I just googled an articles that discusses Pope Benedict XVI's earlier critiques of Buddhism back in 1997 when he was merely Cardinal Ratzinger - the head of the Congregation for the Doctrines of the Faith (the modern name for the Office of the Inquisition).
Here is the whole article:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/11466038.htm
But I want to focus on this part of it:
< In a 1997 interview with the French weekly L'Express, he complained that Hinduism offers "false hope" through the "morally cruel concept of reincarnation." But it was another line from that same interview that caused a sensation, when English-language publications quoted him as calling Buddhism an "auto-erotic spirituality." In fact, he was talking not so much about Buddhism as its appeal to some Westerners. And "auto-erotic" was not a good translation. "If Buddhism is attractive (to Westerners)," he said, "it's only because it suggests that by belonging to it you can touch the infinite, and you can have joy without concrete religious obligations. ... It's spiritually self-indulgent eroticism." As cardinal, Ratzinger made no secret of his resentment of Buddhism's growing popularity in the West. In France, for example, there are more men studying to be Buddhist monks than are studying to be Benedictines. Benedict is so worried about Buddhism, transcendental meditation and the like, said Seton Hall's Figueiredo, because of their belief "that `I reach nirvana without any mediation.' That is highly dangerous because it denies the existence of original sin and of the church and ultimately of Jesus Christ.">> Anyway, his comments about reincarnation were not quoted here in full either but were in Rabbi Lerner's article I quoted earlier. In the full comments he says that "Hinduism offers "false hope," in that it guarantees "purification" based on a "morally cruel" concept of reincarnation resembling "a continuous circle of hell." So now I'd like to reply to some of these things. Let me start with the reincarnation thing first, even though that comment was directed to Hinduism. In traditional Buddhism, there is the teaching of rebirth in accordance with the law of cause and effect. This is not the rebirth or "reincarnation" of a static independent self or the perpetuation of the personal identity that we feel that we have now. It is more like the continuing unfolding of the causes and conditions we have set in motion in other lives. These causes and conditions are such that they bring about a new birth and thus a new life in which these causes can come to fruition. Anyway, I can't speak for Hinduism, but I do know that in the Buddhism there is no such thing as automatic purification through multiple rebirths. Rebirth is a process that will continue indefinately until it is cut off by the insight of awakening that sees that there is no self and no need for clinging. As for rebirth or reincarnation being like a "continuous circle of hell" we don't see it that way. It is definately a continuous circle that can at times be hellish and in fact is judged as dukkha or "suffering" by the Buddha. So it is good that Cardinal Ratzinger sees that samsara or the cycle of rebirth is not supposed to be a desirable thing. There is a tendency among some New Agers, Neo-Pagans, and Western converts to Buddhism and Hinduism see it otherwise - they think it is a chance to constantly progress to newer and better forms of life or at least to continually experience the wonders of this life (as if this life were not full of suffering as well) with an unending process of perpetual self-recreation. But this is not what traditional Buddhism teaches. Samsara is traditionally viewed as a continuous cycle of suffering to varying degrees. Is this process "morally cruel"? According to the Buddhist law of cause and effect one reaps what one sows. And no one is condemned to an eternal hell forever with no chance of reprieve. I believe that the traditional Buddhist view is quite just - we are not saved or condemned by the whim of some deity. Rather we create our own destiny, for better or ill. But the goal is to free ourselves of selfishness and that is the path to liberation for ourselves and others. The worldview of Western monotheisms where one lives one life and is then judged by some external Super Being according to some ancient tribal code, or perhaps even some scheme of predestination, or depending on whether or not one subscribed to the right creed. If you fall short, you are condemned to hell for eternity (as the Catholic Catechism clearly teaches). This is the epitome of a morally cruel and barbaric worldview. Getting back to samsara, Buddhism teaches that the way to break that cycle is through the cultivation of self-discipline, mental cultivation, and insight. And from the Mahayana perspective, the bodhisattvas who free themselves of this cycle do not abandon it but through the power of vows based on loving-kindness and compassion voluntarily reenter the process to help liberate all beings. So even their own liberation is not clung to. This is a far cry from a self-absorbed spirituality relying on self-purification in the process of rebirth with no moral obligations or spiritual practices. Rather, Buddhism, or at least Mahayana Buddhism, explicitly teaches and lays out various practices that are quite demanding, do involve precepts, and whose purpose is to breakthrough self-absorption so that one can work for the welfare of all beings. But apparently, Cardinal Ratzinger was primarily directing his comments to Western converts and to the ways Buddhism is sometimes, maybe often, presented in the West. In that, I find that I do agree with him - Buddhism is often presented in ways that exacerbate rather than undercut self-absorption and even self-indulgence. It is also often presented in terms of just sitting or just chanting with no need for any futher study, cultivation or moral obligations. D.T. Suzuki had even taught that Zen was compatible with any philosophy - including Marxism or fascism. And in practice, he and many other Japanese Buddhists clearly capitulated to the forces responsible for the rape of Nanking and the Bombing of Pearl Harbor. So is it any wonder that people like Cardinarl Ratzinger look askance at the Buddhism espoused by the Beats and Hippies? Just take a walk down the Haight in San Francisco and it is readily apparent that Buddha statues and drug paraphenalia are often sold in the same stores - as though Buddhist meditation were just another way of getting high. And of course what should someone like the new pope think about groups where the only Buddhist obligation is to just chant for one's health, wealth and happiness and to sell one's practice to others so they can get goodies too like some kind of Dharmic pyramid scheme? Unfortunately, if Cardinal Ratzinger's comments were in fact directed at many Western Buddhists and not the more serious practitioners in the East and West, I will have to give some credence to his critiques. The Upper Middle Class Way, the Onefold Path, the Verbal Rabbits Feet, and other such are all things I myself have been critical of for a long time. Now who am I to talk? Am I so much better. I readily confess that I have hardly maintained a steady practice or followed the precepts or even the very sound advice in the Sigala Sutta where the Buddha clearly explains that there is such a thing as "Buddhist Family Values." http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/FamilyValues.html Nevertheless, the great majority of Christians do not hold up their end of the bargain either. And I would call Cardinal Ratzinger's brand of triumphalism, dogmatism, and moral rigidity equally at odds with the love and compassion that he supposedly preaches. Denying civil rights to those whose gender orientation he finds threatening, and opposing birth control in the face of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and Asia, and impeding the efforts of Catholics in Central and South America to stand up for social justice are very problematic in my book. So I have to wonder who Cardinal Ratzinger or any other fundy, Catholic or not, is to talk. So let's just assume that we all fall short of our ideals. That does not mean that the religions we follow do not present those ideals. That does not mean that Buddhism does not present clearly articulated practices, teachings, and even moral obligations. So on that level I, or anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about, can say what Buddhism really is in the face of such misperceptions. But it is also the responsibility of people such as myself to listen to the critiques of people like Cardinal Ratzinger and instead of merely dismissing them ask ourselves if there is any truth to what they say. Are we just using our religion to sanctify our self-indulgence? Are we misusing or misrepresenting the Buddha Dharma in our own views and actions. This is what Nichiren criticized as slander of the Dharma. So in a way I agree with some of those critiques. And I will take them as a challenge to myself to do better and to show the real (as opposed to material) benefits of following the Dharma. I will also do my best to be a better representative of Buddhism day by day in my own family and community and Sangha, and in that way to hopefully be a good example and an encouragement to my fellow Buddhists and even fellow religionists (whatever that may be) just as more often than not they are to me. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
I would add that other articles I looked up noted that in the original French, the term Cardinal Ratzinger used that was translated into English as "auto-erotic" actually means something more along the lines of "self-absorption" and "narcissistic." This of course makes a lot more sense. I am sure that even Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI knows that Westerners don't need Buddhism to masturbate. That's what porn and sex toys are for.
Ryuei
I normally wouldn't post other people's writings in what is supposed to be my own journal/editorial space. But this article by Rabbi Michael Lerner (whom I have long had a lot of respect for) says exactly what I think needs to be said about the new pope. Rabbi Lerner is speaking as a progressive Jewish thinker, but the concerns he raises here, as well as his own sadness for the squandering of all this is of positive value in the Catholic tradition, are identitical to my own as a post-Catholic Buddhist minister.
And note that in Ratzinger's world - Buddhists are the Church's #1 enemy but collaborating with Nazis is not a barrier to sainthood.
Anyway here is the article:
Published on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 by Tikkun.org
The New Pope is a Disaster for the World and for the Jews
Jewish Leader Denounces Selection of Cardinal Ratzinger as New Pope
by Rabbi Michael Lerner
Since the days in which he served in the Nazi army in Germany to his role as the leader of the forces that suppressed the liberatory aspects of Vatican II and purged or silenced the Church of its most creative leadership (including German Catholic theologians Eugene Drewermann and Hans Kung, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, and several prominent American Catholic thinkers), to the present moment in which he is recognized as the leader most identified with the forces of reaction and suppression of dissent within the Church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has distinguished himself as a man who can be counted on to side with the most anti-humane and repressive forces, in opposition to those who seek to give primacy to a world of peace and justice, " said Rabbi Lerner.
Although normally Jews would welcome any choice of leadership by our sister religion, we have particular reason to comment on this choice.
"Jews have a powerful stake and commitment in ending global poverty and oppression. We fully well understand that in a world filled with pain and cruelty, the resulting anger is often channeled in racist, sexist and homophobic directions. Both as a matter of principle, based on our commitment to a prophetic vision, and as a matter of self-interest, Jews have disproportionately supported liberal and progressive social change movements seeking to end war and poverty.
So it was with great distress that we watched as Cardinal Ratzinger led the Vatican in the past twenty-five years on a path that opposed providing birth control information to the poor of the world, thereby ensuring that AIDS would spread and kill millions in Africa.
And we watched with even greater distress as this Cardinal supported efforts to involve the Church in distancing itself from political candidates or leaders who did not agree with the Church's teachings on abortion and gay rights, prioritizing these issues over whether that candidate agreed with the Church on issues of peace and social justice. As a result, Cardinal Ratzinger has led the Church away from its natural alliance with Jews in fighting for peace and social justice and toward a stance which in effect allies the Church with the most reactionary politicians whose policies are militaristic and offer a preferential option for the rich.
We can't help but notice that under Cardinal Ratzinger's tutelage, the Church began moves to elevate the infamous Pope Pius XII to the status of saint. Instead of repenting for the failure of the Church to give unequivocal messages telling all Catholics that they would be prevented from receiving communion for collaborating or cooperating in any way with Nazi rule, or for failing to hide and protect Jews who were marked for extermination, Ratzinger has sought to whitewash this disgraceful moment in Church history. Many Jews are outraged at a Church that denies communion to those who have remarried or those who oppose making abortion illegal but that did not similarly deny communion to those who participate in crimes against humanity.
In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger publicly praised the fascist movement in the Church known as Opes Dei and supported canonization of Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, an open fascist who served in the government of Spain's dictator Franco, and who publicly praised Hitler.
While many of us agree with Ratzinger's critique of moral relativism, he extends that critique in illegitimate and dangerous ways, equating secularism with moral relativism and suggesting that secularism is now repressing religion. Ratzinger also publicly critiques all those inside the Church who are tolerant enough to think that other religions may have equal validity as a path to God. This is a slippery slope toward anti-Semitism and a return to the chauvinistic and triumphalist views that led the Church, when it had the power to do so, to develop its infamous crusades and inquisitions. In 1997 Ratzinger called Buddhism an "autoerotic spirituality" that offers "transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations." Hindusim, he said, offers "false hope," in that it guarantees "purification" based on a "morally cruel" concept of reincarnation resembling "a continuous circle of hell." At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger predicted that Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic church's main enemy.
Ratzinger is being falsely described as a conservative, when in fact he, despite his publicly genteel manner, is a raging reactionary. Unlike many American conservatives who oppose gay sexual practices but not their legal rights, Ratzinger in 1992 argued against human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be "legitimately limited.
Those of us in the Jewish world who have enormous respect for Christianity and for the wisdom and beauty of the Catholic tradition are in mourning today that the Church has confirmed for itself a destructive direction that will hurt not only Catholics but all those who seek peace and justice in the world.
We remain hopeful that the new Pope may return to his original more progressive positions (pre-1968) and realize that the world needs a church that can respond compassionately and wisely to what is needed rather than remain wedded to dogma that is so destructive. In a statement that Ratzinger made a few years ago, he seemed deeply aligned with TIKKUN's critique of the selfishness and materialism of the contemporary world. We hope that he stops blaming that on secularists and comes to understand that secularists too, as well as people from other faiths, can be allies in the struggle for a new ethos of love and generosity. We pray that he may find a way to bring a better, kinder, more loving and compassionate agenda to the Catholic Church. It is precisely because we continue to feel allied with the Church.
Meanwhile, we reaffirm our solidarity with the many millions of Catholics who had hoped for a very different kind of Pope who would make the Church more open to women's leadership, to prioritizing social justice, and to returning to the hopeful spirit of Vatican II. We can say publicly what many of you can only say privately-that this new Pope does not represent what is most beautiful and sacred in the teachings of Jesus.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN and author of ten books, including Healing Israel/Palestine (North Atlantic Books, 2003) and Jewish Renewal (Harper Perennial, 1995).
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the world's largest circulation progressive Jewish magazine, TIKKUN, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in San Francisco, took the unusual step of criticizing the choice made by the Catholic Church for its new Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Lerner was careful to make clear that he was NOT speaking as leader of The Tikkun Community, the interfaith organization whch he co-chairs, which has NOT taken a stand on these issues, but only as editor of TIKKUN magazine.
© 2005 Tikkun Magazine
Recently I have been challenged offline in such a way that I have had to rethink my approach to skillful means, ethics, right view, and the Lotus Sutra. The challenge came from a confrontation I had with someone who insisted that Zen Masters were able, upon attaining enlightenment, to dispense with all ceremonies and rituals and that drinking was perfectly ok for them, and that sitting in meditation for long periods of time was unecessary. I could see where he was coming from with some of this, but I also felt (maybe wrongly) that he was trying to justify a lazy, amoral, and iconoclastic approach that is not Buddhism. On the other hand, was I really concerned about what this person meant and/or what he needed to encourage his own actual practice and engagment with Buddhism, or was I just offended that he was insisting on a different understanding and approach than myself? Was I just trying to defend my own turf and credibility? Even if for the sake of argument I was totally right and he was totally wrong - what was my actual motivation? Was I just ego-tripping? Or was I negating him in no uncertain terms as a way of breaking and subduing his false views?
My subsequent conversation with Taigen about this really caused me to look at how fixated I am on my own opinions, my own self-estimation, my own consistency and credibility, my own "turf." But at the same time, I couldn't quite accept that Buddhists should have no fixed views, when the Pali Canon clearly emphasizes right view, let alone the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren. Or was I understanding right view and skillful means correctly? At the time I was struggling with this, I was writing my latest installment of my Rissho Ankoku Ron commentary which deals with three Buddhist parables about right view, wrong view, and wrongly held views - the parable of the blind men and the elephant, the parable of the snake, and the parable of the raft.
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/RAR26.html
And over this past weekend I made that the theme of my Dharma talk for the Buddha's birthday:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/hanamatsuri.html
And at the same time I finished James Heisig's book "The Philosphers of Nothingness" about the Kyoto school philosophers, and in particular I was impressed with the philosophy of Keiji Nishitani and that also impacted me.
So here is what I am thinking of in no particular order:
1. I formerly identified right view with either the four noble truths (as it is defined in the Pali Canon) or with the One Vehicle or Eternal Buddha teaching of the Lotus Sutra. In other words - right view as a doctrinal commitment. But I now think I may have mislead myself.
2. What if right view is not a commitment to an idea or doctrine but to a particular way of letting go in order to be fully present and fully engaged with what is, as "vast and open as the sky"? Or as the Buddha said to Bahiya, "In the seen only what is seen, in the heard only what is heard..."
3. The four noble truths themselves are spoken of more as a strategy to act upon than a fourfold creed. In other words: one should reflect deeply upon suffering, cut off its causes, realize liberation, follow the eightfold path. It is a plan of action and not a set of propositions.
4. But that is just one possible plan of action for seeing and actualizing in ourselves the true nature of reality (and even putting it that way is just a skillful means). The Flower Garland and Nirvana Sutras have whole chapters devoted to alternate approaches to the four noble truths. Then there is the doctrine or rather rhetorical method of emptiness which is another approach to liberation, said to be consistent with but also going beyond the four noble truths. Each plan of action, or rhetorical strategy is a skillful means to attain liberation - a thoroughgoind non-attachment that is at the same time a freedom eliciting a compassionate engagement with all things. I even found this at work in St. John of the Cross, who page after page states that one must drop all attachments, images, ideas, and impressions - even spiritual ones. Even ones that come from God. For St. John asserts that those which come from God remain efficacious even if one does not cling to them, and in fact end up being self-defeating and misused to buttress our pride and ego if clung to. So I realized what the Lotus Sutra must mean to assert that all provisional teachings must not be accepted. It is saying what St. John of the Cross meant - let that which is true have its positive effect, but beyond that there is no need for self-conscious effort or clinging to it on our part. They are all rafts which can be left behind once they have served their purpose. Another way of looking at this is that each teaching is a thorn which is used to extract a thorn of attachment (whether to a worldly craving or spiritual doctrine or metaphysical obsession) and once extracted both are discarded.
5. And so if the previous skillful means are not doctrinal commitments or ideas but plans of action only useful insofar as they serve the specific purpose of realeasing us from attachments so that we can freely encounter and engage and unfold life as it is, then is the Lotus Sutra itself exempt from this? Does it teach doctrines or methods which are not simply a skillful means but good for all time? I used to think so, but now I am not so sure. Rather, I think the overall method of skillful means has been given a new scope. It has been turned back on the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha itself and in such a way as to open those up so they are no longer things to be clung to.
6. So the One Vehicle is not really telling us to be attached to a single vehicle over and against the others, but is telling us to let go of the concept of rival vehicles. It presents this positively by using the skillful means of a single vehicle bigger and better than the others. Taken literally this means clinging to the One and rejecting the others. But the full context of the Lotus Sutra shows that those of the other vehicles are not being rejected but are being reaffirmed and that all are a part of this One Vehicle precisely where they are as they are. This is even expanded to include the evildoer Devadatta and the 8 year old Dragon Girl. Nichiren talks of this as sokushin jobutsu - attaining buddhahood with this very body. So clinging to a One Vehicle vs Three is just more clinging, letting go of the rivalry or comparing of three in favor of a more embracing yet perhaps non-substantial unity is probably more to the point. What do I mean by non-substantial unity? In other words, unity or the one is not found in a fixed thing, but in the interplay, cohesiveness, and harmony of the many even in their respective positions and seeming opposition. They all empower each other in their respective roles to the extent that an all around letting go is prepared and actualized, but they fail to the extent they absolutize themselves.
7. The Buddha's life and even awakening is then subject to this logic of all-around skillful means as it was formerly constricted to the birth, death, and personality of Shakyamuni Buddha. But now the Buddha breaks open his own birth and death and awakening, and in fact does the same for us all, by saying that birth and death are themselves skillful means. Awakening as the sole property of a historical person at a particular place and time is also a skillful method. The reality of buddhahood is thus broken open so that it overflows without boundary without actually coming from anywhere or going anywhere. It is where it always was - in the moment of our letting go of a deficient concept of buddhahood that restricted it or reduced it to our usual dichotomies of now and then, here and there, self and other.
8. The Sangha is also broken open in chapter 15 when the Buddha rejects all the usuall suspects of Hinayana and Mahayana literature, and instead calls forth primordial bodhisattvas from "the space beneath the earth" to spread the Dharma. In other words, the constitution of the Sangha as conceived in Buddhism up to that point, whether the monastic Sangha or the Sangha of celestial bodhisattvas, is negated in favor of a Sangha that literally emerges as a grass roots phenomena. And is this a fixed Sangha that can be clung to as opposed to the previous one? Again, it is not. It is spoken of in such paradoxical terms and cosmic hyperbole that it becomes apparent that this Sangha manifests in and through and sometimes beyond any fixed conception.
9. But my problem arose again as I thought - what does this mean in regard to wrong views and wrong speech, action, and livelihood? The Buddhists and Kyoto philosphers of Imperial Japan totally capitulated to Imperialism and Emperor Worship. They sacrificed Buddhism for nationalism and submerged actual liberation by saying that is was a skillful means to worship the emperor, conquer Asia, and unsrupulously perform an unannounced pre-emptive strike against the USA and Britain. Is Buddhism, as D.T. Suzuki once asserted, something that is compatible with anything and everything - communism, capitalism, imperialism, national socialism? Can any actions be justified from murder to adultery, to theft, by appealing to the non-absolute nature of Buddhist precepts and teachings?
10. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that it was not Buddhism that failed. It was Japanese Buddhists who failed. And they failed for the same reason people of any religion fail. Most of them were more concerned with accomodating their tribe, culture, country, national ideaology and interests, than with what the Dharma is actually saying. The same goes for those who use Buddhism as a handy rationalization for their own lifestyle.
11. But what is the Dharma actually trying to do then if not set up an alternate absolute to the world's various economic theories, political movement, religious creeds, and personal lifestyles? I think what it is doing is presenting a huge set of methods for releasing us from one-sided views and attachments. If I might risk putting the bottom line into words - it is trying to assist us in discovering within ourselves a wholehearted engagement with life.
So for instance, in most circumstances we should adhere to the five major precepts of not killing, stealing, lying, committing sexual offences, or taking intoxicants. These are good ground rules. And each of them is a skillful means in terms of action that helps us look beyond our own immediate interests to the way our actions will impact ourselves and others both now and in the future. But even these most basic and humane rules are not absolutes. There may be times when killing will prevent greater harm. A Theravadin abbot once had to clear all the monks out of his monastery in order to fumigate it and get rid of the fire ant infestation that had become a health hazard. I once had to hack apart a rattlesnake that was creating a very real hazard at someone's front door. Those who bravely hid Jews from the Nazis during WWII had to lie about it. Sexual ethics turned into rigid absolutes have led to the murder and oppression of women throughout the Middle East and of homesexuals even in the US where fundamentalists have felt morally justified in persecuting and even killing them. Marijuana is clearly an intoxicant but it also has great medicinal value in relieving the nausea of certain other medications and in relieving glaucoma (supposedly). Sometimes those who are starving to death are justified in extralegally taking back food from those who have abused the law and/or their position to take more than is their just due (this was the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas). So it turns out that even supposedly foundational values are relative - but this does not mean they should be dismissed. It means that they are valuable not in rigidly holding them but in deeply hearing their warning to think about the consequences of our actions, our attachments, our self-serving drives. They are an effective skillful means for overcoming selfishness, cruelty, and greed, but if held wrongly can themselves serve our selfishness, cruelty, and greed.
12. Doctrines are the same way. They are not one-size must fit all dogmas, but stategies and methods that must be used with careful discernment and for the service of liberation and with the motivation of compassionate wholehearted engagement with the actual situation and the people in it.
13. I might paraphrase the Heart Sutra here and say right view is skillful means and skillful means is right view. They are not opposed because they are each other. Right view is not about holding a single view against all comers. It is about a whole view or wholehearted engagement and acting in accordance with it. And this acting in accordance is skillful means. And acting skillfully is right or rather whole view. And that is something I should have said at the start - each "right" in the eightfold path of right views, right intentions, etc. is not "right" as in "right and wrong." The actual word "samyak" actually means "whole" or "complete." So it is better to say compete or whole view which is of a great scope than partial views or wrongly held views.
14. But my last point is this - part of right view and skillful means embraces commitment and actually putting into practice that which has a greater scope. Just because something is a skillful means does not mean one should not be wholehearted about it within the scope of its applicability. And just because right view or complete view means recognizing the open endedness or relativity of various doctrinal approaches, does not mean that one discards them as having no weight. That is just another form of excluding and not seeing the whole picture.
I will end this here, but I am under no illusion that this is or even that there can be a final word on this subject. But greater scope or even more wholeness can certainly be brought in through in our inclusive inconclusivity.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi everyone,
The April 2005 issue of Living Buddhism has an article called "The SGI and Other Nichiren Schools" by Eugene Hirahara in it that perpetuates several misconceptions and stereotypes. I would like to address those:
1. He asserts that Nikko was chosen as the sole successor and that the other five would not follow him. I have written about this already:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/library/2transf-docs.html
Basically the transfer documents are not credible, and there is counterevidence in Nikko's own hand to show that he was not given any special place vis a vis the other five senior disciples. This is the perpetuation of a self-serving Taisekiji legend based on fraudulent documents and sectarian claims. No credible scholars outside of Taisekiji and those who uphold their dogmas give any credence to it.
The article also states that "Nikko left Minobu, taking with him the Dai-Gohonzon, the Daishonin's ashes, and other important artifacts." This is also not true. The ashes of Nichiren Shonin (or Daishonin because we also use that term) are in the ossuary at Mt. Minobu.
As for the legend of the Dai-Gohonzon I have written about that here:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon/DaiGohonzon.html
2. It is true that the other ministers, with the exception of Niko, were not able to take their places in the rotation system. The reason is because they were busy taking care of the Nichiren communities in their immediate areas. If they had abandoned their congregations, Nichiren Buddhism would have died out in Kamakura and elsewhere. The mistake was to agree to an unrealistic rotation system. It was certainly not because they no longer cared about Nichiren. In the case of Nichiji, he went overseas to spread the Odaimoku in China.
In addition Nissho and Nichiro and more importantly their lay followers were being threatened by the government. One reason was because Nissho submitted an expanded version of the Rissho Ankoku Ron that explicitly criticized Tendai. When the Yoritsuna (the one who tried to execute Nichiren) threatened to suppress them, Nissho and Nichiren pointed out that since they were fully ordained Tendai monks who were trying to reform Tendai, he could not legally move against them according to the Ritsuryo code. Nissho and Nichiro were using a legal maneouvre to protect their Sangha, they were not returnig to Tendai and in fact were trying to continue Nichiren's critiques against Tendai esotericism overshadowing the Lotus Sutra.
As for Nitcho, he actually joined Nikko at Kitayama Honmonji and remained there for the rest of his life. So it was never Nikko against the other five. Basically it was Nikko in a dispute with Niko, Nissho, and Nichiro.
For thumbnail sketches of the six:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_01.html
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_02.html
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_03.html
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_04.html
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_05.html
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_06.html
3. Niko and Nikko did indeed argue over the propiety of some of Hakiri Sanenaga's actions. See the thumbnail sketch for Nikko above for details on that (it is the third one). Basically, Nikko was being very strict and uncompromising, Niko was being more lenient and flexible. It is a matter of interpretation as to whether Nikko was being excessive and puritanical or Niko was overly compromising.
I refuse to take sides. Today, the Nikko lineage is represented in Nichiren Shu by his main lineage at Kitayama Honmonji where his ashes are buried to this day, so there are those in Nichiren Shu who would side with Nikko in that debate.
4. The Nakayama school was not founded by Nitcho, who as I said actually joined Nikko at Kitayama Honmonji. See the fifth link above for the thumbnail sketch of Nitcho. That link also describes how the Nakayama lineage was actually founded by Toki Jonin, who ordained himself as Nichijo. Toki Jonin was also responsible for collecting as many of Nichiren's writings as he could for posterity. Many of them are still treasured at Nakayama Hokekyoji.
I should also point out that the assertion that the other disciples of Nichiren "physically discarded some of the Daishonin's important writings" is totally baseless, and in fact all of Nichiren's writings were valued. Toki Jonin's efforts being an example of how they cherished Nichiren's teachings. Even today they are referred to as "goibun" in Nichiren Shu which means "treasured writings."
5. It is true that the Japanese government forced the consolidation of the Nichiren schools. It is not true that they all divided again. Most stayed within Nichiren Shu, including Kitayama Honmonji and two other Fuji school temples. Today, the lineages of all the major disciples who left lineages (so Nitcho and Nichiji are not represented but Toki Jonin's lineage is) are rerpresented in the Nichiren Shu. I will admit that they were brought together for the wrong reasons. But I think it is commendable that when they all had the chance to split apart they chose to continue working together.
The story of the Fuji lineages is here:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/HokkeShu_06.html
6. The article asserts that "Nichiren Shu generally reveres the historical Buddha Shakyamuni as the treasure of the Buddha." That is absolutely false. The Nichiren Shu reveres the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha of the 16th chapter who is the unity of the trikaya as the Gohonzon. The Omandala depicts this Eternal Buddha in the act of transferring the Wonderful Dharma to all sentient beings and particularly the four leaders of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth.
The following two articles describe the understanding of the Gohonzon and the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha in Nichiren Shu. The second of these two articles lists the five accepted representations of this Eternal Buddha in Nichiren Shu. Note that this is not a Buddha outside ourselves, nor is this Buddha merely a personification of Buddha-nature. Rather, the Eternal Buddha is the actualization of buddhahood who is one with the Wonderful Dharma and transcends the duality of self and other.
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/GohonzonShu/082.html
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon/EyeOpeningCeremony.html
In addition, the article alleges that, "copies of the mandala are even sold as decorative items in various forms at temple souvenir shops." This is also totally false. The Omandala is sold in stores that sell religious items. These are not temple stores, and they are not being sold as souvenirs. In fact, the Nichiren Shu officially bestows the Shutei Mandala, which can only be gotten from fully ordained ministers who get them from the Shumuin (Nichiren Shu H.Q.). Some ministers at their discretion will perform eye-opening ceremonies for other mandalas (whether bought from religious supply stores or otherwise) but that is at the discretion of the individual minister and it must be an Omandala that has been inscribed in a respectful way in accordance with Nichiren's specifications. We certainly do not approve of them (eye-opened or not) being used as "decorative items" nor do even the privately owned stores which sell religious supplies intend for them to be used in that way.
7. While it is true that Nichiren Shonin could be considered the leader of the treasure of the Sangha in the Latter Age, the treasure of the Sangha is all the Bodhisattvas of the Earth and their followers. This means that all those who chant Odaimoku are the treasure of the Sangha.
Also, in the Nichiren Shu we do sometimes refer to Nichiren as "Daishonin." The term "Daishi" is almost alway used in conjunction with the posthumous name "Rissho" given to Nichiren by the Japanese Emperor in the early 20th century. So Nichiren Shonin or Daishonin is also sometimes refered to as Rissho Daishi, but I have never heard "Nichiren Daishi."
As for the claim that Nichiren is a Buddha I have written about that here:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/library/NichirenBuddha.html
8. The article asserts that "Nichiren Shu teaching is based on a literal understanding of the Lotus Sutra and T'ien-t'ai's theoretical teaching of the Middle Day of the Law." This is also false, and apparently Eugene Hirahara has not read either my recent articles in Nichiren Shu News nor any other Nichiren Shu study materials. All schools of Nichiren Buddhism are based on "ji no ichinen sanzen" or the "actuality of the three thousand worlds in one thought-moment" which is based on the Honmon or Essential Gate. This is in contrast to the "ri no ichinen sanzen" or "Principle of the three thousand worlds in one thought-moment" based on the Shakumon or Trace-Gate. I think even a cursory reading of any Nichiren Shu study materials makes it very clear that we are based on the Original Gate, the Buddhism of Sowing of the Latter Age, and an existential or even introspective reading of the Lotus Sutra.
9. The Orally Transmitted Teachings are also revered by many ministers and laypeople within the Nichiren Shu. However, we do accept the verdict of scholarly scrutiny of that work (which is included in the Showa Teihon) which basically says that it can not be proven that this is definately Nichiren's oral transmission. Some believe it could be but can't prove it. In any case, it is very different from the five major writings in terminology and emphasis. So we realize that we can't make excessive claims for it, nor use it to countermand what is in the five major writings.
10. The article states "Nichiren intended the Gohonzon as a depiction of each person's Buddhahood, not as a means to worship someone else's enlightenment." You will not hear anything different in the Nichiren Shu. We agree with this assesment. The Buddhahood of the Eternal Buddha of chapter 16 is the Buddhahood that is Unborn and Deathless and which transcends self and other. It was fully manifested by Shakyamuni Buddha so that we could fully manifest our own. When we look at the Omandala or any other depiction of the Ceremony in the Air, we are entering into the ongoing ceremony, receiving the Wonderful Dharma with faith and joy, and expressing our own Buddhahood.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei