August 30, 2005
The Distribution of the Mementoes/Responses to Hirahara
The Succession Issue Controversy
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Reply to Lord Hara {Hakiri} by Nikko Shonin (1246-1333):
Hara Dono Gohenji {Excerpts}: Download file
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hara Dono Gohenji {Letter to Lord Hara [Hakiri]}:
partial translation offered by John Ayres at arbn
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hara Dono Gohenji
"Nissho ... stole the Lotus Sutra scrolls from the grave and took them to Hamado in Kamakura" -- SGI-USA Study Department Leader Eugene Hirahara
"At any rate, based on the preponderance of the evidence, specifically Nikko's record of the distribution of mementoes; I hereby find Nissho and Nichiro "not guilty", on the charge of robbing Nichiren's grave." -- Posted by rbeck at May 14, 2005 10:34 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Lamont {inadvertantly?} makes it appear "The Distribution of the Mementoes", an apocryphal work, is part of "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku", an authenticated work:
General Conditions after the Death of Nichiren: Translated by H.G. Lamont
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Record of the Passing of the Founder by Nikko Shonin (1246-1333)
Shuso Gosenge Kiroku {Excerpts}: Download file
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
According to Nichiren Shu {click here}: Translation {Eddy Chai}: "In Heisei 4 [1992], November, the Gosenge Kiroku (in the archives of Nishiyama Hommonji) that was written by Nikko, was designated an important national property, and its [contents] made open to the public. Its contents are indeed valuable information with regards to the funeral arrangements of that time, especially the matter concerning rotation duty. It is written in Koan 5 [1282] Oct 16. Towards the end of the document, there is [Nichiren's] Last Will which mentions: "the standing statue of Shakya, is to be set up beside the grave." (end of translation)."
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Rev. Kawabe cites; "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku": Koshi-e February 8th 2004
Myosenji Temple, by Rev. Shoshin Kawabe: Download file
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The Distribution of Mementoes, an apocryphal work,
attributed to Nikko Shonin (1246-1333):
Goibutsu-haibun-cho {Excerpts}: Download file
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hi, Robin - I read the Hirahara material on the SGI board as well. I have been meaning to write a response of my own to Hirahara's piece, but I have just been so damned busy that I. . . well, no excuses.
I don't know what those nasty five priests were supposed to be doing if not taking care of their members. Iknow that ever since the common sense explanation for these disciples'"negligence" in visiting Nichiren's grave was made clear to me (i.e., Minobu is remote, the faith communities were small and vulnerable, and the disciples didn't have trains planes or automobiles to make the trek to Minobu with), thatthe whole myth of the "evil" disciples' betrayals has seemed like a really vicious,self-serving story on the part of Taiseki-ji. If I had been one of those disciples, I hope I would have paid attention to my members instead of making that trip with no one back at home base to care for the flock.
Well, I was glad at least thatHirahara cared enough to make a response. Maybe I'll say something more when I've had more time to digest. best, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at May 13, 2005 04:26 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hey Robin:
There's a great confusion over the content of the Gosenge Kiroku.
Thanks to this article:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bridge/7743/nichijuu1.html
The distribution of momentos is NOT part of the Shuso Gosenge Kiroku. The Kiroku is a true original preserved at Nishiyama, and contain the signatures of Nissho, Nichiro, Nichiji and Niko. The last para of the Kiroku is entitled the "Last Will [of Nichiren]" (Go-yui-gon). This is where it is mentioned that the Shakya statue is to be placed "next" to His grave. The same also with His "collection" of most important writings, namely the "Notes to the Hokkekyo."
The distribution of momentos is actually the "Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho" (御遺物配分帳) kept at Ikegami Hommonji.
御 = go = Honorable
遺物 = ibutsu = momento
配分 = haibun = distribution
帳 = cho = notes
Ikegami also possess the "Minobusan-shuban-cho" (身延山守番帳).
身延山 = Minobusan
守 = shu = guard
番 = ban = rotate
帳 = cho = notes
Both documents concern the arrangements made after the passing of Nichiren Daishounin. They are said to be the writings of Nikko; but are regarded as forgeries. The "Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho" contradicts the much esteemed Kiroku of a sister temple; so you don't hear much of them.
I am puzzled why Lamont chose to write it this way. It certainly caused people to think he is still talking about the Gosenge Kiroku that he mentioned in an earlier sentence.
Buddhist study is full of surprises. It seems, if one stops getting surprises, one is not getting anywhere.
In any case, as I once mentioned, you have to get yourself a copy.
Posted by: eddy at May 17, 2005 08:29 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The Nichiren Buddhism Modern Religious Institute " is related to the Nichiren Shu.
It's Oct 20, 1997 "Nichiren Shu news" says:
平成四年十一月に国の重文に指定された日興筆「聖人御遷化記録」（西山本門寺蔵）が公開された。その内容は実に大切なもので当時の御葬儀や列の次第殊に大事なのはご墓所輪番の事が記されている。弘安五年十月十六日の筆である。文末にご遺言あり「仏者、釈迦立像を墓所の傍に立置事」が書かれている。
http://www.genshu.gr.jp/DPJ/paper/1997/97102002.htm
Translation:
In Heisei 4 [1992], November, the Gosenge Kiroku (in the archives of Nishiyama Hommonji) that was written by Nikko, was designated an important national property, and its [contents] made open to the public. Its contents are indeed valuable information with regards to the funeral arrangements of that time, especially the matter concerning rotation duty. It is written in Koan 5 [1282] Oct 16. Towards the end of the document, there is [Nichiren's] Last Will which mentions: "the standing statue of Shakya, is to be set up beside the grave." (end of translation).
Therefore, it has been established that the Gosenge Kiroku does not contain the momento distribution list.
Posted by: eddy at May 17, 2005 01:20 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
At any rate, based on the preponderance of the evidence, specifically Nikko's record of the distribution of memontos; I hereby find Nissho and Nichiro "not guilty", on the charge of robbing Nichiren's grave.
Posted by rbeck at May 14, 2005 10:34 AM
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
You make your verdict on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Since the charge was criminal, the proper standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt". Do not worry- the "resoanable doubt" standard requires more proof than the "prepondernce" standard. Mr. Hirahara failed to meet his burden even where the standard of proof was easier to meet. As the error is harmless, the verdict on not guilty stands. -- Brian
Posted by: Brian Mc at May 15, 2005 04:19 AM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Someone suggested that Hirahara's attack on Nissho's character might be intended to weaken current enemies and win back those on the edge.
Note the Daimandara Kempon Hokke uses, and I recommend, were issued to Nissho in 1280. Also, the Prayer Gohonzon widely used by the Tusker Sangha/Indy Movement, was issued to Nissho in 1277.
Here is my problem. Nissho is not as simple to defend as I had thought. The material posted by HG Lamont can be refuted easily. One might say Kempon Hokke's published material is even deceptive, though I doubt it was intentional.
I have nothing to show anyone agreed that Nissho & Nichiro were entitled to take the Scrolls & the Statue.
Nichiren's will, as written in the Authentic Record of Nikko, "Gosenge Kiroku" --Nikko's Record of Nichiren's Demise, dated October 13 1282, with seals of Nissho, Nichiro, & Nichiji, kept at Nishiyama Honmonji states that Nichiren wanted these items left at his grave, at Minobu.
The "Distribution of Momentos" {"Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho", kept at Ikegami}, which Lamont cites, is another document, and might be a forgery.
However, if the Distribution of Momentos is somehow authetic, it indicates Nikko agreed {grudgingly?} for Nissho & Nichiro to take these items. Still, the Autheticated Letter to Hakiri {"Hara Dono Gohenji" by Nikko} does show he was angry about the Statue; he accuses Nichiro of "making off with it".
The good thing is that I doubt many are even following this. It is frighfully convoluted.
But the latest information is good news for Hirahara's case, at least for now. Citing the Distribution of Momentos is not a strong counter to his Response to Ryuei.
This can certainly change; especially if we can rehabilitate the "Distribution of Momentos" as a valid document, as maybe a sort of amendment to the Gosenge Kiroku?
There are other documents that may be useful to defend Nissho. These might include: "Fuji Itseki Mon to Zonchi-no-koto" by Nikko "Ganso kedo-ki" by Nitcho. "Kyoshaku Hisho Yobun" by Nissho, September 28, 1288
I also think we should realize that the situation at Ikegami in Ocober of 1282 was chaotic. Nissho & Nichiro may well have decided that the Scrolls & Statue were unsafe at Minobu. They may have simply taken matters into their own hands.
Finally, this has nothing to do with the claim by Hirahara and others about the Two Transfer Documents and Nikko as sole successor. There is evidence to substantiate Six successors, with Nissho & Nichiro ranked #1 and #2, in the Gosenge Kiroku & other sources. There is nothing to support Nikko being in charge of Minobu, or of the other Senior Disciples.
Therefore, Nissho & Nichiro may well have had good reasons and the authority to take the Scrolls & Statue. We certainly have other examples of Nichiren's Will being over-ruled by contigencies.
Posted by: ryoben at May 19, 2005 08:28 PM
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I am sure that Rev Ryuei and others could find more detail concerning this but the immediate questions I have are these.
1. How do we know that the scrolls mentioned are one and the same? I know that there have been claims made in the past that there are two sets of scrolls with annotation made by Nichiren. I seem to recall both JOhn Ayres and Terry Ruby making comments about this fact some years ago. I have no information one way or another concerning this but if it is true then how do we know that the set at the gravesite is the same set Nikko says was taken away?
2. Even if they are, the area where the orignal tomb is located is very close to the river and is know to be subject to flooding. As a result the actual remains of Nichiren have been moved up the hill to a more protected spot near the Kuon-ji temple. Is it possible that these artifacts were also moved for a similar reason?
3. It is as I understand it form discussions with some priests and reading some of Dr. Stone's writings on the subject that initially Nikko was getting along with the other senior disciples even expressing sympathy concerning the difficulties they were having in the areas where they teaching which prevented them from regularly attending to the tomb. It is only later after they quarrelled that he made a number of claims about people abandoning Nichiren's true intentions. And still later he apparently made up with at least some of the senior disciples which is shown by one of them coming and living with him at Homonji temple. So to what extent is the present ambiquity the result of these differences of opinion which cropped up later after modifications had been agreed to and implemented? To what extent have those differences been exaggerated by the interpretations of later members of competing schools seeking to reinforce their position vis a vis the "competition?
4. It is a documented fact that Nikko acted as secretary for the immediate circle of senior disciples. He often acted as scribe, in effect recording the minutes as it were of their discussions. This was often his function while Nichiren was alive and continued after Nichiren's death. Therefore Mr. Hirahana's claim that his authorship of the letter somehow substantiates a claim that he was the acknowledged leader of the senior disciples is not supportable. First there is actual documentary proof to the contrary. Nichiren did not appoint a single leader of the group but he did make all six senior disciples equally responsible for passing on his teachings. Secondly, the Japanese were [and are] even more status concious than the Americans. The leader of the group of disciples would hardly have been the one acting as the recording secretary.
5. As to the claims of the authenticity of documents cited by Lamont or even as to Lamont's translation of those documents I can not comment one way or another. Lamont is a competent translator, albeit a person who can be difficult to get along with. But I would find it of great amusement that the any SGI scholar would contest the authenticity of the documents he cites given that they hold that all such documents are valid unless conclusively proven otherwise. They can ahrdly do otherwise since much of their doctrine is based upon quotations form documents of questionable authenticity and Dr. Stone discusses in some detail in one of her publication.
6. One final question I have is this. To what extent can we confirm that the actual original documents cited by either side in support of their claim support the translated remarks made by the conflicting sides? The Gohso Zenshu, published by the SGI is full of interlineations made by the editors to support their doctrinal interpretations but those interlineations are not to be found in the original documents. I have seen where Dr. Stone and others have mentioned a letter written by Nikko where someone in the past clearly interlineated some additional kanji. The attempt seemed to them to be the result of a desire to make the letter more accurate. I used to wonder about this and recently purchased a Mandala which dates from the 1700's on which the name of the temple has been carefully erased in the past and another name written in over it. The person I purchased it form informed me that his understanding is that there was decision made to change the name of the temple and thus the scroll had been "corrected" to reflect the new name. Now in our modern sensibility this would be anathema aking to some 1984 scenario but apparently the Japanese in times gone by were not troubled by this in the least. While I am not inferring that this is someting that happened to the documents on question, I am curious to know something more about them and the accuaracy of the translations made from them.
Posted by: John Petry at May 22, 2005 02:06 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"As to the claims of the authenticity of documents cited by Lamont or even as to Lamont's translation of those documents I can not comment one way or another. Lamont is a competent translator, albeit a person who can be difficult to get along with. But I would find it of great amusement that the any SGI scholar would contest the authenticity of the documents he cites given that they hold that all such documents are valid unless conclusively proven otherwise."
`````````````````````````````````````````
Jon, Eddy pointed out that the distribution of memos is not in "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku." I think Eddy would agree that Taisekiji & NSS are wrong on other things. I think with Lamont, it was the wording, not intentional deception. Ryuei might want to amend that at his web site. Maybe Nichiren Shu has a full translation, so we could see some context? Anyway, Eddy does not seem to have a pony in this race; other than to get Honmon Shoshu's side of the story out there.
Posted by: robin at May 23, 2005 01:54 AM
August 26, 2005
Western Buddhism, Anyone?
On the Three-Fold Training
Provisional Practices?
As I alluded to in an earlier entry, I think that SGI has largely replaced the provisional teachings of Buddhism with modern Positive Mental Attitude motivational training; and that simply does not work for many, if not most, people. Personally, I have recently decided that all the 'goal setting' and 'winning in life' "stuff" is useless, at least for me, right now, and dumped it in the ash can.
That approach, for those who want it, can be found in any number of self help books. I have been there and done that; and it seems the big money is in teaching others how to win. And it might be better to learn it from the tapes and writings of Hill, Carnegie, Nightengale, Stone, & Mandino, than to mix it with, and call it, Buddhism.
In my own life, I am gradually replacing SGI PMA training with the traditional Samatha-Smrti practices of Buddhism.
I went though a phase where I pretty much dumped chanting in Sino-Japanese altogether, and began surfing the web for something new to try.
After trying many different things from various sources, I have found some chanting meditations that I like, and which, despite Nichiren's warnings, IMCO, do successfully generate divine states of loving kindness, empathetic compassion, and shared joy. I am also learning to 'sit' quietly, although I find this more difficult than chanting.
I have only taken a casual glance at Theravadin Vipassana. Note that this is not necessarily the same as the popular teaching called Vipassana; which appears to be, at a glance, syncretic Samatha-Vipassana. Real Theravada Vippasana {Insight} is the advanced teaching that leads directly to Nibbana/Nirvana or Awakening to the Unborn & Deathless, by direct Insight into the Three Signs of Dukkha, Anicca, & Anatta (Suffering, Impermanence, and Not-Self.)
For practical purposes, at present, I borrow from both the traditional Wisdom (Panna/Prajna/Hannya) Teachings and Esoteric Mikkyo/Vajra Practices. I view these as advanced Samatha, rather than ultimate teachings. I find the Prajna Paramitta practice effective at cultivating equanimity, or a kind of poised, warm detachment.
What I have essentially done is to replace the Vipassana-Prajna practices of traditional Buddhism, with what might be called Vipassana-Bhakti {Kanjin?}. {I think this is what Nichiren did to develop an exclusive practice, as an answer to Honen. Early on, Nichiren advocated Tendai Inclusiveness. But that is best left for another entry.}
At any rate, Nichiren wrote that we should replace prajna (hannya, wisdom) with Shin {Faith-Bhakti}. So instead of meditating on the three signs, or Emptiness {sunyatta}, I gaze at the Mandala Honzon and chant "The Title" with whatever faith my skeptical mind/heart can muster.
It turns out that what I am doing maybe looks a lot like Nichiren Shu; though without near as much Japanese flavor. {mixed metaphor}.
There is a lot of imbedded Shinto in Japanese Buddhism that I have trouble grasping. It does appear to me that, for the most part, Nichiren Shu has kept the Shinto elements distinct; there are Shinto Shrines on a lot of the Temple Grounds, but they are separate. This seems consistent with what Nichiren wrote about Zuiho Bini. Not sure how that works in America. I doubt we will see Jinja devoted to Inari or Shichimen Daimyojin.
In Nichiren Shoshu, Shinto is woven seemlessly into the fabric. Nichiren as True Buddha replaces Amaterasu Omikami, Their DG is like the sacred jewel or mirror, and the Head Temple replaces the sacred Ise Shrine. Honmon Shoshu, a half sister of Nichiren Shoshu, is more overt about their Shinto-Buddhist fusion. They still hold to Kammakura Era Mikkyo thinking that equated specific Shinto Kami with specific Buddhist Divinities. Nichiren = Amaterasu = Dainichi = the Shakyamuni of the Juryo Chapter is an example. It is a tad more complex, but that is the gist.
Posted by rbeck at August 3, 2005 04:21 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
July 20, 2005
First Western Buddhist Sangha
Encyclopaedia of Buddhism Vol. 1,
edited by G. P. Malalasekera O.B.E in 1965, published by Government of Sri Lanka, clearly states that an Englishman named Charles Henry Allan Bennet, who had been ordained as a Buddhist monk in Burma in 1902, returned back to England, eighty nine years ago, to establish the first ever Buddhist Mission in the United Kingdom on 16 July 1908, 'a belief shared twenty-three years later by the Anagarika Dharmapala when he came to England on a mission from Ceylon. TILAK S. FERNANDO
Buddhismus in Großbritannien link
5. Buddhismus in Great Britain 1. Until 1959
Posted by rbeck at July 20, 2005 04:14 PM
Charles
Posted by: Charles at August 4, 2005 02:26 PM
Robin! You did it! You gave me an answer I have been searching for. I can't quite articulate the question, but it was answered in this blog when you wrote: "At any rate, Nichiren wrote that we should replace prajna (hannya, wisdom) with Shin {Faith-Bhakti}. So instead of meditating on the three signs, or Emptiness {sunyatta}, I gaze at the Mandala Honzon and chant "The Title" with whatever faith my skeptical mind/heart can muster."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had been trying, unsucessfully, to separate the intent of Nichren from the intent of the various Nichiren schools. This blog finally shed some light on the issue for me. THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
Posted by: queen lolo at August 5, 2005 12:02 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
August 25, 2005
Top 10 reasons SGI clings to Nichiren as True Buddha
On Controversial Taisekiji Doctrine
Origins of Nichiren as True Buddha
What evidence is there to support the Nichiren & Honmon Shoshu position; that Nichiren is the True or Original Buddha? There is none. But there are objections within SGI to changing the official stance. So what are the objections to viewing Shakyamuni of the Juryo Chapter as the True Buddha, and Nichiren as Jogyo; his messenger for Mappo?
Top 10 reasons why SGI clings to Nichiren as True Buddha:
#10. It would be an admission Nichiren Shu Minobu Sect is right on this.
#9. Many people associate the historical Buddha with Hotei (the fat guy). Plus, we want to distance ourselves from burning monks, ascetic practices, and patriarchal Buddhism. Not to mention Tantra. Easier to just dismiss all that mess as provisional.
#8. It is egalitarian, and egalitarian is trendy. Gautama was a Prince, Nichiren was a Fisherman's son.
#7. Look, it is hard enough to rewrite the history of the Temple Issue already.
#6. Having a Japanese Buddha makes the Japanese happy.
#5. Shakyamuni did not even really write the Lotus Sutra either. So there!
#4. It took me ten years to be convinced, now you tell me I was right all along????
#3. It would mean I got sold on a defenseless concept, that lacks any rational basis, and that is clearly quite impossible.
#2. It would mean Bruce Maltz was right.
Aaaaaand, the # 1 reason why SGI clings to Nichiren as True Buddha:
Next thing you know, you will be telling me it is really Na Mu Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo?
August 10, 2005
Woops
While working at light speed, I destroyed the Nest. Fortunately, I have everything saved on my computer. And it was just as well. No, it was not. But , one has lemons, one makes lemon-ade.
August 07, 2005
Five Dhyani Buddhas & Families
On the Three-Fold Training
A Glance at Mikkyo
There are 5 classes of Divinities, each represented by a Dhyani Buddha. There are some variations in different traditions. For example, there is variance in the skandhas and Bodhisattvas associated with each. This is not surprizing, since these are secret traditions. The five families and accociated Dhyani Buddhas are:
Tathagata {Nyorai} Family:
Buddha: Vairochana {Dainichi){Sun-like One or the Radiating One}, Bodhisattva: Manjushri, Color: White, Direction: Center, Symbol: Wheel, Mudra: Dharmachakra, Skandha: Consciousness, Vehicle: Lion or Dragon, Element: Ether, Klesha: Delusion/Stupidity {Moha}, Virtue:Wisdom {Prajna} .
Cintamani {Jewel} Family
Buddha: Ratnasambhava {Jewel-born One} {Hosho Nyorai}, Bodhisattva: Akashagarbha {Kokuzo}{Space Womb/Matrix}, Color: Yellow/Gold, Direction: South, Symbol: Gemstone, Mudra: Varada, Skandha: Sensation, Vehicle: Horse or Lion, Element: Earth, Klesha: Pride {Mana}, Virtue: Impartiality, Equanamity.
Padma {Lotus} Family:
Buddha: Amithba {Amida}, Bodhisattva: Shou Kanzeon {Arya Avalokiteshvara}, Color: Red, Direction: West, Symbol: Lotus, Mudra: Dhyana/Samadhi, Skandha: Perception, Vehicle: Peacock, Element: Fire , Klesha: Avarice {Lobha}, Virtue: Grace, Discrimination.
Karma or Dharma Family:
Buddha: Amoghasiddhi {Fukujoju Nyorai}{Almighty Conqueror}, Bodhisattva: Visvapani, Shakti:Arya Tara, Color: Green, Direction: North, Symbol: Double Vajra/Sword, Mudra: Abhaya, Skandha: Volition,
Vehicle: Garuda, Element: Air, Klesha: Envy/Jealousy {Irsya}, Virtue: Perseverance, Accomplishment
Vajra {Thunderbolt, Diamond Scepter [Cutter]} Family:
Buddha: Akshobhya {Ashuku Nyorai} {Unshakable}, Bodhisattva: Samantabhadra, Color: Blue, Direction: East, Symbol: Vajra, Mudra: Bhumisparsha; Skandha: Form; Vehicle: Elephant, Element: Water, Klesha: Hatred/Anger {Dvesa}, Virtue:Self Reflection {Mirror}.
Posted by rbeck at August 6, 2005 10:46 PM
The Samaya
A Glance at Mikkyo
On the Three-Fold Training
Recently, I accidentally learned a little about the Esoteric branch of Buddhism known as Shingon or Mikkyo in Japan, and Vajra or Tantra in Sanskrit. First, there is a side to Tantra that I consider unworthy of serious consideration. I am not even going there.
Also, I think the secret Samaya of Mikkyo runs counter to the Universal Salvation message of the Lotus Sutra. If Saicho {Dengyo Daishi} violated the oath; as Kukai (Kobo Daishi) alleged, bully for Saicho! If I still consumed adult beverages, I would drink to that.
"The scribes and Pharisees received the keys of understanding, and hid them. They did not enter, nor allowed entrance to those who so wished. Be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves." -- Attributed to Jesus; Gospels of Thomas; Nancy Johnson translation.
Definitions of Samaya on the Web:
(Sanskrit) [from sam together + the verbal root i (aya) to go] A coming together, meeting together, a compact, treaty, agreement. Also convention, law, rule, practice, precept, doctrine. In a religious sense, a regular ritualistic observance or religious obligation, combined with the accompanying precepts or instruction. www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/sam-saq.htm
(Tib. dam sig) The vows or commitments made in the vajrayana which can be to a teacher or to a practice. www.kagyubuddhist.org/glossary.htm
(Skt. / Tib. damtsig): Literally, "promise." The sacred vow which binds the vajrayana practitioner to his or her teacher and yidam. The practitioner pledges and commits to keep certain vows and perform certain practices. http://www.bodhipath-west.org/glossary.htm
Samayas are commitments engendered by the links between a practitioner and the teachings.
http://www.friendsoftheheart.com/meditation_resources/left/glossary.shtml
Posted by rbeck at August 6, 2005 10:47 PM
Comments Follow:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Robin:
My understanding is that Samaya refers specifically to a group of vows that are particular to Vajrayana practice. Vajrayana doctrinally divides silla/ethics into three systems of commitments or vows.
The first are the pratimoksha vows of a monastic, and also include the five lay precepts. The second are the Bodhisattva Vows. There are several systems of Bodhisattva Vows. In China the T'ien T'ai tradition advocated the use of the Bodhisattva Precepts from the Mahayana Brahma's Net Sutra. This is a system of 10 major and 48 minor precpets. Nichiren would have been familiar with these through his Tendai training. In Tibet there is a somewhat different system of Bodhisattva Vows. I don't know the Sutra source for these.
The third series of commitments, from the Vajrayana perspective, are the Samaya Vows, or commitments. There are a number of systems. The most widespread appears to be a system of 14 vows; I believe the source is the Hevajra Tantra, but I might be wrong about that. In any case, one important function of these vows is to define the relationship of the student to the Vajra Guru, to commit to maintaining secrecy (esotericism), and to highlight the importance of loyalty to one's Guru.
The Vajrayana interpretation of these three systems of vows is peculiar to the Vajrayana. The Chinese Mahayana interpretation is different. For example, Chinese Buddhism doesn't necessarily view them as sequential, or higher and lower commitments. Thus it is common for laypeople and monastics in China and Korea to take the Bodhisattva Precepts while simultaneously upholding their ethical commitments to the five precepts or the monastic precepts respectively.
My own reading of the samaya and their function is that they aren't really an ethical system in the sense that the other two are. Jamgon Kongtrul in his compendium of vow systems points out that the pratimoksha and bodhisattva vows are compatible with each other because the basis of their teaching is restraint. Basically what these teach is to refrain from engaging in certain kinds of actions which are detrimental to others and to oneself. This is why, for example, in China and Korea the two systems are viewed as complementary.
Kongtrul goes on to point out that the Samaya vows are different; they aren't really about restraint. Their function is more like that of "club rules". In some ways they are oddly similar to the rules of such societies as the Freemasons. The purpose of such rules is to define the parameteres of an organization, clarify who is a member and who is not, and define who gets to participate in certain aspects of the organization.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
Posted by: Dharmajim at August 7, 2005 08:30 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim,
Thank you for that concise explanation. I was unwilling to look into it {the vajra samaya} hard enough to found that out. That is why reader comment input, at this blog, is as, or more, important, at this blog, as my ramblings.
This is ideally a conversation, not my monologue. I always thought my talent was asking the hard, pointed questions, not necessarily answering them. That is one reason SGI always loved me so much. =:-0
I have a few more segments on Mikkyo. Learning this helps me make some sense out of those Gosho passages that always made my eyes my glaze over.
I think I had a flash of insight late last night on what Nichiren was getting at when he wrote the Kankenki in 1254.
Apparently, the *swearing in{?}* {blessing, sanctifying?} of the Emporers since Kammu had been very much a Shingon type ritual. I think the association of Tensho Daijin {Amaterasu} with Vairochana was implicit from the start. Or at least Nichiren saw it that way.
Nichiren wrote something like: 'culminating in Nichiren' and 'giving way to the new or living Buddha'. In other words, he is, in 1254, maybe already hinting at replacing the Shingon-Amaterasu/Dainichi ritual, with a Hokke-Shakyamuni rite, as the divine authority for the Ruler.
***Note: My entry on the Kankenki is being revised.
And when one looks at the Universal Salvation and Egalitarian message of the Lotus Sutra, this had radical implications. Some of His Fuji successors might have begged the issue and missed the point by identifying Nichiren himself with Dainichi-Amaterasu.
They also either intentionally or erroneously spread the notion that Nichiren had invented the Daimoku, and was therefore novel & unique. He was simply the first to propagate it widely. No one in India or China had done that; whereas they had propagated the Nembutsu and Zen.
This also casts a different light on his critique of Honen. Once simplified Nembutsu gained inplicit acceptance with the Senjuyi-Shingon and Shingon-Ritsu branches; what had been an egalitarian movement, was used by the Elitists as a tool, as an opiate for the masses.
I suspect Nichiren wanted the masses chanting the Daimoku, and helping him pull off his coup. And he felt that Honen had ultimately sold out.
Posted by: robin at August 7, 2005 02:54 PM