Introduction
I
so badly wanted today's essay to be perfect. So I delayed writing it
for weeks in order to give it more and more thought. But I came to
realize that I cannot achieve the perfection I seek in this version
which I decided to post today. So I'll call it a first draft, just so
I can at least give you something to ponder. I might end up rewriting
it, perhaps many times, in the name of seeking the perfection I
desire. Or maybe I'll just leave you with this version, warts and
all, hoping you will be able to see what I'm driving at.
I
hate doing that, though, since I think it's a writer's job to get it
right. Why should you, the reader, be burdened with trying to figure
out “what I'm driving at?” If I can't make my points – all of
them – as clear as possible, then I feel I have failed you.
However, if I don't at least start with this “first draft,” then
I will truly have failed you. I don't have the luxury of time, since
my oncologist says I am dying of liver cancer. The longer I wait, the
greater the chance that I'll lose whatever powers of explication I
have left.
So,
for better and worst, I offer you this version.
So,
what is “this version?”
This
version is a fictitious letter to Nichiren, a Buddhist monk who lived in Japan from his birth there until his death – from 1222 to
1282. Nichiren himself was one of the most prolific writers whoever
lived, in his capacity as the founder of a what has become a group of
religious sects still in existence today. Many of his writings are
still with us, consisting of various treatises and letters to his
disciples.
Nichiren
received letters, so I'm styling today's posting as such a letter
from “Anonymous.” I'll explain why within the letter itself. But
right now, I'll explain why I think Nichiren and my letter to him
should be regarded by a larger audience. In the realm of religious
affairs, there are few leaders and many followers, some of whom make
exaggerated claims on behalf of those leaders. And certainly there is
a lot of charlatanism and pretension in this realm.
It
is my hope that you will be able to discern certain universal points
I'm trying to make, even though you yourself might not know much
about Nichiren's Buddhism or, for that matter, about any other kind
of Buddhism. But within all faith traditions, there are leaders and
there are followers. And some of these followers try to become
leaders themselves by “interpreting” what the founding leaders
had to say. It is these mantle-assuming followers who I fear the most
and who I believe pose a huge threat to the sacred spirituality of
the many. This threat is looming so large these days, I feel it must
be vigorously opposed or else world peace itself might be threatened.
In
that spirit, I offer the following letter - “Reprimanding
Nichiren.”
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reprimanding
Nichiren
I
address this to you, Nichiren, called by your followers “Daishonin”
[Great Sage], whom I have never met. You don't know me and in fact we
have never met face to face. I was, however, one of those who
happened to hear your first sermon concerning the Fundamental Law of
the Universe which you claim to have discovered – Nam Myoho Renge
Kyo. This is known as the Daimoku or Great Invocation, the chanting
of which you promote as the most profound of Buddhist practices. I
was in the background, out of your line of sight, though I caught an
occasional glimpse of you as you spoke. Perhaps you also had caught a
glimpse of me. But my point is, we are not personally known to each
other in any discernible way.
You
claimed that this Law is implicit within the pages of the Lotus
Sutra*, the Buddha's greatest sermon. But I couldn't help but
notice some disturbing aspects of your presentation. When Shakyamuni
Buddha revealed the Lotus Sutra to his audience in ancient India, he
manifested his supernatural powers – powers which all buddhas are
said to possess. When you spoke, I saw no such manifestations.
Shakyamuni
Buddha addressed a Great Assembly of accomplished and profound
disciples. You addressed a rather ordinary, non-descript group of
villagers, only some of whom were more than passingly aware of the
major concepts of Mahayana Buddhism.
When
Shakyamuni Buddha presented the Lotus Sutra to the world, Many
Treasures Buddha appeared in his magnificent Treasure Tower to bear
witnesss to the truth of his words. When you presented Nam Myoho
Renge Kyo to this small group of villagers, Many Treasures was
nowhere to be found. The Lotus Sutra states**:
“...if
there are those who preach the Lotus Sutra, this treasure tower will
in all cases come forth and appear in their presence, and [Many
Treasures Buddha's] complete body will be in the tower, speaking
words of praise and saying, 'Excellent, excellent!'”
Since
Many Treasures Buddha did not appear, I can only conclude that
whatever you were preaching was NOT the Lotus Sutra, even though you
claim that your Law is hidden within its pages. At this point, it
would be useful to emphasize: “There is no such thing as the
Daimoku Sutra, unless you want to claim that your various writings
(commentaries, actually) should be considered as this Sutra.”
However, since you are not a
Buddha***, that would be quite a claim. I duly note that you,
at least so far, have not done what all buddhas do – bestow
predictions of the attainment of Buddhahood on selected disciples
within their entourage.
Perhaps
others think of you as a Buddha or perhaps future disciples will try
to make that claim on your behalf. But you know and I know that such
claims would be false, though perhaps well-intended. What we both
know is what you freely admit – you are from a chandala family.
Your father was a lowly fisherman who had once held a minor position
as a government official. But he fell from grace and was reduced to
ensnaring fish for a living. Not only for his living, but for yours
as well. And you never overcome the shame of this fall from grace.
Living in a society that treasures status and maintaining face, you
couldn't help but be affected by your father's decline of fortune.
But
an opportunity came your way – a chance to obtain an education at
the local Buddhist temple. You were young, eager, and had a quick and
able mind. You learned to read. You learned to debate, by which means
you saw that even the mightiest of men could be felled by the power
of well-thrusted words. So you prayed to become the wisest man in
Japan. I wonder, though, if you sought wisdom in order to lead others
to self-fulfillment. Or if you sought wisdom to enable you to lord
over others.
I
would have been far more impressed if, instead, you had prayed to
become the most compassionate man in Japan. But I suppose wisdom is a
more universally appreciated quality among the men of influence in
this country whom you'd hoped to impress. And impressing men in power
can be very satisfying to those who hail from a chandala background,
wouldn't you say?
Regarding
your Gohonzon
One
of your most cherished contributions to humanity is a great mandala
known as the Gohonzon or the Supreme Object of Worship. This object
is composed of written Chinese characters painted (in sumi ink) on
either a paper or a wooden surface, and is activated by means of an
“eye-opening” ceremony. And of this, you had written: “I,
Nichiren, have inscribed my life in sumi ink, so believe in the
Gohonzon with your whole heart.”
I
have objections to certain aspects of your Gohonzon, which prevent me
from embracing it as a suitable object of worship. Down the center of
the Gohonzon appear, in lettering more prominent than those not in
the center, the words “Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.” Under those words,
in lettering of equal size and prominence, is your name – Nichiren.
Some
might view this positioning as symbolic of you upholding the Law.
However, I would have felt more comfortable if you had painted the
word “Buddhas” instead of your name in particular. Or, even
better, “Teachers of the Law” - for Buddhas aren't the only ones
who preach the Lotus Sutra (of which you claim the Daimoku is its
essence).
The
eleventh chapter of the Lotus Sutra states, “If one upholds this
[sutra], one will be upholding the Buddha's body.” However, it is
worthy of note that not only is the Buddha's body upheld by his
disciples, sometimes the Buddha upholds his disciples as mentioned in
Chapter 10.
“...the
people who read and recite the Lotus Sutra...they are borne upon the
shoulders of the [buddha].”
Buddhist
practice is very much a two-way street. It's not just a matter of
lowly, unworthy disciples fawning over a buddha, of which there are
untold trillions. So the fact that you saw fit to place your name
under the fundamental law of the universe is bothersome to me. The
implication is that you have this unique relationship with the Law,
which no buddha has ever claimed.
Your
name is prominently displayed in large characters, but the names of
the buddhas Shakyamuni and Many Treasures are displayed in much
smaller characters. This seems disrespectful – even arrogant.
I
also noticed that you include on your Gohonzon the name of a fellow
Japanese national known as Dengyo the Great. But absent from the
Gohonzon is any mention of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy, who is the
subject of the last chapter of the Lotus Sutra, which includes these
words:
“And
after [Shakyamuni Buddha] has entered extinction, I [Bodhisattva
Universal Worthy] will cause [the Lotus Sutra] to be widely
propagated throughout Jambudvipa and will see that it never comes to
an end.”
To
which Shakyamuni Buddha replied: “And I will employ my
transcendental powers to guard and protect those who can accept and
uphold the name of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy.”
Not
only is Universal Worthy the subject of the last chapter of the Lotus
Sutra, he is the subject of the so-called “Closing Sutra” which
follows the Lotus. This Closing Sutra is called, “Sutra on How to
Practice Meditation on Bodhisattva Universal Worthy,” which
contains these words of Shakyamuni Buddha:
“...for
the sake of living beings of ages to come who wish to practice the
unsurpassed Law of the great vehicle, and who wish to study the
practice of Universal Worthy and to carry out Universal Worthy's
practice, I will now explain the method that they should hold in
mind.”
From
the words in these preceding paragraphs, you can see that Shakyamuni
Buddha holds the bodhisattva Universal Worthy in great esteem. Yet,
you don't – at least not to the extent of including his name on
your Gohonzon. This is a slight I cannot forgive.
I
thought of an improvement in the layout of your Gohonzon, should any
of your future disciples decide that there exists a oneness, an
integration, of you and the Law. Your name should not appear under
the Daimoku, but should instead appear in one of two formats:
As
a tiny character superimposed on or proximate to the character “Myo”
or as a number of tiny characters so displayed on or near the entire
Daimoku. The idea of the latter is, of course, an allusion to the
idea that a buddha can manifest buddhas that are numerous (actually,
infinite) emanations of himself.
The
whole idea of “object of worship” is rather fluid. For me, the
object of worship is the printed version of the Lotus Sutra from
which I read aloud on a daily basis. For the disciples of Shakyamuni
Buddha who lived when he did, the object of worship was his face upon
which they focused and would not for a moment look away.
And
there was a time when Shakyamuni, before he attained enlightenment
and while he lived as a great king, said, “Who can expound the
great vehicle for me? To the end of my life I will be his provider
and servant!” This offer, appearing in the Devadatta Chapter of the
Lotus Sutra, is followed by these words:
“At
that time there was a seer who came to the king and said, 'I have the
great vehicle text called the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law. If
you will never disobey me, I will expound it for you.”
At
this point, this seer (who was an incarnation of Devadatta) became
this king's object of worship in a manner of speaking. Which is
interesting, since Devadatta later tried to kill Shakyamuni Buddha
when they lived in ancient India those thousands of years ago.
The
Daimoku
You
make much of the “fact” that Shakyamuni Buddha doesn't explicitly
identify the fundamental law of the universe by which all buddhas
attain enlightenment. Since, however, you acknowledge the Lotus Sutra
as the greatest of sutras, you are forced to claim that Nam Myoho
Renge Kyo (not to mention the Gohonzon) is implicitly revealed in the
Lotus.
However,
when you revealed to the world this most profound Law, what have you
really given to us? The word “nam” simply means “devotion” –
no mystery there, since it is well known that enlightenment is
obtained by means of a devotion to lengthy and well-defined practice.
The
word “Renge” means “cause and effect.” This is the basic law
of karma which, to your amazement, had been developed by the Chinese
teacher Tientai into a doctrine he called the mutual possesion of the
ten worlds. This is his contribution, not yours, and is the subject
of his commentaries which are not the equivalent of a buddha's
sutras.
The
word “kyo” refers to “sutra.” So the only word which even
remotely connects to this Law you've “revealed” is “myoho”
which means Mystic Law. However, to call something a “mystic law”
is not the same as telling us what that Law is.
There
is a sutra which precedes the Lotus, though is mentioned favorably
within its pages, which refers to the doctrine of immeasurable
meanings. This is the idea that there is one single Law from which
all of the other laws or teachings of the buddhas are derived.
However, note carefully: This Law is treated by the Buddha as
subordinate to the Law revealed in the Lotus.
However,
the Law of Immeasurable Meanings and the Law revealed in the Lotus
have at least one thing****
in common: “Only between one buddha and another can it be fully
comprehended.” This tells me that there is no one, single buddha
who can stand alone in his understanding. And that seems to be a
confirmation of the well-known doctrine of dependent origination.
When these thoughts occurred to me, I was stunned and unable to
believe. I'm still struggling and vow to attain full understanding of
this amazing assertion.
As
for the source of immeasurable meanings, my best guess is that the
Void is this source. The buddha taught that all phenomenon are to be
regarded as being “like” empty space. I think he was trying to
tell us that that's exactly where all phenomenon come from. And I
suppose that makes a certain amount of sense, in that there's more
empty space in the universe than anything else. By meditating
fiercely on the Void, we can see all the possible variations of
material existence. But...we're supposed to ignore these or else our
quest to transcend them will be overwhelmed by an overabundance of
irrelevant detail.
Conclusion
Your
emphases on the Gohonzon and the Daimoku serve to give focus to the
practice of sincere laymen who wish to pursue the buddha way.
However, ultimately this focus only serves to cause believers to
reject significant portions of the Lotus Sutra in favor of your own
writings, which have come to be treated as superior to the words of
the buddha by your disciples.
For
this, all good intentions aside, you must be severely reprimanded.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven
Searle, just another member of the
Virtual
Samgha of the Lotus and
Former
Candidate for President of the USA
(in
2008 & 2012)
Contact
me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Lotus
Sutra*
All
references to the Lotus Sutra are to a work entitled, “The Lotus
Sutra and its Opening and Closing Sutras,” translated by Burton
Watson, and published and copyrighted in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai.
states**
on
page 210
since
you are not a Buddha***
Nichiren
never claimed to be a buddha, in fact referring instead to when in
the future he hoped to attain Enlightenment.
one
thing****
The
following quote appears on page 18.
