Joe Isuzu's Daily Slander

Between A Rock And A Mandala

Recently I had a conversation with someone whose opinion I greatly respect. We spoke about the essence of the Nichiren Gohonzon, the one all of us in the Soka Gakkai International practice with. This person expressed the their understanding of this mandala as an expedient. That is, something that wouldn’t be needed if only we could tap into our Buddha nature on our own, without relying on an external object. This made perfect sense to me. Since we seem to be at the whim of external influences that consistently affect our momentary states of being, having an object whose sole purpose is to help us provoke the most positive effect possible is something to be desired. And for economy’s sake, let’s just say this effect is that we see things as they are from an enlightened perspective.

There is a phrase “opening of the eyes” that has been used in the past by both the Nichiren laity and the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. It’s also the title given to one of Nichiren’s most important letters. In the past the priesthood has claimed that to “open” any given copy of a Nichiren Gohonzon’s “eyes,” to activate its properties that enable individuals to “see things from an enlightened perspective,” it must be placed before the so called Dai-Gohonzon and be chanted over. “So called” because the documentation normally referred to in supporting it’s claim to existence comes from Nichiren’s letter entitled On Persecutions Befalling The Sage: “The Buddha fulfilled the purpose of his advent in a little over forty years, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai took about thirty years, and the Great Teacher Dengyo, some twenty years. I have spoken repeatedly of the indescribable persecutions they suffered during those years. For me it took twenty-seven years, and the great persecutions I faced during this period are well known to you all.” WND, Vol.1, page 996. The background of the letter explains: “Nichiren Daishonin wrote this letter at Minobu on the first day of the tenth month of the second year of Koan (1279) to his followers in general. It reviews some of the outstanding incidents in his life. But more importantly, it contains the sole allusion to his inscription of the object of devotion for all humanity as the purpose of his life, a task that he accomplished on the twelfth day of the same month.” WND, Vol.1, page 998. The word “it” in “For me it took twenty-seven years…” is the documentation. It seems paradoxical for those who profess discipleship to a man who showed such a breadth of detailed knowledge, argued his points so meticulously and extensively in his writings, to use one word, in one sentence, out of over 400 extant writings as documentary proof. This falls short of his benchmark. It’s the kind of proof that works better when presented to a choir of true believers rather than to a jury of reason.

Nichiren himself reasons us to this point in The Openings Of The Eyes II: “It is also laid down that one should ‘rely on sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final.’(Nirvana Sutra) We must therefore look carefully among the sutras to determine which are complete and final and which are not, and put our faith in the former. Bodhisattva Nagarjuna in his Commentary on the Ten Stages Sutra states, ‘Do not rely on treatises that distort the sutras; rely on those that are faithful to the sutras.’ The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai says, ‘That which accords with the sutras is to be written down and made available. But put no faith in anything that in word or meaning fails to do so.’ The Great Teacher Dengyo says, ‘Depend upon the preachings of the Buddha, and do not put faith in traditions handed down orally.’ Enchin, also known as the Great Teacher Chisho, says, ‘In transmitting the teachings, rely on the written words [of scriptures].’” WND, Vol.1, pages 263-264. Just to add a little irony to all this, the last quote used by Nichiren is ascribed to “A Collection Of Orally Transmitted Teachings”.

What is commonly referred to as the Dai-Gohonzon is a wooden Gohonzon, which is a copy of a paper Gohonzon that was supposedly inscribed by Nichiren for all mankind. In other words, a template Gohonzon that would be used for “everyman” so all who practice to it could reap the benefits of what the nature and purpose of a Nichiren Gohonzon is for. That puts whoever is in possession of this Dai-Gohonzon in a position of power over those who actually believe the Dai-Gohonzon possesses this power over other Gohonzon to “open eyes”. This very medieval thinking is the foundation of Christianity’s success throughout Europe. It is interesting to note that throughout history, no religion was exclusive in erecting temples to worship relics: it just makes good business sense. It works especially well when working in conjunction with whatever happens to be the current governing authority. Instead of “power to the people,” it’s “power over the people,” because the premise consists of subjugating individuals who relinquish control of their lives to an external source.

The Soka Gakkai International organization has refuted this claim of the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood, and has asserted that each individual “opens” the Gohonzon’s “eyes,” activates its properties, every time it’s practiced to. That makes sense, because in reading Nichiren’s letter The Opening Of The Eyes, he consistently battles against any idea, person or bureaucracy that comes between an individual and his or her potential enlightenment. What doesn’t make sense is for the Soka Gakkai membership to be cajoled into believing that each person needs to continue to repay a debt of gratitude to “it,” the Dai-Gohonzon, as stated in their liturgy books. That’s medieval thinking too, and seems to me to be self-defeating in purpose. It’s a conflicting message about the nature of a Gohonzon, which very well may be residue from what the Soka Gakkai considers its lineage. Here is an example of a perpetuation of existing conflicting dogma:

If...

"Never seek this Gohonzon outside yourself. The Gohonzon exists only within the mortal flesh of us ordinary people who embrace the Lotus Sutra and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" (MW-1, 213). http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gohonzon/

And.

"Thus Nikken's destruction of the Grand Main Temple, has encouraged SGI members to internalize the meaning of the high sanctuary. And to fully realize the inner implications and significance of any event or phenomena is the proper spirit of Buddhism." The Untold History Of The Fuji School. Pg. 196

Therefore...

"To those who fail to grasp its message, however, the map's (Gohonzon) worth will be reduced to that of a mere scroll." http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gohonzon/

Then why...

"Photographs should never be taken of the Gohonzon and should be destroyed if accidentally taken." http://www.sgiusa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gohonzon/offering.htm

Is the Soka Gakkai still practicing surplus Nichiren Shoshu precepts? Or are they just stuck in transition? I can understand the confusion since also contained in the condemnation of the priesthood in The Untold History Of The Fuji School is "We should look upon the Gohonzon enshrined in each of our homes as the life of the Daishonin, the entity of the original Buddha. When chanting daimoku with that conviction, it is the same as worshipping the Dai-Gohonzon itself, right where we are." pg. 11. Is that the same Uber-Gohonzon that the priesthood told us that we needed to open each Gohonzon's eyes? Or is this the one we should not seek outside of ourselves? I took a picture of my stepdaughter’s bulldog Egor. I tried to play fetch with the picture but that didn’t work out so well. I put the picture next to a bowl of delicious dog food. Unlike with the actual Egor, the food didn’t disappear instantly. Then again, I’m also not sitting in front of the likeness of Egor as the entity of the original bulldog attempting to manifest my bulldog nature.

The idea of “opening eyes” is wondrous in its inclusiveness. As it happens to an individual it also is what happens to the mandala itself. It becomes more than paper and ink. Or more than wood and etchings. Or more than pixels on a screen. This process has been expressed in ways not relating to enlightenment, but never the less aptly portraying the effects of contemplating a thing or idea with some degree of diligence. Nietzsche warns of the negative affects of such efforts in his “Beyond Good And Evil” when he writes, “Those who would fight monsters be wary not to become one. For when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes long into you.” His warning was for those combating evil. But it can apply to any endeavor a person may immerse their self into. There is a tendency to become alike. At first glance it might seem that if an individual has found a quintessential positive to be devoted too, then ignorance is bliss. But since every relationship is symbiotic — everything flows both ways — it would behoove the devotee to understand as fully as possible all aspects of the relationship so as not to, as the saying goes, ruin a good thing. Daisaku Ikeda addresses this same idea in a positive way: “An active life retains the ability of selection, in that it decides what circumstance should be confronted and what substances to assimilate. In response to this life, the outer circumstances or object is certain to undergo a delicate and relative change in significance.” Dialogue On Life, Vol.1, page 40.

I had a similar but separate conversation with another person about the nature of a Gohonzon a couple of years ago. In this particular conversation I posed the question that if insentient phenomena such as a Gohonzon or a rock, have the same potential for enlightenment as sentient phenomena, then why can’t we chant to a rock as an expedient means and attain the same result as chanting to a Gohonzon? The answer I got was, “the nature of a rock is to be a rock, and the nature of a Gohonzon is to be a Gohonzon.” I do believe this person gave me more credit for understanding what they said than was due me. As simplistic as this statement reads, it has rattled around in my brain for a couple of years looking for a place to lodge itself. I have eventually translated it into meaning that a Gohonzon has a deliberate intention and a rock doesn’t. A rock has many potentials: to become soil, a foundation for organic growth: to be strapped to a piece of wood to be used as a tool or a weapon: to be marketed as a pet in a box. Can I see the potential in a rock? Sitting on the shoulders of human evolution and Madison Avenue, I certainly can. And as part of the environment that I co-exist in, I can appreciate it for what it is, a rock with many potentials. It has an intention, which is to fulfill it’s potential as a rock. Those potentials are imbued upon the rock from an external source, me. The rock has undergone as Daisaku Ikeda has said, “a relative change in significance.” Can I see the potential in a Gohonzon? When I look at it, can I, metaphorically speaking, make it look back at me, open its eyes, and fulfill its necessary intention? Can I then see the potential in all phenomena, sentient and insentient alike? Can I appreciate this potential? Sitting on the shoulders of my own human revolution, yes I can.

But in my conversation, what really got my attention, what interested me most was this persons’ reluctance to speak openly about what the Gohonzon actually is. “Don’t tell anyone I said the Gohonzon is an expedient.” Like it’s a big secret. Nichiren said himself that it is not to be found outside of one’s life. It isn’t actual enlightenment, but the representation of the potential of enlightenment for human life. Yes it contains its own potential for enlightenment, but it still needs human life interaction to activate it. If the Gohonzon is an expedient, why whisper the fact to a select few in secret? And why refer to it as something it isn’t? Is it for power, as in medieval times when the only people who could read were the priests and the nobility so they have a “power” over others? I really don’t believe this particular individual is into power of that nature. Doubt, is more likely, but doubt about what? This attitude of not speaking about what something is, but rather, what it is not, reminded me of the early Deists. Fearful of being labeled persona-non-grata, which could lead to social banishment and financial ruin, they hedged their way around what they really were: atheists. There was also a fear of tearing apart the fabric of society, which they mistakenly believed was held together by the common people’s belief in an omnipotent being. Fear that the common man couldn’t comprehend a godless world without falling into hedonism. The first fear — personal, social, and financial ruin — was, and still is, well founded. The second fear was proven completely false. This happened with profound resonance in the publishing of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” when the world did not fall backwards into time, but instead leapt forward with a gusto never before seen in the history of mankind. Isn’t that what we are trying to do in the Soka Gakkai, lead mankind into a new paradigm of common sense?

TO BE CONTINUED...THE IMPORTANCE OF DOUBT AS BETRAYAL

There Ain't No Sanity Clause

Sensei CHICO and Sensei GROUCHO discussing the new SGI-USA Leadership Manual, Code of Conduct, and Mandatory Signature Form.

GROUCHO: All right, fine. Now here are the contracts. You just put his name at the top and you sign at the bottom. There's no need of you reading that because these are duplicates.
CHICO: Yeah, they's a duplicates.
GROUCHO: I say they're duplicates.
CHICO: Why sure they's a duplicates...
GROUCHO: Don't you know what duplicates are?
CHICO: Sure. There's five kids up in Canada.
GROUCHO: Well, I wouldn't know about that. I haven't been to Canada in years. Well go ahead and read it.
CHICO: What does it say?
GROUCHO: Well, go on and read it!
CHICO: You read it.
GROUCHO: All right, I'll read it to ya. Can you hear?
CHICO: I haven't heard anything yet. Did you say anything?
GROUCHO: Well, I haven't said anything worth hearing.
CHICO: Well, that's why I didn't hear anything.
GROUCHO: Well, that's why I didn't say anything.
CHICO: Can you read?
GROUCHO (struggling to read the fine print): I can read but I can't see it. I don't seem to have it in focus here. If my arms were a little longer, I could read it. You haven't got a baboon in your pocket, have ya? Here, here, here we are. Now I've got it. Now pay particular attention to this first clause because it's most important. It says the, uh, "The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part." How do you like that? That's pretty neat, eh?
CHICO: No, it's no good.
GROUCHO: What's the matter with it?
CHICO: I don't know. Let's hear it again.
GROUCHO: It says the, uh, "The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part."
CHICO: (pausing) That sounds a little better this time.
GROUCHO: Well, it grows on ya. Would you like to hear it once more?
CHICO: Uh, just the first part.
GROUCHO: What do you mean? The party of the first part?
CHICO: No, the first part of the party of the first part.
GROUCHO: All right. It says the, uh, "The first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract" - look, why should we quarrel about a thing like this? We'll take it right out, eh?
CHICO: Yeah, it's a too long, anyhow. (They both tear off the tops of their contracts.) Now, what do we got left?
GROUCHO: Well, I got about a foot and a half. Now, it says, uh, "The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part."
CHICO: Well, I don't know about that...
GROUCHO: Now what's the matter?
CHICO: I no like-a the second party, either.
GROUCHO: Well, you should've come to the first party. We didn't get home 'til around four in the morning... I was blind for three days!
CHICO: Hey, look, why can'ta the first part of the second party be the second part of the first party? Then a you gotta something.
GROUCHO: Well, look, uh, rather than go through all that again, what do you say?
CHICO: Fine. (They rip out a portion of the contract.)
GROUCHO: Now, uh, now I've got something you're bound to like. You'll be crazy about it.
CHICO: No, I don't like it.
GROUCHO: You don't like what?
CHICO: Whatever it is. I don't like it.
GROUCHO: Well, don't let's break up an old friendship over a thing like that. Ready?...
CHICO: OK! (Another part is torn off.) Now the next part, I don't think you're gonna like.
GROUCHO: Well, your word's good enough for me. (They rip out another part.) Now then, is my word good enough for you?
CHICO: I should say not.
GROUCHO: Well, that takes out two more clauses. (They rip out two more parts.) Now, "The party of the eighth part..."
CHICO: No, that'sa no good. (more ripping.) No.
GROUCHO: "The party of the ninth part..."
CHICO: No, that'sa no good, too. (they rip the contracts again until there's practically nothing left.) Hey, how is it my contract is skinnier than yours?
GROUCHO: Well, I don't know. You must've been out on a tear last night. But anyhow we're all set now, aren't we?
CHICO: Oh sure.
GROUCHO (offering his pen to sign the contract): Now just, uh, just you put your name right down there and then the deal is, uh, legal.
CHICO: I forgot to tell you. I can't write.
GROUCHO: Well, that's all right, there's no ink in the pen anyhow. But listen, it's a contract, isn't it?
CHICO: Oh sure.
GROUCHO: We got a contract...
CHICO: You bet.
GROUCHO: No matter how small it is...
CHICO: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here? This thing here.
GROUCHO: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause. That's in every contract. That just says uh, it says uh, "If any of the parties participating in this contract is shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified."
CHICO: Well, I don't know...
GROUCHO: It's all right, that's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a 'sanity clause'.
CHICO: Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't fool me! There ain't no Sanity Clause!

MYSTIC LAW OR COMMON SENSE?

We usually refer to Myo as “mystic” as in The Mystic Law. One explanation of the word “mystic” from an English dictionary describes it as this: a person who seeks by contemplation and self surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect. And the explanation of “mystical” is: transcending human understanding. Therefore, “mystic”, by this definition, is the personification of that which is “mystical”. So it would seem that when we Nichiren Buddhists refer to the “mystic law” we are referring to the personification of that which is transcendental to our understanding but is becoming integrated into our very person. But is that actually what we believe? When we refer to the “mystic” law we really think in terms of the “mystical” law, something that is apart from ourselves. And we don’t think of ourselves as “mystics”. Why is that? Is it because this law can only be understood between Buddhas and we don’t think of ourselves as one? Perhaps.

Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, wrote his pamphlet in response to the growing unrest in what was to become the United States of America, a term which he himself coined. In it he argued practical points of governorship; why be governed by those who are so removed by distance and by culture. But more importantly, he argued from a new philosophical paradigm; why be governed by one who has declared that his right to govern comes from an invisible metaphysical deity whose very existence requires a suspension of disbelief. Moreover, why even think of yourself as a subject to this man as you are also men and therefore his equal. This was radical thinking. Revolutionary thinking. Up until this time, every man, everywhere, had always been a subject to someone. And George Washington wasn’t just the first elected president of the United Sates of America; he was the first elected president in the history of mankind.

But it takes a while for this type of thinking to actually become common sense. Common sense is an ever evolving condition, and as such, subject to change. But not always without some cost. In ancient Greece and through the Middle Ages, Ptolemy’s geocentric model for the universe seemed to make perfect sense. It was the prevailing common sense based on the best empirical facts and observation for that time. So much so that the Roman Catholic Church incorporated it into its doctrine, imbuing it with a moral “a priori”. This agenda made it very difficult to change common sense when new and improved set of observations presented a heliocentric model for how things worked. Even though a version of this model had existed in Vedic Sanskrit since the 7th century BCE, Copernicus published what were to become the quintessential bases of thought on the subject in 1543. But almost a hundred years later, the Church of Rome found Galileo guilty of heresy for following the position of Copernicus. And people of less stature than Galileo taking the same stance could easily find themselves burned to death as a heretic. So common sense doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s commonly used.

We who sit upon so many broad shoulders who came before us may at times forget how difficult it can be to work within a framework of time and try to advance new ideas for the benefit of our fellow humanity. I have often wondered why Daisaku Ikeda continually points to the works of Goethe, Kant, Spinosa, and Pascal, to name just a few pivotal personages of Judeo Christian thinking. What they have in common to some extent was the desire to clarify: to distill a thought so as to be better used by mankind. They all did what they could within the confines of society and government ruled by the Church. They all approached the process with a combination of scientific questioning and a religious imperative. They all asked the same three questions that are difficult to ponder; where did I come from, why am I here, and what happens after I die? They all reflected the same seeking mind as did Nichiren, revealing to Medieval Japan that it’s subjects could free themselves from the bonds of birth, old age, sickness, and death. This is the same action that we who practice Nichiren’s Buddhism take when we sit in front of our Gohonzon and contemplate our life. It’s an act of courage.

So why do we think of the “mystical” law as such, and so separate from ourselves? It could be as simple as the words we use. Sam Harris, author of “The End Of Faith” states “To know what a given belief is about, I must know what my words mean; to know what my words mean, my beliefs must be generally consistent. There is no escaping from the fact that there is a tight relationship between the words we use, the type of thoughts we think, and what we can believe to be true about the world.”

Myo in Chinese

"While I was thinking thus, a golden Buddha suddenly appeared in the hell of incessant suffering ... As my agony subsided a little, I joined my hands together in prayer and asked him what kind of Buddha he was. The Buddha replied, I am the character myo..."
— Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Vol. 4, p. 309

The word that is pronounced Myo by Nichiren Buddhists is composed of two Chinese root characters. The character to the right is Shao. The character to the left is Nu.

Nu by itself means "young girl," "thou," or "you." Shao is something small that has been cut in half — something fine, something difficult to perceive.

Kumarajiva used these symbols to express "wonderful," "excellent," "subtle," "fine," and "mysterious." It corresponds to the Sanskrit word Sad, meaning, "perfectly endowed" or "complete" round (Hokke) teaching (kyo).
Why is "mysterious" (mystic) a "young girl"? The answer lies in the nu character. The brush strokes that compose nu outline the image of the new moon. Look inside the brush strokes to see it.
The moon is at first a slender crescent that grows into full roundness, expressing the maturity of a young girl growing into a full (pregnant) woman.

The new moon is like a young girl. The full moon is a mature woman. The moon is by extension an expression of the cycle of birth and death, therefore "universal." The new moon only partially illuminates the full moon meaning "all has not been revealed" and is therefore "mysterious."

The moon illuminates the darkness as does hope (myo). Hope opens the doors that are "difficult to enter" in the Hoben Pon of the Lotus Sutra. The path illuminated by myo is medicine for all living things.

"Just as the moon is reflected in the water the moment it appears from behind the eastern mountains" (from the Major Writings, Vol. 3, p. 306), our world is illuminated by introducing all to Myo, the First Buddha of the Lotus Sutra.


 http://www.gakkaionline.net/Imagery/Myo.html

Nichiren is constantly explaining Myo in terms of its relationship to Ho, as in that they are mutually co-dependent. Myo can be death, and Ho life. Myo contains the potential for life. Myo can be the potential for Buddhahood and Ho the manifestation of the other nine worlds which themselves contain Buddhahood, or Myo. Sad means perfectly endowed, wonderful, etc. So it is very hard to put into words something that is transcending of consciousness. So it would seem that there is a world of meaning in “myo” beyond our conception, or misconception, of the word “mystic”. The deepening of our own self realization that we are indeed “myo” the Buddha, the more we take the “mystic” out of the Mystic Law and the easier it is for us to think of Buddhahood as common sense.