Living Rissho Ankoku RonA commentary
|
Key Points of the
Senchaku Shu Part 2:
Casting Aside the Miscellaneous Practices
Next, Nichiren turns to chapter 2 of the Senchaku
Shu that deals with teachings of Shan-tao in his Commentary on the Sutra of Meditation on the Buddha of Infinite Life.
Honen quotes a long passage from that work which elucidates Shan-taos
division of all Buddhist practices into correct or right practices
and miscellaneous practices and then dividing the correct practices
into the rightly established act and the auxiliary acts. Honen
starts his own summary of this by stating:
As to the first, elucidation of the practices proper for Rebirth,
according to Master Shan-tao, the practices leading to Rebirth are many but can
be grouped under two major divisions: the Right and the Miscellaneous Practices.
(p. 18)
Honen then reviews the five right practices according to Shan-tao:
1. The right practice of chanting the Triple Pure Land Sutras
2. The right practice of contemplating Amitabha Buddha and his Pure
Land
3. The right practice of doing reverence to Amitabha Buddha
4. The right practice of uttering the name of Amitabha Buddha
5. The right practice of giving praise and offerings to Amitabha
Buddha
Then, in accord with the passage from Shan-tao, Honen specifies that the
right practice of uttering the name of Amitabha Buddha (the nembutsu) is the
rightly established act whereas the other four practices are to be considered
auxiliary.
All other Buddhist practices of chanting sutras, contemplation, doing
reverence, uttering the names of the buddhas, and giving praise and offerings to
other buddhas, bodhisattvas or deities aside from those focused on Amitabha
Buddha and the Triple Pure Land Sutras
are to be considered miscellaneous practices along with the practice of the six
perfections and all other forms of Buddhist cultivation and devotion. Nichiren
is particularly concerned with the dismissal of the recitation of any other
sutra beside the Triple Pure Land Sutras
as miscellaneous and the dismissal of doing reverence to any other buddha but
Amitabha Buddha as miscellaneous, because this means that the chanting of the Lotus
Sutra and the giving of reverence to Shakyamuni Buddha are being compared
unfavorably to the chanting of the Triple
Pure Land Sutras and the giving of reverence to Amitabha Buddha. Here are
those two passages from the Senchaku Shu
in full:
Regarding the first, the Miscellaneous Practice of Sutra-Chanting, with
the exception of the above-mentioned Meditation
Sutra and others pertaining to Rebirth in the Pure Land, cherishing and
chanting the sutras, whether Mahayana or Hinayana, whether Exoteric or Esoteric,
is called the Miscellaneous Practice of Sutra-Chanting. (p. 21)
Regarding the third, the Miscellaneous Practice of Doing Reverence, with
the exception of the above-mentioned reverence to Amida, all forms of
worshipping and showing reverence to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, as well as to the
various divinities, are called the Miscellaneous Practice of Doing Reverence.
(p. 21)
Honen then makes the claim that in regard to the correct and
miscellaneous practices, the correct practices will allow the practitioner to
become more intimate with Amitabha Buddha while the miscellaneous practices will
lead to estrangement. The correct practices will allow the practitioner to
become closer to Amitabha Buddha while the miscellaneous practices will lead far
away from him. The correct practices can be performed without ceasing whereas
the other practices can only be performed intermittently. The merit from the
correct practices are naturally utilized for the purpose of enabling rebirth in
the Pure Land of the West, whereas the miscellaneous practices will only do so
if there is a specific intention to dedicate the merit for that purpose. The
correct practices are pure in that they lead directly to rebirth in the Pure
Land whereas the miscellaneous practices do not lead directly there. Honen then
provides what he claims are precedents for the categorization of things into
pure and miscellaneous in the Buddhist canon and the works of past teachers, but
none of them have any relevance to this particular division.
In regard to the idea that the nembutsu is the exclusive practice that
surpasses all the other right practices, Honen cites not only Shan-tao but also
his master Tao-cho and Shan-taos own disciple Huai-kan (7th-8th
centuries). In this way he attempts to show that this was not merely
Shan-taos private opinion.
Finally, Honen ends the second chapter of the Senchaku
Shu with another long passage from Shan-tao, this time from his Hymns
in Praise of Rebirth that compares the odds of benefiting from the correct
practices with the odds of benefiting from the miscellaneous practices. Honen
then summarizes this passage from Shan-tao as his own final statement regarding
the relative merits of the correct and miscellaneous practices in this chapter.
I believe that anyone who reads these words ought to cast aside the
Miscellaneous and take up the Exclusive Practice. Why should anyone cast aside
the Exclusive and Right Practice, by which a hundred out of a hundred attain
Rebirth, and stubbornly cling to the Miscellaneous Practices, by which not even
one out of a thousand attains Rebirth? Practitioners ought to seriously ponder
this. (p. 28)
Nichiren saw that Honen was not merely advocating Pure Land Buddhism but
was actually recommending that Buddhists cast away the most important scripture
of all, the Lotus Sutra, and the most
important buddha of all, Shakyamuni Buddha, because to chant the Lotus Sutra or to express reverence for Shakyamuni Buddha must be
considered miscellaneous practices that can not bring about rebirth in the Pure
Land and therefore should be cast aside in favor of the right practices of
Pure Land Buddhism and in particular the rightly established practice of the
exclusive nembutsu.
More Articles by Rev. Ryuei
|
|