Robin Beck

Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Five

Previously, I wrote:

In "Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Five", I shall look more closely at the reason for this discrepancy of translation, the pedigree of the copies of this Gosho, and, maybe, a tangential issue – that of Nichiren's letters written in Kanji, as opposed to those written in kana, or a mixture of both scripts.

First, a relevant side issue. There are at least two authenticated letters, from 1275 & 1277, in which Nichiren possibly describes himself as the sovereign, father, mother, and teacher of Japan. However, he also explains that he is "the messenger of Shakyamuni Buddha" and "Bodhisattva Superior Practices -- the emissary of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni. In the 5 or 10 Major Writings, he makes it clear that only Shakyamuni possesses the Three Virtues {san-toku} and the Three Bodies {san-jin}. A

There are two lists of Nichiren's Major Doctrinal Writings. These are the Five Major Goibun and Ten Major Gosho. In these treatises, Nichiren establishes the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of the Hokke Shu. I have no idea who picked the Five Major Goibun. Nikko Shonin designated the Ten Major Gosho as the most important of Nichiren's works. The Kaimoku Sho is on both lists.

The "background" for Soka Gakkai's translation of the Kaimoku Sho begins with "This treatise is one of Nichiren Daishonin's most important writings, for he revealed himself here to be the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law who possesses the three virtues of sovereign, teacher and parent."

This startling conclusion, which seems to contradict the point Nichiren makes over and over, is based entirely on one sentence that appears near the end of the Soka Gakkai's translation of the Kaimoku Sho: "I, Nichiren, am sovereign, teacher, father and mother to all the people of Japan." --[The Opening of the Eyes - Part Two (WND030), Page 287, col 1, line 30, sentence 1 in paragraph 2]

Here is the same sentence/passage from the Nichiren Shu: "I Nichiren, am like a compassionate parent to everyone in Japan, whereas everyone in the Tendai School is their worst enemy. " Kaimoku-Sho, pp 328 and 330, NOPPA.

In defending the Nichiren Shu translation, John Petry wrote, " the 5 Major treatises of Nichiren were written in Classic Chinese not in Japanese. This includes Kaimoku Sho. "

John cited Burton Watson, who translated the SGI versions, using the Japanese in the Gosho Zenshu as a source. John wrote, "See for example Watson's Introduction in Volume One of the Major Writings, page xxxiv:

'Some are formal treatises on Buddhism with large numbers of quotations from Chinese doctrinal works and translations of sutras. Examples of such treatises are the 'Rissho Ankoku Ron' or On Securing the Peace of the Land through the Propagation of True Buddhism and the 'Kanjin no Honzon Sho' or the True Object of Worship. These treatises were written in classic Chinese, which like Latin in Europe until recent centuries, was widely employed in Japan for works of history, philosophy and religious doctrine. Nichiren Daishonin's writings in classic Chinese are marked by great power and fluency.' "

Elsewhere in that and similar threads, John blamed the addition of the words on "sovereign & teacher" on accretions to the text in the Goshu Zenshu. He wrote:

"Watson in his discussion of the NSIC translations admits that no attempt was made to compare the NSIC translations to the original documents. They were translations of the Gosho Zenshu without any attempt to cross reference to the originals."

and

" ... but the kana you refer to are added by the NST. It says something like shu, sho, shin followed by the kanji for father and mother in the Gosho zenshu. So we would have Nichiren saying "sovereign, teacher, parents, mother and father". Rather a bit redundant. "

In the discussion, dc, a defender of the SGI translation, accuses Nichiren Shu of excising those specific kana out of the text. He wrote, "Nikko Shonin admonished the elder priests who removed kana and burned some originals, because they did not think kana was respectable enough."

However, Lamont wrote, "a fascimile copy by the sixteenth century abbot Nikken exists at Hommanji in Kyoto and indicates the original was in mixed kana and kanji style." -- link

Also, according to another source, Kazuhiro Suzuki; "the Rissho Ankoku-ron and Kanjin no Honzon-sho are in kanji only, while the Kaimoku-sho, Senji-sho, Ho'on-sho are in kanji and kana. " [Kanji = classical Chinese Script. Kana = "a primarily syllabic script used by the Japanese writing system."]

So, John, who wrote that he working from memory, appears to be mistaken on one point -- the Kaimoku Sho was written in mixed kana and kanji style. However, I suspect that Taisekiji & SGI may have inserted some extra kana at some point, to change or read into the meaning of that sentence. Either way, I think I have shown it is moot. Nichiren saw himself as 'sovereign, parent, & teacher' to the people of Japan, in the context his role as messenger, emissary, or envoy of the Juryo Chapter.

Lamont also wrote "I know of no passage which, read normally and honestly, could have Nichiren calling himself sovreign of the Three Worlds. However, I'd have to study the work in detail. Besides even if he did so, the later works show him as messenger of the Lord of the Three Worlds. ... There is no doubt that Nichiren regarded Shakyamuni as Lord, Teacher, and Parent; his reference to himself as Compassionate Parent derives from the commentaries on the Great Nirvana Sutra; the Three Virtues of Shakyamuni are from the Hokekyo." -- ibid

As for the charge that "the elder priests who removed kana and burned some originals ". I have searched high & low for the source of this gossip. It appears to be from an extremely dubious document, "On Refuting the Five Priests." See Kazuo

Finally, the Kaimoku Sho, at present, is an A-U-C Gosho.

"A" means that it is authenticated.

"U" means what was confirmed to be a true gosho, however, the original was lost in the past.

"C" means what was copied by Nichiren's Shonin's direct disciples.

The original was lost in a 1875 or 1876 fire at Minobu. The same tragedy deprived us of the Sado Siken-no-Daimandara of July 08 1273 There are said to be three extant copies in the handwriting of the original disciples, kept at Minobu.

to be continued ...

Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Four

Previously, I wrote:

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.

The "BACKGROUND" for Soka Gakkai's translation of the Kaimoku Sho begins "This treatise is one of Nichiren Daishonin's most important writings, for he revealed himself here to be the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law who possesses the three virtues of sovereign, teacher and parent."

This startling conclusion, which contradicts the point Nichiren makes over and over, is based entirely on one sentence that appears near the end of the Soka Gakkai's translation of the Kaimoku Sho:

"I, Nichiren, am sovereign, teacher, father and mother to all the people of Japan. "

The Gosho Zenshu is in modern Japanese. It does not show the original text. It is said that the Gosho Zenshu version of Kaimoku Sho was translated from an annotated copy and the sentence was interpreted, based on notes, rather than literally translated. IIRC, Nichiko Hori oversaw the Japanese translations in the Gosho Zenshu. The source was a collection called the Gosho Shinpen.

The Nichiren Shu's rough equivalent of the "Gosho Zenshu" is translated from the "Showa Teihon Nichiren Shonin Ibun."

"The Showa Teihon does not have a modern version of Nichiren's gosho in it - only the original. There is a seven volume set whose name I can't think of right now which consists of only those gosho deemed authentic. These have the original on the top half and the modern Japanese on the bottom. My understanding is that the top half of these seven volumes are taken from the Showa Teihon. It is these seven volumes that are the basis of the current University of Hawaii translations." -- Ryuei

I was told that the same sentence in The Nichiren Shu's English version reads something like:

"I, Nichiren, am like a compassionate father and mother to all the people of Japan. "

The rest of that paragraph, from the Soka Gakkai's English most current version reads, ''But the men of the Tendai sect [who do not refute the misleading sects] are all great enemies of the people. As Chang-an has noted, 'One who rids the offender of evil is acting as his parent.' '

My take is that Nichiren compares himself to a compassionate parent because he scolded the people of Japan for their errors. He was not reassigning the "the three virtues of sovereign, teacher and parent" from Shakyamuni Buddha to himself. In 1264, Nichiren wrote, "This passage means that to us living beings the Thus Come One Shakyamuni is our parent, our teacher, and our sovereign." and "Although Amida, Medicine Master, and other Buddhas are sovereigns to us living beings, they are neither parents nor teachers. "

In 1270, Nichiren had written, "Shakyamuni, the World-Honored One, who is our father and mother and is endowed with the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent ... " In 1272, "Thus Shakyamuni Buddha alone fulfills the three functions of sovereign, teacher, and parent."

But, but, ... that was before Tatsu-no-kuchi! After Tatsu-no-kuchi he revealed that he, not Shakyamuni, was the True Buddha? Right?

In 1275, Nichiren would write, ... Shakyamuni, our real sovereign, parent and enlightened teacher ... "Then, in 1276, "Shakyamuni is the original teacher for all people, as well as their sovereign and their parent."

Next, in 1277, more than four years after the Kaimoku Sho, he wote "this present country of Japan is the domain of Shakyamuni Buddha. Not only do the Sun Goddess, Great Bodhisattva Hachiman, Emperor Jimmu and all the other gods as well as the ruler of the nation on down to the common people all dwell within his realm, but he is a Buddha to whom we are greatly indebted on three accounts. First, he is our sovereign; second, he is our teacher; and third, he is our parent mong all the Buddhas of the ten directions, only Shakyamuni Buddha is endowed with these three virtues.."

In 1279, "Strangely enough, they do not follow Shakyamuni, who is their sovereign, teacher, and parent. "

Soooo, why is there this radical discrepancy between what Nichiren wrote and all the other Nichiren schools teach; versus the innovative Taisekiji dogma that Soka Gakkai still promotes? Is it all about one sentence that the Nichikan {sic} Shoshu Taisekiji School believes conveys a secret doctrine? Exactly where did the compilers of the "Gosho Zenshu" find the words "sovereign & teacher" in that sentence? Did the Nichiren Shu redact the text to conceal Nichiren's true identity? Enquiring minds want to know.

In "Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Five", I shall look more closely at the reason for this discrepancy of translation, the pedigree of the copies of this Gosho, and, maybe, a tangential issue – that of Nichiren's letters written in Kanji, as opposed to those written in kana, or a mixture of both scripts.

to be continued ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: Apparently, the Gosho Shinpen [or Goshô Shimpen] is the rough Taisekiji equiivalent of the Showa Teihon Nichiren Shonin Ibun. The Showa Teihon differs in that the "C" Goibun are not included in the main section; these are in a supplement. The Showa Teihon main section includes both "A" and "B" Goibun

The Goshu Zenshu is evidently Taisekiji's modern Japanese version of the Gosho Shinpen. It has modern Japanese only. The Nichiren Shu has something somewhat similar in seven volumes. This seven volume set includes only "A" Goibun, with some "B" Goibun deemed authentic enough. This seven volume set has both the orginal, on top, and the modern Japanese on the bottom. From what I undestand, the modern Japanese is annotated with alternate readings.

As far as I know, neither the Gosho Shinpen nor the Goshu Zenshu distinguish the "A", "B", or "C".

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 ...

Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Two

The SGI Translation of the Kaimoku Sho from "The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin" begins with:

"There are three categories of people that all men and women should respect. They are the sovereign, the teacher, and the parent ..." This principle is evidently from Confucianism, which formed the basis of Nichiren's ethical mores. The same paragraph continues, ... "There are three types of doctrines that are to be studied. They are Confucianism, Brahmanism, and Buddhism."

Confucianism has sort of a "shame based" morality, in that it is rooted in a series of social obligations or debts of gratitude owed to others. Failure to meet these obligations are "sins of omission" that result in public humiliation, shame, or "loss of face." The most paramount of these obligations are owed to one's sovereign, teacher, and parents. By contrast, western ethics are more rooted in a "guilt based" morality. Rather than social conduct being compelled by duty, anti-social conduct is restrained by prohibitions. Those guilty of commiting prohibited acts, or "Sins of Commission," incur debts that must be repaid.

Buddhsm, of course, comes from Brahminism, which is an Indo-Euoropean or western religion, albeit influenced by eastern thought. Classical Hinduism does have a vaguely similar concept of Social Duties. There are three general debts owed by men. These are; learning a skill, owed to one's teachers; fathering a male heir, owed to the family clan, and performance of sacrifices, owed to the Benevolent Deities. There was a built in loophole though. A man could be relieved of these mundane chores by renouncing secular life and becoming a religious mendicant. Of course, that meant giving up the rewards inherent in meeting the three social obligations, those being wealth {artha}, lusty pleasures {kama}, and karmic merit {dharma}. BTW, the people were happy to offer alms to mendicants; by doing so, they earned karmic merit and hope of happy hereafter. Meanwhile, the reward of the mendicant was spiritual liberation {moksha}.

At any rate, 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, one could fulfill one's obligations to one's Ruler, teachers, and parents, by serving the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha. This Celestial Shakyamuni Buddha can be thought of as the personal aspect, or personification of, the Impersonal Eternal Dharma.

In 1270, Nichiren had written, "Shakyamuni, the World-Honored One, who is our father and mother and is endowed with the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent ... ." In 1272, "Thus Shakyamuni Buddha alone fulfills the three functions of sovereign, teacher, and parent."

Again, Nichiren was evidently saying 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.

There were two main ways that the Buddha of the Juryo Chapter was imaged:

1. The Shaka Raigo or Celestial Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Shakyamuni Buddha ascended, or suspended in the sky. [After Nichiren, flanked by the 4 attendants.]

2. The Two Buddhas, Shaka & Taho Nyorai, seated in the Celestial Stupa or Treasure Tower. [After Nichiren, flanked by the 4 attendants; sometimes with the Daimoku Stupa in the center.]

Note that veneration of the Celestial Shakyamuni of the Lotus Sutra was not Nichiren's invention. It predates him by at least 800 years. It is appears that devotion to Shakyamuni suffered in competition with Amida and other Celestial Buddhas. However, there was a back to Shakyamuni movement in Kamakura Era Japan that had started before Nichiren was born. I plan to cover that a bit more that in "Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Six."

There is nothing in the Kaimoku Sho that "shows Nichiren Daishonin to be the original Buddha. " I plan to cover that in "Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part Three." I think some will be surprised.

to be continued ...

Kaimoku -- Opening One's Eyes Part One

The Kaimoku Sho {The Opening of the Eyes} is one of Nichiren's most important writings known as Gosho or Goibun. It was completed on February 11 of 1272. At the time, Nichiren was in exile at Sado Island. His living quarters consisted of a small hut adjacent to a cemetery at a place then called Tsukuhara. This hut became known as the Sanmaido {samadhi hall}.

Nichiren was at this location during an especially harsh winter, from about November 1 1271 until April of 1272. Several of his closest disciples had accompanied him into exile, including Byakuren-Ajari Nikko {1246-1333}, Sado-ko/Minbu Niko {1253 - 1314}, & Renge-Ajari Nichiji {(1250-1305}. It is thought that Niko {one k} stayed at Nichiren's side throughout the winter, hence, Nichiren called him Sado-ko {Alternative Spelling Sado-bo}.

As Charles wrote October 30, 2004, in The Reopening of the Eyes, at Phantom City "Nichiren wrote this seminal work in 1272 during his freezing, death-defying exile to Sado Island. I can’t think of a more intellectually challenging Gosho than this one. Nichiren discusses the merits and faults of Confucianism, Taoism, Brahmanism, Theravada, provisional Mahayana, esoteric and exoteric Buddhism, the Nirvana Sutra, and all salient aspects of the Lotus Sutra. Great pains are taken to clarify the difference and appropriateness of shoju and shakubuku.... "

The Gosho itself is very redundant and I can see how some people might lose patience with it. To get the most out of this Gosho, I recommend time and persistence. One needs to use the glossary, a Buddhist dictionary, read the footnotes, the endnotes, and vigorously follow the leads in the bibliography, letting it take you wherever it might lead you."

There is a lot in this Goibun. I am not going to cover it all -- just a point or two. Apparently, prior to this, Nichiren had presented himself as a Tendai Monk, one dedicated to reforming that school. However, at Sado, he begins to present himself as the advent of Jogyo Bosatsu, the Leader of the "Bodhiisattvas from the Underground" and the Envoy or Messenger of Shakyamuni Buddha for the Latter Day of the Dharma.

Around this time, he also began, or maybe continued, to strongly assert Shakyamuni as the source of all other Buddhas. But there is a caveat. He makes a distinction between Gotama; the historical, suijakushin {provisional, transient, trace, or imprint form/identity}, aka the Nirmana-kaya/Ojin {Manifestation or Tranformation Body} aka the Bhagavan/Seson {Blessed One, World Honored One} of the Lotus Sutra Upaya/Hoben {Approach}Chapter Two; and the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha -- Shakyamuni Buddha of the Tathagata/Nyorai {Thus Came One} Juryo {Lifespan} Chapter 16; aka the Shaka Raigo {Celestial or Ascended Shakyamuni Buddha}, Honjishin {Origin, Source, Real, True Form/Identity}, or Sambogha- kaya/Hojin {alt. sp. hoshin}{The Idealized Body}. The Sambogha-kaya Buddha can be thought of as the personification of the Eternal Dharma.

Here are some excerpts from the Kaimoku Sho concerning "the Shakyamuni Buddha ... that .. gained enlightenment in the far distant past":

"All the other sutras such as the Kegon, Hannya and Dainichi ... teach that Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment for the first time in this world, ... they fail to reveal the fact, stressed in the [Origin, Source, Real, True] teaching, that the Buddha attained enlightenment countless kalpas ago."

"When we consider the matter in this light, we can see that the Vairochana Buddha ... as described in the Kegon Sutra, the ... Shakyamuni described in the Agon sutras, ... the provisional Buddhas described in the sutras of the Hodo and Hannya periods such as the Konkomyo, Amida and Dainichi sutras are no more than reflections of the Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo chapter."

"These great bodhisattvas, deities, dragons and others who appeared at the assembly described in the Kegon Sutra were beings who had dwelt in "inconceivable emancipation" since before Shakyamuni Buddha began preaching. Perhaps they were disciples of Shakyamuni when he was carrying out bodhisattva practices in previous existences, or perhaps they were disciples of previous Buddhas of the worlds of the ten directions. In any event, they were not disciples of the Shakyamuni who first attained enlightenment in this world and expounded his lifetime teachings."

"When Shakyamuni Buddha revealed that he had gained enlightenment in the far distant past, it became apparent that all the other Buddhas were emanations of Shakyamuni. ."

"Therefore the people who pay devotion to one or another of these Buddhas as the object of worship customarily look down on Shakyamuni Buddha. But now it becomes apparent that Vairochana Buddha, who is described in the Kegon Sutra as being seated on a lotus pedestal, and the various Buddhas who appear in the sutras of the Hodo and Hannya periods, such as the Dainichi Sutra, are all in fact followers of Shakyamuni Buddha."

The Shakyamuni Buddha of the Juryo Chapter, who gained enlightenment in the far distant past, can be thought of as a personal aspect, or personification of, the Eternal Dharma Itself.

to be continued ...

What Would Make YOU Happy?

What would make you happy -- a dream house, a dream job, dreamy people?

The kind of happiness derived from Buddhism does not depend on those things. In fact, many who escape the 9-5 rut find themselves dreadfully bored, and wind up pursuing hedonistic pleasures. As a result, they are no different than restless, hungry ghosts.

On the other hand, the compassion and wisdom derived from Buddhist chanting meditation is helpful in "getting ahead" or "getting out of dodge". If we can somehow chant for 'compassion and wisdom' while "in a rut", then we can figure out the best way to get out of the rut.

One problem many people identify with is difficult people; poor relationships with bosses, co-workers or family members, etc. That is a relatively easy one to solve. If one can do Mantra Powered Visualization, Zange, and Metta Cultivation, for a fortnight; the result will amaze both self and others. It is in our hands.

Mantra Powered Visualization/Amazing Grace

Chakra Chanting/Pix /Sounds

Zange

Confession & Metta Cultivation
Metta Bhavana {cultivation} is a practice to cultivate loving kindness. This is often done as a guided silent meditation. I worked the metta cultivation into the Zange and Mantra Powered Chakra Visualization Ritual. Here are two recorded guided metta meditations {Real Player needed}:

This one explains how the process works; how affection is expanded from a conditional, selfish, & partial attachment to an unconditioned or universal loving kindness: metta

This is an actual guided meditation session: Metta

A Basic Buddhism Guide: Loving-kindness Meditation , by Ven Pannyavaro.

Mantra Chanting, do Zange, do the Metta Cultivation. Time commitment: one or two 20 minute sessions a day.

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
Na Mu Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo

Posted by rbeck at May 19, 2006 07:17 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mantra Powered Visualization

The method I use centers on the Nichiren Lotus Sutra Mantra. The Om Mani Mantra also works well for Mantra Powered Visualization. See Om Mani Padme Hum & Four Armed Chenrizig. The caveat is I suggest balancing it with a Wisdom-Insight Cultivation such as; the Manjusri Mantra, or the Heart Sutra {Heart Sutra in English.} For really tough immediate problems with agressively hostile people, try compassionately sending them the Green Tara Mantra.

Zange {Zahn-gay}

For a Kuan Yin version, the "Great Compassion Mantra/Dharani" may be used. See Da Bei Zhou and The Dharma of Repentance of the Great Compassion.

For more in depth on Zange: see The Confessional Samadhi of the Lotus Sutra and Samantabhadra/Fugen Meditation Sutra

These would require more time commitment.

PostScript

How does one deal with difficult people?

Is it the person, or their actions thay are annoying? If it is their actions, should we treat them as they treat us? Is that person hurting us? If so, why? Can we change ourselves so that such people no longer hurt us? Or is it possible to simply avoid such people?

Do we react to such people with compassion & wisdom? Or do we react with resentment and other defiled emotions? It takes wisdom and insight to discern and defeat conniving people, metta & compassion to avoid becoming like them.

The Jaya Mangala Gatha illustrates this rather well.

JAYAMANGALA-GATHA w/ Translation into English by Lionel Lokuliyana

Buddhist Chanting Click to listen to the chanting in MP3 format:
Sunnataram Forest Monastery

Wayfarers:

Buddhist Hymns

Buddhist Hymns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Love your brother and sister
Like your own soul. Cherish them.
Like the apple of your eye.

...

No grapes
Are gathered from thorn,
nor are figs plucked from camelthorn.
Good persons produce good from their treasure.
Evil people bring forth evil from their hearts,
speaking evil when they express themselves.

...

Be wise as serpents,and innocent as doves.

...

When will begin the repose of the dead?
And when will the new world appear?
The sanctuary you expect is here,
Although you cannot recognize it.

...

Those who seek shall find
and the doors will be opened to them.
Who knock.

...

The heavens will be rolled back, and the earth unfurled
before your eyes.
The Loving One sees neither death nor fear

---

When will the kingdom come?
It will never come if you are
expecting it. Nobody will say look here
or look there. Yet the kingdom
is spread throughout the earth and no one sees it.

Sorting it Out: SGI, Nichikan & Nichiren Shoshu

Guest Entry: by elessarjrr [John] of IRG
IRGdaimoku · SGI-USA Independent Reassessment Group (IRG)

I thought I'd mention that I have always thought of him [John] in a John Adams/Benjamin Franklin role for the IRG. " -- Andy "Thomas Jefferson/ Paine" Hanlen

The Taisekiji interpretation of Nichiren's teachings make that school somewhat akin to a fundamentalist Christian version of Nichiren Buddhism. Whether one is a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or some version of any other mainstream religion with a long standing tradition, fanaticism is generally an indication of a perversion of the founder's basic teachings. It is virtually impossible to argue the truth of one particular religion versus another, but the fringe groups within a particular religion usually got to that point by being overly intolerant and particularly arrogant about their version of the truth.

This often happens as a result of someone's desire to exaggerate some special teaching which only they include in their doctrine. It is generally a power grab of some kind, or an attempt to increase their importance within the larger group they are part of. Nichiren Shoshu is certainly a perfect example of that. The machinations of Nichiu and Nichikan are textbook examples of religious leaders trying to advance the importance of their fringe group by making their teaching appear special and "more orthodox" than others, while in fact only serving to further separate their small group from the mainstream.

For Nichiren Buddhists this is particularly sad, as the Nichiren Shoshu doctrine is the only version of Nichiren Buddhism most Americans have been exposed to. Whether propagated by SGI or Nichiren Shoshu, that doctrine makes Nichiren and his Buddhism appear to be incredibly intolerant and exclusivistic. While Nichiren himself was certainly an ardent reformer, his primary goal was to reassert the primacy of The Lotus Sutra among Buddhist teachings and establish a practice which would make it possible for anyone to devote himself to those teachings. He pointed out more than once that he considered himself a Tendai priest, and not the founder of a new religion.

What is sad is that the Soka Gakkai hitched their wagon to that specific doctrine. By making such a big deal of the split they have basically accomplished nothing other than "out Nichiren Shoshuing" Nichiren Shoshu. It is very sad, since they had an opportunity to dump the incorrect doctrine much the same way Bush had an opportunity to bring the world together after 9/11. Instead, he chose a set of actions which did nothing but further alienate the US from the rest of the world.

The SGI has done the same within the larger world of Nichiren Buddhism. Early on we jumped all over Nikken regarding a memo he wrote regarding the Dai Gohonzon when he was Nichiren Shoshu's study department chief. Even though we knew that memo to be correct (and are now openly stating, though "unofficially," the contradictions in the doctrine supporting a concept like an Ita Mandara), we had a knee jerk reaction and used it to strike out at Nikken. Now we are reversing our position and once again look as foolish as we have at several other steps along the way. This will keep occurring as we are forced to continue to contradict ourselves as we distance The SGI from Nichiren Shoshu's aberrant doctrine.

For those of us who still practice Nichiren's Buddhism, and especially for those of us still tied in some way to the SGI, the kind of research Robin is doing is very important. As he says, we have the opportunity to sort out the correct teachings for ourselves, which is vastly superior to having the incorrect ones shoved down our throats.

Thanks,

John Nicks

IRGdaimoku · SGI-USA Independent Reassessment Group (IRG)

Group Information

* Members: 219
* Category: Buddhism
* Founded: Aug 29, 1999
* Language: English

Our Mission Statement:

We, as members of the SGI-USA, have formed this Independent Reassessment Group because we believe that there is a need for reformation of aspects of our American organization which will enable it to better support the practice and study of Nichiren Daishonin's teachings and promote the spread of this philosophy in the United States. We will offer positive steps toward the goal of assisting the SGI-USA in returning to its primary mission: becoming an organization which is responsive to, and attractive to, an American membership. We hope to foster reasonable discussion and debate about these issues, which will be made accessible to all members, both those active in our organization and those who are not currently involved, and we will make every effort to promote their implementation. We want our organization to become a dynamic force for expansion of the kosen-rufu movement in America by developing a program for steady and sustainable growth.

Takeda Katsuyori ate my Transfer Dox?

The originals of a number of Nikko Shonin's most important documents are kept at Honmon Shu Nishiyama Honmon-ji. These include, but are not limited to:

*The "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku" {Record of the Passing of the Founder}.

*The "Hakasho Mamorubeki Bancho no Koto" {The Shift for Protecting His Mausoleum}.

*A letter dated February 19th, 1285 written by Hakiri Sanenaga to Nikko.

See: The Real Transfer Dox

So what is Nishiyama Honmonji and how did they acquire all these original documents? Here is a little history:

Nikko died on February 7 1333. Iyo Nichidai (1294-1394), who was Nikko's nephew, and one of six major discpiles at Omosu, succeeded him as CP/Abbot at Omosu Hokke Honmonji Kongen {present day Kitayama Honmonji Temple}. In 1334, Iyo Nichidai defeated Joren-bo Nissen (1262-1357), a Taisekiji Elder, in an early "Itchi versus Shoretsu" debate. Nissen argued an extreme "Shoretsu" position; that the Shakumon is useless and should be discarded completely. In defending the Shakumon, Iyo Nichidai argued an extreme "Itchi" position; he proposed that the Shakumon and Honmon are equal.

Joren-bo {or Hyakkan-bo} Nissen (1262-1357} lost the debate. He then left for Takase in Sanuki province. Meanwhile, the perceived extreme nature of Iyo Nichidai's views cost him credibility with his peers; he was ousted within a decade, and replaced by another of Nikko's 6 major Omosu disciples, one named Nichimyo. Around 1343, Iyo Nichidai settled at Nishiyama, where he founded Hokke-do, which later became Nishiyama Honmonji. Nishiyama was a village near Ueno, Omosu, & Koizumi. Today, all 4 of those villages are part of Fujinomiya City.

I suppose that Iyo Nichidai may have taken all those important documents with him when he left Omosu. However, there are problems with that. For one thing, there would have been a row, and I suspect we would have heard about it.

Also, from 1470 -1479 Nichigen (?-1486) at Nishiyama Honmonji developed an early version of the "Nichiren as the Hon-Butsu Theory." He also may have forged the first versions of the infamous "Two Transfer Documents." It appears that he used these apparent forgeries to press a legal claim, a claim that the Nishiyama Honmonji lineage was not only the valid successor of Nikko, but also the sole valid successor of Nichiren himself.

Nichigen apparently failed in this coup, but his views regarding "Nichiren as the Hon-Butsu Theory" and the "Two Transfer Documents" were taken up by the then Chief Priest of Taisekiji. At any rate, given these circumstances, it seems unlikely that Nichigen at Nishiyama Honmonji had possession of the "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku" aka "The Real Transfer Documents."

From what I can gather, sometime around 1500, the Hokke Shu was renamed Nichiren Shu. Then, in 1515, Omosu Honmonji Kongen officially took the name Omosu Honmonji. The Nichiren Shu Komon Ha was officially founded the same year, based at Omosu Honmonji.

Around 1581, it looks like Nishiyama might have made another legal claim to be the legitimate Honmonji. This time, they were evidently supported by the Takeda Clan, who were, at the time, the ruling Kanto Region warlords. The Nishiyama claim was likely based on a "Nikko to Iyo Nichidai Heritage Theory." It appears that Taisekiji sided with the Head Temple of Komon Ha at Omosu.

Talk of the two transfer documents seems to have resurfaced. Nishiyama still stands accused, by Taisekiji, of stealing the original transmission documents from Omosu/Kitayama. Taisekiji alleges these were never recovered.

"Both transfer documents were stored at Omosu Seminary {sic} (present day Kitayama Honmonji Temple of the Nichiren-shu sect of Mount Minobu {sic}). On March 17th, 1581, many sacred treasures including The Two Transfer Documents were violently stolen by the followers of Nishiyama Honmonji Temple and the lord of Kai Province, Takeda Katsuyori, and his vassals and soldiers, who supported Nishiyama Honmonji Temple and antagonized Kitayama Honmonji Temple." -- Reverend Shoshin Kawabe of Nichiren Shoshu.

Note that he calls Omosu Hokke Honmoji Kongen Temple "Omosu Seminary," which is a typical Taisekiji slur on an estranged sister Temple.

There is maybe a very tiny kernel of truth in that tale. This may be how Nishiyama Honmonji obtained the "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku." But it certainly makes no sense that they would 'lose' "Two Transfer Dox"; documents that would have supported a claim that the Nishiyama Honmonji lineage was not only the valid successor of Nikko, but also the sole valid successor of Nichiren himself; while retaining documents which tend to disprove those same claims.

1874: The Meiji Government merged the Komon Ha with the Nichiren Shu Shoretsu Branch.

1876: Eight Major Temples of the Komon Ha, including Nishiyama Honmonji, withdraw from the Shoretsu Branch.

1899: Komon Ha of Nichiren Shu officially became Honmon Shu, based at Kitayama Honmonji. A "Ha" is a sub-school, rebel sect, or faction; a "Shu" is an actual school recognized by the Central Authority. Kitayama is the modern name of Omosu Village.

1941: Honmon Shu rejoins Nichiren Shu

1949: Honmon Shu, led by Nishiyama Honmonji. withdrew from Nichiren Shu. Kitayama Honmonji, Koizumi Kuonji, and Jitsujoji Temple at Aizu remained with Nichiren Shu. Shimojo Myorenji at Ueno joined Nichiren Shoshu. Taisekiji had left Honmon Shu in 1900, and founded Nichiren Shoshu in 1912. Yoho-ji seceded from Nichiren Shu and became Nichiren Honshu.

1992: "In Heisei 4 [1992], November, the Gosenge Kiroku (in the archives of Nishiyama Honmonji that was written by Nikko, was designated an important national property, and its [contents] made open to the public. It was written in Koan 5 [1282] Oct 16." -- Nichiren Buddhism Modern Religious Institute

1997: The Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho" {Distribution of the Mementos} and Minobusan-shuban-cho" {Minobusan Guard Rotation} were discredited as they contradict and are not included in the Kiroku. Some unrevised scholarly works still cite those as valid parts of the "Record of the Passing of the Founder}."

Sorting out the Transfer "Dox"?

Question: How and when did the "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku" and the "Hakasho Mamorubeki Bancho no Koto" get from Omosu to Nishiyama?

Before one can begin to infer or conject, there is a lot of background. Like what is the "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku"?

The "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku" {Record of the Passing of the Founder} exists in the original at Nishiyama Honmon-ji, a Nikko lineage temple that is said to be the Head Temple of the Honmon Shu. The Kiroku is a detailed record of Nichiren's last days. It was recorded, signed, & sealed by Nikko. It also bears the co-signatures & seals of Nissho, Nichiro, and Nichiji.

More: The Real Transfer Dox

There were originally two Nikko Lineage Temples. These were Honmonji Kongen at Omosu, headed by Nikko himself; and Taisekiji, headed by Nichimoku. Consistent legends place the original transfer documents in a Treasure Box at Omosu. That 'box' is there now, but the "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku" is not.

So what is Nishiyama Honmonji and how did they get the original transfer documents?

First we need to discuss the founding of Omosu Honmonji Kongen. I look at various versions of that story here:

Omosu & Taisekiji

As the reader can see, the current English version of the "Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism" gives what is the modern Taisekiji position, assuming that has not changed recently. However, based on an independent translation, the newer SGI's "Great Dictionary of Buddhist Philosophy (the 3rd edition)" modifies that position considerably. It shall be interesting to see what happens if and when SGI does a new translation.

Why Sort it Out?

I mean the history. Over the centuries, there have been major and minor feuds that divided and sub-divided Nichiren's followers. Most of these were either resolved long ago, or are now moot. Taking sides now is ludicrous.

From 1285-1289, Nikko revolted against the terms of Nissho's settlement with the Hojo Regency of the Kamakura Shogunate. Nikko may well have been right. But that has no bearing today. I have little interest in defending the actions of Nissho, Nichiro, & Niko. If we determine that Nissho should have made a stronger stand, then what do we do about it? I do not even know what their actions were, not with any certainty. Arguing who was right only impedes objective fact finding.

There were other squabbles that even sub-divided Nikko's lineage. These are all interesting to study. But other than academics; getting the various conflicting
histories reconciled, to the extent possible, so what?

What should matter, IMCO, to SGI, is re-examining Nichiren Shoshu teachings as strongly as Nichiren Shoshu re-examined the SGI approach. That is the main reason to sort it out.

IMO, SGI's attachment to Taisekiji dogma, especially Nikko as Sole Heir; and the baggage that entails, disorts the intention of Nichiren's Practice, which is "Kanjin". It, Taisekiji dogma, results in ARBN, Soka Spit, etc.

Viewing Nichiren as the Original Buddha of Kuon Ganjo results in supercessionist nonsense that separates us from the rich tradition of authentic Buddhism. It also impedes transcending the temporal limits of Nichiren's vision.

Then there is the Ita-Honzon issue.

Those are not only academic issues.

Dubious Transmission Documents

On the Events After Nichiren's Passing

In The Real Transfer Dox Revised 5-3-2006 I discuss some of the authenticated documents that provide clues about the events after Nichiren's passing. There are also several oft quoted "dox" which are of dubious origins.

Two of these are from the Ikegami Temple of the Nichiren Shu Nichiro Lineage :

1. The "Go-ibutsu-haibun-cho" {Distribution of the Mementos} kept at Ikegami.
2. The "Minobusan-shuban-cho" {Minobusan Guard Rotation} kept at Ikegami.

These were apparently discredited in 1997, following the 1993 public release of the "Shuso Gosenge Kiroku". I have read references on the Web to two Nichiro Lineage Transfer Documents which were discovered to be forged by later followers. These might be "The Distribution of the Mementos" and "The Minobusan Guard Rotation Notes." Some unrevised, older scholarly texts still treat these as authentic.

There are also several dubious Taisekiji Documents that Nichiren Shoshu continues to insist are authentic:

1. The "Nichiren Ichigo Guho Fuzoku Sho" {MinobuTransfer Document} kept at Taisekeji.

2. The "Ikegami-sojo-sho" {The Ikegami Transfer Document} kept at Taisekeji.

Together, those are known as the Two Transfer Documents. They were likely fabricated circa 1482.

3. Ryo Kechimyaku sho’ : two writings supposedly written by Nichiren, but which scholars believe to be forgeries from the Edo Era. These are the ‘Hyakku Rokka Sho.’ {One Hundred and six articles}." and "Honin Myo Sho" {On the Mystic Principle of the True Cause}.
.

There are several others that contain what appear to be internal inconsistencies as well as anachronisms. The most important are:

4. On Refuting the Five Priests {Gonin-shoha-sho}. This is allegedly a completion of Jakusen-bo Nitcho's draft of "Guidelines for Believers of the Fuji School". "On Refuting the Five Priests" is attributed to Sammi Nichijun, second chief instructor of Omosu Seminary at Kitayama/Omosu Honmonji. My best guess is that it was fabricated in the 17th Century at the earliest. There is no original; but I do not know when the extant version was recorded. It is dated 1328.

5. The Twenty six Admonitions of Nikko {Nikko-yuikai-okibumi} aka The Twenty-six Warning Articles. Attributed to Nikko and dated 01/13/1333, less than a month before his death. I think there was an original but it has been revised many times. I suspect the bulk of the current version dates to the 17th Century at the earliest.

6. Transfer Document to Nichimoku {Nikko Ato Jojo no Koto} aka Articles Regarding the Succession of Nikko aka Articles to be Observed after Nikko's Passing.

7. The Nikko Shonin Yui Ato no-Koto. This, IIRC, is alleged to be "Nichimoku's receipt." It might be a hoax.

Here is a possible partial translation: "That (DaiGohonzon which is described {sic} in the Nikko Ato-joujou no koto, the Transfer Document from Nikko to Nichimoku) which was entrusted upon the person of Nikko (in the 2nd year of Koan) is the Plank Gohonzon. It is now here at this temple (Taisekiji). The Hall is where the Plank Gohonzon is.... 3rd Month, 2nd Year of Shoukei (1333) Nichimoku Seal"

8. The Nippo Den. The Taisekiji story of the origin of their 'Daigohonzon' comes from a letter allegedly written by Nichiren in 1282. It is called Jogyo Shoden-sho, Matsunodono Gosho, or Biography of Nippo {Nippo Den}. It also contains anachronisms.

One more: "Sanshi Goden Dodai" {Biographies of the Three Teachers} which includes biographies of Nichiren Daishonin, Nikko Shonin & Nichimoku Shonin. It was allegedy authored by Niida Nichido (1283 - 1341). the Third Abbot/CP of Taisekiji. He was the second son Niida {Nitta}Goro Jiro Yoritsuna of Izu Province; IOW, Nichimoku's nephew.

More:

'Seven articles and fourteen important points of the object of devotion.'

‘The Threefold Orally Transmitted Teaching,’

'Seven Articles for Transcribing the Gohonzon (Honzon Shichika no kuden)'

'Important Points for Transcribing the Gohonzon” (Honzon Hippo)

'The Transmission of Seven Teachings on the Gohonzon (Gohonzon Shichika Sojo)'

'The Transmission of Three Points on the Gohonzon (Honzon Sando Soden)'

Dial Up Internet

Posted by rbeck at 04:34 AM | Comments (0)