Rissho Ankoku RonA commentary
|
Nichirens Critique of the Senchaku
Shu Part 2:
The Effects of Honens Teachings on Buddhism in Kamakuran
Japan
Having shown that Honens Senchaku
Shu was a work that recommended neglecting and putting down the Wonderful
Dharma of Shakyamuni Buddha, Nichiren proceeds to describe the consequences of
Honens Pure Land movement as he observed it for himself in mid-13th
century Kamakura. Nichiren sums up the situation in the following words:
Now we have come to this Latter Age, when people are no longer sages.
Each enters his own dark road, and all alike forget the direct way. How pitiful
that no one cures them of their blindness! How painful to see them taking up
these false beliefs in vain! As a result, everyone from the ruler of the nation
on down to the common people believes that there are no true sutras outside the Triple Pure Land Sutras, and no other buddhas other than the
Amitabha Buddha with his two attendants.
Honens Pure Land movement, in Nichirens eyes, had caused people to
neglect the whole Buddhist tradition with the exception of the Pure Land
teachings because they are convinced that there is no direct way to attain
buddhahood in this world, and that the only escape is to be reborn in the Pure
Land of Amitabha Buddha after death. People
are no longer interested in supporting any temples or clergy aside from Pure
Land temples and Pure Land teachers. This means that the more comprehensive
Buddhist teachings centered on the Lotus
Sutra had begun to decline and Nichiren describes such temples as abandoned
and dilapidated. His fear is that within a generation or two the classical Lotus Sutra centered teachings of the Tendai school will be
entirely forgotten and only otherworldly Pure Land piety will remain.
Today, what is the state of Buddhism? As mentioned before, there are very
few countries that could be considered primarily Buddhist today. Mainland
Chinas reigning ideology is the dialectical materialism of communism. The
same is true is North Vietnam and North Korea. While there are many people who
are nominally Buddhists in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, free
market capitalism is more or less the reigning ideology. Buddhism has become
little more than a cultural trapping, a way to do funeral or memorial services.
Most Buddhists in East Asian traditions consider Buddhism to be nothing more
than a way of making sure that those who die are able to pass on to the Pure
Land of Amitabha. This is the case for Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese
Buddhists. The Lotus Sutra is revered,
but usually only for the recitation of chapter 25 that deals with Kuan Yin
Bodhisattva, the Goddess of Compassion who can be called upon to help overcome
worldly troubles and concerns and who is considered the handmaiden of Amitabha
Buddha. The central points of the Lotus
Sutra are not a part of the average teaching or practice of East Asian
Buddhism, though occasionally Zen teachers might make reference to it.
Shakyamuni Buddha, whether in his historical aspect or as the Eternal Buddha of
chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, takes a
distant second place to the veneration of Amitabha Buddha, and the teaching that
this world is the actual pure land, the Pure Land of Tranquil Light, is reserved
only for the few who delve into Zen practice and the demythologization of the
Pure Land teachings and practices. Except for the minority who practice Nichiren
Buddhism, it would seem that Nichirens fear that the veneration of Shakyamuni
Buddha and the Lotus Sutra would be
overcome by Pure Land piety and otherworldliness has come true. Attaining
enlightenment in this life and thereby overcoming the sufferings of birth and
death, the main point of Buddhism, has indeed taken second place to the goal of
attaining rebirth in the Pure Land after death and to attaining worldly benefits
in this life. Nichirens Lotus Sutra
inspired vision of a society focused on bringing out the buddhahood in all
beings in this life has not been realized.
This is why Nichiren castigates Honen and his later followers for turning
people away from Buddhism as a whole, and with it the
Lotus Sutra, in favor of what could be called a form of spiritual escapism.
Nichiren laments that there are no longer people of the caliber of Dengyo Daishi
(aka Saicho 767-822), the founder of the Tendai school in Japan, and his
successors at Mt. Hiei: Gishin (781-833), Jikaku (794-866), and Chisho
(814-891). Nichiren praises them because they brought the entirety of the
Buddhist tradition to Japan in the form of the Lotus Sutra centered teachings of the Tien-tai school. In
later works Nichiren would severely censure Jikaku and Chisho for betraying
Dengyos vision and turning the Tendai school into the Shingon school in all
but name, but in this work Nichiren praises their contributions to Japanese
Buddhism. The 1278 expanded version of the Rissho
Ankoku Ron even includes the name of Kobo Daishi (774-835), the founder of
the Shingon school, among those who went to China to learn more about the Buddha
Dharma in order to establish those teachings in Japan. The inclusion of Kobo
Daishi in the 1278 expansion is especially interesting because by that time
Nichiren had already begun criticizing Kobo Daishi and the Shingon school,
claiming that it was Shingon that was actually the root cause of Japans
downfall. In this work, however, Nichiren simply wants to praise those who
brought Buddhism as a whole to Japan from China, as opposed to Honens Pure
Land teachings that are advising people to discard the Buddha Dharma with the
exception of the sole invocation of nembutsu.
In the same way, Nichiren praises the honor given to the historical
Shakyamuni Buddha and to Medicine Master Buddha, as well as to Earth Repository
Bodhisattva (Kshitigarbha) and Sky Repository Bodhisattva
(Akashagarbha) in the past at Enryakuji, the head temple of the Tendai
school on Mt. Hiei. Later, Nichiren would make the case that only the Eternal
Shakyamuni Buddha of the essential section of the Lotus Sutra should be revered as the Gohonzon or Focus of
Devotion in the Latter Age of the Dharma, thus going beyond the explicit
teachings of the Tendai school. In Rissho
Ankoku Ron, however, he is simply pointing to the honor paid to all the
buddhas and bodhisattvas by the Tendai school as Dengyo had established it, as
opposed to the exclusive devotion to Amitabha Buddha taught by Honen.
Nichiren may have had his critiques of Jikaku, Chisho, and Kobo Daishi as
well as his exclusive devotion to the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha already in mind
when he wrote the Rissho Ankoku Ron.
However, these were not battles that he wanted to fight at this time. The
purpose of the Rissho Ankoku Ron was
to simply point out to the Hojo rulers that Honens exclusive nembutsu was
subverting the established and governmentally approved hegemony of the more
inclusive and theoretically Lotus Sutra
centered Tendai school and that something must be done to stop it before the
Tendai school was totally ruined and the Lotus
Sutra forgotten. The Shugo Kokka Ron,
written the year before Rissho Ankoku Ron,
even refers to Tendai and Shingon together as the schools and teachings that
were being subverted by Honens Pure Land movement. This shows that Nichiren
saw himself, at this point, as a reformer trying to call the rulers and the
people back mainstream Buddhism represented by Tendai and Shingon as opposed to
the radical and unauthorized exclusive nembutsu of Honen that was taking people
away from mainstream Buddha Dharma.
At this early date in his teaching career, Nichiren may have had
the hope that if the otherworldly Pure Land movement could be quelled then
popular support would return to the Tendai and Shingon schools that both taught
the possibility of attaining buddhahood in this world. At that point, the Tendai
and even Shingon practitioners could be convinced to reform their own practices
by turning back to the Lotus Sutra.
Things did not at all work out as Nichiren hoped, and years later Nichiren would
explain that the root causes of Japans suffering lay not with Honens
exclusive nembutsu, but with the Shingon teachings of Kobo Daishi, and even with
Jikaku and Chisho, the successive patriarchs of the Tendai school who put the
Shingon sutras on a par with or even above the Lotus Sutra.
Nichirens praise of the inclusive nature of the Tendai school was not
just a tactic to please the authorities by praising the Buddhist establishment.
Nichiren believed that in the Former and Middle Days of the Dharma, the Eternal
Shakyamuni Buddha had intended that such skillful methods as devotion to the
celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas be used to encourage people and to help them
bring the seeds of buddhahood to fruition either here or in the pure lands.
In such circumstances the Pure Land teachings and in fact the many teachings and
practices of Buddhism all had their place, as long as they were not clung to
excessively and did not cut one off from the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus
Flower Teaching that they were all supposed to be leading up to.
In later works, however, Nichiren reveals that in the Latter Age of the
Dharma there are no longer people who can benefit from these teachings and that
the Latter Age is the time when only a direct relationship (even a negative one)
with the Lotus Sutra can plant and
bring to fruition the seed of buddhahood in peoples lives. This argument is
dealt with at length in Nichirens later works and so will not be discussed
here. However, if we can assume that Nichiren was already thinking in this way
about the difference between the times of Chih-i and Dengyo and his own
circumstances, then we can understand why Nichiren would praise the inclusive
Tendai practices of the past while advocating an exclusive devotion to the Lotus
Sutra himself.
Nichiren concludes his critique of Honen by pointing out that people have
become very confused about what is an incidental teaching, such as rebirth in a
pure land, and what is the primary point of Buddhism, attaining enlightenment
through devotion to the Wonderful Dharma. They have turned away from Buddhism as
a whole, to embrace a very small and relatively insignificant part of it. For
this reason, disaster will occur. In light of this, Nichiren recommends that the
teaching of Honen be outlawed.
How pitiful to think that, in the space of a few decades since the
publication of the Senchaku Shu,
hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people have been deluded by these
devilish teachings and in so many cases confused as to the true teachings of
Buddhism. If people favor only what is incidental and forget what is primary,
can the benevolent deities be anything but angry? If people cast aside what is
perfect and take up what is biased, can the world escape the plots of demons?
Rather than offering up ten thousand prayers for remedy, it would be better to
outlaw this one evil.
This recommendation may seem outrageous to those of us who value the
separation of church and state, free speech, the right of peaceful assembly and
other civil rights. Nichiren, however, lived in a society where the rulers
controlled (or tried to control) what teachings could or could not receive the
rulers authorization, patronage, and support. In his view, Honens movement
was not a legitimate Buddhist teaching and therefore should not be recognized or
supported by the rulers as if it were. Even still, one might ask what right
Nichiren had to ask the rulers to suppress the beliefs of others and whether his
recommendations were not more in the spirit of the inquisitor rather than the
bodhisattva. As we shall see, this also outrages the guest, and so Nichiren
himself will try to clarify what he means in the sections that follow.
More Articles by Rev. Ryuei
|
|