Kempon Hokke

A Refutation of the Soka Gakkai's Teachings on Slander and Religious Tolerance Part 3

Shinsuke Yatomi

This interpretation of slander is consistent with the Daishonin's perspective. He criticized major Buddhist sects of his day as slanderous of the Lotus Sutra. His was not merely a criticism of doctrine, however. For example, the Daishonin criticized the Pure Land (Nembutsu) sect not just for denying the Lotus Sutra's validity on a doctrinal level. The Pure Land sect views this world itself as defiled and detestable; it teaches believers that they can only be happy in the afterlife if they are reborn in the Pure Land through reciting the name of the Amida Buddha. What lies at the core of the Pure Land teaching is despair and an escapist attitude.

The Daishonin stated: “If you chant the Nembutsu incantation often, you will come to feel like injuring yourself” (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1509). The Daishonin denounced the Pure Land sect because it denied people's potential to overcome their suffering and thus diminished the inherent dignity of their lives. Historically, the Pure Land sect was often manipulated by the authorities as a tool to oppress and control people. This is in complete opposition to the ideal of the Lotus Sutra, which is to empower people through awakening their inner potential.

Me:

Nearly in every paragraph that he writes we see the subtle and advanced persuasive "lies are truth and truth is lies" techniques of the Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai denies the ability of the people to awaken their inner potential by making the people dependent on the mentor and the Soka Gakkai itself. In a sense, they are no different than the Nembutsu, exchanging not Amida for Shakyamuni Buddha but the mentor of the Soka Gakkai and the Soka Gakkai itself for shakyamuni Buddha.

Of course too, several vital points of the Daishonin's refutation of the Nembutsu is not even touched upon. There is no saving power in Amida Buddha, a Buddha who never set foot in this Saha world, unlike Shakyamuni Buddha. Another vital point in the Daishonin's refutation of the Nembutsu is that the Amida Sutras teach that Amida will accept all people into his Pure Land, except those who have committed the Five Cardinal Sins and those men, like the men of the Soka Gakkai, who are of incorrigible disbelief. The concluding Sutra of the Lotus Sutra, the Fugen Sutra, proclaims that those who commit the Five cardinal Sins and incorrigible disbelievers against the Dharma, are the very ones who are saved by the Lotus Sutra. If you are really interested in a refutation of the Nembutsu I have a thesis in three parts by Graham Lamont.

Shin Yatomi:

THE Daishonin's criticism was also directed toward the Shingon sect, not merely because it proclaimed its doctrinal superiority over the Lotus Sutra. The Shingon sect was essentially an esoteric teaching in which believers relied on priests to perform rituals so that they might receive blessings from the transcendental Dainichi Buddha; it promoted people's dependence upon an imaginary superior being and diminished their ability to reason. Such an idea fundamentally contradicts the ideal of the Lotus Sutra, which asserts the importance of self-reliance by pointing out the existence of Buddhahood within each person.

Me:

"Self reliance" in the Soka Gakkai is an oxymoron. Leaving this aside for a moment, I have already proven the Shingon concept of Master [Lama] and the Gakkai's, are one in substance or are your memories as poor as your illumination? Again and again we see the Gakkai's ends justifying the means, east is west, and lies are truth philosophy. They are a "True sect" who has adopted the provisional teachings. They are as bad as the Shingon, a false sect who has adopted the teachings of Ichinen Sanzen. They get me sick. Were Nichiren alive he would refute them far more vigorously than I.

Shin Yatomi:

As we see in those two instances of the Daishonin's criticism of other Buddhist sects, slander of the Law is more than just vilifying the Lotus Sutra; it is to deny the sutra's underlying humanistic principle. For example, if a child speaks ill of the Lotus Sutra or its practitioners while completely ignorant of what he or she is doing and of what the essence of the sutra is about, should we admonish this child as a slanderer of the Law? While maybe in need of some schooling in manners, that child should certainly not be taken to task as a slanderer. On the other hand, what if a government official or a doctor superficially praises the Lotus Sutra or the Daishonin's teachings, but is led by corruption to give tacit approval to the use of contaminated blood supplies while knowing their potential for spreading disease' Some people, although though not directly critical of the Law, act counter to the Sutra's teaching about the inherent dignity of all people.

Me:

Non Sequitor. The example of the child hardly follows from the Daishonn's life and death struggles to refute the Nembutsu and Shingon. By the same token, we should not praise the child and believing that the child is incapable of understanding the Supreme Law of Cause and Effect, is to disbelieve Myo Ho Ren Ge kyo. The Dragon King's daughter was but a child. Nichiren much better explains these concepts. Yatomi is grasping at straws in order to shoehorn the broad and deep teachings of the Lotus Sutra into the narrow shoe of the Soka value creation p.hilosophy.

Shin Yatomi:

WHAT if a Christian minister in your neighborhood church were to ask for your cooperation in a neighborhood watch program to prevent crime or a community cleanup? Is lending this Christian minister your support considered to be a slander of the Law? Of course, it is not. In this case, discussing the safety of your community with those who embrace religions other than Buddhism has nothing to do with slandering the Law.

Me:

I would tell the preacher that I already watch out for my neighbors welfare and the cleanliness of my community by chanting Namu Myoho renge kyo. I would also tell him that he should abandon the shallow and embrace the profound and chant Namu Myoho renge kyo if you are really interested in protecting the community.

Shin Yatomi:

What is most important is to promote the happiness and peace of all humanity.

Me:

Which is impossible, according the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren, were one complicit with slander or failing to utter the lion's roar.

Shin Yatomi:

Since Buddhism exists for us to achieve this goal, it is only natural to have dialogue and cooperate with those of different religious beliefs in the process of bringing such a Buddhist ideal to reality.

Me:

Only in the Soka Gakkai ends justify the means philosophy [which is antithetical to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin] does one abandon the principles of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Daishonin in order to realize the Lotus Sutra's goal. This is so absurd as to be incomprehensible. It is teachings like these that will destroy Buddhism and the reason that Shin Yatomi destroyed his own castle from within. To me, it is not even sad. It is instructive.

Shin Yatomi:

From this viewpoint, Article 7 of the SGI Charter declares that we “respect other religions.” This is not to say that we compromise our religious beliefs and abandon the Daishonin's spirit of shakubuku. The concept of “respecting other religions” is easier to comprehend if we understand its intention, which is to respect the people who practice those religions. It must be pointed out that showing respect to other human beings, regardless of their religious beliefs, is different from accepting or advocating their belief.

Me:

The Oneness of Person and Law only functions in the Kempon Hokke believers who embrace the Lotus Sutra and not in the lives of the Muslim, Jew, Christian, and Soka Gakkai blasphemers? The Soka Gakkai abandons the Lotus Sutra's concept of the oneness of person and Law ["Since the Law is Supreme the person is worthy of respect"]. There is no distinction between the Law [teachings one embraces] and the person who we are. If the Law is inferior, so is the person according to Nichiren Daishonin.

Posted by markrogow at February 3, 2010 12:52 AM