This is another in a series of daily articles concerning Kishio Satomi's book, "Japanese Civilization; Its Significance and Realization; Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles," which details the foundations of Chigaku Tanaka's interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism and Japan's role in the early 20th century.
Kishio Satomi’s Nichirenism may argue that “Confucius or Christ or Mohammed or any sages are nothing but one of the distributive bodies of this One and Only Buddha” but nothing distracted from the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra.
Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p34There is no doubt that Buddha himself repudiated all the sermons which he preached prior to the Hokekyo. We must take into account that there exists one scripture which was preached as the prolegomena or introductory scripture to the Hokekyo, entitled “ Muryōgi-kyo” (Skt, Amitārtha-sūtra). In the second chapter thereof, Buddha says:
“I did not reveal the truth during these forty years.”
The Muryōgi-kyo shows that all the preachings of Buddha prior to the Hokekyo are intended to help the understanding of the true Buddhism, which could not be preached in early days owing to the rudimentary culture of the people. Therefore, Buddha preached many different theories for the sake of training, and he tried all means in order to make people capable of accepting His true teaching. Moreover, it is mentioned in the same chapter thereof that those innumerable significations which were sermonized prior to the Hokekyo, emanated from the One Truth, and the One Truth is nothing but ” Suchness.”
But he did not sermonize about the “Suchness” in detail in that scripture, for he sinks into deep meditation as soon as the above preaching ends. He is going to reveal the truth as to how the pulpits of the Hokekyo open.
As for the Lotus Sutra, Satomi’s Nichirenism is firmly in the Shōretsu family of Nichiren schools. Shōretsu schools consider the first half of the Lotus Sūtra as inferior, since the essence is found only in the second fourteen Honmon chapters. Itchi schools instead maintain that the entire 28 chapters should be considered as a whole. Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai are examples of Shōretsu schools; Nichiren Shu holds that the entire Lotus Sūtra is valuable.
Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p16-17[Nichiren] had come to know that the Hokekyo alone is the true teaching of Buddha and that all the rest are simply for the purpose of pious imposition (the end sanctifies the means), so he adopted the Hokekyo as the authority. For in all the Scriptures, except the Hokekyo, there is no principle enabling man to become God, because they do not evince the Mutual Participation of the Ten Worlds. Moreover, they look upon Buddha Shakyamuni merely as having been born in India and become Buddha six years after he left the castle of Gaya. In other words, these are their two fundamental weak points. Thus Nichiren made the Hokekyo his basis, without however neglecting the examination of the Hokekyo itself. He made the comparison between the two parts of the Hokekyo; the Shakumon, which is composed of the first fourteen chapters, and the Honmon, the remaining fourteen chapters of the Scripture. The one defective point which disregarded the Mutual Participation is eliminated in the Shakumon of this Scripture, but there remained one more weak point which I have already mentioned. Therefore he gave up the Shakumon in favor of the Honmon. Thus he championed the cause of the Honmon, and lastly he compared Introspection and Practice with Doctrine, and of course he acknowledged the superiority of the Introspection and Practice of the Hokekyo.
Later, in discussing the superiority of the Honmon, Satomi writes:
Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p33There are two evident divisions in the Scripture, viz. the first fourteen chapters from I to XIV, which are called “Shakumon,” and the remaining fourteen chapters which are called “Honmon.” Let us contrast the characteristics of these two parts.
The idea of the former is a sort of mechanism and of the latter teleologism ; and again, the one is philosophical, realistic, inductive, comparative and materialistic, while the other is religious, idealistic, deductive, dogmatic and spiritualistic. Then those two opposite tendencies are blended into a consistent harmony in a systematic course. Two renowned scholars, Tendai, the Great Master in China, and Dengyo, the Great Master in Japan, are the chief authorities in the School of the Hokekyo, and at the same time they are known as the forerunners of Nichiren. But there is a great difference in their attitudes towards the Hokekyo. Nichiren based his position on the latter, the Honmon, but Tendai and Dengyo adopted the former, the Shakumon theory being accepted by them, whereas Nichiren accepted practice seriously; the difference being due to their different missions and times.
Satomi strenuously defends Nichiren’s focus on the Lotus Sutra in exclusion to all others:
Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p57-58In respect of criticism, [Nichiren] strictly adhered to the authority of the Scriptures and facts, and often advocated the “Four Laws” of the Nehangyo (Skt. Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra). Buddha says in it:
“Those monks shall trust the Four Laws: What are the four? Trust the Law, but not Man; Trust Signification of the Scriptures, but not mere words; Trust wisdom, but not knowledge; Trust the Perfect Scripture, but not the Scriptures in imperfection.”
Nichiren believed faithfully in this instruction of Buddha and therefore he could not help attacking all Buddhist sects. His criticism can be divided into two classes, the one is a general criticism and the other a special one. He thoroughly investigated all the Scriptures and he began by classifying them according to their signification and to Buddha’s words. …
So he sought for Buddha’s true teaching and attained the Truth of the Hokekyo. He also saw an express provision in the third chapter of the Scripture. It is somewhat as follows:
“Do not accept a single stanza from any other Scriptures ” (Yamakawa, p. 154 ; cp. Kern, p. 96).
And again, in the same chapter, Buddha says:
“If a man will not believe this Scripture and will destroy and abuse it, this means the destruction of the Buddha-Seed in the whole world. … That man shall fall into the Nethermost Hell after death (Yamakawa, pp. 146-7 ; Kern, p. 92).
Consequently Nichiren writes :
“All assurances about Attainment of Buddhahood in the pre-Hokekyo Scriptures are just like unto the stars and the moon in the water; all assurances about Attainment of Buddhahood which were preached prior to the Hokekyo are just like unto shadows of bodies. If I criticize them from a point of view of the sixteenth chapter of the Hokekyo, all the assurances of Attainment of Buddhahood with pious imposition are mere words when they deviate from the wisdom of the Duration of Buddha’s Life, the sixteenth chapter” (Works, p. 1301).
Satomi does not bend on the issue of Lotus Sutra exclusivity:
[Nichiren]…proclaimed most emphatically:
“All the sects are the radical way to Hell, while the Hokekyo is alone the truth in Buddhahood” (Works, p. 634).
But Nichiren by no means denies the relative value of the other Scriptures. He only contends that the Hokekyo is the sole truth to attain Buddhahood, consequently he denied all other Scriptures on that point. Therefore he says:
“If believers of the other Scriptures would only adore the truth of the Hokekyo, they would acquire the Principle of the Mutual Participation. Then all other Scriptures would be the Hokekyo, and vice versa. The Hokekyo does not deviate from all Pious- imposition-Scriptures nor vice versa. This is what is called Mysterious Law. As soon as this understanding was brought about, reading the Hinayana Scriptures is equivalent to reading the Mahayana Scriptures and the Hokekyo ” (Works, p. 1234).
Moreover, he says :
“You may judge everything in accordance with common sense unless it prevents the Path to Buddhahood.” (Works, p. 822).
Consequently, Nichiren examined all the sects and denounced the four representative ones.
Nichirenism and the Japanese National Principles, p58-59
Table of ContentsNext