. T'ien-t'ai's deathday, every year. Nichiren
himself started this lecture.
(12) "The wish" here means Emperor's wish. The prayer which Niko
gave is the one for the peace and security of the nation. The
Lecture tells, based on Hori Nichiko's book "the historical study of
Nikko's departure from Mt.Minobu", such a prayer for the nation
wasn't been given while Nichiren was alive and Niko broke the
precedent.
(13) The Mondo Ko was a lecture in the form of Mondo i.e. questions
and answers. It seems to have been held as a part of "Taishi Ko".
(14) "The Buddha which the late Sage had and enshrined" indicates
the wooden statue of Buddha which Nichiren had received from Ito
Hachiro-zaemon when he was exiled to Ito in Izu. Nichiren had the
statue by his side through his life. He directed the disciples that
they should put it at the side of his tomb after his death. But
after Nichiren passed away Acharya Daikoku took away the statue.
(15) Here, Nikko seems to admit to build a wooden statue in the
future. Perhaps he said so in order to make Hakiri give up his idea.
(16) "the wooden statue" cannot literally mean the Honzon written on
paper. However,following the context, Nikko meant the Honzon written
by Nichiren by this words.
(17) It is because Hakiri Sanenaga, one of the biggest supporter of
Nichiren's sect, wanted a wooden statue of Buddha who attained
enlightenment for the first time in this world.
(18) The statue of Nichiren. We know from this passage that there
was a statue of Nichiren in Minobu at that time. But the details
about it are unknown. The Lecture introduces a story about it from
Nichikan's "Toke Sanne Sho(About our priest's three clothes)". It
tells that Priest Nippo wanted to make a statue of Nichiren for
people in the future. He made a four-inches-tall statue of Nichiren
as a trial. Nichiren saw it and gave him a permission with a smile.
So Nippo made a life-size statue. This story is connected with the
building of the famous DaiGoHonzon of the second year of Koan in the
document. But we don't have any reliable data to confirm the story.
(19) From these words we can guess Nikko wrote this letter after he
left Minobu. But Japanese as a language doesn't have such a rigid
sense of the tense as some of European languages do. So we can also
translate this part of the text as follows. "I can't say how I am in
disgrace and sorry about going out of Minobu Sawa." The Lecture
doesn't give any definite comment on this point. However when we
read the postscript of this letter together, we can judge that Nikko
had already left Minobu and he was writing this letter somewhere
else.
(20) The original Japanese word is 'kindachi'. And it is obvious
that in the text he was mentioning more than one young man, because
following the word, the pronoun 'izuremo' is used. The pronoun is
used in Japanese when the free selection from more than one thing or
person is possible.
(21) Nikko was well informed about non-Buddhist writings.
(22) Here the petition indicates the letter written to Hei-no-Saemon-
no-jo Yoritsuna. Nichiren quoted the Chinese historian Shi-ba-sen's
Shiki, Records of the Historian in the letter.
(23) The Lay priest Morooka was a believer who lived in the district
of Hakiri in Minobu. Hakiri is originally a place name. The details
about him is unknown.
(24) Here the Lay priest means Hakiri Sanenaga.
(25) This part of the letter is the most difficult to understand. In
the original text the subject of the sentences was omitted. This
happens very often in Japanese. So in the original text it is
ambiguous like " was once a child that asked me about the meaning of
a letter and now criticizes me." The Lecture interprets this
sentence as "Nikko was once a child that asked me about the meaning
of a letter and now he criticizes me." But I doubt this
interpretation is very persuasive. Nikko was born in 1246 and seven
years older than Niko. He became a disciple of Nichiren in 1258, six
years earlier than Niko. So, however arrogant had Niko been, he
couldn't have called Nikko a child. Therefore I interpret the
omitted subject of the sentence is Hara dono, the receiver of this
letter. So the sentence reads as follows. (If Hara dono opposed Niko
as I(Nikko) instruct, ) he would say "You(Hara) were once a child
that asked me about the meaning of a letter but now you(Hara)
criticize me". If we interpret this sentence like this, the
sentences following it are also interpreted easily.
(26) see (18)
(27) Hakiri's residence. The Lecture interprets this word as Hara
dono's house. But a scholar points out that the interpretation is
doubtful. 'Go' is the Chinese letter that means in this
usage 'belonging to someone important or respectable'. 'sho' is also
the Chinese letter meaning 'a place'. So 'Gosho' means the residence
of highly ranked people. For example, Japanese have called the
Emperor's residence 'Gosho' for a long time. Nichiren himself
referred to Hakiri's residence or Hakiri himself with this word in
some letters. And in the letter we know the Nirvana Sutra which
Nichiren used existed there. It isn't easily supposed that such
important sutras existed in an place other than Hakiri's residence
or the Kuonji temple. So the scholar says that it meant Hakiri's
residence.
(28) 'Mido' seems to mean the hall of the Kuonji temple. 'Mi' is the
same Chinese letter as 'Go' explained in (27). 'Do' is the Chinese
letter that means 'a hall'. The Lecture interprets the word as the
image hall attached to Hara dono's house. But the same scholar in
(27) points out that this interpretation is doubtful,too. The
document referred to here was the one written by Nikko under the
Nichiren's direction and submitted to the Kamakura Shogunate.
Perhaps Nikko had a copy of it with him. Thinking like this, it is
somewhat strange that such an important official document existed in
a young layman's house. Therefore 'Mido' should be interpreted as
the hall of the Kuonji temple he had just left behind. If we
interpret the word like this, we understand the reason why Nikko
could point out the place of the document so closely as we read in
this letter. We also know from this postscript how hastily Nikko
left the Kuonji Temple in Minobu.
Letter: http://tinyurl.com/afxaz
Starting Post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/irgosho/message/11541
or
http://tinyurl.com/ba93k
26 Admonitions:
http://tinyurl.com/cu5as
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
Richard writes in 33686:
> If you look carefully enough, you can find teachings of cause and
> effect, universal salvation, and the inherent Buddha nature of each
> person contained within every religion. I look at it as the
> documentary evidence of the truth of Shakyamuni's claims of
> preaching the dharma via expedient means countless times and
> places.
That is probably the key method of doing shakubuku outside of
countries that are already Buddhist. One has a choice to either
reject the host religions -- and accept the conflict that will
result. Or to try to take the reason and methods of Buddhism and
tailor them to local conditions.
Arrogance is a smart mans stupidity,
but you don't have to be smart to be arrogant.
Chris
33687
Richard:
> To me, this means I should fundamentally respect every religion
> with such characteristics, all the while rejecting the elements
> that are clearly 'expedient means' or cultural artificaes,
> taught along with the truth to try to get people to accept
> those teachings.
There is more to this than critiquing "host" religion. Buddhism too
has it's artifices and 'expedient means' not to mention cultural
baggage and mixing. Nichiren noted this when he noted that the Sun
was described as a 'God' in the Sutras, but was described as
a 'Goddess' in Japanese beliefs. Buddhists accepted either view of
the Sun God as being 'expedient means' to explain natural phenomena.
With Buddhists fundamentalism means to go for the fundamentals and
to leave alone the "fluff".
To do that we need a clarity about what "upaya" is and why it is
important in both practicing life and propagating Buddhism. The
stories of religion are all important, true; and fictional. It is
possible that Shakyamuni taught his disciples and one day took them
on a magical mystery tour of the fantastic realms, but whether or
not that event really happened in physical reality it is an event
that we can reach in our inward psycho-spiritual realm.
Richard:
> It also seems to me that a severely rigid and patriarchal society
> such as the pre-Islamic middle east would carry that rigidity over
> into their religion. I'm not an anthropologist, but I believe
> that we find that rigidity of a society's mores correlate with
> the difficulty for individuals to survive alone in their
> environment.
Some patriarchal elements may emerge in desert societies under some
conditions, but anthropological evidence suggests that matriarchy is
as likely to result from the natural conditions as patriarchy.
Patriarchy is a "classical" development. We don't need to excuse
the origins of religious rigidity and patriarchy to note that these
two qualities have been a common theme world wide and in some
Buddhist societies as well as Western ones. The veil started out as
a garment worn by prostitutes to give them a feeling of anonymity
while pursuing their trade[Bible]. Rigid patriarchy has to do with
hierarchical and oppressed societies more than desert survival. The
Greeks, for instance, became more patriarchal with time, finally
becoming completely patriarchal as they converted to Christianity.
To use metaphor and Buddhist mythology; In societies where the
path "up" is limited and resources are limited, fair distribution of
resources is impossible unless people are kept uniformly poor. When
that is the case, those seeking to enter the palace of the devil of
the sixth heaven have to first eliminate their rivals. Elites make
it a condition of membership in that elite that one be a man. If one
member of the nuclear family is in the "elite" that is enough to
guarantee survival of the entire family -- and there isn't "room"
enough in the town for both members of the family to work the same
position. Hence, the woman is discouraged from working her position.
We saw this after WW-II when the US went from encouraging people
like "Rosee the Riveter" to discouraging women to work outside the
home.
One can also demonstrate that it's happened in the distant past. It
happened in the Graeco-Roman world. Paul was reflecting a shift in
popular beliefs when he wrote that women should cover their hair and
be modest. Some Greek societies had emancipated women, the Spartans
women were as martially trained as the men, but the repressive
Athenian model won out in the end. One of the means of denigrating
women was to hold up an "ideal" of the ideal woman as weak and
needing protection and then judging behavior by it. This worked well
in conditions when men were building repressive empires anyway.
Patriarchy became a function of conquest. "Look what we do to their
women. You should stay home less we do that to you." Later it became
a function of religion. The last librarian of the Great library of
Alexandria was a woman. She was stoned at the same time the library
was destroyed for the last time by Christians who were rejecting
the "World" and all its science. In order to maintain power the
patriarchs had to eliminate any notion that people had an
alternative. The same sort of thing happened in the Islamic world.
Mohammed actually gave some elements of status to women. That is why
there can be any hope that Islam can reform.
Reform always starts with Women and it starts with seeking peace and
trade rather than conflict and war.
> 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.