Living Rissho Ankoku RonA commentary
|
The Origin of the Sutras
and the Role of their
Predictions
II. Predictions of Calamities in the Sutras
The Traveler Inquired
WNSD1: p. 109, WND: p. 7
The guest then asks upon what sutras the host bases his views. This would
be similar to someone in our culture being told that our nation's problems are
clearly the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies, so a listener who also believed
in the literal truth of the Bible would want to know what Biblical passages are
being fulfilled. But even in our culture not everyone believes in the literal
truth of the Bible or that the Bible's prophecies apply to modern nations,
events, and issues. However, in 13th century Japan the sutras held an authority
equivalent to the authority the Bible holds for modern fundamentalists today.
The Buddha was looked upon as fully omniscient, so anything he said in the
sutras was held to be unquestioningly true. In several sutras, the Buddha
predicts what the future will hold for the Sangha, and also for rulers who do or
do not uphold the Dharma. These predictions are actually lessons in cause and
effect: those who uphold the Dharma will prosper while those who fail to uphold
it will increase their suffering. For medieval East Asian Buddhists, these
predictions were viewed as prophecies and were held in the same regard as some
hold the Biblical prophecies in our own culture. For this reason, the guest was
particularly interested to know if the host's opinions were based on the
authority of the sutras.
It might not occur to Western Buddhists (by which I mean those in
countries where European languages predominate) that medieval East Asian
Buddhists (and even many modern ones) are not that different in their
assumptions about the inerrancy of scripture than their monotheistic
counterparts in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but such was the case.
Nichiren Shonin himself took (or appeared to take) the sutras at their word as
the absolute truth spoken by a fully omniscient Buddha. Many modern Nichiren
Buddhists have followed suit and do not seem to be aware of the origins of the
sutras or the possible intentions of their compilers.
The sutras were originally passed down through oral transmissions from
the time of the legendary first council after the death of the Buddha.
Eventually there came to be several lines of transmission and the one recited in
the Pali language (said to be closely related to the Magadhi dialect the Buddha
spoke) was first written down in Sri Lanka in the first century B.C.E. according
to the Mahavamsa, the Great
Chronicle of Sri Lanka which was composed in the 6th century C.E. The Pali
material still exists in totality preserved by the Theravadin tradition in Sri
Lanka and other countries in SE Asia. All of the sutras in the Pali Canon have
been translated into English, and from them we can read for ourselves what
scholars believe are the best record we can hope to have of the historical
Buddha's actual teachings. This is not to say the Pali Canon is free of legend
and later accretions, not to mention the bias of the monastically oriented
Theravadin monks, but for the most part it is believed to present a fairly
straightforward recounting of the historical Buddha's discourses.
Other recensions of these early discourses have also been preserved. The
version of the canon passed down by the Sarvastivadin school was originally
preserved in Sanskrit rather than Pali, but the original Sanskrit has since been
lost with the exception of a few fragments discovered in Eastern Turkistan and
some individual discourses preserved in Tibetan translation. The Sarvastivadin
recension now survives only in it's Chinese translation.
At roughly the same time that the Pali Canon is said to have been written
down, the earliest portions of the Mahayana sutras began to be recorded as well.
The Lotus Sutra itself has portions
that are believed to date back to the first century B.C.E. and other portions
were added to the original nucleus over time. From about the first century B.C.E.
until the 12th century C.E. when Islam delivered the coup de grace to Buddhism in Central Asia and India, new sutras were
compiled and added to the growing Mahayana canon. Even in China, Mahayana sutras
were conceived and added to the canon, though sometimes their authenticity was
challenged when certain monks came to suspect their non-Indian origins. Indeed,
sutras like the Brahma Net Sutra
containing the Mahayana precepts, one version of the Surangama
Sutra that has been of great influence in Chinese Zen practice and the
source of a widely used dharani, and
perhaps even the oft-recited Heart Sutra
may all have been the handiwork of Chinese rather than Indian monks.
This means that many of the sutras that Nichiren and his contemporaries
took to be the actual words of the Buddha were not in fact verbatim records of
the Buddha's teachings. The Mahayana sutras in particular are the products of
later followers of the Buddha who felt that the true depth of his insight and
actual scope of his intentions could be better expressed using myth, poetry, and
paradox. They believed that any wisdom that was in keeping with the insights and
awakening of the Buddha could be considered to be no different than the voice of
the Buddha himself. In the Treatise on the
Great Perfection of Wisdom, a work which itself is attributed to Nagarjuna
but may have been written by its ostensible translator Kumarajiva, four seals of
the Dharma are proposed by which any teaching can be verified as the voice of
the Buddha. These four seals are that (1) any teaching must affirm the
impermanence of all phenomena, (2) the unsatisfactoriness of all phenomena, (3)
the selflessness of all phenomena, and (4) that true peace is only found in
nirvana. As long as a teaching was in keeping with these it could be affirmed as
the teaching of the Buddha.
The guestÂ’s request for proof-texts from the sutras can be taken by us
to be a question as to whether Nichiren's views were or were not grounded in the
Buddhist tradition. As we will see, Nichiren's views were very much in line with
the sutras. The question we must now ask is what do those sutras mean for us
today?
The Master Responded
WNSD1: p. 109 - 113
WND: p. 7 - 10
In this section the host responds to the request of his guest for
proof-texts from the sutras. The host provides several pages of quotations from
the following four sutras:
The Sutra of Golden Light (or Sutra
of Golden Splendor): which asserts that the four heavenly kings will abandon
a nation whose rulers do not propagate the Dharma.
The Great Collection Sutra (or Sutra
of the Great Assembly): which asserts that when the principles of Buddhism
become truly obscured and lost, then the natural world will also suffer and the
laws which govern human society will also be neglected and forgotten. The sutra
is also cited for its predictions of famine, war, and epidemics and other
apocalyptic events if the ruler does not prevent the Dharma from perishing.
The Benevolent Kings Sutra:
discusses the spiritual and political disorder in a nation bereft of the Dharma
and also predicts the departing of sages and the coming of seven calamities of a
human, natural, and astronomical nature.
The Medicine King Sutra: also
provides a list of seven disasters that range from man-made to natural to
astronomical.
It is from these four sutras that Nichiren will derive his prediction
that Japan has yet to face invasion from without and civil war from within. The
other disasters he feels have already been fulfilled. These sutra passages link
the harmony of the natural world and of human society to the ruler's upholding
of the Dharma. This view is very alien to us today. Though some might predict
national disaster if one or another political party or candidate won a
presidential election, few of us would think to blame earthquakes or tornadoes
on people's political, religious, or social views. Of course, there are still
religious fundamentalists who would, but in Nichiren's time the view was much
more common even among the educated upper classes. In fact, it was the common
assumption among agrarian people that nature and the weather reflected the
approval or disapproval of the gods or God, and that the ruler was specifically
responsible for keeping the gods or God happy through prayer, morality, and good
government. From a Buddhist point of view, the ruler was responsible for
upholding the Dharma and it was the Vedic and local gods as well as the
bodhisattvas who would ensure that all was well if they did, and the various
demons and Mara who would take advantage if they did not.
Thus Nichiren makes his conclusion as to the source of the disasters
facing Japan:
People turn away from the Buddhas and the sutras and no longer endeavor
to protect them. In turn, the benevolent deities and sages abandon the nation
and leave their accustomed places. As a result, demons and followers of
heretical doctrines create disaster and inflict calamity upon the populace.
Note that Nichiren is not saying the Japanese have some kind of special
dispensation or are some kind of chosen people as one might expect from a
nationalist. Nichiren was no nationalist. He was more like a Hebrew prophet
calling his nation to task for not fulfilling its responsibilities. This is one
reason why it is greatly mistaken to accuse Nichiren of nationalism.
And yet, it is a bit disturbing to see that Nichiren is basing his
argument upon sutra passages that make the assumption that politics, nature, and
even the course of the sun and moon are determined by which religious teaching
one chooses to follow. The whole argument he makes would seem to be invalidated
by modern astronomy, meteorology, and geology. For instance, we now know that
the shifting of tectonic plates, not the displeasure of supernatural entities,
causes earthquakes. Even in the realm of human activity, modern economics and
sociology show that religion is just one among many factors (and not always a
major one) that causes wars, epidemics, and famine.
I think we need to step back and not take the sutras passages so
literally to see if we can find a meaning that speaks to us today. I think if
the Dharma really is "the way things are" then to uphold the Dharma is
to uphold the truth, to face facts squarely, to see the interdependent nature of
the world, to be responsible for one's acts and the consequences thereof, and to
be compassionately motivated by the view of interdependence and the selfless
nature of things as they really are. To behave dishonestly, irresponsibly,
callously and blindly would be to invite disaster - to turn our world upside
down in a manner of speaking. If those who govern a nation act like this - the
consequences will be enormous and far-reaching. Many nations and societies have
indeed toppled because of irresponsible rulers and a compliant populace. Nazi
Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and
others have all come to ruin. Their fate included an impact on the natural world
as well. And how many deaths have been caused by famine and earthquakes and
flooding because the government mismanaged resources, or refused to uphold
certain building codes or maintain a proper infrastructure and emergency system?
Human decisions can indeed lead to the exacerbation of natural disasters, and
can sometimes cause them in the first place. I would not argue that failing to
be a Buddhist will cause an earthquake, but I would say failing to live in
accord with what we Buddhists call the Dharma leads to personal and even
national or even worldwide disaster in the long run. In this sense, I think the
sutra passages and Nichiren's conclusions based on them can be taken seriously.
More Articles by Rev. Ryuei
|
|