When the ruler Toyotomi Hideyoshi held the thousand-monk service at
Myohoin [1599], it was difficult to refuse to obey the sovereign's order, and so the monks of the Lotus school also participated. Nichio declares that
those who accepted offerings on that occasssion have committed the
offense of accepting offerings from those who slander the Dharma and
created the karma for falling into Avichi Hell. All the learned men of
our sect laugh at these insidious falsehoods, which he spouts so
irresponsibly. He is ignorant of the meaning of slandering the Dharma,
unable to distinguish the reasoning behind the hallowed regulations of
our sect, unable to grasp the true intent of the Buddha and Nichiren,
and is unelightened about the teaching concerning "adopting or rejecting
shoju or shakubuku as is proper, without adhering solely to one or the
other." In the fourth year of the Keicho era [1599], the shogun Ieyasu
ordered the leaders of various temples and Nichio to convene at Osaka
Castle, debate this topic, and come to a decision. (First he had the
documents read, and then the debate began.) It was decided that Nichio's
position was unsubstantiated, and he was banished to a distant island by
the order of the sovereign. And even after he returned to his old
temple, he failed to abandon his personal prejudices. Now again he
issues articles attacking the virtuous leaders of our sect. Though his
claims are so specious that there is no need to discuss them, in order
to put to rest the doubts he stirs up among monks and laity alike, I
have taken up my brush.
10. Concerning the authenticity of the Niike Gosho.
In general, as far as forged scriptures, treatises, and commentaries in
China and Japan are concerned, there is no agreement on whether they are
authentic or not, and there are many considerations involved. One is
whether the style is different from genuine scriptures, treatises, and
commentaries; another is whether the teachings in it differ from other
scriptures, treatises, and commentaries; yet another is whether there
are historical differences in the tenor of the teachings, a mixing of
ancient, medieval, or recent doctrines. For example, in Tang poetry
there are clearly discernable styles marking works as High Tang, Middle
Tang, or Late Tang compositions. In a similar fashion, those familiar
with the Japanese poetry can distinguish different styles, but to one
who has not mastered this art, it makes as much sense as the croaking of
frogs. As far as the reasons for labeling this work a forgery are
concerned, let me note one or two points. First, its style is rough and
unlike that of authentic writings. Next, the doctrines it teaches differ
from those of other writings. Third, there are many errors in the
writing itself. Fourth, there are many discontinuites in the thoughts
and the expression. Fifth, let us carefully consider the logic of this
issue. If both acts, that is donating to and accepting donations from
those who slander the Dharma, are offenses, there should be passages in
the catalogued writings of Nichiren that forbid the acceptance of those
offerings by presenting evidence from the sutras, treatises, and
commentaries, just as Nichiren does when he forbids the practice of
making offerings to those who slander the Dharma. Yet, throughout the
entire catalogued writings we find no basis for this; isn't it suspect
[that the Niike Gosho is the only work that does so]?
Question: If the Niike Gosho is a forgery, why do the masters of the
past quote it as if it were authentic? Were they ignorant of the fact
that it is a forgery?
Answer: If we only forbid the practice of making donations to other
sects, people will accuse us of being niggardly and selfish. Thus, in
order to mollify public opinion we established [in the Niike Gosho] the
regulation against accepting offerings of other sects as well. Now some
knew that the Niike Gosho a forgery but kept silent about it and quoted
it as if it were authentic, while others were not aware of the facts and
believed in it implicitly. There is no basis for clinging to the fact
that the masters of the past have quoted a work as a proof that it is
necessarily authentic. The problem is not limited to the Niike Gosho;
there are many works that make false claims to be genuine writings of
Nichiren. Among the writings transmitted in both the Tendai sect and our
own, authentic and forged writings are mixed together. As a sage of old
has said, "Truth and falsity are mixed together like weeds and rice
shoots; the skillful cultivator leaves the rice shoots behind and plucks
out the weeds." If you want to distinguish between genuine and fake,
[Nichio] cast away the banner of your arrogance and come to learn from
me.
Question: If the masters of the past knew that the Niike Gosho was a
forgery, why didn't they say so when they quoted from it?
Answer: If, when the Buddha uses skillful means to draw people to the
truth, he were to announce that this is only a skillful means, would it
be possible for him to lead anyone to the truth? If those who wished to
establish the policy of not accepting offerings states, when they quoted
the Niike Gosho, that it was a forgery, who would ever believe the
regulation against accepting offerings establsihed in that work?
Question: What scriptures and treatises are forgeries?
Answer: Forged scriptures are listed in the catalogues of forged
scriptures, so there is no need to list them here. [As for forged
treatises,] the Shi Moheyan Lun (attributed to Nagarjuna), the Tacheng
Zhiquan (attribued to Nanyue), the Jingtu Lun (attribued to Zhiyi), and
the Honri Daikoshu (attributed to Saicho) are all forgeries, not
authentic works. The masters of the past frequently quote from such
works, though they know them to be forgeries, for the purpose of
converting people. Daoan says in the Er Jiao Lun, "Though such works
fall into the categories of forgeries, there is no harm in using them to
propagate the teachings."
Question: If we accept offerings from those who slander the Dharma
without discrimination, what is there to differentiate us from the
Tendai sect?
Answer: The claim that the two sects are to be differentiated based on
whether they accept the offerings of those who slander the Dharma is a
perverted oversimplification that knows no limit. Have those who make it
not yet received the transmission of the eight teachings of our sect?
How tragic it is indeed to be ignorant of the original reason that
Nichiren founded our sect and with unprincipled accusations mislead
others with one's own errors.
When, in accord with the Buddha's teachings, we wander through the
countryside and drink from public wells and use other public facilities,
these are great offerings provided by the sovereign of the realm. Do we
then call the inconsequential donation of a single meal that was
accepted on a particular occassion 'offerings' and refuse to call the
large donations we accept day and night, standing, walking, sitting, and
laying down 'offerings'? This is like making use of the benefits of the
sun's rays without having any gratitude toward the sun, like being
unaware of the great virtue of the parents who bore and raised you, and
praising instead the meager wisdom of a stranger, or the light of a
single lamp at night as being deserving of enormous gratitude. Alas, how
perverse this is! Even if Nichio says that from now on he will not
accpet any offering from the ruler of the realm, does he plan to
renounce (the land and water)?
|
