May 30, 2006
Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Three
Previously, I wrote:
Nichiren believed that one could fulfill one's obligations to one's Ruler, teachers, and parents, by serving, revering, or worshiping Shakyamuni Buddha. And the Shakyamuni Buddha one serves, reveres or worships as sovereign, teacher, parent is the Buddha of the Juryo Chapter, who can be thought of as the personal aspect, or personification of, the Eternal Dharma.
Nichiren would write, in 1275 or 1276; "Nichiren may well be the only person in all Japan to disobey sovereign, parents, and teacher, and yet still in the end receive the protection of the heavenly gods."
In 1264, he had written, "Could those who disobey the teaching of this parent, teacher, and sovereign possibly not be abandoned by the heavenly gods and the earthly deities? "
In 1275 or 1277, "... one should of course obey one's teacher, sovereign, and parents, but should they commit wrongs, admonishing them is in fact being loyal to them. "
These passages imply that he felt a conflict between the moral imperative of Confucianism, to obey sovereign, parents, and teacher; and the moral imperative of Buddhism, to not violate the Vinaya and Dharma. There is not much doubt that he felt Confucian Principles were important to follow. He wrote:
"The hearts of the people are like those of birds and beasts; they recognize neither sovereign, teacher, nor parent." And, "Recently, however, it appears that the people of our day, drunk with the wine of greed, anger, and foolishness, make it a rule to betray their sovereign, despise their parents, and scoff at their teachers. "
In the Kaimoku Sho he writes, "If, in terms of the present, one brings order to one's family, carries out the demands of filial piety, and faithfully practices the five constant virtues, then one's associates will respect one, and one's name will become known throughout the country. ... Heaven too will come to protect and watch over such a person."
However, he adds this caveat, "But since such persons know nothing about the past or the future, they cannot assist their parents, their sovereign, or their teacher in making provisions for their future lives, and are therefore unable to repay the debt they owe them. "
What happens if one faces a moral dillema? "... if the act is something that springs from his own heart. In such a case, even the restraints of his parents, his sovereign, or his teachers cannot prevent him from carrying out the action. " -- from On Prayer {Kito Sho}
Previously, I also wrote:
Buddhist Ethics maybe created a moral dilemma of sorts for Confucian Buddhists like Nichiren. It appears that Nichiren may have resolved this by making sovereignty, teacher-hood, and parent-hood the attributes of Shakyamuni Buddha.
Therefore, by following the Dharma, even if it meant disobedience to sovereign, parents, and teacher; one would in fact perform one's filial duty, and receive the protection of heaven. My present thinking is that this might, however, reflect a temporal limit of Nichiren's thought. I mean, who really cares what Confucius said? And the protection of heaven is what? 
Nichiren assigning these three attributes to the Buddha appears to be Zuiho Bini. I may be wrong, but I do not find this form of the three virtues {san-toku} in other forms of Buddhism. So what is Zuiho Bini? As Chris wrote at Holte's corner , on July 17, 2005, in More on Zuiho Bini , "'Zuiho Bini' ... [is] teaching the law within the language of the people one dwells among" ...
According to the Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Zuiho Bini is "A Buddhist precept indicating that, in matters the Buddha did not expressly either permit or forbid, one may act in accordance with local custom so long as the fundamental principles of Buddhism are not violated. The precept of adapting to local customs was employed when Buddhism made its way to various regions that differed in culture, tradition, manners and customs, climate, and other natural and human aspects. While this guidance does not prohibit or prescribe any specific behavior, it is described as a precept."
What I am not comfortable with is that Nichirenists who lack a Buddhist background might [and do] mistakenly think that the Buddha as sovereign, parent, & teacher is Buddhism 100, rather than a Confucian accretion. I am even less comfortable with the notion of a Confucian social ethic being a desirable thing to adopt in the West, let alone a core Buddhist principle. I may change my mind someday, and become a neo-confucianist, but I doubt it.
My take is that Confucian elements of Nichiren's thought are Shakumon, that is. they are provisional, transient, temporal, trace, or imprint teachings, whose expiry date has passed. If Nichiren could tweak the Dharma, to make it more accessible in his time and place, then we can make adjustments for our own.
That said, Taisekiji Nichiren Shoshu apparently views the three virtues {san-toku} or 'the Buddha as sovereign, parent, & teacher' as Buddhism 100, or a core Buddhist principle. Furthermore, they reassign these three attributes or virtues from Shakyamuni Buddha to Nichiren himself. AYIIIIEE!!!! They view the historical person, Nichiren, not the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha, as "The True Object of Worship" in terms of the Person.
to be continued ...