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'd 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.
