The following essay regarding the interrelationship of our values and political, social, and ecological events is derived from the chapters of the Rissho Ankoku Ron commentary pertaining to Nichiren's Confucianist background.
In those chapters I review the Confucianist values and assumptions regarding the way in which the virtue (or lack of virtue) on the part of the ruler has an impact on world around them - both socially and ecologically. I also review how these assumptions then carried over into the assumption that the ruler must uphold the True Dharma in order to guarantee peace and security within their countries.
Now here are the passages from those chapters wherein I share my own reflections on what this could possibly mean for global citizens in the 21st century:
As has been seen previously in the Rissho Ankoku Ron, Nichiren and the Buddhist sutras shared this view, common among agrarian people all over the world. Here we see the Confucian version of it. While we no longer share this mythic view of natural events, it is still true that human greed, anger, and ignorance can bring about civil strife, warfare, poverty, famine, and can even bring about or exacerbate natural disasters through ecological damage, or the refusal to adequately plan and prepare for natural events like earthquakes, drought, forest fires, flooding, or hurricanes.
We may not subscribe to the idea that a divinely appointed emperor is needed to maintain law and order and act as an intermediary with God or Heaven, but these ideas are not totally alien either. Confucianism is basically about family values. Ideally within a family there are clearly delineated relationships and responsibilities and an underlying spirit of love and affection. If the family is the basic building block of society, then the same values that hold a family together in love and harmony should also be the values that hold the country itself together. The country, then, becomes an extension of the family. Even today, there are those who argue that family values are needed if our society is to hold together and receive God’s blessing. Some believe that one of the greatest threats to these values is when public figures like politicians, actors, singers, or sports stars act contrary to these values or endorse ideas or ways of life that could possibly lead to or encourage the breakdown of the family. Usually it is religious conservatives who hold such views. Often these are the very same people who believe in the literal unfolding of scriptural prophecy and the intervention of an all-powerful God in human affairs through things like earthquakes, floods, disease, and other disasters. So the Confucian view that certain core values rooted in family relationships are vital to a healthy society should not be all that unfamiliar to us.
Unfortunately, the term “family values” has also come to represent various forms of bigotry, such as homophobia, and authoritarianism. Family values are sometimes viewed as another way of imposing outmoded patriarchal values in which women are subordinated to men, regardless of ability or relative merits, and in which unjust hierarchical relationships, unbendingly severe laws, and social conformism and repression are the norm. Certainly Confucianism throughout its history came to represent a very patriarchal system which devalued women, emphasized rote learning and strict conformity, and was often responsible for the political suppression of rival systems of thought and even outright bigotry against non-Chinese people and cultures. It became a very narrow, close-minded, and oppressive system of thought. But this was the dark side of the Confucian tradition. The dark side of Confucianism and what are called “family values” need to be recognized and critiqued. However, we should not lose sight of the positive aspects. The Confucian emphasis on the five constant virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and trustworthiness need not necessarily be connected with bigotry and patriarchal repression. These Confucian “family values” had a vital role in uplifting the human spirit and steering human society (at least in East Asia) towards a more peaceful and harmonious way of life based on the fundamental building block of a loving family. It was these values that Nichiren praised in many of his writings as necessary precursors to the reception of Buddhism. Hopefully, we too can come to appreciate the continuing relevance of such values and find ways to incorporate them into our own lives in a way that is appropriate in our day and age wherein other values such as equality, creativity, progress, and tolerance prevail.
So again the issue is raised, can we really say that the fate of a nation or at least its government is dependent upon Buddhism? Throughout the history of Confucianism in China, the Mandate of Heaven has been given various interpretations. Some interpretations depended more heavily on the intercession of heavenly powers, while others took a more naturalistic position. Mencius, for instance, seemed to equate the Mandate of Heaven with what we would call the “will of the people.” It is not too hard to make a case for the view that virtuous rulers will govern wisely, gain and maintain the respect and trust of the people, and will not act against the public good for private gain. Such a government will be more stable and better able to weather a crisis than a corrupt government that does not have the people’s support and which weakens or even sells out the nation for short-term personal gain. Such a government will enjoy the trust and confidence of the people; it will therefore enjoy the Mandate of Heaven.
Does it make sense, then, to claim that one can receive the Mandate of Heaven by supporting a particular religion, in this case Buddhism? In fact, the example of Emperor Wu-tsung shows the opposite. He patronized Buddhism in the beginning of his reign and still had to contend with rebellion and war. So could one say the Mandate can be gained or loss depending on what kind of Buddhism was supported or suppressed? Such a claim seems very far-fetched and more than a little self-serving when made by Buddhists who are trying to win the patronage of the rulers and/or convince them to suppress rivals. But let us suppose that the issue is not Buddha Dharma but the True Dharma. The True Dharma is not just the ideas or teachings, much less the opinions, of the Buddha and his followers. The claim of Buddhism is that the True Dharma is the true nature of reality and the way of life and methods of spiritual practice that lead to an awakening to that true nature. Fidelity to the True Dharma is really supposed to mean fidelity to the Truth and not just to a religious system. The real issue should not be framed in terms of which religion will bring about a successful government. Rather, the real issue is what kind of a vision will guide any given government: expediency and self-interest, or fidelity to the Truth and compassionate action in service of the Truth? In this the Confucian and Buddhist traditions of good government can find common ground.
We cannot leave it at that however. Benevolent government, the main theme of Confucianism, has already been mentioned in the very beginning of the Rissho Ankoku Ron as one of the many methods proposed to end the suffering of the Japanese people. But even at its best, the benign paternalism of Confucianism proved to be no match for the uncertainties at the core of the human condition, let alone the natural disasters that were then and still are largely beyond human control. In addition, the Confucian tradition has often fallen short of this ideal, and has ended up being nothing more than an authoritarian ideology on the side of an oppressive status quo. So something more is needed. For this reason, Nichiren saw the True Dharma as addressing the deeper concern of the universal suffering of all sentient beings and its causes in greed, anger, and ignorance. The True Dharma, particularly in its expression as the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Teaching, shows the way to overcome this suffering by proposing that all beings in fact have the buddha-nature. In this view, we are not merely noblemen in need of an education in good government or commoners in need of governing as the Confucian tradition teaches. Rather we are potential buddhas and we should regard each other with great compassion and treat each other with dignity befitting the precious and interdependent nature of all life. This is the aim of Buddhism – not merely to foster good government and benevolence, but to enable all people to cultivate a deeper vision of what life itself is in order to overcome delusion and selfishness and instead realize this world as a pure land in which enlightenment is an ever-present possibility. In our age, government can no longer be expected to patronize Buddhism or even directly support it, but government can be expected to create the conditions wherein such a grand vision of interdependence and universal regard for the dignity of life can become the basis for a truly just and peaceful world.
Perhaps we can relate to the intuition that these agrarian mythic ways of thinking are trying to communicate: that human beings have the responsibility to create a just society that is in harmony with the natural world. If we create a society whose foundation is built on exploitation and conquest, greed and aggression, then we will have a society where every hand is lifted up against another and short-term gain overrules long-term stability. We need to govern our lives and by extension our societies by a higher standard than greed for power and wealth. The power of the gods, buddhas, and bodhisattvas is actually the power of our own wisdom and compassion. We realize this power by following the higher standard of the True or Wonderful Dharma that Nichiren saw most fully expressed in the Lotus Sutra. The Wonderful Dharma is not a sectarian creed or dogma but the realization that all beings are intrinsically worthy of our respect, compassion, and gratitude; and that the place and time to realize true peace, purity, and awakening is right where we are standing at this very moment. This may sound vague and abstract, but it is only realized in the unfolding of the concrete circumstances of our daily lives – in the way we fulfill our responsibilities, do our jobs, treat our families, spend time with friends, vote, shop, and contribute to various causes that effect the world around us. In this way we each create the integral harmony of Heaven and Earth beginning with ourselves and extending to the whole world.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
The Great Master T'ien-t'ai in 6th century China took the massive collection of the Buddha's teachings and found a way to put them into a coherent and practical system that would lead a person step-by-step to a deeper understanding and actualization of the Buddha's teachings. Anyone who does not understand this system will not be able to understand Nichiren's points of rerference and will inevitably misread and misunderstand what Nichiren had in mind. In order to parse all this out for myself I wrote the following two chapters in my commentary on the Rissho Ankoku Ron:
The Sutra Classification System of the T'ien-t'ai School
Competing Systems of Sutra Classification
The following are my own conclusions based on what I researched and considered about the T'ien-t'ai classification system of approaching the study and practice of Buddhism in such a step-by-step way:
I believe that there is more to the comparative classification systems than competing sectarian claims based upon the supposed authority of the Buddha. Each classification system could be viewed as a heuristic device for reconciling seemingly conflicting claims within the Buddhist canon and for discerning, evaluating, and assimilating the insights of Buddhism in a consistent and comprehensive manner. So the different systems should not be evaluated by whether they have the authority of Shakyamuni Buddha or whether they have sufficient proof-texts to back them up. Rather, the systems should be evaluated by how well they allow their respective adherents to develop and put into practice the deepest insights and highest aspirations expressed in the Buddhist teachings.
In Nichiren’s case, he believed that there were two distinctive doctrines in the Lotus Sutra that set it apart from any of the other sutras. The first was the teaching of the attainment of buddhahood by the shravakas and pratyekabuddhas because it is taught that all the Buddha’s teachings lead to the One Vehicle of buddhahood. The other sutras taught that the shravakas who had become arhats and the pratyekabuddhas who had attained nirvana on their own would no longer be able to develop the aspiration to attain buddhahood because they had become detached from all things and would no longer be reborn in this world or any other. So their inclusion in the One Vehicle represented the possibility that anyone and everyone could eventually attain buddhahood, even those for whom it might seem impossible. This promise of universal buddhahood caused Nichiren to call all other sutras Hinayana in comparison because their teachings tended to exclude or imply the exclusion of certain groups from ever achieving the highest goal. The second teaching was the revelation that Shakyamuni Buddha’s awakening did not occur for the first time under the Bodhi Tree but actually occurred in the remote past, a past so inconceivably distant that it is evident the sutra is talking about an unconditioned state that has no beginning or end. Nichiren took this teaching to mean that the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha is spiritually present even now leading us all to buddhahood and that the world we are living in is this buddha’s Pure Land of Tranquil Light. This means that unlike the other sutras, where buddhahood is a remote possibility or something that can only be attained in another world after death, the Lotus Sutra is teaching that buddhahood is something much more immediate and accessible if one has sufficient faith in the Wonderful Dharma. Nichiren believed that the T’ien-t’ai classification system showed that all the other sutras were leading up to these two teachings concerning the universality and immanence of buddhahood and that is what Shakyamuni Buddha had been trying to share with people all along.
The T’ien-t’ai sutra classification system, therefore can be understood as a way of highlighting the importance of these two doctrines in comparison with the teachings emphasized by the other sutras. These two doctrines of the Lotus Sutra, the attainment of buddhahood by those in the two vehicles of the shravakas and pratyekabuddhas, and Shakyamuni’s attainment of buddhahood in the remote past, are held to be much more important than the teachings related to rebirth in the pure lands (Pure Land school), or teachings emphasizing esoteric practice (Shingon or Tendai esotericism), the teachings of emptiness by analysis (the so-called Hinayana schools) or intuition (the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras), or the teaching of the total interpenetration of all phenomena (Flower Garland Sutra), or the teaching that all is consciousness (Consciousness Only school).
Today, it serves no purpose to argue whether one classification system is more authoritative than another, but we can still concern ourselves with which teaching best expresses the fullness of the Buddha’s compassionate insight. Those who adhere to Nichiren Buddhism believe that the Lotus Sutra, even if it did not originate with the historical Buddha, is the sutra that best articulates the Wonderful Dharma that lies at the heart of all the other teachings. This Wonderful Dharma or Truth is that the full awakening and liberation called buddhahood is a present possibility for all.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
What follows is an excerpt from the following article of my Rissho Ankoku Ron Commentary:
The Buddha's Criteria for Evaluating Teachings
In that article I review the Buddha's rebuke to Mara that he would not pass away until he knew that his disciples (both monastic and householder) could uphold the true Dharma and correct those who misrepresented it, the Buddha's instruction to check claims about his teachings with what he actually taught in his discourses (sutras) and monastic rules (vinaya), and the Buddha's teachings to the Kalama's to not accept speculations, second-hand testimony, or arguments from authority but to only follow that which they themselves could verify as healthy and wholesome. I then relate these teachings of the Buddha from the Pali Canon with Nichiren's appeal to the three proofs of doctrinal testimony, reason, and actuality for judging whether or not a claim is authentically expressing Buddha Dharma. Here is the the excerpt:
Putting together this guidance from the Buddha for evaluating whether any teaching is in accord with the Dharma we come up with the “three proofs.” The first “proof” is that a teaching must be accord with what the Buddha taught. The second is that a teaching must be reasonable and in accord with what we know about our own lives. The third is that a teaching must actually lead away from harm and suffering and lead to welfare and happiness. Nichiren often cited these “three proofs” as a criteria for ensuring that what is claimed to be a Buddhist teaching is actually so. For instance, in the San Sanzo Kiu no Koto (Concerning the Prayer Services for Rain by Three Tripitika Masters):
Practicing Buddhism, I, Nichiren, believe that it is important to use reason and scriptural proof in order to distinguish the true teaching from false ones or to compare the superiority among the sutras. Furthermore, it is more important to have actual proof (actual happening as a proof) in addition to reason and scriptural proof. (WNS: D3, p. 205)
Nichiren applied the three proofs to the teachings of Honen and others who he felt had departed from the true intention of Shakyamuni Buddha. Previously it was mentioned how Nichiren used the four standards found in the Nirvana Sutra for judging the relative profundity of Buddhist teachings.
“Rely on the Dharma and not upon persons;
rely on the meaning and not upon the words;
rely on wisdom and not upon discriminative thinking;
rely on sutras that are final and definitive and not upon those which are not final and definitive.”
Between the three proofs and the four standards, Nichiren believed that the Buddha fully intended for his followers to double check any and all teachings and to scrutinize them carefully and to accept nothing out of blind belief or merely because it was taught by an honored teacher or because something has become customary or traditional. The true spirit of Buddhism is a spirit of seeking the truth rather than complacence and blind belief.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Here is another couple of excerpts from the Rissho Ankoku Ron Commentary. This time from Nichiren's Critique of the Senchaku Shu Part 2.
Today, what is the state of Buddhism? As mentioned before, there are very few countries that could be considered primarily Buddhist today. Mainland China’s reigning ideology is the dialectical materialism of communism. The same is true in Vietnam and North Korea. While there are many people who are nominally Buddhists in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, free market capitalism is more or less the reigning ideology. Buddhism has become little more than a cultural trapping, a moribund tradition relegated almost solely to the performance of funeral or memorial services. Most Buddhists in East Asian traditions consider Buddhism to be nothing more than a way of making sure that those who die are able to pass on to the Pure Land of Amitabha. This is the case for Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese Buddhists. The Lotus Sutra is revered, but usually only for the recitation of chapter 25 that deals with Kuan Yin Bodhisattva, the Goddess of Compassion, who can be called upon to help overcome worldly troubles and concerns and who is considered the handmaiden of Amitabha Buddha. The central points of the Lotus Sutra are not a part of the average teaching or practice of East Asian Buddhism, though occasionally Zen teachers might make reference to it. Shakyamuni Buddha, whether in his historical aspect or as the Eternal Buddha of chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, takes a distant second place to the veneration of Amitabha Buddha, and the teaching that this world is the actual pure land, the Pure Land of Tranquil Light, is reserved only for the few who delve into Zen practice and the demythologization of the Pure Land teachings and practices. Except for the minority who practice Nichiren Buddhism, it would seem that Nichiren’s fear that the veneration of Shakyamuni Buddha and the Lotus Sutra would be overcome by Pure Land piety and otherworldliness has come true. Attaining enlightenment in this life and thereby overcoming the sufferings of birth and death, the main point of Buddhism, has indeed taken second place to the goal of attaining rebirth in the Pure Land after death and to attaining worldly benefits in this life. Nichiren’s Lotus Sutra inspired vision of a society focused on bringing out the buddhahood in all beings in this life has not been realized.
Nichiren concludes his critique of Honen by pointing out that people have become very confused about what is an incidental teaching, such as rebirth in a pure land, and what is the primary point of Buddhism, attaining enlightenment through devotion to the Wonderful Dharma. They have turned away from Buddhism as a whole, to embrace a very small and relatively insignificant part of it.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
The Lotus Sutra’s main themes concern the One Vehicle whereby even those who would seem to be excluded from attaining buddhahood are promised its attainment and the revelation that Shakyamuni Buddha had in fact been the Buddha since the primordial past even before his awakening beneath the Bodhi Tree. Women, evildoers like Devadatta, and those disciples who were believed to have become arhats who would no longer return to the world after their passing, are all told that they will in fact return to the world and attain buddhahood. This was in seeming contradiction to the earlier teaching that only a very few could aspire to and attain buddhahood. The revelation of the attainment of buddhahood in the remote past means that even during the Buddha’s innumerable past lifetimes as an ordinary human being, or an animal, or some other form of sentient being striving to attain buddhahood the Buddha had been a buddha all along. And now even though Shakyamuni Buddha is going to appear to pass away for good, he asserts that he will still be present. In light of these two themes, buddhahood should be understood as inclusive of all beings, all time, and all space. It is a constant and active presence even when it is not apparent or seems to be absent in the lives of those who strive for it. Throughout the Lotus Sutra these ideas are put forward as the fullest expression of the Dharma and to embrace them with faith and joy is to embrace the Wonderful Dharma and to reject them is to reject the Wonderful Dharma. The Wonderful Dharma is held to be even more worthy of respect and offerings than the Buddha himself because it is through the Wonderful Dharma that one attains buddhahood. It is for this reason that rejection means a total alienation from what is truly of value in life, and therefore leads to rebirth in hell. It is for this reason that a single moment of faith and rejoicing in the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra is said to bring unequalled merit, rivaled only by the merit brought by the perfection of wisdom which is none other than buddhahood itself.
So it would seem that the most important thing is to revere the Wonderful Dharma and to awaken to its full significance. The Triple Pure Land Sutras make a point of excluding any who would slander it, and the Lotus Sutra describes the vast demerit incurred or merit made by those who slander or praise it respectively. Whether the Buddha directly taught these sutras or not, and whether or not there are literal rebirths in the Pure Land or the Avichi Hell, the point seems to be that we create our own misery to the extent that we deny the Wonderful Dharma whereas we can attain awakening through upholding the Wonderful Dharma. And what is this Wonderful Dharma? It is not simply a formula, text, or even a creed that one must believe without evidence. It is none other than the true nature of all existence, the reality of all things. This is what all buddhas awaken to, praise, and point out to all sentient beings using many skillful methods so that they too may realize that they are buddhas as well.
The Triple Pure Land Sutras’ intent is to provide people with a way to be reborn in a Pure Land where they can then awaken to the Wonderful Dharma. The Lotus Sutra directly expounds the fullness of the Wonderful Dharma that can be encountered here and now in terms of the One Vehicle and the unborn and deathless nature of buddhahood. So does it make sense to embrace the indirect way of hoping to encounter the Wonderful Dharma only after death while excluding the possibility of taking faith in and rejoicing in the Wonderful Dharma here and now? Does it make sense to claim that the Triple Pure Land Sutras should be used to turn people away from the expounding of the Wonderful Dharma in the Lotus Sutra? That would contradict the clear intent of the Triple Pure Land Sutras. This is what Nichiren was trying to point out in his critique of Honen’s Senchaku Shu. That the Pure Land teachings should not be used to overshadow the direct expression of the Wonderful Dharma is a critique that I believe still holds up today.
Taken from:
Nichiren's Criticism of the Senchaku Shu Part 1 of the Rissho Ankoku Ron Commentary