The very first of the major precepts given by the Buddha to laypeople is to not kill or harm other beings. One of the four offenses for which a monk can be permanently expelled from the Sangha (the monastic Sangha that is) is to kill another human being (a prohibition which includes participating in or encouraging abortion, suicide, or euthanasia). Monks are also prohibited from being present on battlefields or from travelling with armies. I speak only of the monks here because the nuns have a different set of precepts - though I know that the prohibition against killing is also one of the eight offences for which a nun can be permanent expelled.
On the other hand, the Buddha had several kings, princes, generals, and members of the warrior caste who were considered lay-followers and had taken refuge. The Buddha never forbid them from fulfilling the duties of their positions, and it is known that several of them did wage wars of self-defence during the life-time of the Buddha and did execute criminals. It is true also that the Buddha did on at least one occasion save a the serial-killer Angulimala from being apprehended and executed on the grounds that he had become an arhat. And on several occasions the Buddha prevented the Shakyas and another clan from going to war. But he did not stop every occasion of capital punishment and war. And on many occasions as the kings excused themselves to leave the presence of the Buddha he would say to them: "Now is the time to do as you see fit." I take this to mean that the Buddha did not presume to tell these kings, generals and princes what to do - even though they were lay followers. Rather, he taught them the Dharma and then trusted them to follow their own good judgement for better or worse.
So what I am building to is this. The first precept would seem to prohibit war or the use of deadly force in any situation. NBIC's publication "Awakening the Lotus" states:
The most important goal of any belief is the improvement of self and of the world in general. As a meaningful Buddhist group, Nichiren Shu and its practitioners must strive for the peace, happiness, and enlightenment of ever living thing. Human life and the environment must be cherished and protected, and society must be encouraged toward peace and happiness. Therefore, the Nichiren Shu firmly holds the convictions of opposition to all war, prohibition of nuclear arms, and justice and peace in society. Besides promoting these values in society, we believe that by living as the Buddha taught us in the Lotus Sutra and by following the teachings of Nichiren Shonin, we can manifest these values naturally. We also spread this peace and happiness through the world by teaching others to follow the Buddha's teachings. " (p. 20)
I think it should go without saying that war is a bad thing, no matter what the reasons are. By extension, police actions wherein the UN or some group of nations invades another to restore the peace or prevent genocide or some other grave injustice are also occasions in which violence has been resorted to out of desperation and so this too is a tragic occasion.
In Asia, Buddhism never had power or responsibility over any state (except perhaps briefly under King Ashoka and even then he did not establish Buddhism as a state religion). In fact, Buddhism was more often than not subsumed into the beauracracy and kept strictly under control. Buddhist peace activism is a product of the democracies of the 20th century. The point, however, is that Buddhism was never in a position to tell any government that it could not wage war, and if waged how to conduct it in a way that would not create more damage than the wrongs the war was supposedly being fought to redress.
In the West, however, the European nations for a long time were under the domination, to varying degrees, of the Church. This did not stop European nobles from waging war on each other, and of course the teachings of Jesus did not prevent Church leaders themselves from calling for crusades. In the face of all this, scholars and theologians drawing upon the resources of Western philosophy, ethics, critical thinking and respect for the conscience and responsibility of the individual evolved, for better or worse, the doctrine of the "just war." The "just war" doctrine is interesting to me because it was, perhaps I could say is, an attempt by the West to find a balance between the ethical imperative to avoid war and the right to defend oneself, one's family and community, and those for whom one is responsible (so a fuedal lord was responsible for protecting the lives of his serfs and vassals, today a policeman is responsible for the lives of the innocent people in his or her jurisdiction, the president is responsible for the lives of his or her nation).
In talking to the NBIC just this morning, I learned that while the Nichiren Shu definately opposes war (and really is there anyone who would try to argue that war is a good thing?), it is unclear as to whether this policy excludes legitimate self-defense. I was told that at the moment no one should say that there is an official policy which would exclude legitimate self-defense. Hopefully a clearer answer will come from Japan, and I currently await that and will share it when it is forthcoming.
In the meantime, I would like to present my own thoughts on the right of a nation to self-defense and to redress injustices that are so grave that war becomes a lesser evil. This should not be called a "just war" doctrine so much as "the proper way to end a war if force must be met with force" doctrine. Anyway, here is my unerstanding of this doctrine (the articulation of which I have borrowed and adapted from another source which I will not reveal due to the prejudices against that source - I wish it to stand or fall on its own merits and not its associations):
The first precept forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, Buddhists should witness in their daily practices and in their actions, as responsible citizens, to the possibilities of peace and to liberation from the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance which lead to war.
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.
Buddhism asserts universal working of the law of cause and effect - including during armed conflict. Even if one must use force to defend oneself or others, this does not mean that violence suddenly becomes a good cause or that violence, coercion, and hatred will not sow karmic seeds which must at some point come to fruition. Bearing this in mind, combatants should restrain themselves as much as possible and not rationalize their actions.
Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against the Buddha-nature of all sentient beings, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as people contain within them all then worlds including the lower realms, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until the attainment of buddhahood; but insofar as they can overcme the defilements by cultivating the eightfold path and the six perfections in the true spirit of the Wonderful Dharma, violence itself will be vanquished and these words of the Lotus Sutra will be realized: "In reality this world of mine is peaceful It is filled with gods and humans. The gardens, forests, and stately buildings are adorned with various treasures. The jewelled trees have many flowers and fruits. The living beings are enjoying themselves and the gods are beating heavnly drums, making various kinds of music, and raining mandarava flowers on the great multitude and me."
So this, to me, is a good articulation of how to prevent wars from arising (by working for justice before a conflict arises) and if one must defend oneself if attcked by an aggressor what constitutes a legitimate self-defense so as to end the conflict without creating even worse injustices. Interestingly, this "doctrine for ending wars" would illegitimize even the USA's war against Japan in the 1940's because it could be argued that while we were not the initial aggressor, we used means like the fire-bombing of civilians and ultimately the atomic bombs which were worse evils than those perpetrated against us. So the standards of this doctrine are so strict, that it almost automatically rules out all modern warfare. And well it should, because the escalation of modern warfare leads to the dead end of full scale nuclear war or at the very least the irreperable destruction of the environment by other forms of biological, nuclear or chemical warfare. The life of every being on the planet is now at stake due to the manner in which modern conflicts are faught.
So as I write this, I am unaware of any official policy which would prohibit Nichiren Shu Buddhists from acting to defend themselves if attacked. I feel that it is legitimate to use force of arms to defend oneself, one's family, and one's community. Nichiren certainly didn't tell his disciples not to fight back when attacked at Komatsubara and it is known that his followers kept weapons for self-defence. Nichiren also never counselled any of his samurai followers to lay down their arms or not fulfill their duties. So there is no precedent in Nichiren's teachings for an absolute pacifism. I would argue quite the opposite in fact. But it is also true that Nichiren in principle upheld the first precept against killing and wrote about it quite eloquently on occasion. So it would seem that Nichiren Buddhists must also struggle with this question that the West has struggled with for some time - how to reconcile the right to self-defence with the moral imperative not to kill or harm others? I think this is a legitimate question which needs to be asked and which should not be avoided or shucked off with absolutist authoritarian policies (or even less the claim that there are such policies when such may not exist). This is a matter of conscience and it is the role of Buddhism to provide the tools for the formation of that conscience and the awareness of the law of cause and effect so that those who wish to follow the Buddha's teaching may "do as they see fit" in the full light of the Dharma.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
A wonderful posting Ryuei!
While I consider myself an absolute pacifist in that I can not imagine myself of taking life no matter what the circumstances (I would rather give up my own lifetime than take life of another humanbeing). But on the whole I absolutely agree and support your sentiments.
In your article you wrote:
"- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;"
I find these two lines important in relation to the situation we are faced with currently in Iraq. It is my opinion that this war was pushed through without fully allowing for other options such as the completion of the UN inspectors search for weapons of mass destruction to be carried out (even if the reason we were told for the war was the "fact" that Mr Hussein was building them....).
We have now seen that it has not been a success but instead we are faced with another "Vietnam" and more and more deaths are caused by the actions of the allied forces in Iraq.
Anyway...thanks for your article.
Best, Jussi.
Hello Ryuei,
I would like to address portions of your last paragraph.
“So there is no precedent in Nichiren's teachings for an absolute pacifism. I would argue quite the opposite in fact. But it is also true that Nichiren in principle upheld the first precept against killing and wrote about it quite eloquently on occasion. So it would seem that Nichiren Buddhists must also struggle with this question that the West has struggled with for some time - how to reconcile the right to self-defense with the moral imperative not to kill or harm others? I think this is a legitimate question which needs to be asked and which should not be avoided or shucked off with absolutist authoritarian policies (or even less the claim that there are such policies when such may not exist).”
I think you misrepresent Nichiren’s thought here. While it may be true that at one time Nichiren may have “in principle upheld the first precept against killing and wrote about it quite eloquently on occasion”, when Nichiren awakened to the one Buddha vehicle he set aside all precepts, i.e., he abandoned all attempts to legislate morality. Therefore it follows that there is no moral imperative not to kill in Nichiren’s doctrine, nor will you find any mention of such a precept in the Lotus Sutra. The only possible exception is in Chapter 14, with the admonishment not to associate with persons who "kill to do harm for profit", which is not the issue at hand here.
There is a simple yet profound reason for this, which Nichiren stated clearly:
“The learned authorities in the world today suppose that there is no harm in mixing extraneous practices with the practice of the Lotus Sutra, and I, Nichiren, was once of that opinion myself. But the passage from the sutra does not permit such a view ["Desiring only to accept and embrace the sutra of the great vehicle and not accepting a single verse of the other sutras.” (LS, Ch. 3)]. Suppose that a woman who had been the consort of a great king and had become pregnant with his seed should then turn round and marry a man of the common people. In such a case, the seed of the king and the seed of the commoner would become mixed together, and, as a result, the aid and assistance of heaven and the protection of the patron deities would be withdrawn and the kingdom would face ruin. The child born from two such fathers would be neither a king nor a commoner, but a kind of subhuman being.
“This is one of the most important points in the Lotus Sutra. The doctrine of the sowing of the seed and its maturing and harvesting is the very heart and core of the Lotus Sutra. All the Buddhas of the three existences and the ten directions have invariably attained Buddhahood through the seeds represented by the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. The words Namu Amida Butsu are not the seeds of Buddhahood, nor can the mantras or the five precepts [the first being not to kill] act as such seeds. One must be perfectly clear about this point, because this is the fault referred to as ‘mixed’.” (Letter to Akimoto)
Nichiren clearly sets aside all precepts, including the five paramitas, in favor of the one Buddha vehicle, believing that this vehicle embodies the Wisdom to take action appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment—which would include killing at times, in defense of oneself or others.
Earlier in your article you, or another, wrote, “Buddhism asserts universal working of the law of cause and effect - including during armed conflict. Even if one must use force to defend oneself or others, this does not mean that violence suddenly becomes a good cause or that violence, coercion, and hatred will not sow karmic seeds which must at some point come to fruition. Bearing this in mind, combatants should restrain themselves as much as possible and not rationalize their actions.”
I don’t know if these are your words or someone else’s, but they convey a shallow understanding of ‘the law of cause and effect’ as it relates to Buddhism.
Killing is neither inherently a ‘good cause’ or a ‘bad cause’. This is determined solely on the merits of the circumstances of the present moment. While we speak of the Law of Cause and Effect, in the truest sense there is only action and karmic reward.
Often we speak of ‘cause and effect’ in the scientific sense where for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is often falsely related to the teaching of karmic reward in the sense that if you kill someone, it is a ‘bad cause’, and you have sown a seed of evil karma to be killed by someone at some point in the future.
This is like saying that if a surgeon cuts off the arm of his patient, the surgeon has sown the karmic seed to have his arm cut off in the future. Such a point of view is sophomoric in that it does not take into account the circumstances of the present moment, or whether the surgeon’s action was appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment.
This principle of manifesting the Wisdom in our actions appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment applies to all of our life activities—not excluding the action of causing another’s death.
For those that embrace the Lotus Sutra with a seeking mind, there is no need to “restrain themselves as much as possible and not rationalize their actions”. There is no way to restrain life, it is constantly moving. The only question is whether life activities are grounded in wisdom or delusion.
Your article concludes with the sentence, “This is a matter of conscience and it is the role of Buddhism to provide the tools for the formation of that conscience and the awareness of the law of cause and effect so that those who wish to follow the Buddha's teaching may "do as they see fit" in the full light of the Dharma.”
This statement is an example of mixing wisdom and delusion that Nichiren warns against in the quotation above. The requirement of “awareness of the law of cause and effect” as a condition for following the Buddha’s teaching is a precept set aside in the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s teaching regarding the Lotus Sutra. Self-imposed though it may be, “awareness of the law of cause and effect” as a means to regulate ones actions belongs to the specific teachings rejected as formal practices in the practice of the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha Wisdom is always in accord with what is appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, rendering such a precept a useless distraction.
You should consider re-writing your (or anothers) sentence to read, “This is a matter of Wisdom and it is a seeking mind towards the Lotus Sutra that provides the means for the formation of this Wisdom in the lives of those who follow the Buddha's teaching and "do as they see fit" in the full light of the Dharma, manifesting the Wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, bringing merit to self and other without distinction.”
Attempting to designate ‘Rules for War’ is delusion beyond delusion.
Sincerely, Chikushonin 智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Thank you for your comments Chikushonin, they more than prove my point that there is nothing in Nichiren's own teachings which would rule out an antinomian, faith alone approach to Nichiren Buddhism. I frankly think that this interpretation is not the only possible one by a long shot and frankly I find it just as dangerous as the antinomianism of some extremes of Pure Land or Zen thinking that have appeared in East Asia over the centuries.
You may not like it or agree with it, but the standard interpretation of the Nichiren Shu is that while we do not formally take on or measure our practice by adherence to the eightfold path, the five precepts, or the six perfections - we do see those as a helpful guidance taught by the Buddha which point the way to living in the true light of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. To naturally live in accord with those values and ideals is what is meant by the transference of the merits and virtues of the Buddha given to us through faith in the Lotus Sutra. So I do not accept the antinomian interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism. I think genuine faith will manifest itself through compassionate, responsible, and ethical action in the world. If the Odaimoku had no such fruits, then it would be a barren seed. That is my view at this time.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
I also find this view of justifying killing based on the views expressed questionable. Afterall there are many Gosho from the Daishonin where He talks about how wrong it is to take life. The idea that we give up the precepts is in my understanding more about a concept that they are already contained within the practise of chanting Nam Myoho Renge kyo.
Anyway .what on earth is that sig about??????
Jussi.
Dear Ryuei,
I’m not so sure that you can call the Lotus Sutra or Nichiren’s elucidations of the sutra as antinomian in the context that you seem to suggesting. Rather than stating “that there is nothing in Nichiren’s own teachings which would rule out an antinomian, faith alone approach to Nichiren Buddhism”, why would you not simply point to the sutra itself where it states,
“Even you, Shariputra, in the case of this sutra were able to gain entrance through faith alone. How much more so, then, the other voice-hearers. Those other voice-hearers it is because they have faith in the Buddha's words that they can comply with this sutra, not because of any wisdom of their own.”
In stating “I frankly think that this interpretation is not the only possible one by a long shot” you reject this passage of the sutra itself, and in further stating, “and frankly I find it just as dangerous as the antinomianism of some extremes of Pure Land or Zen thinking that have appeared in East Asia over the centuries” you place the teachings and sutras of Pure Land and Zen on the same level as the Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra. These are not the thoughts of a person that embraces the Lotus Sutra or the teachings of Nichiren.
As for the eightfold path, the five precepts, and the six perfections—you and I have discussed these before, always with the same results—you are never willing to admit your errors regarding them and leave the discussion like the lofty asura who finds a swamp with a lotus flower to hide in—in your case, it is within the robes of a Priest of Nichiren Shu that you take your leave and hide in silence.
Regarding doctrine, I have shown you the passages in the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s writings regarding them. In fact, I have presented another quotation above. No need to belabor the point here.
You are correct in stating the Buddha, Shakyamuni, employed these expedients as a guide to point the way to Myohorengekyo. You amaze me with the stubbornness with which you cling to these expedients, not willing set them aside as Myohorengekyo, the sutra that they point to, directs.
As Jussi states correctly, “The idea that we give up the precepts is in my understanding more about a concept that they are already contained within the practise of chanting Nam Myoho Renge kyo.” This includes the fruition of your thought that “genuine faith will manifest itself through compassionate, responsible, and ethical action in the world.”
As for barren seeds, the fault does not always fall on the seed. It is not the seed’s fault if it becomes scorched. The icchantika is a person who has scorched the seeds of manifesting Buddhahood. If it is true as you say, “That [the above] is my view at this time”, then it is possible that you are still seeking and at this point have not scorched the seed of Buddhahood in your own life beyond salvation in this existence as of yet. Certainly you have turned the torch up and are in grave danger of doing so.
Sincerely, Chikushonin 智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Dear Jussi,
It isn’t about justifying killing. It is about manifesting Buddhahood while living within the reality of the present moment. We cannot change the past, which is manifest in the karmic reward of the present moment. What we can do is awaken our Buddha nature, the Wisdom of all Buddhas, and break the cycle of suffering in the six paths.
If we eliminate the causes of suffering that arise from our actions that are lacking in wisdom in this present moment, we eliminate their effects in the future. This does not free us from the karmic rewards of our past actions, but it does end the cycle of suffering of birth and death in the six paths, breaking the chains of karma and emancipating us, so we don’t have to suffer the karmic rewards of war and killing arising from our various offenses, through causes arising from our evil actions.
You are absolutely correct in your statement, “The idea that we give up the precepts is in my understanding more about a concept that they are already contained within the practise of chanting Nam Myoho Renge kyo.” This is doctrine of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren’s teaching elucidates this point.
The point that is being missed by Ryuei, and certainly he is not unique in this, is clearly stated by Nichiren in ‘On the Four Stages of Faith and Five Stages of Practice’ where he speaks of ‘subordinate concerns’, ‘Letter to Akimoto’ in the discussion of the fault of being ‘mixed’, ‘The Third Doctrine’ where Nichiren discusses “The votary of the Lotus Sutra is certain to be obstructed by the Devil of the Sixth Heaven”, and in “Encouragement to a Sick Person” where Nichiren states,
“Now the two thousand years of the Former and Middle Days of the Law have already passed, and it has been more than two hundred years since the Latter Day began. Now is the time when, because the impurity of thought prevails, more people fall into the evil paths with the intention of creating good causes than they do by committing evil. As for evil acts, even ignorant people may recognize them for what they are, and refrain from committing them. This is like extinguishing a fire with water. But people think that good deeds are all equal in their goodness; thus they adhere to lesser good and do not realize that, in so doing, they bring about major evil.”…. [Segment omitted]… You should understand from the above that even if one performs a good deed, should it be an act of lesser good that destroys great good, then it will cause one to fall into the evil paths” ,to name just a few.
Of these writings, ‘On the Four Stages of Faith and the Five Stages of Practice’ is the clearest of Nichiren’s writings regarding the practice of the Lotus Sutra. It has to be approached with an open mind, making an effort not to be swayed by what one has been taught, and let Nichiren speak for himself. It is clearly stated at the beginning that he is writing to correct errors in his own teachings regarding correct practice of the Lotus Sutra.
It begins with “Scholars of Buddhism these days all agree that, whether in the Buddha's lifetime or after his passing, those who wish to practice the Lotus Sutra must devote themselves to the three types of learning. If they neglect any one of these, they cannot attain the Buddha Way.
“In the past, I, too, subscribed to this opinion, [but now this is no longer the case]. “
This is in accord with what I quoted above from ‘Letter to Akimoto’ regarding “I was once of this opinion.”
“Anyway .what on earth is that sig about??????”
It is about the Three Great Secret Laws. It also about Sesson Doji who offered his body as a meal to a demon to hear the second half of the verse, “All is changible, nothing is constant, this is the law of birth and death.”
I did not offer my body as a meal to a demon as Sesson Doji did, nor was I wise enough to know that there was a second half of a verse to be heard. Nonetheless, I committed my life to the Great Ocean to the Lotus Sutra, in effect diving into the demons mouth, and heard the second half of the verse unsought--the name of the Three Treasures and the Law of the Kaidan, myojisoku.
As did Sesson Doji. I scurry about writing on every tree and wall, determined to share these great treasures with others.
Sincerely, Chikushonin 智倶諸人
Daikudoshin, myokaku, myojisokukyo/
Namumyohorengemyojisokukyo 南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
Chiku,
I often suspect that we are talking past one another. I also find your tone very off-putting and uncalled for. As for me hiding behind my robes, I have no idea what you mean by that. I do not even sign off as "Rev." (in fact the use of that title by my picture was not done by me) or with any fancy sig, nor do I ever appeal to my status in making my arguments (such status being irrelevant - only the three proofs should hold any water and arguments need to stand on their own merits and not on some authority). I will however, share the view of Nichiren Shu because that is the school of Nichiren Buddhism that makes the most sense to me. That is not "hiding behind a robe" or appealing to authority, it is simply a matter of stating what I believe is the correct interpretation - any member of Nichiren Shu lay or ordained can and should do that. In any case, the interpretation I hold is fairly widespread and not even particular to the Nichiren Shu.
Anyway - back to the issue at hand:
I may be misunderstanding you and you may be misunderstanding me. However, I find that Jussi and I seem to be saying the same thing. Jussi stated:
"The idea that we give up the precepts is in my understanding more about a concept that they are already contained within the practise of chanting Nam Myoho Renge kyo."
and I said:
"To naturally live in accord with those values and ideals is what is meant by the transference of the merits and virtues of the Buddha given to us through faith in the Lotus Sutra."
When I say "faith in the Lotus Sutra" I mean a faith that is strong enough to issue forth in the verbal Odaimoku and a verbal Odaimoku that goes deeper than lip service (though lip service alone can plant a seed that will lead to a deepened faith). Jussi can corrrect me if I am misunderstanding him - but it seems we are both saying that the Odaimoku contains the true spirit of all the other practices and therefore we can, as Nichiren Buddhists, coduct ourselves with integrity and compassion. And if that is the case, then it is worthwhile to discuss what is compassionate and ethical and what is not.
In provisional Buddhism this discussion might be cast in terms of what does or does not conform to specific precepts or perfections. But in Nichiren Buddhism it is a matter of talking about what does or does not conform to the true spirit of the Odaimoku. This is indeed a lot deeper and more organic than any list of precepts - but the earlier teachings certainly help in providing clues as to what this true spirit is and how it might manifest in particular circumstances. I do not believe (nor have I seen any convicing proof-texts from the gosho or the Lotus Sutra - in fact quite otherwise) that the Odaimoku is a blank slate wherein anything goes because ethics and compassion have been ruled out.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei