Rissho Ankoku Ron
A commentary
by Ryuei Michael McCormick
Ryuei.net > Historic Buddha > Mahayana > Lotus Sutra > Blog
|
| Rissho Ankoku RonA commentary
|
|
The Buddhas Criteria for Evaluating Teachings
Pure Land Buddhism as the Cause of Calamities
Very Angry, the Traveler Frowned Back
WNSD1: p. 123-124, WND: p. 15-16
The guest is outraged by the hosts criticisms of the revered teachings
of Honen and the Pure Land patriarchs. He points out that Shakyamuni Buddha
himself taught the Triple Pure Land Sutras.
Tan-luan turned away from the Madhyamika teachings contained in the works of
Nagarjuna and his disciple Aryadeva upheld by the Four Treatise school in order
to single-mindedly seek refuge in Pure Land Buddhism. Tao-cho set aside the
practices recommended in the Nirvana Sutra
in order to devote himself to spreading the practice leading to rebirth in the
Pure Land. Shan-tao discarded all the miscellaneous practices and only practiced
the nembutsu. Genshin (Venerable Eshin) advocated the single practice of
nembutsu in his Ojo-yoshu, Essentials
of Rebirth in the Pure Land. The expanded version of the Rissho
Ankoku Ron adds the Sanron monk Yokan as well. All of these past masters in
China and Japan were discussed in the review of Pure Land Buddhism given above.
In Nichirens time they were all revered and credited with providing the
precedent for the practice of the exclusive nembutsu. In the words of the guest,
Thus Amitabha Buddha has been revered by many great masters of Buddhism
before us. Also imagine how many people there are who were able to be reborn in
the Pure Land by calling the name of Amitabha Buddha!
The guest then proceeds to summarize the religious quest of Honen, his
reading of the Buddhist canon as many as seven times, his despair at being
unable to cut off the chain of birth and death, his discovery of the teachings
of Shan-tao and the sole practice of nembutsu, and the dream in which his course
was confirmed by Shan-tao himself. All of this was covered in the short
biography of Honen given above. The guest then states that some people consider
Honen an earthly appearance of Gainer of Great Strength Bodhisattva who is one
of the attendants of Amitabha Buddha (Regarder of the Cries of the World
Bodhisattva is the other attendant). Others consider Honen a rebirth of Shan-tao.
In any case, all people throughout Japan revere his great wisdom and virtue.
Honen, in the eyes of many of Nichirens contemporaries, was held to be beyond
criticism.
Nichiren (as the host) dared to critique Honens teaching, the
teachings of the past revered masters of Pure Land Buddhism, and even went so
far as to recommend that Honens teaching be banned. This was too much for the
guest, who accuses the host of mean-spirited nitpicking and even prepares to
leave. In all this, we can see that Nichiren is very aware of how his
recommendations will sound to others. Even today people often react to
Nichirens critiques and call to suppress Pure Land practice as a form of
militant sectarianism. In the words of the host:
Despite all this, do you dare hold in contempt the teaching of Shakyamuni
Buddha expounded in the Triple Pure Land
Sutras, and slander the forty-eight vows of Amitabha Buddha? This is
terrible! How can you blame the august reign of the past emperor for calamities
in recent years? How can you speak ill of not only such earlier masters as
Tan-luan, Tao-cho and Shan-tao, but also Honen. What you are doing is, as
the saying goes, deliberately blowing back the fur and hunting for flaws in
the leather, or deliberately piercing the skin in hopes of drawing blood.
When one looks for trouble, he will find it. I have never heard such abusive
remarks as these. You should be afraid of this; you should refrain from this.
You have committed a serious offense, for which you will never be able to escape
punishment. It is awful for me just to sit before you. Taking my stick in hand,
I would rather go home straight away.
These might be the same questions we would ask. Isnt Nichiren
criticizing the practice recommended by the Buddha himself in the Triple Pure Land Sutras? Isnt he blaming the present calamities
on things that happened decades before when Honen was alive during the reign of
an earlier emperor? Isnt he looking only for the flaws in the teachings of
Tan-luan, Tao-cho, Shan-tao, and Honen and overlooking their positive
contributions to the practice of Buddhism by providing a way for all people to
be born in the Pure Land in accordance with the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha
and the vows of Amitabha Buddha? Like many people today, the guest does not wish
to subject himself to such seeming sectarianism, intolerance, and negativity and
so prepares to go on his way. This is the reaction that Nichiren anticipated and
will respond to in the next sections.
Smiling Gently, The Master Stopped the Traveler and Said:
WNSD1: p. 124-127
WND: p. 16-17
Nichirens reply to the criticism of his criticism is that what has
come to be the unquestioned normal state of affairs in Japanese Buddhism is
actually a confused state of affairs. It only seems normal because it has gone
on for so long and people have not bothered to question it anymore, though they
certainly did during and right after the time of Honen. He writes:
Insects that live on smartweed forget how bitter it tastes; those who
stay long in privies forget how foul the smell is. Here you listen to my good
words and think them wicked, point to a slanderer of the Dharma and call him a
sage, mistrust a correct teacher and take him for an evil monk. Your confusion
is great indeed, and your offense anything but light. Listen to my explanation
of how this confusion arose, and let us discuss the matter in detail.
Shakyamuni Buddha was very concerned that after his passing the Dharma
should be handed down as he had taught it. The Mahaparinibbana
Sutta in particular shows this concern throughout. In one passage, the
Buddha even tells Mara that he will not attain pass away until he knows that the
whole Sangha will be able to uphold the true Dharma, refute false teachings, and
spread the Dharma widely.
Soon after Ananda had left, Mara, the Evil One came to the Lord, stood to
one side, and said: Lord, may the Blessed Lord now attain final nirvana, may
the Well-Farer now attain final nirvana. Now is the time for the Blessed
Lords final nirvana. Because the Blessed Lord has said this: Evil One, I
will not take final nirvana till I have monks and disciples who are accomplished,
trained, skilled, learned, knowers of the Dharma, trained in conformity with the
Dharma, correctly trained and walking in the path of the Dharma, who will pass
on what they have gained from their Teacher, teach it, declare it, establish it,
expound it, analyze it, make it clear; till they shall be able by means of the
Dharma to refute false teachings that have arisen, and teach the Dharma of
wondrous effect.
And now, Lord, the Blessed Lord has such monks and disciples. May the
Blessed Lord now attain final nirvana, may the Well-Farer now attain final
nirvana. Now is the time for the Blessed Lords final nirvana. And the Blessed
Lord has said: I will not take final nirvana till I have nuns and female
disciples who are accomplished
till I have laymen followers
till I have
laywomen followers
(as above).
May the Blessed Lord now take final nirvana
And the Blessed Lord
has said: Evil One, I will not take final nirvana till this holy life has
been successfully established and flourishes, is widespread, well-known far and
wide, well-proclaimed among mankind everywhere. And all this has come about.
May the Blessed Lord now attain final nirvana, may the Well-Farer now attain
final nirvana. Now is the time for the Blessed Lords final nirvana.
At this the Lord said to Mara: You need not worry, Evil One. The
Tathagatas final passing will not be long delayed. Three months from now, the
Tathagata will take final nirvana.
(adapted from Long Discourses
of the Buddha, p. 247)
Later in the Mahaparinibbana
Sutta, the Buddha sets forth what he calls four criteria for judging the
validity of any teachings they hear, to ensure that they are in accord with the
teachings and disciplines set forth in the Buddhas own discourses and
disciplinary instructions.
Suppose a monk were to say: Friends, I heard and received this from
the Lords own lips: this is the Dharma, this is the discipline, this is the
Masters teaching, then, monks, you should neither approve nor disapprove
his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions
should be carefully noted and compared with the sutras and reviewed in the light
of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to
conform to the sutras or the discipline, the conclusion must be: Assuredly
this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this monk,
and the matter is to be rejected. But where on such comparison and review they
are found to conform to the sutras or the discipline, the conclusion must be:
Assuredly this is the word of the Buddha, it has been rightly understood by
this monk. This is the first criterion.
(Long Discourses of the
Buddha, p. 255)
The second, third, and fourth criteria are the same except that
they are applied not to a single monk claiming to have heard the teaching from
the Buddha, but to a monk claiming to have heard the teaching from elders and
distinguished teachers, from elders who are acknowledged experts in the Dharma
and discipline, or from a single elder who is an acknowledged expert. In other
words, the Buddha himself stated that Buddhists should always check to make sure
that it really is the Buddhas teaching that is being taught, no matter what
the alleged source.
In a discourse to the Kalama clan the Buddha advised them to follow
that teaching which strikes them as true in their hearts and which will lead to
happiness and liberation if followed. This teaching was also intended as a
safeguard against dogmatic assertions. The following excerpt from that discourse
begins with the Kalamas who live in the town of Kesaputta asking the Buddha how
to deal with the conflicting truth claims of the various teachers who come there.
The Buddhas reply follows.
"There are, Lord, some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta.
They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, debunk, revile
and vilify the doctrines of others. But then some other ascetics and brahmins
come to Kesaputta, and they too explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but
disparage, debunk, revile and vilify the doctrines of others.
For us, Lord, there is perplexity and doubt as to which of these good
ascetics speak truth and which speak falsehood?"
"It is
fitting for you to be perplexed, O Kalamas, it is fitting for you to be in doubt.
Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, Kalamas.
Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a
collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by a
reflection on reasons, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the
seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: The ascetic is our
teacher.' But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are unwholesome, these
things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; these things if
undertaken and practiced lead to harm and suffering', then you should abandon
them.
(Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p. 65)
Further
on the Buddha gives the positive version of the same criteria:
Come, Kalamas.
Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a
collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by a
reflection on reasons, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the
seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: The ascetic is our
teacher.' But when you know for yourselves, These things are wholesome, these
things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things if
undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness, then you should
engage in them.
(Ibid, p. 66)
Putting together this guidance from the Buddha for evaluating
whether any teaching is in accord with the Dharma we come up with the three
proofs. The first proof is that a teaching must be accord with what the
Buddha taught. The second is that a teaching must be reasonable and in accord
with what we know about our own lives. The third is that a teaching must
actually lead away from harm and suffering and lead to welfare and happiness.
Nichiren often cited these three proofs as a criteria for ensuring that
what is claimed to be a Buddhist teaching is actually so. For instance, in the San
Sanzo Kiu no Koto (Concerning the
Prayer Services for Rain by Three Tripitika Masters):
Practicing Buddhism, I, Nichiren, believe that it is important to
use reason and scriptural proof in order to distinguish the true teaching from
false ones or to compare the superiority among the sutras. Furthermore, it is
more important to have actual proof (actual happening as a proof) in addition to
reason and scriptural proof. (WNS: D3, p. 205)
Nichiren applied the three proofs to the teachings of Honen and others
who he felt had departed from the true intention of Shakyamuni Buddha.
Previously it was mentioned how Nichiren used the four standards found in the Nirvana
Sutra for judging the relative profundity of Buddhist teachings. Rely on
the Dharma and not upon persons; rely on the meaning and not upon the words;
rely on wisdom and not upon discriminative thinking; rely on sutras that are
final and definitive and not upon those which are not final and definitive.
Between the three proofs and the four standards, Nichiren believed that the
Buddha fully intended for his followers to double check any and all teachings
and to scrutinize them carefully and to accept nothing out of blind belief or
merely because it was taught by an honored teacher or because something has
become customary or traditional. The true spirit of Buddhism is a spirit of
seeking the truth rather than complacence and blind belief. Honen and his
predecessors, however, seemed intent on promoting faith to the exclusion of all
other teachings and practices. So from Nichirens point of view, his sutra
based criticisms of Honen were authentically Buddhist, whereas he viewed
Honens exclusive faith in the nembutsu as a betrayal of the true spirit of
Buddhism.
More Articles by Rev. Ryuei
|
| |||||
Home | Buddhas | Discuss | Gohonzon | Gosho | Honmon_Butsuryu | Independent | Inmates | Kempon | Kishimojin | Lotus_Sutra | Nichiren | Nipponzan | NShoshu | NichirenShu | Pilgrimage | RisshoKoseiKai | Reiyukai | Ryuei & Dharmajim | SGI | Shichimen | Stupas | Sutra_Library | Tales | Tibetan | Tendai | Theravada | Women | Zen | Misc. | What'sNew? | Site Map
