Q&A: SGI v. NSP; On Blasphemy; High Priest Nikken Abe
Q: Hey, man, I'm konfoozed about something. I [read] your blog and saw numerous references to Nichiren Shoshu, even though you are clearly an SGI-USA member.
Put bluntly, what's up with that? Why even mention Nichiren Shoshu? They're old school, old news, ya know?
I'm just afraid that your readership might think we're a branch of Nichiren Shoshu, when we're just plain done with their asses. - Jason H., Los Angeles, CA
A: Damn good question, and I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to point this out.
Well, okay, for the purposes of this blog, I'm going to place a distinction between Nichiren Shoshu (NS), the School of Buddhism founded by Nichiren Daishonin, and which the SGI members practice; and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood (NSP), currently headed by Nikken Abe, which purportedly represents the NS School.
The reason for this is that I want to make sure people understand that we're not practicing something like Nichiren Shugai (or something similar); which is really quite deceptively close to Shoshu, even using Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo as the basis of their practice, even though what they advocate is pretty damn close to Christianity.
They too call their school "Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism;" to me, this is far more confusing than the SGI v. NS situation.
Thanks for reminding me, however, that I need to elucidate what the distinction is between NS and the NSP; more on this in a few paragraphs. Otherwise, I think it's a small price to pay for accuracy.
Speaking of accuracy, I need to make something clear: My secular friend, JJ, recently asked me if this Buddhism had an equivalent to blasphemy in its doctrines. At the time, I said something like "not as such. You can't slander others, is basically it."
Which, technically, is true. Even though it sounds silly, no one will stop you from saying stuff like, "buddha damnit." (Or from using such colloquiallisms as "thank god," or "jesus h. christ.") Also, most of the things labeled as blasphemous in the majority of religions, are actually encouraged here...Get pissed, demand proof, make threats; particularly if things aren't going your way.
Lastly, the act of slandering another is pretty heinous.
But there is something that, on paper, could equate to what JJ's asking about; which will be the basis for the rest of this entry: Slandering the Lotus Sutra/the votary of the Lotus Sutra, as well as standing idly by while these activities are occurring.
Look up the word slander in the OED, and here's what you get:
1) The utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him; calumny, defamation.
In other words, the Lotus Sutra (or Myoho Renge Kyo) is a manifestation of the Ultimate Law; don’t fuck with it. Don’t tell people lies about it, don’t mislead them regarding it, don’t spread misinformation or treat it as anything other than a manifestation of the Ultimate Mystic Law of Cause and Effect.
The same goes for those who practice it. You don’t want to think about the immensity of the negative karma you are creating. Also, if you, regardless of whether you practice or not, witness and allow others to defame either the Law or those who practice it, you will also be on the wrong end of karmic retribution. Actually, worse if you practice.
Let me tell ya, this ain't no whistling Dixie, this is straight up shit; so much so, that Shakyamuni (aka Siddartha), explicitly stated in the LS that no one, absolutely no one is exempt from this. He was quite vehement about it.
Miao-lo, T’ien-T’ai, and Nichiren Daishonin, successor-philosopher-monk types*, who spent their lives dedicated to studying the numerous sutras, but specifically the Lotus, all noted on the importance of these warnings. They also noted the various predictions warning of “false priests,” though it was Nichiren Daishonin who noted that this title could also be applied to anyone who decides to use the Lotus Sutra as a means of exploiting the innocent, to gain influence and power…to whore the religion out.
The Daishonin's writings mostly consist of letters he sent to his followers. He did have students, but those didn’t come for a while. The majority of his followers were lay-people he would exclaim that they could attain enlightenment without the need for priests (as they were pretty non-existent, ND was a one man show for a quite a while), without giving in to their cajoling, extorting and other condescending or exploitative means. That they could attain enlightenment simply by adhering to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, and by chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (literally “I adhere to the Mystic Law of the Lotus Sutra”; variously “the Ultimate Mystic Law” or “of cause and effect as described in the LS”).
He knew, however, that even this stoic teaching could be manipulated, and so he wrote often of rebuking anyone who tried to slander the LS, no matter what positions they held, no matter who they were [Nichiren Daishonin's emphasis – tbo]. It didn’t matter if it was a priest of high stature, he’d write, or if it was a powerful politician, one has to be watchful and admonish those who try to abuse others, and those who slander.
Let’s just say that things in feudal Japan during the 1200s were a bit desperate. Damn if that doesn’t sound familiar.
Next: How all of this applies to Nikken Abe.
*Because of the high number of writings Shakyamuni left behind, priests of the various different schools would argue about which was the Ultimate Correct Teaching. Rulers, who were also Buddhist, would also want to know. So, what would happen quite often, especially if there was a hotly contested issue, is that the rulers would hold debates to settle once and for all (at least for the ruler) which was what. Invariably, those who studied the Lotus Sutra and were steadfast in their learning would always win out. There are exceptions, but these usually had some tincture of intimidation involved, or these students were simply not invited.
Put bluntly, what's up with that? Why even mention Nichiren Shoshu? They're old school, old news, ya know?
I'm just afraid that your readership might think we're a branch of Nichiren Shoshu, when we're just plain done with their asses. - Jason H., Los Angeles, CA
A: Damn good question, and I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to point this out.
Well, okay, for the purposes of this blog, I'm going to place a distinction between Nichiren Shoshu (NS), the School of Buddhism founded by Nichiren Daishonin, and which the SGI members practice; and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood (NSP), currently headed by Nikken Abe, which purportedly represents the NS School.
The reason for this is that I want to make sure people understand that we're not practicing something like Nichiren Shugai (or something similar); which is really quite deceptively close to Shoshu, even using Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo as the basis of their practice, even though what they advocate is pretty damn close to Christianity.
They too call their school "Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism;" to me, this is far more confusing than the SGI v. NS situation.
Thanks for reminding me, however, that I need to elucidate what the distinction is between NS and the NSP; more on this in a few paragraphs. Otherwise, I think it's a small price to pay for accuracy.
Speaking of accuracy, I need to make something clear: My secular friend, JJ, recently asked me if this Buddhism had an equivalent to blasphemy in its doctrines. At the time, I said something like "not as such. You can't slander others, is basically it."
Which, technically, is true. Even though it sounds silly, no one will stop you from saying stuff like, "buddha damnit." (Or from using such colloquiallisms as "thank god," or "jesus h. christ.") Also, most of the things labeled as blasphemous in the majority of religions, are actually encouraged here...Get pissed, demand proof, make threats; particularly if things aren't going your way.
Lastly, the act of slandering another is pretty heinous.
But there is something that, on paper, could equate to what JJ's asking about; which will be the basis for the rest of this entry: Slandering the Lotus Sutra/the votary of the Lotus Sutra, as well as standing idly by while these activities are occurring.
Look up the word slander in the OED, and here's what you get:
1) The utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him; calumny, defamation.
In other words, the Lotus Sutra (or Myoho Renge Kyo) is a manifestation of the Ultimate Law; don’t fuck with it. Don’t tell people lies about it, don’t mislead them regarding it, don’t spread misinformation or treat it as anything other than a manifestation of the Ultimate Mystic Law of Cause and Effect.
The same goes for those who practice it. You don’t want to think about the immensity of the negative karma you are creating. Also, if you, regardless of whether you practice or not, witness and allow others to defame either the Law or those who practice it, you will also be on the wrong end of karmic retribution. Actually, worse if you practice.
Let me tell ya, this ain't no whistling Dixie, this is straight up shit; so much so, that Shakyamuni (aka Siddartha), explicitly stated in the LS that no one, absolutely no one is exempt from this. He was quite vehement about it.
Miao-lo, T’ien-T’ai, and Nichiren Daishonin, successor-philosopher-monk types*, who spent their lives dedicated to studying the numerous sutras, but specifically the Lotus, all noted on the importance of these warnings. They also noted the various predictions warning of “false priests,” though it was Nichiren Daishonin who noted that this title could also be applied to anyone who decides to use the Lotus Sutra as a means of exploiting the innocent, to gain influence and power…to whore the religion out.
The Daishonin's writings mostly consist of letters he sent to his followers. He did have students, but those didn’t come for a while. The majority of his followers were lay-people he would exclaim that they could attain enlightenment without the need for priests (as they were pretty non-existent, ND was a one man show for a quite a while), without giving in to their cajoling, extorting and other condescending or exploitative means. That they could attain enlightenment simply by adhering to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, and by chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (literally “I adhere to the Mystic Law of the Lotus Sutra”; variously “the Ultimate Mystic Law” or “of cause and effect as described in the LS”).
He knew, however, that even this stoic teaching could be manipulated, and so he wrote often of rebuking anyone who tried to slander the LS, no matter what positions they held, no matter who they were [Nichiren Daishonin's emphasis – tbo]. It didn’t matter if it was a priest of high stature, he’d write, or if it was a powerful politician, one has to be watchful and admonish those who try to abuse others, and those who slander.
Let’s just say that things in feudal Japan during the 1200s were a bit desperate. Damn if that doesn’t sound familiar.
Next: How all of this applies to Nikken Abe.
*Because of the high number of writings Shakyamuni left behind, priests of the various different schools would argue about which was the Ultimate Correct Teaching. Rulers, who were also Buddhist, would also want to know. So, what would happen quite often, especially if there was a hotly contested issue, is that the rulers would hold debates to settle once and for all (at least for the ruler) which was what. Invariably, those who studied the Lotus Sutra and were steadfast in their learning would always win out. There are exceptions, but these usually had some tincture of intimidation involved, or these students were simply not invited.
posted by the beige one at 2:10 PM
19 Comments:
I learned some Mormon visiting teachers about the practice the other night. I should tell ya about it sometime. One of them actually said something along the lines of (and this was before I learned 'em)...
"well, like you know, we in the church don't believe in worshipping idols."
I was like, "Ok, woah Nelly...sit back and relax..."
It was a good talk. Nice post. Want more...been craving them.
In other words, the Lotus Sutra (or Myoho Renge Kyo) is a manifestation of the Ultimate Law; don’t fuck with it. Don’t tell people lies about it, don’t mislead them regarding it, don’t spread misinformation or treat it as anything other than a manifestation of the Ultimate Mystic Law of Cause and Effect.
Does this mean you should (yes, I know, dangerous word that) view all non-adherents, or any adherent to a faith that has similar warnings to its adherents in regard to the views of their and others' scared texts (grand use, not merely written), as, essentially, infidels. Out of synch with that which is true.
If so, that is the point I run into dischord with any faith. When they talk about what is truth, they speak power. When they turn to what is not truth, it's deconstruction, always less than the whole.
Ties into my problem with the Left and Right these days. The Right has become more adept at speaking in terms of creating truth, while the Left attempts to deconstructing things that fall short of truth.
There should be some question marks in my first paragraph there.
Does this mean you should (yes, I know, dangerous word that) view all non-adherents, or any adherent to a faith that has similar warnings to its adherents in regard to the views of their and others' scared texts (grand use, not merely written), as, essentially, infidels. Out of synch with that which is true.
If so, that is the point I run into dischord with any faith. When they talk about what is truth, they speak power. When they turn to what is not truth, it's deconstruction, always less than the whole.
- The law of cause and effect has already been proven valid (I hesitate to say true) by science. Particle/Wave duality speaks to how outcomes are influenced, and specific ones manifest, based on the position/situation of the observer i.e. we create our reality.
I do not claim to know as much about Buddhism as the Beige, but what I do know is, the one thing that attracted me to it, was that it was so far removed from the "everyone else is an infidel" mentality that plagues most of Western religion. I arrived at Buddhism through science.
So if you have someone, to whom the laws of science to not apply (whether they agree with/understand/or believe them or not), I'd like to meet them.
:)
Does this mean you should (yes, I know, dangerous word that) view all non-adherents, or any adherent to a faith that has similar warnings to its adherents in regard to the views of their and others' scared texts (grand use, not merely written), as, essentially, infidels. Out of synch with that which is true.
Are you conjecturing here? In any of my previous entries, do you note anything even close to the condescencion that "treating non-adherents as infidels" implies? Do I treat you with any of that when we're talking with each other?
The behavior you're describing is also akin to slandering the law, because the impression that behavior leaves is just about as negative.
This also goes against the grain of "treating others as Buddhas themselves, regardless of how aware they are to their own inherent Buddha nature" that I know I've discussed with you.
If non-adherents wish to remain non-adherents, that's their biz; as long as they respect the practice and its adherents for what it is/they are.
The moment they start to slander the law or its adherents, or impede its growth/their activity, then a counter-move can commence.
Note Stine's first comment above, regarding the Mormon teachers, which is a perfect example of how this should work.
If non-adherents wish to remain non-adherents, that's their biz; as long as they respect the practice and its adherents for what it is/they are.
But, what I'm asking is, should it be the case that my faith instructed me to tell others that every other version of Sacred Law other than mine, and including yours, is bunk, wouldn't your faith say that you should actagainst me and my defilement of the Law?
The law of cause and effect has already been proven valid (I hesitate to say true) by science. Particle/Wave duality speaks to how outcomes are influenced, and specific ones manifest, based on the position/situation of the observer i.e. we create our reality.
This is a nice point, but I'd argue that truth isn't subject to the laws of science. Like, the absence of truth isn't the same as falsehood.
When someone talks to me about what is true, I listen. When they talk to me about aht is false, I don't. Declaring something as false because it isn't called true is an incorrect extrapolation; I never add "and all else is false" when I hear the devout talk about what is true.
Tell me about Buddhism as though Christianity et al never existed. Any other telling is regaling me with human wounds, and I can get that on Lifetime.
But, what I'm asking is, should it be the case that my faith instructed me to tell others that every other version of Sacred Law other than mine, and including yours, is bunk, wouldn't your faith say that you should act against me and my defilement of the Law?
And is this all you'd be doing? Also define "act against" in this ridiculously hypothetical question.
Because if you're thinking "they'll come at me with stones and swords," then, you, sir, need to freakin' relax.
If you attack the Lotus Sutra/Writings of Daishonin, first step would be to establish what it is you believe in and then engage in a debate of the merits.
If your attacks are of a personal nature, that's a whole different ballgame/can of worms; aspects of which will be delved into during the Nikken Abe entry.
Tell me about Buddhism as though Christianity et al never existed. Any other telling is regaling me with human wounds, and I can get that on Lifetime.
Well, I'm so sorry, Mr. Post-Grad, that the things I write so dreadfully offend your sensitivities! Though, in regards to this entry, what the hell are you talking about?
With the exception of listing things that are/aren't blasphemy in this practice, the rest of this is purely about Nichiren Shoshu's Buddhism. And wasn't it you that asked, you ornery fuck?
Or perhaps you're talking about the last entry, in which I said:
"There are no elaborate stories to muddy the issue here; there are no exhortations about mysterious machinations or to simply accept your fate."
Beyond the fact that I was writing about what I appreciated about this practice, these statements are made not only as a means of defining parameters, but also to establish some footwork for when I get those "isn't x the same as y?" questions that tend to come up.
Didn't realize this was "bad form," chief.
...ridiculously hypothetical...
...you, sir, need to freakin' relax.
Well, I'm so sorry, Mr. Post-Grad, that the things I write so dreadfully offend your sensitivities!
...you ornery fuck?
Baby, booby, bobby, take a deep breath. Perhaps my writing took a tone I didn't intend.
I'm just continuing on what we were talking about at the Lobo last night. Not accusing or looking for armor chinks or anything, just asking.
I thought I read at some point that action would be taken in response to blasphemy, because to witness blasphemy and do nothing was kinda blasphemous in and of itself.
I guess I don't believe in blasphemy, that Truth is unblasphemable. Something I brought up with my old Man of Faith post.
I'm just trying to understand your answer, questioning to clarify s'all.
Deep, calming breath. Maybe a little chanting for the energy to suffer fools.
And, y'know, you seem determined to label me either secular or Christian. Don't do that - it is just silly and reductive. Neither label fits my cosmology particularly well.
JJ, read this one, see if your sensibilities are offended:
Endgoal
I've read that one. It's lovely. My sensibilities aren't offended.
Dude, when I said...
Tell me about Buddhism as though Christianity et al never existed. Any other telling is regaling me with human wounds, and I can get that on Lifetime.
I was putting the emphasis on me, as in for me rhetoric is most powerful as a tool of creation, and less so when it deconstructs.
Like I've said before, when you talk the faith, I dig it, and when you talk what the faith isn't, I don't. And, no, I don't think it is for me to dig or not, that you should somehow need my validation or any other.
I believe in God in a way that doesn't preclude God being Sacred Law. Other people's baggage with the term God ain't mine. I believe God can be accessed perhaps an infinite number of ways, and that every way is just as good as any other.
Religions fail for me when they go beyond "truth is this..." and blunder on to "...and not this." The extrapolation is human folly.
Oops, hit enter too soon.
So, I was just trying to understand the concept of blasphemy you were putting forward, granted with my usual skepticism (especially for blasphemy).
Neither label fits my cosmology particularly well.
I don't think I've ever called you a Christian, and I've called you secular because to me "secular" = "not aligned with anything." Then we get into our discussions about the Existence of God, and how you'd like to take the word and the teachings of the man Jesus back from modern day Christians; and you have a melange of confusion.
What would you like to be referred as; simply as a means of identifying you beyond "friend?" Apparently "ornery fuck" isn't precise enough. (And that, right there, should tell you how those other phrases you picked up on were meant to be taken. Imagine an over-reacting Steve Martin.)
The tone did not come across that innocently, I have to say, and the Lifetime crack did rankle because 1) that is condescending, and 2) who the fuck are you to arbitrate what's a wound and what isn't? You're a good friend, but I never gave you that position for me. Assume what you want, but those are your definitions, bub.
Lastly, people in general start defining things by comparing it to other similar things, and maybe you object to my taking those steps, but there's nothing about this that is inherently wrong.
I thought I read at some point that action would be taken in response to blasphemy, because to witness blasphemy and do nothing was kinda blasphemous in and of itself.
I guess I don't believe in blasphemy, that Truth is unblasphemable.
I never said that it was blasphemy, but that it could be equated to blasphemy, on a semantic level (I mean, look who I'm talking to) if you had a mind towards that take.
Personally, I equate it to denigration, and mostly, I'm concerned with those within the practice than those without.
What I described earlier, about debating the merits, that's about as extreme as it gets in terms of someone who start blathering away about that sort of comparison.
Truth may not be blasphemable, but Truth can be manipulated to control the weak. What would you call that act?
Because that is primarily what is being guarded against.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask your grace at the Lifetime crack, which was mainly a result of all the beer and the feeling that it was really funny.
Truth may not be blasphemable, but Truth can be manipulated to control the weak. What would you call that act?
What is used to control the weak is the not-Truth that politicos, be they preist or politician, wrap Truth in. Truth cannot enslave, otherwise it wouldn't be Truth.
Then we get into our discussions about the Existence of God, and how you'd like to take the word and the teachings of the man Jesus back from modern day Christians; and you have a melange of confusion.
All religions have Truth and trappings. My faith seems to be the effort to separate the two.
If everyone just took their Truth and ran with it, we'd have harmony. But, we get distracted and tangled up in our own trappings, and begin to despise the trappings of others.
We ain't looking at True when we are, if even for just moments, looking at not-True and saying "hey, dude, that's not true!"
You do so a hell of a lot less than other folks I know, or am perhaps related to by marriage. I just point to it when I think I see it because that is what I do.
I believe in God in a way that doesn't preclude God being Sacred Law
And, let's be clear in this definition; your definition of God also gives It a power over any and all beings, correct? This isn't a charge, this is for clarification.
and begin to despise the trappings of others.
Thing is what you sometimes define as despising, would normally be called "making a distinction." Where is the line drawn?
We ain't looking at True when we are, if even for just moments, looking at not-True and saying "hey, dude, that's not true!"
What if the Not-True is hurting those who follow it? This is not simply about religion here...the Not-True could be anything that hinders progress for the individual.
You do so a hell of a lot less than other folks I know, or am perhaps related to by marriage. I just point to it when I think I see it because that is what I do.
Don't think I don't appreciate it, especially if you catch me out on something, but as I said earlier, sometimes it's making a distinction, and I wonder if you take issue with that.
I don't do that sort of thing, because I've a tendency to believe that people will/can take care of themselves, and I have an aversion to needlessly proselytize.
Even then, though, if someone is curious enough to ask what I believe in, I'm very specific about this Buddhism, how it's not related to the typical Buddhisms our society generally recognizes. I'm quick to point out that it's not about statues of big buddhas, nor about giving up everything, etc. I do not want the issue muddied in any way.
I go back to what I talked about in Endgoal:
If we agree that this is pretty cool, great. If not, don’t fuck with me, mine or any around us.
And, let's be clear in this definition; your definition of God also gives It a power over any and all beings, correct? This isn't a charge, this is for clarification.
No.
God is Infinite. There is no thing which is not God. Thou art God. Saying God is an It that has dominion over beings would be a little like Jose is an It that has dominion over his hands.
What if the Not-True is hurting those who follow it? This is not simply about religion here...the Not-True could be anything that hinders progress for the individual.
Remember I was speaking specifically of discussing matters of the spirit here. I of course don't mean we should all stand around agog at the glory of God or Truth or Sacred Law. There are all kinds of cause for poltical action. It's just that I view it as just that - political.
In my view, whenever religion and politics begin to blur lines, there's trouble. No such thing as a politics of faith or faith in politics.
Don't think I don't appreciate it, especially if you catch me out on something, but as I said earlier, sometimes it's making a distinction, and I wonder if you take issue with that.
I wouldn't have said so, but maybe I do. The way I understand the concept of God, there isn't anything that God isn't, and so the distinction-making is always more about the people making the distinction than the thing being distincted.
I believe in God in a way that doesn't preclude God being Sacred Law. Other people's baggage with the term God ain't mine. I believe God can be accessed perhaps an infinite number of ways, and that every way is just as good as any other.
Yes, and Buddha wasn't/isn't a God. We're talking about accessing innate human potential, not the God of Christianity, Protestantism, Hinduism or any other religion.
This is a nice point, but I'd argue that truth isn't subject to the laws of science. Like, the absence of truth isn't the same as falsehood.
When someone talks to me about what is true, I listen. When they talk to me about aht is false, I don't. Declaring something as false because it isn't called true is an incorrect extrapolation; I never add "and all else is false" when I hear the devout talk about what is true.
But who is declaring any other religious paradigm "false"? The concept of kosen rufu (world peace) applies to all. It is first and foremost a religious endeavor.
For me, the thread that keeps me practicing Buddhism is the philisophical, sociological, and psychological throughline of self-improvement to aid humanity. I think discussing this particular "religion" soley in terms of the dogma associated with so many other religious views, does everyone a disservice.
And I haven't finished reading the rest of the posts, so some of this may have been touched on. I just couldn't wait to speak. I'm sure you both know how that goes.
:)
This is a nice point, but I'd argue that truth isn't subject to the laws of science. Like, the absence of truth isn't the same as falsehood.
- Energy always manifests as something. Even when you speak of chaos theory, string theory and the like, energy will always manifest as something. And this something is based on the forces i.e. observer acting upon it. This is true, and it IS subject to the laws of science (as we currently understand them). This only backs up what you say about "God" being in everything. I think you both get too caught up in semantics. Some "truth" cannot be explained through words.
The concept of kosen rufu (world peace) applies to all. It is first and foremost a religious endeavor.
I meant to say a "humanistic" endeavor.
Some "truth" cannot be explained through words.
I totally agree with this, especially when discussing the matters currently at hand. The conception of God I'm talking about is simpatico with the old Jewish tradition of indicating God as ( ) bracketed space in recognition of the fact that any term or name that could be put in there would be limited.
The space between breathes, the unutterable - I'd argue that this is what God is, or where is perhaps more appropriate.
Post a Comment
<< Home