The Succession Issue Controversy
On Controversial Taisekiji Doctrine
Posted by rbeck at April 16, 2005 12:00 AM
Revised 02-27-2006
1. Nichiren as the "Inherently Awake Original Buddha of the Infinite Past" displacing "Shakyamuni who Awoke in the Remote Past" as the Object of Worship in terms of the Person.
2. The Ita Mandara of Taisekji as not only the Gohonzon Nichiren intended for the Kaidan, but the actual power source of all valid Gohonzon(s).
3. Nikko as the sole heir, and the successive Chief Priests of Taisekiji as Nikko's sole heirs. This is buttressed by a kechimyaku concept derived from esoteric- oral teachings, in which each successive Chief Priest of Taisekiji receives an exclusive empowerment from the former.
1. Nichiren as True or Original Buddha?
The SGI/Hongaku "True Buddha of the Latter Day" is not the same as the Taisekiji teaching of "Nichiren as the True Buddha of Kuon Ganjo" doctrine. Taisekiji views Nichiren as the "Inherently Awake Original Buddha of the Infinite Past" displacing "Shakyamuni who Awoke in the Remote Past" as the Object of Worship in terms of the Person. I discuss that in more detail here: Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism?
This differs from Nikko's clearly stated view:
"The Lord of Teachings of Namu-myoho-renge-kyo,
Shakyamuni Buddha enlightened from remote ages past;
which is the reason for Sage Nichiren's Advent in this World"
IIRC, Nichiu {1402-1492{?}), the 8th Chief Priest of Taisekiji, had admitted that Nichiren revered "Shakyamuni Buddha enlightened from remote ages past." But he said this was too hard for the people to grasp, and it was natural for the Japanese to revere "the Sage" {Nichiren} instead {He called him Shonin too}.
I suspect it was Nichikan (1665-1726), the 25th CP of Taisekiji, who decided that "Shakyamuni Buddha enlightened from remote ages past" really meant Nichiren Daishonin. I am fairly sure it was Nichikan who first stated this in terms of Nichiren Daishonin being the "True Form" {honjishin} and Shakyamuni the "Provisional Form" {suijakushin}. This was similar to the way Kokagaku Ryobu Shinto reversed the roles of Dainichi & Amaterasu. Nichikan also argued this in terms of "Ninpo Ikka" {Oneness of person and Law}. He wrote "Nichiren is the object of devotion in terms of the Person."
Either Nichikan, or someone later than him, came up with the idea of the "Original Buddha of the Infinite Past" {as opposed to remote past} and identified Nichiren as this Primordial Buddha. The Original Buddha {Hon-Butsu} of Kuon Ganjo {Infinite Past} sounds like the Tibetan Vajrayana “Adi-Buddha.” So this might be derived from the Shingon-Ryobu Shinto view of Dainichi-Amaterasu as the Hosshin {Dharma-Kaya Buddha}. Tibetan Vajrayana and Japanese Shingon have some common roots.
Personally, I think Nichiren saw the Dharma itself, Namu-myoho-renge-kyo, as the Dharma-Kaya Buddha {Hosshin} and "Shakyamuni Buddha enlightened from remote ages past" as the Sambhoga-Kaya Buddha {Hoshin}. In other words, "Ninpo Ikka" refers to the Unity of the Eternal Shakya Nyorai with the Wondrous Dharma.
One problem here is understanding the non-dual concept of Hongaku, which is natural, innate, or inherent awakening, and that other dualistic term, which escapes me, but means an awakening that is acquired gradually by Samatha practice. Basically, the latter is something we earn through merit; while the former is something we always have, but do not realize, except through Direct Insight. In fact, from the standpoint of Hongaku, we could say we are the True Buddhas and that Nichiren is a transient Buddha.
The other problem is that we are faced with another false dichotomy. My fellow SGI members aften argue that Nichiren did too attain Enlightenment. I agree completely with that. But this is still the Latter Day of Dharma Age of the Buddha Shakyamuni. There is simply no such thing as a separate Wheel-Turning Buddha for each of the three sub-ages (Former, Middle, & Latter). In other words, Nichiren is the function of Jogyo, the messenger of the Juryo chapter, not the Eternal Buddha. That point is not even debatable.
Anyway, Nichiren as "True Buddha of the Latter Day" is non-dual Hongaku thought that developed during the Muromachi Era. "The Common Mortal as the True Buddha" was not unique to Nichiren's followers. It was a trend in all the Japanese school's except Jodo. Taisekiji puts a literal spin on it. An early Nichiren Honshu Priest called Hongaku Nichidai was apparenly the initial source of this mischief; while Nichigen of Nishiyama expanded on it about a century later. Neither Nichiren Honshu nor Nishiyama, both of which are Nikko lineages, have retained these deviations.
Origins of Nichiren as True Buddha
Was Nichiren the First to Chant the Daimoku?
Origins of the Daimoku
Shinbutsu Shugo
Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism?
Top 10 reasons SGI clings to Nichiren as True Buddha
Nikko's Take on the Honzon:
"The Lord of Teachings of Namu-myoho-renge-kyo,
Shakyamuni Buddha enlightened from remote ages past;
which is the reason for Sage Nichiren's Advent in this World"
2. the "Dai" Gohonzon?
Many SGI members appear to think that there are two choices here. That either Taisekiji's so-called DaiGohonzon is THE special Honzon; and only transcription of it are vaild for practice, or it is basically useless.
There are actually several theories of its origin. I find two of these equally credible. And, BTW, I am fairly sure Nichiu did not forge it; I think it might predate him in some form. And it is unclear if the wooden version even existed that early. And it is the Yashiro Kushishige Daimandara; it NOT the Dai(go)honzon.
In the recent The Living Buddhism, it was stated that only Nikko protected the Dai(go)honzon. In this connection, please see Ryuei's recent April 06, 2005 Blog: "Rebuttal to Eugene Hirahara's Hit Piece in Living Buddhism".
Now, I have pointed out that there is actually an historical Paper Mandala, dated 1274, that was entrusted to Nikko in 1275, that is called the Dai(go)honzon. And of course, Nikko protected it. He was also entrusted with several of the Daimandara Honzon that Nichiren inscribed in 1280. He protected those as well.
There is also a quite old wooden copy of the 1274 Dai(go)honzon, made of Japanese Red Pine, kept at a Honmon Shoshu Temple. There is an eye opening inscrption on the back, dated Octiober 12 1279, with a copy of Nichiren's signature. This was allegedly found among artifacts belonging to Nichimoku's descendents, by Onodera Nichiryo, about 30 years ago. I have been told that these finds included an original draft of the Kanjin-no-Honzon Sho, and the Aizen/Fudo Kankenki.
What the Living Buddhism also did not mention was that the other Elder Priests and even Lay followers were entrusted with special Daimandaras and other Honzon. And they no doubt protected those just as well as Nikko protected his.
In fact The 1280 Daimandara entrusted to Nissho might be the one in the best current condition. And Nissho was also entrusted with one of the two Healing-Mandara Honzons (prayer Gohonzon) of 1276.
And BTW, Taisekiji has not preserved any of the paper or silk Mandaras that were entrusted to Nikko. They do currently own the 1280 Daimandara issued to Nichizen, but they bought that one from Kitayama, about 100 years ago. The original paper Dai(go)honzon entrusted to Nikko has been kept at the non-aligned Hota Myohonji since circa 1346. The other Daimandaras issued to Nikko are at other Fuji lineage temples.
The current Ita Mandara of Taisekji was likely first enshrined there in 1634 or so. Taisekeji was completely burnt down in 1632 and rebuilt.
The Ita-Dai-Go-Honzon Issue:
Taisekiji's Tweaked Translations
The Lower Lower Left Side Memoranda
The Gain & Loss or Benefit & Curse Inscriptions
Gain & Loss Inscriptions on Nichiren Mandalas
Gain & Loss Inscriptions on Nikko's Mandalas
The Taisekiji DaiGohonzon Myth
Gohonzon of Ichienbudai?
Memoranda & Dedications Lower Right Side Dedication Great Mandala Dedication
````````````````````````
3. Nikko as sole successor to Nichiren?
Again, we shall see a false dichotomy at work here. There is an attitude one must either be for Nikko or against him. Not to mention that Taisekiji revisionism distorts Nikko's actual words & deeds. My view is that Nikko was one of Nichiren's closest disciples and a high ranking successor.
The Succession Issue
The Minobu Transfer Document? Part One
The Minobu Transfer Document? Part Two
The Minobu Transfer Document? Part Three
The Ikegami Transfer Document? Part One
The Ikegami Transfer Document? Part Two
The Real Transfer Dox
````````````````````````````````````````
Those three doctrines are part of what I am referring to as Nichiren Shoshu mythology. I am not referring to one's daily practice of Faith and Daimoku, which benefits all who practice it, regardless of their sectarian affiliation, or lack thereof.
I agree with this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What should interest us is the origin of the Nichiren Shoshu doctrinal innovations cited above. How long have they been the offioial positions at Taisekiji? Have any other temples ever embraced them?
I am assuming that the "Three" derive from the teachings of Nichikan {1665-1726}, and have pretty much held sway at Taisekiji Temple since his time. I do not anticipate looking into this in any detail in the near future.
It also appears that a different version of the "Three" were advocated by Nichiu {1402?-1482?}, who was the 8th Chief Priest of Taisekiji Temple. I have not read his teachings in detail. They were recorded by one of his followers. At this point I have a general idea.
**Their concept of kechimyaku appears to be an expansion of Nikko as exclusive successor. I am not sure if that even dates back to Nichikan? This, I guess, is the 4th controversial Nichiren Shoshu mythologiy, and the only one that SGI disputes (at least in part)?**
At present, SGI seems to promote a watered down version of these that is in a state of flux. Other than the coerced public statements, the Gakkai spin on these has always been less than literal.
May all Beings be at Ease;
Even the ones I am currently mad with.
robin
Posted by rbeck at April 16, 2005 12:00 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Robin,
Thanks for writing this. It helps me to fill in some of the gaps in what I have written about it. I am interested in the sources of your information - esp. concerning the development of the Nichiren as Buddha doctrine and also the info about the various Daimandaras entrusted to Nikko.
Also, the kechimyaku concept is not just Zen like it is very much a part of Zen and Tendai and other schools as well. In fact, the very same word is used. My guess is that it started with the T'ien-t'ai school as they were the ones who invented the legend of the 24 patriarchs in India. The Zen school then extended that with Bodhidharma as the 28th patriarch who came to China as the first Chinese patriarch. All of this is clearly in violation of the historical Buddha's refusal to appoint a successor according to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. Rather, the Buddha said that his Dharma and Discipline (the Vinaya) would teach the Sangha after his death. This means that the mainstream Nichiren Buddhist idea of inheriting the Dharma directly from the rolls of the Lotus Sutra is probably more in line with the historical Buddha's intentions than any "blood lineage" concept.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Posted by: Ryuei at April 13, 2005 09:22 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Ryuei wrote: "Thanks for writing this. It helps me to fill in some of the gaps in what I have written about it. I am interested in the sources of your information - esp. concerning the development of the Nichiren as Buddha doctrine and also the info about the various Daimandaras entrusted to Nikko."
reply:
I will answer in a general way. I do not have any dramatic new sources. What I have had was the time and inclination to sift through what I can find. And that is every scrap of data, no matter how useless it looks on the surface.
To track down a specific source, and explain how I read it, I would need to go into into a lot of minutia. You are certainly one of the best 'base line' sources. If it appears I am filling in gaps, it is because that is what I do.
My method is a synthesis of all the research I can find on the Nichiren's life and the Gohonzon. As you might agree, it appears that a good deal of this was published on line, by members of Kempon Hokke, with their own agenda in mind. I have found what you and Chis Holte have written to be refreshing, in that you are both seem impartial.
It may sound a bit harsh, but with some of the other material, I simply delete out anything that does not pass the 'smell test' and/
or 'giggle factor'.
I also read everything I can find by Murano, he seems very cryptic. What he writes seems terse, and implies more than he states. In that respect, his style is like a mirror of Eddie Chai's -- both are aggravating. Anyway, Murano is my 'base line' source on the origin of the Nichiren as True Buddha deviation. From there, it is figuring out what the heck he meant, and how it fits in the big picture.
More recently, I had some useful discussion with Eddy Chai, the cheshire cat, and a little with Reverend Tarabii. And I have gleaned everything I can from the on line Gohonzon Shu.
Also, the Kawabe Memo. And also the information, much of it tourist information, published by the Nichiren Temple web sites. Looking at their pictures is even helpful, to generate 'insight'.
Also, the legends about Nichiren, from your own school, that I find archived on the web are useful, if excessively wordy.
What would be real useful right now would be full translations of Nikko's letters and some of the Gosho that Lamont and Eddy cite. Basically, I get snippets, followed by a conclusion, that starts with "there can be no doubt", "it is obvious", or something like that. And, of course, it is never obvious at all. At the very least, there is wiggle room in interpretation.
That much IS obvious.
Another thing that would be useful would be a full translation of the Gohonzon Shu. All the notes, plus the inscriptions. Also Nikko's Gohonzon, and any wriiten by the other Elders. Then the information, dates, names, etc, could be cross referenced with the Gosho, and historical time lines.
Finally, I apply my own insight. I toss various alernative explanations around in my head, or on screen, to see what works with the various time lines.
I use Reverend Tarabini's chronology and lineage chart as sort of a base line, because they are easy to follow. He does have a major error in the latter -- he mis-identifies Honmon Shu (Nishiyama) as Honmon Shoshu (yokohama-shi fujisan honmonji).
Most of the sources I have used are in the links section of Nichirenpix. The method I used to organize those links reflects the method I used to study the data, which was to TRY to follow Nichiren's foot steps and match events with Gosho.
Another finally, the method and approach I am using allows me to incorporate new information that contradicts earlier conclusions. Nothing is either/or. Merging and Renconciling conflicting data is what I do.
robin
Posted by: robin at April 13, 2005 09:16 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Whew! I am glad you have time to do all that. I think we share a lot of the same sources up to a point. That point was when I wrote my articles on the Fuji school at Ryuei.net. Then I turned to other things. I am glad you have been following up on stuff and putting the pieces together.
If I may be so bold, would you mind tracking down the sources of the story that Nichiren's disciples destroyed or recycled his letters after he died? Where the heck does that come from? I have only heard it from SGI sources but I have never seen any basis for it.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Posted by: Ryuei at April 14, 2005 09:48 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
In reply to Ryuei,
Gosh, I just spotted more typos rereading the blog.
On this:
"If I may be so bold, would you mind tracking down the sources of the story that Nichiren's disciples destroyed or recycled his letters after he died? Where the heck does that come from? I have only heard it from SGI sources but I have never seen any basis for it."
Give me a few days. I was hoping you or Brian might know. My hands really need a brief break from typing right now. I think I might raise this at irgosho and the GohonzonForum in a day ot two.
It had been years since I heard that story until Dave brought it up at SGI. I do not even recall the context. Maybe Charles knows something?
The story makes no sense since most of the letters Nichiren wrote in common japanese are preserved at Nakayama? I think.
robin
Posted by: robin at April 14, 2005 09:14 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
i am an idiot
Posted by: idiot at May 7, 2005 04:33 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hi 'idiot';
Why do you call yourself that?
Posted by: robin at May 7, 2005 04:00 PM
Fwd: Re: [SFI] Nichiren as True or Original Buddha?
Dear Robin Ray Beck:
I've just discovered this website...it's
wonderful!..If no one ele has added this comment:
after WWII, the Japanese lost their whole identity as a superior race, when they lost their Emperor as the Universe's only Sun God. Fuji Buddhism filled a great gap, assuring them that they owned the only True Buddha, and that the Rhythm of the Universe was spoken only in Japanese. I'm an SGI member, but can never be
a neo-Shintoist. msgaijin