General Introduction
Today's post is the sixth installment in my "TO: SGI" series, which is primarily addressed to current and former members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI). Of course, anyone else is invited to read and ponder this post, but please keep in mind that it would be helpful if you are familiar with the details of SGI Buddhism's practices and terminology. This link will connect you to the homepage of my Lotus Sutra Champions blog so you can access links to other essays I've posted and so you can read a general introduction to this new site:
http://lotussutrachampions.blogspot.com/2013/07/lotus-sutra-champions.html
Specific Introduction
I'm going to give the reasons why I gave up my Gohonzon and mailed it instead of returning it to SGI in person. I'll also address:
- Why I don't chant daimoku or do gongyo anymore (that is, parts A and C), even though I still "assiduously practice" - which is what the word "gongyo" means - by reciting the entire Lotus Sutra.
- Expedient means versus lying.
- Why Nichiren would make such an obviously false claim: "Chanting daimoku once is equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once."
- My attempt to reconcile my practices with SGI's.
My Gohonzons - I had 3 of them
I was given a Gohonzon when I first joined SGI (then known as NSA) in 1974. I destroyed that Gohonzon in 1976 as a symbolic act upon quitting this group. I didn't chant at all during the following 17 years, after which I rejoined SGI at the urging of a friend. I was told that SGI had changed from being a heavy-handed, authoritarian cult to a group that was more supportive of its members.
When I rejoined the SGI in 1993, I specifically declined offers to give me a new Gohonzon. Even back then, I sensed that the Gohonzon wasn't an integral part of the practice, since even blind people can chant and when Nichiren was about to get his head lopped off, he didn't say to his guards, "Excuse me, can I have access to my gohonzon before you kill me?" He knew that his actions and what was in his heart were the things that really mattered.
Actually, I had made my own Gohonzon back in 1993 - just a sheet of letter-sized paper with 3 columns of words in English, which I chanted to for about 2 or 3 years. These words were of particular importance to me - for instance, the names of my good friends and enemies, brief descriptors of milestones in my life, titles of a variety of buddhist doctrines, the daimoku itself...all together, about 60 entries. That's what I chanted to, my own personalized Gohonzon; and that's what I insisted everyone had a right to do - chant to their own personalized Gohonzon.
And, no, it isn't necessary for these personalized Gohonzon to be subjected to an eye-opening ceremony. There is no truth to the claim that such a ceremony somehow mysteriously activates Gohonzon. All it does is give the priesthood something to do, which puts them in a position of superiority over the laity.
I did, however, relent and apply for an official Gohonzon from the SGI in 1996 (3 years after rejoining SGI), no longer chanting to my self-created version and only sporadically to the official version. My practice always consisted of chanting, not being concerned about chanting to anything in particular. Again, I didn't see the Gohonzon as an integral part of my practice.
For the last six years, my Gohonzon wasn't enshrined in a butsudan; I had it safely stored away in a shipping tube. Only recently did I buy a butsudan and re-enshrine it. But during its years of storage, I didn't really miss it. However, when I went to the SGI Center (during the weeks this summer before I was banned), when I chanted to that Gohonzon, I did not take my eyes off of it and I did my best to concentrate on it. I couldn't say the same for some of the other members I chanted with, who seemed too easily distracted or outright bored. I couldn't help but suspect: "There's got to be a reason for this."
[Side Note: Since I was banned from the SGI Center, that's why I mailed in my Gohonzon rather than relinquish it in person.]
In Nichiren's day, it was common for Buddhists to chant to paintings or statues of Shakyamuni. And Nichiren knew how powerful it would be to give members something to focus on as they chanted. It also put him in a position to grant or deny gohonzon, thereby laying the groundwork for a discriminating priesthood. I remember my last district chief accused me of trying to create a new religion in which some people were understood to be better than others. Actually, SGI does exactly that - by creating two classes of people, members and non-members or those who have Gohonzon and those who don't.
About the Daimoku, which I no longer chant
Recently, I made a conscious decision to stop chanting daimoku. Instead, when I feel the urge to say something brief (as when I'm washing dishes, for example), I simply say, "Hail to the Buddhas," or "Namu Saddharma-pundarika Sutra." That last is the Sanskrit equivalent of the daimoku. Since Sanskrit is closer to the language Shakyamuni spoke, I feel more comfortable with that than with Nichiren's daimoku. Whenever I have an appreciable block of time on my hands with which to practice (say, at least 15 minutes), I don't waste it on repeating the Lotus Sutra's title (which is, in essence, what the daimoku is). Instead, I read as much of the English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra as I can.
That is and should be our bedrock practice.
Expedient or Skillful Means
I feel I owe Nichiren and the SGI a huge debt of gratitude, for without them, I would never have sought the Law. The problem with both, however, lies in their abuse of the concept of "expedient/skillful means." When using skillful means, I find too often a willingness among SGI members (especially leaders) to lie when trying to do shakubuku or convey doctrine. It even bothered me when I read that the Buddha told lies, as is openly revealed in the Lotus Sutra (but which, of course, weren't called lies...but that's what they were).
I figured out why Shakyamuni did that, but I've found no one else anywhere who shares my view, which I posted at this link: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html
It is not okay to lie to people - ever. My feeling is, if I have to tell a "white lie" to get someone to chant, then I'd rather they never practice. For sooner or later, the lies catch up to the liar. People aren't stupid. If they have half an ounce of intelligence, they'll figure out the lies. Problem is, too many folks themselves live lives rooted in lies, so they "understand" why they were lied to. But, to me, lying spoils the purity of transmission of the Law. It's better to simply not go there.
Reconciliation of Practices - Mine and SGI's
I was looking for a way to integrate my practice of reading the Lotus Sutra with SGI's practices. And I found I couldn't do it. When I recite from the Lotus Sutra, my eyes are focused on the text in front of me which means I couldn't be looking at the Gohonzon. Then it occurred to me why Nichiren (and therefore the SGI itself) was so dismissive of the practice of reciting the entire Lotus Sutra. Which has everything to do with why Nichiren would claim that chanting daimoku once was equal to reading the entire Lotus Sutra once. And that's simply because in Nichiren's time, very few people knew how to read.
Even for the illiterate, Nichren's recommended style of practice was easy. All they had to do was go to enough meetings to hear gongyo being chanted, so they could commit it to memory simply by listening - which was how it was done in Shakyamuni's day. Nothing was written down until after the Buddha died; the disciples simply listened and committed to memory. If Nichiren had insisted that his converts recite the entire Lotus Sutra, many wouldn't have been capable of such a feat of memory. And that would have taken their eyes off the Gohonzon, since their gaze would have been fixed upon the Lotus Sutra's text - again, assuming they knew how to read.
Not to mention: Familiarity with the Lotus Sutra might have also caused members to come up with questions which Nichiren (much like the SGI today) couldn't answer.
SGI won't listen to or answer any doctrinal questions until members start turning in their Gohonzons and stop paying zaimu (tithing) and stop subscribing to publications. Isn't it sad that a religious organization will only respond to a loss of revenue? Hmmm...come to think of it, that's how Daisaku Ikeda got so rich, by having legions of Japanese ladies selling his newspaper and, later, his other publications.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Lotus Sutra's Virtual Samgha
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment