TO: SGI (Part 4: Nichiren "Buddha" v. Shakyamuni Buddha)

General Introduction

Today's post is the fourth 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

Today, I'm going to quote from an e-mail I'd sent to an SGI member. This further clarifies my position that Nichiren was not a Buddha.

Text of e-mail:

QUOTE:

More importantly, though, is my reaction to your expression: "as a 'Shakyamuni-Lotus Buddhist' rather than a 'Nichiren Buddhist.'" To put a finer point on it, I am a Lotus Buddhist. It's a common failing in the SGI to refer to the Lotus as being "Shakyamuni's Buddhism." But that's a fatal and inaccurate characterization, and a lot of bad things have flowed from this.

The Lotus was revealed to us during Shakyamuni's time on earth but that didn't make it Shakyamuni's Buddhism as the Lotus itself makes very clear. [Shakyamuni] admits that the Lotus was his teacher during his days as a bodhisattva. In the Lotus's pages, the first one to even mention the Lotus Sutra by name is Manjushri, who described his previous encounter with the Lotus untold eons earlier. And the Lotus is replete with names of other Buddhas and bodhisattvas who taught the Lotus to others way before planet earth was even formed. Not to mention Many Treasures Buddha who appeared in the Treasure Tower to offer his testimonial support to Shakyamuni's preaching of the Lotus.

Now some might point out that if the Lotus is supposed to be this sutra that's been in existence forever, then how could it so prominently feature Sharihotsu (Shariputra) to whom it is addressed in Chapter 2? Sharihotsu was first introduced to the Lotus 2,500 years ago in India, not untold eons ago. The answer to that question, which most SGI members wouldn't even think of asking, is quite simple: The version of the Lotus we have is contextual (that is, an expedient means version) pertinent to our particular place and time, so this "eternal" document was thus revealed to Sharihotsu. But the eternal version of the Lotus has always been similarly revealed (as an expedient means version) by some Buddha to someone like Sharihotsu. And this is alluded to in the Lotus we have with us today.

Nichiren, on the other hand, was a solo act. He never referred to any other Buddhas or bodhisattvas who had ever in the history of the universe taught what he taught. And yet, Nichiren claims as the source of his buddhism secret, hidden, esoteric interpretations of passages in the Lotus - his interpretations not backed up by or testified to by anybody else either in his day or in bygone eras. Nichiren extolled and swore fealty to the Lotus, but basically went off on a tangent not really justified by the actual contents of that Sutra. Try as I might*, I can't find any evidence in the Lotus to support the supremacy of the daimoku (or even its existence) or even to support any rationale in support of the gohonzon. Nichiren once wrote that the "gohonzon is not my invention," when that's exactly what it is.

As far as anyone taking exception to any of this is concerned, the fact that I've encountered dodgers like Ethan [Gelbaum, Director, SGI Culture Center in Chicago] during my entire career of questioning the foundations of SGI faith speaks volumes about those foundations. This might seem rather harsh, but I believe in honest, unblinking answers to honest, unblinking questions. Anything less is dishonorable. Only Guy McCloskey, among the leaders I've met, showed any degree of open-mindedness when (for example) I read aloud and distributed to a study meeting at the Center (which he attended) my piece** called "The Parable of the Honest and Excellent Physician." He allowed me to continue, whereas someone like Ethan would have stopped me cold in my tracks. Or had he not been there but heard about what I did, would have severely reprimanded me by daring to introduce a counter-parable meant to stimulate discussion.

For this, I have respect for Guy but not a whole lot for Ethan, Marty, or any of the other leaders I've met.

:UNQUOTE.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Lotus Samgha

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

might* - I've recited the Lotus Sutra over 150 times and couldn't find (as indicated above) "any evidence in the Lotus to support..."

my piece** - Here's a link to my counter-parable:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/parable-of-honest-and-excellent.html