Can we ALL say PROPAGANDA
cmk
1. A WW2 HP expressing HATRED towards the U.S. instead of KOSEN
RUFU! Imagine that!
2. SGI people stalking all sorts of Priests and NST people, with NO
PICS of the incidents, imagine that!
3. That the SGI stalked a Priest in Seattle in the 90s and NST had a
police report, with NO WITNESSES signatures on it although there was
SUPPOSED violence. Imagine that!
4. NST said when I was visiting, that it's waiting for "Ikeda" to
die. Why is NST waiting for "Ikeda" to die? To grab SGI members?
Can't you get them now? Why not? Because it is so warm, fuzzy, and
positive in NST?
Sheesh (give me a break)
cmk
juanjo
> Lets see..What kind of PROPAGANDA can NST come up with now?
>
> 1. A WW2 HP expressing HATRED towards the U.S. instead of KOSEN
> RUFU! Imagine that!
Becareful sweetie. There are statements from Makaguchi supporting the
Japanese war effort.
>
> 2. SGI people stalking all sorts of Priests and NST people, with NO
> PICS of the incidents, imagine that!
>
But there are well documented instances of SGI thuggery out there.
Including police reports and photographs. Just because no one feels
the need to provide you with copies doesn't make them go away.
cmk
> On Oct 2, 12:29 am, cmk <orchidtigr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lets see..What kind of PROPAGANDA can NST come up with now?
>
> > 1. A WW2 HP expressing HATRED towards the U.S. instead of KOSEN
> > RUFU! Imagine that!
>
> Becareful sweetie. There are statements from Makaguchi supporting the
> Japanese war effort.
Be care of what? YOU? Where is your proof! Lets see it!
>
>
>
> > 2. SGI people stalking all sorts of Priests and NST people, with NO
> > PICS of the incidents, imagine that!
>
> But there are well documented instances of SGI thuggery out there.
> Including police reports and photographs. Just because no one feels
> the need to provide you with copies doesn't make them go away.
>
> But NOTHING, I have seen NO signatures on those SO-CALLED police reports.
There has been absolutely NO REAL PROOF, and PROOF is PROOF dear.
If you don't have it we can't see it. It is easy to say your holding
it back if you
don't have any proof. Lets see all those cell phone pictures of SGI
harassing
you, eh?
pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttt
>
> > 3. That the SGI stalked a Priest in Seattle in the 90s and NST had a
> > police report, with NO WITNESSES signatures on it although there was
> > SUPPOSED violence. Imagine that!
>
> > 4. NST said when I was visiting, that it's waiting for "Ikeda" to
> > die. Why is NST waiting for "Ikeda" to die? To grab SGI members?
> > Can't you get them now? Why not? Because it is so warm, fuzzy, and
> > positive in NST?
>
> > Sheesh (give me a break)
>
> > cmk
Lets see em! The problem with NST is you guys SAY alot, but never
ever do I see
ANY proof WHATSOEVER! NEVER HAVE I seen one ounce of proof. All you
do
is hurt people too! STOP bothering to stick up for that!
Lets see all your proof. Cell phone pics of priests being harassed?
Somehow they are
nowhere to be found, Witness signatures that are signed with
disappearing ink, eh?
Of course you have
proof...Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttt
Is that like NST being warm and friendlly? Oh wait, is that like
Nikken caring about
NSA members? Oh wait, is that like NST members actually helping new
members?
Pffffffffffffffffffft. Remember I was there, and I KNOW what NST is
about. It's not about
Kosen Rufu! That's for sure.
cmk
cmk
I have one more thing to say before I take time to do REAL THINGS,
because
THIS wastes my time.
YOU and your buddies, purposely disrupted the Kosen Rufu
movement saying you and your priests are better than members
that backed "Ikeda" by harming people's individual practices in the
process.
I have nothing NICE to say about any of this except....IF what you say
is true,
SHOW US ALL THIS INVISIBLE PROOF!
SHOW IT TO ME! The problem with NST and I will say it again, THEY
SIGNED for the GOSHO to be published, then they said it was wrong.
THEY LET SGI incorporate, then they said SGI shouldn't have done that.
They say the GOSHO is wrong? Why sign for it? SIMPLE!
I am tired of talking to you. YOU DON'T CARE, respect or listen to
me.
The GOSHO says this shouldn't have happened, THIS IS NOT WHAT
THE GOSHO SAYS TO DO. If you are so pious why do you
side-step Nichiren Daishonin? If the Priesthood believes the GOSHO
then they should have backed it. If they do not, then they should have
NOT
SIGNED FOR IT TO BE PUBLISHED. Simple! Avoidence doesn't make
you right! What NST told me when I was there, was that the GOSHO
was WRONG. Was that a lie? Why lie to me?
Bottom line, NO PROOF, criticism and slander, YOU EXCOMMUNICATED
10,000,000 people, you change stories, and that is sooo BOGUS! What
next?
Are you planning on starting a circus?
cmk
juanjo
snip of hysterical screaming rant by psychotic CMK.
Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet?
By Brian Daizen Victoria, Senior Lecturer
Centre for Asian Studies, University of Adelaide
In both EBW and David Chappell’s Buddhist Peacework (BP), Tsunesabur‘
Makiguchi is presented as another foundational exemplar of Engaged
Buddhism. Makiguchi’s Buddhist faith, it is claimed, impelled him not
only to advocate a humane and peaceful world but to sacrifice his very
life in resisting Japanese militarism.
In an article in EBW entitled “The Angulimala Lineage: Buddhist Prison
Ministries,” Virginia Cohn Parkum and J. Anthony Stultz describe
Makiguchi (and his disciple, J‘sei Toda) as having “experienced
incarceration in Japan during World War II for resisting the war
effort and refusing to follow state Shinto worship” (p. 360). A second
article in the same book, “Racial Diversity in the S‘ka Gakkai” by
David Chappell, states that “when Makiguchi refused to support
government thinking during the war, he was arrested in 1943 and died
in prison on November 18, 1944 at the age of seventy-three” (p. 216).
Though somewhat more ambivalent, Peter Harvey adds his voice to the
chorus in An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics (IBE) where he writes,
“In the Second World War, most Buddhist schools agreed to support the
nation in its efforts. Seemingly the one exception was the S‘ka
Gakkai, which refused to take part in this unified front” (p. 270).
Nevertheless, none of these voices can compare with that of Daisaku
Ikeda, president of S‘ka Gakkai International, who has the strongest
words of praise for Makiguchi. In an essay included in BP entitled
“The SGI’s Peace Movement,” Ikeda writes:
Early in the twentieth century (1903), President Makiguchi published
The
Geography of Human Life (Jinsei Chirigaku), which strongly advocated a
shift to humanitarian competition at a time when imperialism and
colonialism
were still the prevailing modes of international relations. He
analyzed
competition among nations as consisting of the phases of: military
competition,
political competition, economic competition, and humanitarian
competition.
He stressed that humanity’s aim should be humanitarian competition (p.
136).
Robert Kisala, however, once again presents us with an alternative
view. He begins by noting that the central focus of Makiguchi’s first
book, Jinsei Chirigaku, was on “drawing connections between geography
and everyday life and advocating the study of geography through field
trips and other hands-on experiences” (p. 75). As for Makiguchi’s
alleged war resistance, Kisala explains that the crux of the matter
was Makiguchi’s refusal to venerate a talisman of Amaterasu, the Sun
Goddess, issued by the central Shinto shrine at Ise. It was this
refusal, he claims, not war resistance, which led Makiguchi and some
twenty other leaders of what was then known as S‘ka Ky‘iku Gakkai
(Academic Society
for Value-Creating Education) to be arrested on charges of lese
majestè and the violation of the Peace Preservation Law on July 6,
1943.
Kisala concludes his study of Makiguchi by pointing out that while
“S‘ka Gakkai
literature often claims that this persecution was the result of an
anti-military stance taken by Makiguchi. . . my reading of the
situation indicates that Makiguchi’s opposition was more narrowly
focused on the religious policy of the government” (p. 90).
This writer’s research on Makiguchi shows that not only is Kisala’s
conclusion
correct but that he revealed only a small part of the story. That is
to say, while Makiguchi may, as Ikeda claims, have looked forward to
the coming of a future world based on “humanitarian competition,” that
world did not yet exist. In Jinsei Chirigaku, Makiguchi described the
actual world he inhabited as follows:
“It is my view that the sole cause of the present danger to world
peace is
Russia’s promotion of its own viability. That is to say, in the
present age of
economic struggle for existence, Russia seeks to exploit weaknesses
among
the international powers in order to acquire what it must have: access
to the
oceans. Thus it is in the process of expanding in three directions,
from the
Dardanelle Straits in Eastern Europe to the Persian Gulf in western
Asia and
the Yellow Sea in the Far East.” (Makiguchi 1903:950-951).
In identifying Russia as being solely responsible for endangering
world peace,
Makiguchi adopted a stance identical with that of the Japanese
government of his day. Japan used this alleged threat to justify its
surprise attack on Russia the following year, ostensively to protect
Korea’s independence and prevent further Russian encroachments on
Chinese territory, most especially Manchuria. The reality, however,
was that following its victory over Russia in 1905, Japan moved to
take control of Korea for itself, turning it into a full-fledged
colony in 1910. As for Manchuria, Japan steadily increased its control
of this area of China until it established the puppet state of
Manchukuo in February 1932.
Significantly, neither Ikeda nor Kisala mention a second seminal book
Makiguchi
first published in November 1912. Entitled Ky‘doka Kenky (Study of
Folk Culture), this volume was an extension of the ideas contained in
Jinsei Chirigaku, with special emphasis on their relevance to the life
and structures of local communities. Makiguchi wanted rural educators
(rather than the central government’s bureaucrats) to take the lead in
developing educational initiatives attuned to local communities. But
toward what end? The book’s concluding chapter explained Makiguchi’s
ultimate goal for education as follows:
“Regardless of social class, everyone should be conscious of the
nation’s
destiny, harmonizing their lives with that destiny and, at all times,
prepared to
share that destiny. It is for this reason that the work of national
education is to
prepare ourselves to do exactly this, omitting nothing in the
process. . . .
However, in order to do this, and prior to placing ourselves in
service to the
state, we should first contribute to the local area that has nurtured
us and with
which we share common interests.” (Makiguchi 1933:460-461).
It should be noted that Makiguchi wrote the above specifically for an
enlarged 1933 edition of this book (see Makiguchi 1933:6). Despite
championing rural education under local control, by 1933 both he and
his publisher, none other than S‘ka Ky‘iku Gakkai, shared a vision of
education that was as “state-centered” as any of his contemporaries.
Only a few years later, millions of young Japanese would be called on
to sacrifice their lives, and those of their victims, in the process
of “placing [them]selves in service to the state.” Thus, Makiguchi’s
quarrel with the central government’s bureaucrats over the control of
local education was not about whether or not service to the state
should be promoted, but simply how best to attain that goal.
If, as the preceding quote demonstrates, Makiguchi believed the
ultimate goal of
education was to serve the state, what was the emperor’s role in
fostering this? Was Makiguchi in any way opposed or critical of either
the emperor or the imperial system?
Though critical of patriotism based on “superficial reasons,”
Makiguchi wrote,
“His Majesty, the Emperor, on whom is centered the exercise of
Imperial
authority, does so through his military and civilian officials. The
reason he
exercises this authority is definitely not for his own benefit.
Rather, as leader
and head of the entire nation, he graciously exerts himself on behalf
of all the
people. It is for this reason that in our country, the state and the
emperor, as
head of state, should be thought of as completely one and indivisible.
We
must make our children thoroughly understand that loyal service to
their
sovereign is synonymous with love of country. . . I believe it is only
in so
doing that we can clarify the true meaning of the phrase “loyalty to
one’s
sovereign and love of country” [Châkun Aikoku] (Makiguchi 1933:411-
412).
In urging his fellow educators to make the nation’s children
“thoroughly understand that loyal service to their sovereign is
synonymous with love of country” we once again find Makiguchi situated
squarely in the mainstream of the nationalistic fervor that
increasingly came to characterize the 1930s. No matter how Makiguchi’s
position toward the emperor may have changed later on, in 1933
Makiguchi advocated the widely held proposition that love of country
was synonymous with loyal service to the emperor. It was exactly this
educational ideology that provided the foundation for the Japanese
military’s demand of absolute and unquestioning obedience from its
soldiers, claiming that “the orders of one’s superiors are the orders
of the emperor.”
Makiguchi also touched on Japan’s colonization of Korea, claiming that
Korea, prior to being formally annexed by Japan in August 1910, had
been in such a state of anarchy that it was unable either to defend
itself or protect its citizens. Not only that, the Chinese people
presently found themselves in exactly the same situation (see
Makiguchi 1933:413).
The clear implication of the latter claim was that China, like Korea
before it, would greatly benefit from Japanese control. This was of
course a sentiment shared by the Japanese government, as seen, for
example, in the Amau Statement of April 1934 issued by its Foreign
Office. China, the statement declared, was not to avail itself of the
assistance of any country other than Japan.
This said, it is equally clear that Makiguchi’s chief concern in
writing favorably
about Japan’s expansion onto the Asian continent was, as ever,
directed toward the manner in which Japan’s children were to be
educated. Makiguchi saw, in a discussion of Korea’s recent past and
China’s present, a golden opportunity to demonstrate to Japanese
children just how fortunate they were to be living in Japan. Makiguchi
continued:
“It is when we look at these concrete examples [of Korea and China]
that
thoughts about our own country emerge. . . . The result is that we
cannot help
but feel grateful and want to repay the debt of gratitude we owe [the
state].
The practical application of the study of folk culture is to provide
the fundamental
basis for an understanding of the state by having [our children] look
at
situations like these that are right before their very eyes. I feel
very deeply
that we must vigorously seek to create persons of character who will
in the
future lead a state-centered life, having first acquired the germ of
the idea of
serving the state at the town and village levels.” (Makiguchi
1933:413).
Makiguchi demonstrates yet again that his ultimate concern was
implanting in Japan’s children a willingness to serve the state.
Makiguchi simply believed he knew how to do this in a more effective
way than the central government’s bureaucrats who showed such little
concern or understanding of local conditions.
While it is true that Makiguchi was arrested in July 1943 for refusing
to worship a
talisman of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu issued by the Ise shrine, this
had nothing to do with being disloyal to the emperor. As he informed
his police interrogators, “I think it is, for we Japanese, the Way of
the Subject to be loyal. This is what I have realized from my study of
the truth of the Lotus Sutra” (Akashi & Matsâra, eds. 1975:172).
Further, as contradictory as it may seem, Makiguchi’s refusal to
worship a talisman of the Sun Goddess did not even signify a lack of
respect for this alleged progenitress of the Imperial family.
Makiguchi made this clear when he told the police,
“The Sun Goddess is the venerable ancestress of our Imperial Family,
her
divine virtue having been transmitted to each successive emperor who
ascended
the throne up to and including the present emperor. Thus has her
virtue been
transformed into the August Virtue of His Majesty which, shining down
on
the people, brings them happiness. It is for this reason that Article
III of the
Constitution states: “The person of the Emperor is sacred and
inviolable.”
“Just as we [association members] recognize the fundamental unity of
filial
piety and loyalty, so it is our conviction that it is proper to
reverently venerate
His Majesty based on the monistic view that “His Majesty, the Emperor
is One
and Indivisible” [Tenn‘ Ichigen-ron], thus making it unnecessary to
pay
homage at the Grand Shrine at Ise. . . . In light of this, who is
there, apart from His Majesty, the Emperor himself, to whom we should
reverently pray?” (Akashi & Matsâra, eds. 1975:174-175).
In fact, nowhere in Makiguchi’s writings, either before or during the
war, either in
prison or out, do we find any statements critical of Japan’s wartime
policies. On the contrary, not only did Makiguchi justify Japan’s
colonial takeover of Korea (and earlier war with Russia), but he
devoted his entire life as an educator to devising more effective ways
of instilling “service to the state” in Japanese children. He further
advocated that these same children “thoroughly understand that loyal
service to their sovereign is synonymous with love of country.” Even
after imprisonment, he affirmed that loyalty to the emperor was but a
natural part of the “Way of the Subject” based on his understanding of
the Lotus Sutra. And, as we have seen, as far as the emperor was
concerned, Makiguchi asked, “Who is there, apart from His Majesty, the
Emperor himself, to whom we should
reverently pray?”
For apologists to now claim that, his imprisonment and death
notwithstanding,
Makiguchi resisted or opposed Japan’s war effort is an attempt to turn
night into day.
juanjo
> Are you planning on starting a circus?
>
> cmk
no need as long as you are around.
Nikken: ''My view of the teachings of Nichiren Shoshu has been polluted'' May 2000 Dai-Nichiren
Becoming Liars Through the Repetition of Debunked Falsehoods -
Jon Petry continues to misunderstand the history of Japan, in
particular, the events of 1935 and the "Organ Theory Affair" regarding
the occurrences in the Diet surrounding Minobe Tatsukichi. There were
two major factions, the Constitutional Monarchists who were liberal
and progressive, and the Absolute Monarchists supported by the
militarists who wanted total control over the government, the people
and society, and to quell any voices that might disagree with their
plans.
Minobe's Organ Theory made the case that the Emperor was an organ of
the government and not an absolute ruler. This caused an uproar which
ended with the militarists having total authority to do as they
wished: and their wish was total Pacific war. Secretly, the Princes
and the Emperor were backing the Absolute Monarchists, but the
Constitutionalists never knew this.
So in their writings and in attempting to pull the country back into
the center over a long struggle ending disastrously in 1935, the
Constitutional Monarchists would write expressing loyalty to the
Emperor pleading for a middle way to escape the spiral down into
madness that was coming. The fact that there was no hope for their
cause, does not impugn their efforts to attempt to hold off the
darkness that was descending. That piece of intellectual dishonesty is
utterly disgusting on the part of Brian Victoria, Robert Kisala and
Jon Petry. They should be shunned by academia as prochronists
perpetuating a fraud.
With that history in mind, let's examine Jon Petry's confusion
regarding the misleading writings and intellectual dishonesty of Brian
Victoria and Robert Kisala.
From a recent posting of Jon Petry:
| Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet? By Brian
| Daizen Victoria, Senior Lecturer Centre for Asian
| Studies, University of Adelaide
|.
| In both EBW and David Chappell's Buddhist Peacework
| (BP), Tsunesaburo Makiguchi is presented as another
| foundational exemplar of Engaged Buddhism. Makiguchi's
| Buddhist faith, it is claimed, impelled him not only to
| advocate a humane and peaceful world but to sacrifice
| his very life in resisting Japanese militarism.
|.
| In an article in EBW entitled "The Angulimala Lineage:
| Buddhist Prison Ministries," Virginia Cohn Parkum and J.
| Anthony Stultz describe Makiguchi (and his disciple,
| Josei Toda) as having "experienced incarceration in
| Japan during World War II for resisting the war effort
| and refusing to follow state Shinto worship" (p. 360). A
| second article in the same book, "Racial Diversity in
| the Soka Gakkai" by David Chappell, states that "when
| Makiguchi refused to support government thinking during
| the war, he was arrested in 1943 and died in prison on
| November 18, 1944 at the age of seventy-three" (p. 216).
|.
| Though somewhat more ambivalent, Peter Harvey adds his
| voice to the chorus in An Introduction to Buddhist
| Ethics (IBE) where he writes, "In the Second World War,
| most Buddhist schools agreed to support the nation in
| its efforts. Seemingly the one exception was the Soka
| Gakkai, which refused to take part in this unified
| front" (p. 270). Nevertheless, none of these voices can
| compare with that of Daisaku Ikeda, president of Soka
| Gakkai International, who has the strongest words of
| praise for Makiguchi. In an essay included in BP
| entitled "The SGI's Peace Movement," Ikeda writes:
All of those issues are relevant to the discussion of Makiguchi and
his views in wartime, and Jon Petry will go on to distort those
issues.
However, bringing up the following material from 1903 is really a red
herring.
Makiguchi's 1903 writings were from a time long before he came into
contact with Nichiren's Buddhism, when he was basically under earlier
influences of the religion of his family, and are simply not relevant
to the point that Victoria, Kisala and Petry are trying to make: that
he might not have been imprisoned for resisting the War, or even that
he might not have been a pacifist AT THAT MUCH LATER TIME.
One can argue over his pacifistic tendencies in 1903, which
undoubtedly were in conflict at that time with his nationalism, but
that does not in any way pertain to the occurrences in the middle and
late 1930s and the early 1940s. These are truly specious as well as
unjustified and distorted assertions.
Petry continues:
| Early in the twentieth century (1903), President
| Makiguchi published The Geography of Human Life (Jinsei
| Chirigaku), which strongly advocated a shift to
| humanitarian competition at a time when imperialism and
| colonialism were still the prevailing modes of
| international relations. He analyzed competition among
| nations as consisting of the phases of: military
| competition, political competition, economic
| competition, and humanitarian competition. He stressed
| that humanity's aim should be humanitarian competition
| (p. 136).
|.
| Robert Kisala, however, once again presents us with an
| alternative view. He begins by noting that the central
| focus of Makiguchi's first book, Jinsei Chirigaku, was
| on "drawing connections between geography and everyday
| life and advocating the study of geography through field
| trips and other hands-on experiences" (p. 75). As for
| Makiguchi's alleged war resistance, Kisala explains that
| the crux of the matter was Makiguchi's refusal to
| venerate a talisman of Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess,
| issued by the central Shinto shrine at Ise. It was this
| refusal, he claims, not war resistance, which led
| Makiguchi and some twenty other leaders of what was then
| known as Soka Kyoiku Gakkai (Academic Society for Value-
| Creating Education) to be arrested on charges of lese
| majest� and the violation of the Peace Preservation Law
| on July 6, 1943.
This skin-deep analysis, more appropriate to a high school paper,
completely ignores the contextual fact that Shinto was the religion
that identified the Emperor as a kami (god) superior to the hoteke
(the buddhas). That meant the Emperor was the country itself: the
government, the military and the war effort ... and that resisting
Shinto was resisting the Emperor's war. Resisting the state religion
of Imperial Way Buddhism (according to Brian Victoria's very own book)
was resisting Imperial State Zen at war in the Pacific.
This evil Shinto view had evolved according to the honji suijaku
theory (13th century Tendai slanders of Dengyo) and the later
foundations of the Sanno Ichijitsu cult of worshipping Ieyasu as a god
(laid down by Tenkai, another Tendai slanderer of Dengyo, who inserted
lies into his mentor's mouth stating that the gods were greater than
the buddhas, and that the greatest god of all was Ieyasu), all of
which was inherited by the Meiji Restoration to build a new Emperor
Cult, which came to fruition in 1935.
[See my other posting regarding the Toynbee analysis of the Fuji
School for vastly greater detail on this evil.]
Petry continues:
| Kisala concludes his study of Makiguchi by pointing out
| that while "Soka Gakkai literature often claims that
| this persecution was the result of an anti-military
| stance taken by Makiguchi. . . my reading of the
| situation indicates that Makiguchi's opposition was more
| narrowly focused on the religious policy of the
| government" (p. 90).
The utter ignorance of this statement is pathetic. There was no
separation at all between the Emperor and the War effort, in the
religious view of Shinto. Shinto equals War. It has no other purpose
than the absolute power of a monarch leading to War. It was invented
and reinvented by the Tendai at the behest of the Zen bakufu (military
government) over several centuries expressly for the purpose of
governing through distortion of Buddhism. [The fact that it is a
distortion that suits Jon Petry and his Five Senior Priest cronies at
Minobu, is no accident.]
Now, Kisala and Petry go back to the irrelevant evidence of
Makiguchi's writings nearly thirty years before his conversion to
Nichiren Buddhism, with some crazy idea that it informs us of his
views and actions in the middle of the struggle leading to the events
of 1935 and the later events of the early 1940s.
Simply and obviously irrelevant, a red herring is a red herring no
matter how many times you repeat the fallacy: it remains fallacious
reasoning. Indeed, repetition of an obvious fallacy is the propaganda
technique numero uno of the fascists themselves, the big lie that
becomes more acceptable when it is repeated endlessly (Josef
Goebbels).
Petry continues:
| This writer's research on Makiguchi shows that not only
| is Kisala's conclusion correct but that he revealed only
| a small part of the story. That is to say, while
| Makiguchi may, as Ikeda claims, have looked forward to
| the coming of a future world based on "humanitarian
| competition," that world did not yet exist. In Jinsei
| Chirigaku, Makiguchi described the actual world he
| inhabited as follows:
|.
| "It is my view that the sole cause of the present danger
| to world peace is Russia's promotion of its own
| viability. That is to say, in the present age of
| economic struggle for existence, Russia seeks to exploit
| weaknesses among the international powers in order to
| acquire what it must have: access to the oceans. Thus it
| is in the process of expanding in three directions, from
| the Dardanelle Straits in Eastern Europe to the Persian
| Gulf in western Asia and the Yellow Sea in the Far
| East." (Makiguchi 1903:950-951).
|
| In identifying Russia as being solely responsible for
| endangering world peace, Makiguchi adopted a stance
| identical with that of the Japanese government of his
| day. Japan used this alleged threat to justify its
| surprise attack on Russia the following year,
| ostensively to protect Korea's independence and prevent
| further Russian encroachments on Chinese territory, most
| especially Manchuria. The reality, however, was that
| following its victory over Russia in 1905, Japan moved
| to take control of Korea for itself, turning it into a
| full-fledged colony in 1910. As for Manchuria, Japan
| steadily increased its control of this area of China
| until it established the puppet state of Manchukuo in
| February 1932.
The entirety of Jon's and Kisala's irrelevant argument, here, has been
completely debunked already, SEVERAL TIMES IN SEVERAL PLACES.
I refer you to the first time that Koichi Miyata debunked Brian
Victoria's canard (the fourth time that Victoria vomited forth this
filth, polluting the public marketplace of ideas):
. Turning to my first point: Victoria quotes a passage
. from Makiguchi's 1903 work Jinsei Chirigaku (The
. Geography of Human Life), in which Makiguchi notes that
. Russia was engaged in a policy of expansionism in the
. search for year-round harbors. Victoria asserts that
. this world view was identical to that of the government
. of Japan, a view used to justify the Russo-Japanese War
. (1904-1905), then the annexation of the Korean peninsula
. (1910) and the founding of the puppet state of Manchukuo
. (1932). Victoria's assertion, and his implicit criticism
. of Makiguchi, simplistically links analysis of the
. global situation with the policies taken in response to
. that. Makiguchi was merely voicing what was then the
. accepted understanding of the geopolitical motives for
. Russia's expansionist policies, a view held not only by
. the Japanese government, but shared by the British, with
. whom Japan had formed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
. Certainly I know of no scholar of political geography
. who rejects this commonsense view in favor of one that
. Russia posed no danger. If we were to extend Victoria's
. argument, the logical conclusion would be to find not
. only Makiguchi but everyone who studies political
. geography guilty of complicity with Japanese aggression.
. Critical Comments on Brian Victoria's "Engaged Buddhism:
.
. From "A Skeleton in the Closet?", by Koichi Miyata.
. <http://www.globalbuddhism.org/3/miyata021.htm>
So, this was the actually the view of all of the allies of Britain at
the turn of the 20th century, and not some Japanese imperialistic
view.
Stop repeating this nonsense, Jon Petry and Robert Kisala, you are
obviously lying in your deliberate repetition of debunked falsehoods
(like Propaganda Minister Goebbels and Brian Victoria).
Leaving aside the wretchedness of your methods and lack of connection
with any rational semblence of truth, this line of discussion
continues to be a red herring, by delving again into Makiguchi's
decades past ideas, way before Makiguchi's conversion to Nichiren
Buddhism.
I can understand this from a non-believer like Kisala, but Jon Petry
considers himself a believer, does he not?
Are not people allowed to change and grow as they age, or are we all
simply static entities?
King Ashoka went from being a cruel conqueror to being a peaceful
Buddhist, is that only OK for him to change his life, because he is
ancient history?
I mean, (if it's OK with your Lordship) is it satisfactory to you if
we practice human revolution, even we mortals who are less than your
perfection?
Petry continues:
| Significantly, neither Ikeda nor Kisala mention a second
| seminal book Makiguchi first published in November 1912.
| Entitled Kyodoka Kenky� (Study of Folk Culture), this
| volume was an extension of the ideas contained in Jinsei
| Chirigaku, with special emphasis on their relevance to
| the life and structures of local communities. Makiguchi
| wanted rural educators (rather than the central
| government's bureaucrats) to take the lead in developing
| educational initiatives attuned to local communities.
| But toward what end? The book's concluding chapter
| explained Makiguchi's ultimate goal for education as
| follows:
|.
| "Regardless of social class, everyone should be
| conscious of the nation's destiny, harmonizing their
| lives with that destiny and, at all times, prepared to
| share that destiny. It is for this reason that the work
| of national education is to prepare ourselves to do
| exactly this, omitting nothing in the process. . . .
| However, in order to do this, and prior to placing
| ourselves in service to the state, we should first
| contribute to the local area that has nurtured us and
| with which we share common interests." (Makiguchi
| 1933:460-461).
|.
| It should be noted that Makiguchi wrote the above
| specifically for an enlarged 1933 edition of this book
| (see Makiguchi 1933:6). Despite championing rural
| education under local control, by 1933 both he and his
| publisher, none other than Soka Kyoiku Gakkai, shared a
| vision of education that was as "state-centered" as any
| of his contemporaries.
|.
Once again, this nonsense of yours has been debunked by Koichi Miyata
in the same article. Since you appear incapable of clicking and
reading this article, I have included it in total at the end of this
writing. Here is the passage debunking your (above) hypothesis:
. Secondly, Victoria quotes an extract from Makiguchi's
. book Kyodoka Kenkyu (A Study of Folk Culture), in which
. Makiguchi notes that the state plays an important role
. in the lives of citizens. From this, Victoria draws the
. conclusion that as the Japan moved closer to war,
. Makiguchi adopted the view that education should be "in
. service to the state". (Victoria states that Makiguchi
. added this section for the 1933 revised edition of the
. book. This is incorrect, as it appears in the first
. edition published in 1912.) Since the publication of
. Jinsei Chirigaku Makiguchi had consistently emphasized
. the formation of identity on three levels-that of a
. person's local community, the national and global
. levels. Within this context, and against a backdrop of
. global competition for empire, he placed particular
. importance on national independence. This is hardly
. unreasonable. Japan was one of only a handful of
. countries in Asia that had maintained independence amid
. encroachment by the Western powers, and Makiguchi was
. well aware of the miserable circumstances of colonized
. peoples. What we may find problematic-in terms of the
. current view that controlling peoples is intrinsically
. wrong-is that Makiguchi did not say enough after Japan
. itself acquired colonies, omitting to comment on the
. issue of independence for these colonized peoples, and
. only suggesting that imperialism was not the optimal
. policy choice because of the financial burden involved.
. Here I refer Dr. Victoria to my essay "Tsunesaburo
. Makiguchi's Theory of the State" in TJOS, in which I
. discuss Makiguchi's view that imperialistic-military and
. economic-competition should be supplanted by a
. cooperative sense of community, what he called
. "humanitarian competition."
Miyata's article "Tsunesaburo Makiguchi's Theory of the State" is
located at: http://www.tmakiguchi.org/assets/images/miyataforIOPspecialissue.pdf
I wonder if you are capable of clicking and reading this article, or
will you continue to repeat that debunked piece of propaganda, too?
Next time, I will include that article as well, if you continue to
prevaricate, by floating this canard.
By the way, note the date 1933. Even according to your prochronistic
reasoning, Jinsei Chirigaku was enlarged and published just at the
point, 2 years before the crisis and catastrophe of the Constitutional
Monarchists in 1935, when the Constitutionalists were desperately
trying to pull the government back to the middle, while it was sliding
away from them to the far right and utter chaos.
The Constitutionalist case would not be furthered by separation from
the the ruling government, or by separating from the nobility that
they were trying to influence, in vain as it would turn out.
So they made their plea from the center. In support of the Emperor. As
Tony Blair has noted, all progressive governments that survive must
rule from the center. Always from the broad center of the people. The
fact that it did not work this time is not the fault of their
rhetorical support of the Emperor, while trying to influence the
royals.
Petry continues:
| Only a few years later, millions of young Japanese would
| be called on to sacrifice their lives, and those of
| their victims, in the process of "placing [them]selves
| in service to the state." Thus, Makiguchi's quarrel with
| the central government's bureaucrats over the control of
| local education was not about whether or not service to
| the state should be promoted, but simply how best to
| attain that goal.
That few years, after 1935 and a sharp break with the last glimmer of
hope in 1933 when Makiguchi wrote, does not impugn the pre-Absolute
Monarchy attempts of the Constitutional Monarchists in 1933 to
preserve a progressive government in Japan. Those failed efforts were
noble, and had they succeeded, could have prevented much death and
destruction. THIS, TOO IS PACIFISM !!!
And during the last of the war years, Mr. Makiguchi and Mr. Toda were
imprisoned, and they were the only ones who never gave in to the end,
to Mr. Makiguchi's death, and Mr. Toda's unyielding and undefeated
release from prison. The honor of Japan's Buddhists resided only with
these two in the end. Certainly not with Zen and not with Minobu and
their subjugated temples.
And, oh, by the way, Jon Petry. Your show is slipping.
Your evil Minobu sect (Nichiren Shu and the other subjugated temples)
were not hiding away somewhere. They were unabashed cheerleaders for
the war effort and the attack on Pearl Harbor, even worse than the
evil Fuji School Priesthood.
They bowed to the Shinto talisman, that slanderous object of worship,
which stands in opposition to the Lotus Sutra and the Gohonzon, and
which was the direct cause of war, chaos and holocaust.
They bowed to the Shinto talisman and cheered as defeat after glorious
defeat occurred, with the mass suicide of division after division,
running out of the caves burning from the flamethrower's napalm.
Minobu cheered as the kamikaze flew and they cheered as the Yamamoto
went down with all hands without inflicting any damage whatsoever on
the Allies.
So noble.
Your Minobu priests cheered as Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned.
And damn them to hell for it and all the rest of their distorting
garbage Buddhism.
Petry continues:
| If, as the preceding quote demonstrates, Makiguchi
| believed the ultimate goal of education was to serve the
| state, what was the emperor's role in fostering this?
| Was Makiguchi in any way opposed or critical of either
| the emperor or the imperial system?
|.
| Though critical of patriotism based on "superficial
| reasons," Makiguchi wrote, "His Majesty, the Emperor, on
| whom is centered the exercise of Imperial authority,
| does so through his military and civilian officials. The
| reason he exercises this authority is definitely not for
| his own benefit. Rather, as leader and head of the
| entire nation, he graciously exerts himself on behalf of
| all the people. It is for this reason that in our
| country, the state and the emperor, as head of state,
| should be thought of as completely one and indivisible.
| We must make our children thoroughly understand that
| loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love
| of country. . . I believe it is only in so doing that we
| can clarify the true meaning of the phrase "loyalty to
| one's sovereign and love of country" [Ch�kun Aikoku]
| (Makiguchi 1933:411- 412).
This repeated nonsense of yours HAS ALSO already been repeatedly
debunked, which ALSO throws into question, ONCE AGAIN, your putative
intellectual honesty, Jon Petry. Here is Koichi Miyata's argument from
"A Skeleton In The Closet?"
. Thirdly there is the problem of the emperor system.
. Quoting a section from Kyodoka Kenkyu in which Makiguchi
. argues that loyalty to the emperor is synonymous with
. love of one's country, Victoria implies that Makiguchi's
. view was identical to that of the military government.
. This, however, is a far too loosely framed argument that
. ignores the interpretative issues associated with the
. 1889 Meiji Constitution. The preamble to the Meiji
. Constitution recognizes the supreme authority of the
. emperor, while Article 3 declares the sacred nature of
. the emperor, and Article 4 his sovereign rights over the
. state -- making the state and the emperor system
. inseparable. If we stress the supreme authority of the
. emperor, the emperor is then cast in the role of
. absolute monarch. If we consider instead the role of the
. Constitution as a brake on the supreme authority of the
. emperor, he becomes a constitutional monarch. The former
. view is represented by the imperial fascism supported by
. the military regime, while the latter corresponds to
. Tatsukichi Minobe's theory of the emperor as an organ of
. the state. From the era of Taisho democracy through to
. the suppression of Minobe's theory in 1935, this view
. held sway among constitutional scholars and members of
. the Diet. The idea that loyalty = patriotism is common
. to both views, and by aligning Makiguchi with the
. imperial fascism of the military simply on the basis of
. his comments here, Victoria again appears determined to
. ignore the written record of Makiguchi's thoughts. From
. his earliest writings, Makiguchi viewed the emperor as a
. constitutional monarch, and was critical of moves to
. make the emperor's powers absolute.
Once again, Prochronists like Victoria, Kisala and Petry, will always
judge a person's writings before the emergence of Fascism, in a post-
Fascist light, to make whatever conclusion they desire seem correct.
In this way they persecute the noble efforts of those who tried to
forestall catastrophe, by twisting the truth and demonizing their
nobility.
The State Fascism triumphant in 1935 was not the same as the
Constitutional Monarchists struggling to survive as part of the Diet
in 1933. Got that?
It is truly shameful, how Victoria, Kisala and Petry can exploit that
subtle difference in timing, making fools of the public. But that is
indeed what they do. And they call themselves academics. And people
continue to publish their garbage writings.
More from Jon Petry:
| In urging his fellow educators to make the nation's
| children "thoroughly understand that loyal service to
| their sovereign is synonymous with love of country" we
| once again find Makiguchi situated squarely in the
| mainstream of the nationalistic fervor that increasingly
| came to characterize the 1930s. No matter how
| Makiguchi's position toward the emperor may have changed
| later on, in 1933 Makiguchi advocated the widely held
| proposition that love of country was synonymous with
| loyal service to the emperor. It was exactly this
| educational ideology that provided the foundation for
| the Japanese military's demand of absolute and
| unquestioning obedience from its soldiers, claiming that
| "the orders of one's superiors are the orders of the
| emperor."
This time as well, Petry is repeating a section of Victoria's work
that has been thoroughly debunked over and over by Koichi Miyata in "A
Skeleton In The Closet?":
. Victoria mentions the military indoctrination of soldiers
. that "the orders of one's superiors are the orders of the
. emperor," and asserts that Makiguchi supported this
. view. In fact, however, Makiguchi commented: "The orders
. of the emperor could be mistaken, mind you", thereby
. rejecting the absolute authority of the emperor. This
. point is an important one when we come to consider the
. next, that of the relationship between Makiguchi's
. criticism of the religious policies of the military
. government and his anti-war activities. I refer Dr.
. Victoria here to Hiroo Sato "Nichiren Thought in Modern
. Japan: Two Perspectives" in TJOS in which he discusses
. the relationship between Makiguchi and the emperor
. system from a religious-historical perspective.
Does Petry simply refuse to read the debunking of his incorrect
positions? Can he not see what is apparent to one and all, that his
autistic lying, like a network device that is an open emitter, only
serves to undermine his validity on every point he makes? Endlessly
reformulating an erroneous statement into a new posting does not make
it true, in spite of Goebbels' guidance to propagandists.
And trashing Makiguchi and Toda without regard to the truth of their
heroism, does not make the devilish priests at Minobu and the other
Nichiren temples into saints. The were, are and will remain war-
mongering slanderers of Buddhism.
More from Jon Petry:
| Makiguchi also touched on Japan's colonization of Korea,
| claiming that Korea, prior to being formally annexed by
| Japan in August 1910, had been in such a state of
| anarchy that it was unable either to defend itself or
| protect its citizens. Not only that, the Chinese people
| presently found themselves in exactly the same situation
| (see Makiguchi 1933:413).
Once again, one does not succeed in influencing the powerful back into
the center, by picking unnecessary fights about past history that
cannot be changed now. Or by encouraging disloyalty against the leader
of the nation, whom you are trying to influence.
This (1933) was the time when fate still held in the balance, when the
course had not been decided (apparently), and when there was still
hope. Should they have given in prematurely?
That appears to be what Kisala and Petry think.
They would rather be viewed in a better light by history, than fight
in an effort to change the outcome. How determinist of them, what
fatalism that is, and such intellectual detachment is merely a
disguise for clucking defeatism.
It is precisely the hopeless causes that require the strongest fight
and the greatest courage. Get your ass off the sidelines and into the
fight, Jon Petry. You and your Tendai-influenced kin need to discard
the notion of "original enlightenment", which is really the devilish
function's most excellent disguise. You cannot attain the way by
having an opinion of Buddhism that differs from Nichiren Daishonin.
You are either with him, or you are in Avichi Hell:
From the Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, p. 77-78, Chapter
Seven - The Parable of the Phantom City, Point Seven, on the passage
"Now you must press forward diligently / so that together you may
[all] reach the place where the treasure is.",
. The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings says: The
. word "all" refers to the Ten Worlds. The word "together"
. refers to the words [of the Buddha in chapter two, Expedient
. Means] "hoping to make all persons / equal to me, without
. any distinction between us." The word "reach" means to
. arrive at the level of the highest effect, the state of
. Buddhahood. "The place where the treasure is," the treasure
. land, is the holy mountain, Eagle Peak.
.
. Nichiren and his followers, those who chant Nam-myoho-renge
. -kyo, one and all will "together reach the place where the
. treasure is." This one word "together" means that, as long
. as they are together with Nichiren, they will reach the
. treasure land. BUT IF THEY ARE NOT TOGETHER WITH HIM, THEY
. WILL FALL INTO THE GREAT CITADEL OF THE AVICHI HELL.
When Nichiren placed all of Buddhism in the hands of Nikko Shonin,
your ancestral mentors (the Five Senior Priests) ignored the final
words of their dying mentor.
Now you are in Avichi Hell as a result.
While you still live, Jon Petry, you can still escape this hellish
condition by following Nichiren's final admonition. (Yes, even after
all of this evil ranting filth.)
By that, I don't mean joining your fellow Avichi denizens, the
Transfer Box-less followers of Nikken in Nichiren Shoshu. I mean
coming to the SGI. That is the only exit strategy that is sufficient
to make an escape from your present predicament.
More from Jon Petry:
| The clear implication of the latter claim was that
| China, like Korea before it, would greatly benefit from
| Japanese control. This was of course a sentiment shared
| by the Japanese government, as seen, for example, in the
| Amau Statement of April 1934 issued by its Foreign
| Office. China, the statement declared, was not to avail
| itself of the assistance of any country other than
| Japan.
That detailed implication of Makiguchi's that you describe is
actually, clearly and simply, a detailed inference on your part.
Your inference does not equate to Makiguchi's implication.
Makiguchi did not make that prediction: "will greatly benefit from".
Stop putting your thoughts and words into Makiguchi's mouth. If he
didn't say what you really wished that he had, then there is a reason
for it.
Cease your distortions, bad translations and quotes out of context.
More from Jon Petry:
| This said, it is equally clear that Makiguchi's chief
| concern in writing favorably about Japan's expansion
| onto the Asian continent was, as ever, directed toward
| the manner in which Japan's children were to be
| educated. Makiguchi saw, in a discussion of Korea's
| recent past and China's present, a golden opportunity to
| demonstrate to Japanese children just how fortunate they
| were to be living in Japan. Makiguchi continued:
|.
| "It is when we look at these concrete examples [of Korea
| and China] that thoughts about our own country emerge. .
| . . The result is that we cannot help but feel grateful
| and want to repay the debt of gratitude we owe [the
| state]. The practical application of the study of folk
| culture is to provide the fundamental basis for an
| understanding of the state by having [our children] look
| at situations like these that are right before their
| very eyes. I feel very deeply that we must vigorously
| seek to create persons of character who will in the
| future lead a state-centered life, having first acquired
| the germ of the idea of serving the state at the town
| and village levels." (Makiguchi 1933:413).
First off, I have not seen this translation, which is in direct
contradiction to Makiguchi's views, and since all your other
translation errors have been extremely self-serving to your purpose of
trashing Makiguchi, I do not trust this little bit regarding "state-
centered", either.
Since you have ignored Koichi Miyata's references to Makiguchi's other
works delineating his views clearly, I will refer you to President
Ikeda's speech at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in 1996, which appeared
again recently in the World Tribune (10/30/09):
. Two years later, on Nov. 18, 1930, together with his
. disciple and fellow teacher, Josei Toda, Mr. Makiguchi published
the first
. volume of 'The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy,' and
. it is from this day that we date the establishment of
. our organization.
.
. 'Soka' is Japanese for "value creation." From Mr.
. Makiguchi's viewpoint, the most fundamental and central
. value is that of life itself. Taking into account John
. Dewey's pragmatism, Mr. Makiguchi stated that "the only
. value in the true sense is that of life itself. All
. other values arise solely within the context of
. interaction with life." The fundamental criterion for
. value, in Mr. Makiguchi's view, is whether something
. adds to or detracts from, advances or hinders, the human
. condition.
Since Mr Makiguchi's central thesis is LIFE-CENTERED, as the name of
our organization states clearly (and not state-centered), I think we
can dispose of your putative translation into the same waste-bin as
the other putative translations leading to the rest of the distorting
rhetoric of Victoria, Kisala and Petry.
I repeat once again regarding your continuing fallacious reasoning as
well: Prochronists like Victoria, Kisala and Petry, will always judge
a person's writings before the emergence of Fascism (1933), in a post-
Fascist light (1935 and later), to make whatever conclusion they
desire seem correct. In this way they persecute the noble efforts of
those who tried to forestall catastrophe, by twisting the truth and
demonizing their nobility.
To them, social criticism was the only correct line of attack, since
the Constitutionalists SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the cause was lost, in
the view of Prochronism. The view of Prochronists is always, that you
should have known the future, that you are to be judged in your
actions in the past, by the unfortunate turn of future events against
your cause and efforts, even when you were simply trying to avert that
future disaster.
Hence, trying to avert disaster by political and rhetorical means is
viewed by the Prochronists as complicity with the perpetration of the
disaster. The only Prochronist-righteous course is to stand on the
sidelines with a carefully positioned (and historically preserved)
letter of protest, without taking any risk by participating in the
fray.
No Philsopher of any note encourages this inactive ethical stance,
they all, to a man (Kant, Descartes, Mill, Hegel, etc.) demand that we
take action to avert disaster, or be branded as cowardly.
This is pure sophistry with an evil purpose, specifically to find
fault where there is none.
More from Jon Petry:
| Makiguchi demonstrates yet again that his ultimate
| concern was implanting in Japan's children a willingness
| to serve the state. Makiguchi simply believed he knew
| how to do this in a more effective way than the central
| government's bureaucrats who showed such little concern
| or understanding of local conditions. While it is true
| that Makiguchi was arrested in July 1943 for refusing to
| worship a talisman of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu issued
| by the Ise shrine, this had nothing to do with being
| disloyal to the emperor.
Pure unadulterated Petry-thought with absolutely no foundation in
fact.
This completely ignores the facts that in Shinto, the Emperor is the
god above the buddhas, whose body is the state, whose word is divine
law, and whose war is a religious practice. Resisting Shinto is
resisting the Emperor's divine war. Imperial Way Buddhism (Shinto) IS
Imperial State Zen and the Zen War on humanity. They are not separate,
not even in the tiniest way.
You cannot defeat an evil by bowing to it.
The absolute monarch must not be obeyed in slandering Buddhism, the
Shinto Talisman and everything it represented (Imperial Way Buddhism,
Imperial State Zen, and the public acknowledgement of divinity of the
Emperor, which is inseperable from supporting his divine Pacific War)
even though required by law, must all be rejected.
The people must not bow down to Shinto, or the world falls into hell,
never to emerge.
More from Jon Petry:
| As he informed his police
| interrogators, "I think it is, for we Japanese, the Way
| of the Subject to be loyal. This is what I have realized
| from my study of the truth of the Lotus Sutra" (Akashi &
| Mats�ra, eds. 1975:172). Further, as contradictory as it
| may seem, Makiguchi's refusal to worship a talisman of
| the Sun Goddess did not even signify a lack of respect
| for this alleged progenitress of the Imperial family.
| Makiguchi made this clear when he told the police,
|.
| "The Sun Goddess is the venerable ancestress of our
| Imperial Family, her divine virtue having been
| transmitted to each successive emperor who ascended the
| throne up to and including the present emperor. Thus has
| her virtue been transformed into the August Virtue of
| His Majesty which, shining down on the people, brings
| them happiness. It is for this reason that Article III
| of the Constitution states: "The person of the Emperor
| is sacred and inviolable."
|.
| "Just as we [association members] recognize the
| fundamental unity of filial piety and loyalty, so it is
| our conviction that it is proper to reverently venerate
| His Majesty based on the monistic view that "His
| Majesty, the Emperor is One and Indivisible" [Tenno
| Ichigen-ron], thus making it unnecessary to pay homage
| at the Grand Shrine at Ise. . . . In light of this, who
| is there, apart from His Majesty, the Emperor himself,
| to whom we should reverently pray?" (Akashi & Mats�ra,
| eds. 1975:174-175).
Buddhism is reason. Here, you see the excellent example of Makiguchi's
brilliant shakubuku technique, exercised towards his persecutors. His
mind is like a rapier in the hands of a master fencer.
Makiguchi APPEARS to be simply repeating what was a traditional view
of the Japanese. It was even written into the Constitution that the
Emperor was thus.
ACTUALLY, he is attacking the Shinto system with Reason, by setting
the ends against the middle. You cannot perceive this if you do not
have faith in the mentor: it is necessary to ask yourself, "Why is
Sensei doing this?" That question will never occur to the mind of a
non-disciple.
He tells them, FROM THEIR OWN WORDS, how their views are
contradictory. Not needing to pray at the Ise shrine because of "the
monistic view that 'His Majesty, the Emperor is One and
Indivisible' [Tenno Ichigen-ron]", means that placing the Shinto
talisman in one's altar is therefore redundant, as well.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, he was trying to draw the distinction, even at this
late date, that his disloyalty to state Shinto and the order to accept
the talisman was not the same as disloyalty to the Emperor, because
the Emperor ("one and indivisible") and state Shinto were not the same
entity.
Makiguchi's statement is like a razor, which cuts between loyalty to
State Shinto, which he REFUSES to bow to, and loyalty to the person of
the Emperor ("who is there, apart from His Majesty, the Emperor
himself, to whom we should reverently pray?"), who as leader of the
nation he MUST bow to.
There is a history to using the words and teachings of issendai
against their evil goals. Dengyo (whom Nichiren Daishonin described
himself as a disciple of) went to China to visit Miao-lo's disciple,
where he copied the unmodified versions of the Lotus Sutra and the
True Word Sutras, which he then fetched back to Japan.
Why did Dengyo carry back with him the True Word Sutras, which the
Lord of Teachings, Shakyamuni himself asked his followers to "honestly
discard" while only retaining the Lotus Sutra as his "remnant" -
Nichiren?
Dengyo violated a precept, so that he could defeat the Six Schools at
Nara in the year 792 ["They are the Dharma Analysis Treasury (Kusha),
Establishment of Truth ( Jojitsu), Three Treatises (Sanron), Precepts
(Ritsu), Dharma Characteristics (Hosso), and Flower Garland (Kegon)
schools." <http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=2078>] in a
historic debate in front of the Emperor, resulting in Dengyo's Tendai
School of Buddhism becoming the national religion of Japan.
He accomplished this great feat by showing that the Six Schools (which
were not really independent, some temples taught all six) had modified
their versions of the True Word Sutras to incorporate large sections
of the Lotus Sutra. Exposing their flagrant appropriation, forgery and
plagiarism, Dengyo was victorious.
By the way, Nichiren Daishonin gleefully recounts his mentor's victory
in "The Selection of the Time", WND-1, pp. 548-549, <http://
www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=548&m=0&q=>.
In that VERY SAME Gosho, Nichiren masterfully uses Dengyo's technique,
by quoting the provisional sutras to defeat the schools that embrace
them. That makes the "Selection of the Time" Gosho, itself, an
embodiment of the principal of the Oneness of Mentor and Disciple.
Neat, huh? Dengyo, Nichiren and Makiguchi: cut from the same cloth.
And this is also why Nichiren Buddhism is not a precepts practice.
Here is Koichi Miyata's refutation of Victoria's bad translation in
Petry's passage above (which has been repeatedly ignored by Victoria,
Kisala and Petry):
. Victoria also quotes from a report produced by the
. special police on their interrogation of Makiguchi as
. proof that Makiguchi acknowledged the divine status of
. the emperor. Again, this assertion arises from a
. distortion of the relevant passage. Victoria quotes a
. reference by Makiguchi to "praying" to the emperor. He
. could hardly, however, have been more distorting in
. selecting the passage he quoted, deliberately excluding
. the following extract, which I have underlined:
.
... "The august virtue of His Majesty the Emperor is
... manifested in the security and happiness of the
... people, through the organs of his civil and
... military officials. Should these be deficient in
... some way, the people can petition him through
... the Diet or other bodies. In light of this, who
... is there, apart from His Majesty, the Emperor
... himself, to whom we should reverently pray?"
... ("Pray" is Victoria's translation; "beseech" is
... probably more accurate in this context.)
.
. It is obvious that "beseech/pray" and "petition" have
. the same meaning in this context. The manner in which
. Victoria has misused Makiguchi's choice of a term
. normally used in a religious context, but with a special
. meaning in this context, to claim that Makiguchi
. supported emperor worship, is not what one would expect
. from a serious scholar endeavoring to document his
. claim. Surely in examining the interrogation report
. Victoria must have encountered the following statements
. by Makiguchi:
.
... "His Majesty the Emperor is an ordinary man, who
... went to the Peers' School as Crown Prince, and
... studied how to be an emperor. The Emperor too
... makes mistakes. They say that in the early years
... of the Meiji era Tesshu Yamaoka admonished the
... Meiji Emperor and pointed out his mistakes on
... many occasions." [Tokko Geppo (Monthly bulletin
... of Special Higher Police), August 1943 issue, p.
... 152]
.
. These comments indicate clearly that Makiguchi rejected
. completely the deification of the emperor. Victoria
. mentions the military indoctrination of soldiers that
. "the orders of one's superiors are the orders of the
. emperor," and asserts that Makiguchi supported this
. view. In fact, however, Makiguchi commented: "The orders
. of the emperor could be mistaken, mind you", thereby
. rejecting the absolute authority of the emperor. This
. point is an important one when we come to consider the
. next, that of the relationship between Makiguchi's
. criticism of the religious policies of the military
. government and his anti-war activities. I refer Dr.
. Victoria here to Hiroo Sato "Nichiren Thought in Modern
. Japan: Two Perspectives" in TJOS in which he discusses
. the relationship between Makiguchi and the emperor
. system from a religious-historical perspective.
Does Jon Petry listen? He hasn't in the past, but we continue to hope.
More from Jon Petry:
| In fact, nowhere in Makiguchi's writings, either before
| or during the war, either in prison or out, do we find
| any statements critical of Japan's wartime policies. On
| the contrary, not only did Makiguchi justify Japan's
| colonial takeover of Korea (and earlier war with
| Russia), but he devoted his entire life as an educator
| to devising more effective ways of instilling "service
| to the state" in Japanese children. He further advocated
| that these same children "thoroughly understand that
| loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love
| of country." Even after imprisonment, he affirmed that
| loyalty to the emperor was but a natural part of the
| "Way of the Subject" based on his understanding of the
| Lotus Sutra. And, as we have seen, as far as the emperor
| was concerned, Makiguchi asked, "Who is there, apart
| from His Majesty, the Emperor himself, to whom we should
| reverently pray?"
Every single one of these serial distortions, which are serial
defamations of a truly noble person trying to avert disaster (and save
the many millions who died in that disaster), each and every one is
debunked above, and has been repeatedly debunked in the past.
Finally, the last from Jon Petry:
| For apologists to now claim that, his imprisonment and
| death notwithstanding, Makiguchi resisted or opposed
| Japan's war effort is an attempt to turn night into day.
As I said before, Jon Petry, your show is slipping.
This attempt by Zen (Victoria) and slanderous Nichiren Schools (Petry)
to trash Makiguchi and Toda, who were the only honorable Buddhists who
stood their ground against the Shinto War against Buddhism and
humanity to the end of the war, is an obvious ploy.
Victoria had problems with his thesis in chapter six of his book (CH
6: "No Organized Resistance Against Imperial State Zen After 1942").
The problem was that after he wrote it, he found that Makiguchi and
Toda made a liar out of him, or worse, a lazy academic. So he
proceeded to repeatedly attempt to tar these noble men with these
lies, so as to make himself a truthful and a diligent academic, at
least in retrospect. Of course this is a pathetic and vain attempt, no
matter what the outcome, because he did not do his dirtywork within
the confines of his thesis, which is therefore, trash. Then, Victoria,
as an academic, is no more than a producer of trash.
This is the way of Zen, as the Tokugawa bakufu hired Tendai and Zen
scribes to create new Shinto fantasies of themselves as kami (gods),
who were greater than the Hoteke (Buddhas). Writing something down
does not ascribe truth to the writing, nor nobility to the author. A
lie is a lie, however often it is repeated. And even when the truth is
silenced (fortunately, not the case this time).
Similarly, whenever heroes like Makiguchi and Toda rise up nobly, the
mass of weaklings who cower in the face of adversity must later tear
them down, to cover up their own shameful cowardice at the time.
It is no accident that they are led by a Roshi of the Zen School
(Victoria) that perpetrated this horror on humanity. And it is no
accident that his water is (once again) carried by a follower of the
Nichiren Schools and temples (Petry), that gratefully accepted the
Shinto Talisman and worshipped that object of Shinto devotion to the
Zen war against Buddhism and the human race.
No one in the Nichiren Schools refused to bow to Shinto, which is a
mask over the face of Zen War. No one went to prison and stayed there
after 1942 (Victoria's own thesis), with the exception of those
Victoria overlooked: Makiguchi and Toda of the Soka Gakkai, who were
the only ones bearing the honor of Buddhism in the midst of this
holocaust. No other Buddhists had the determination and valor
necessary to stay the course against Imperial State Zen to the bitter
end (Makiguchi's death and Toda's release after the war was lost).
Indeed, Nichiren Shoshu and the other schools gleefully supported the
war, cheering every victory, screaming for more blood, and
highlighting the glorious sacrifice of young Japanese in this 'noble'
cause. This is all on record, for every school. Here is a list of
infamy, of Nichiren Schools that accepted the Shinto Talisman and
supported the war (some are now split off from temples, which at that
time, were infamous):
... Nichiren Schools
...
... Nichiren Shu (Kuon-ji at Minobu)
... Nichiren Shoshu (Taiseki-ji at Fujinomiya)
... Honmon Butsuryu Shu ja
... Kempon Hokke Shu (Myoman-ji)
... Hokkeshu, Honmon Ryu
... Hokkeshu, Jinmon Ryu
... Hokkeshu, Shinmon Ryu
... Honmon Hokke Shu (Myoren-ji)
... Nichiren Honshu (Yobo-ji)
... Nichiren Shu Fuju-fuse-ha (Myokaku-ji)
... Nichiren Hokke Shu
... Hokke Nichiren Shu
... Hompa Nichiren Shu
... Honke Nichiren Shu (Hyogo)
... Fuju-fuse Nichiren Komon Shu
... Honke Nichiren Shu (Kyoto)
... Shobo Hokke Shu
... Honmon Kyoo Shu
... Nichiren Komon Shu
... Reiyukai (Spiritual-Friendship-Association)
... Rissho Kosei Kai
... Nipponzan Myohoji
... Kokuchukai
... Shoshinkai
... Fuji Taisekiji Kenshokai
... Honmon Shoshu
They all bowed to the great evil that is Shinto, wielded as a weapon
by Imperial State Zen. They all bowed to the destruction of Buddhism
and the human race that would have been the outcome of Shinto War.
Only Makiguchi and Toda stood up against and refused to bow to this
evil to the end.
Trashing these heroes will not raise up the lot of you by even a
millimeter in stature. Your heritage will remain that of cowardly and
treasonous Buddhists, who betrayed the Buddha, the Law and the human
race.
Live with it.
-Chas.
_________________________________________________
Jon Petry, since you seem incapable of going and looking at this paper
of Miyata's I include the entire text here, so that you could not
possibly miss it:
. Critical Comments on Brian Victoria's "Engaged Buddhism:
. A Skeleton in the Closet?", by Koichi Miyata.
.
. <http://www.globalbuddhism.org/3/miyata021.htm>
.
. Abstract
. In "Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet?"
. (Vol. 2) Brian Daizen Victoria claims, among
. other things, that Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-
. 1944), founder of the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai
. (forebear of the Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai
. International), was an active supporter of the
. Japanese wars of aggression. In this response,
. Koichi Miyata argues that Victoria's claims rest
. on the highly selective use of quotes, and
. ignore key interpretative issues associated with
. Japanese imperial fascism and its underlying
. belief structures. Miyata discusses the
. significance of Makiguchi's arrest and
. imprisonment under a law specifically aimed at
. opponents of the war efforts, in his analysis of
. critical lapses in Victoria's article.
.
. Having read the recent essay by Brian Daizen Victoria, I
. found its contents so problematic that, as someone who
. has studied the ideas of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-
. 1944) for many years, I feel compelled to respond.
.
. While many studies and essays on Tsunesaburo Makiguchi
. exist in Japanese, researchers unable to read Japanese
. have had limited access to Makiguchi's ideas and
. actions. To help fill this gap, last year I edited a
. small collection of English-language essays for the 2000
. special edition of The Journal of Oriental Studies
. (TJOS) which was devoted to the "Ideas and Influence of
. Tsunesaburo Makiguchi." In this response, I will refer
. to this research as I attempt to shed some light on the
. thoughts and actions of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi.
.
. Turning to my first point: Victoria quotes a passage
. from Makiguchi's 1903 work Jinsei Chirigaku (The
. Geography of Human Life), in which Makiguchi notes that
. Russia was engaged in a policy of expansionism in the
. search for year-round harbors. Victoria asserts that
. this world view was identical to that of the government
. of Japan, a view used to justify the Russo-Japanese War
. (1904-1905), then the annexation of the Korean peninsula
. (1910) and the founding of the puppet state of Manchukuo
. (1932). Victoria's assertion, and his implicit criticism
. of Makiguchi, simplistically links analysis of the
. global situation with the policies taken in response to
. that. Makiguchi was merely voicing what was then the
. accepted understanding of the geopolitical motives for
. Russia's expansionist policies, a view held not only by
. the Japanese government, but shared by the British, with
. whom Japan had formed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
. Certainly I know of no scholar of political geography
. who rejects this commonsense view in favor of one that
. Russia posed no danger. If we were to extend Victoria's
. argument, the logical conclusion would be to find not
. only Makiguchi but everyone who studies political
. geography guilty of complicity with Japanese aggression.
.
. Elsewhere in Jinsei Chirigaku Makiguchi points out that
. the countries of Western Europe had a great deal of
. trouble operating their colonies, and expresses doubts
. about the value of acquiring colonies, particularly from
. the point of view of the financial burden that they
. would entail. If Victoria had read Jinsei Chirigaku
. carefully, he would not identify the thoughts of
. Makiguchi with the expansionist doctrine of the time.
.
. Secondly, Victoria quotes an extract from Makiguchi's
. book Kyodoka Kenkyu (A Study of Folk Culture), in which
. Makiguchi notes that the state plays an important role
. in the lives of citizens. From this, Victoria draws the
. conclusion that as the Japan moved closer to war,
. Makiguchi adopted the view that education should be "in
. service to the state". (Victoria states that Makiguchi
. added this section for the 1933 revised edition of the
. book. This is incorrect, as it appears in the first
. edition published in 1912.) Since the publication of
. Jinsei Chirigaku Makiguchi had consistently emphasized
. the formation of identity on three levels-that of a
. person's local community, the national and global
. levels. Within this context, and against a backdrop of
. global competition for empire, he placed particular
. importance on national independence. This is hardly
. unreasonable. Japan was one of only a handful of
. countries in Asia that had maintained independence amid
. encroachment by the Western powers, and Makiguchi was
. well aware of the miserable circumstances of colonized
. peoples. What we may find problematic-in terms of the
. current view that controlling peoples is intrinsically
. wrong-is that Makiguchi did not say enough after Japan
. itself acquired colonies, omitting to comment on the
. issue of independence for these colonized peoples, and
. only suggesting that imperialism was not the optimal
. policy choice because of the financial burden involved.
. Here I refer Dr. Victoria to my essay "Tsunesaburo
. Makiguchi's Theory of the State" in TJOS, in which I
. discuss Makiguchi's view that imperialistic-military and
. economic-competition should be supplanted by a
. cooperative sense of community, what he called
. "humanitarian competition."
.
. Further, in deciding that Makiguchi viewed education as
. a means of serving the state, Victoria completely
. ignores Makiguchi's argument in his 1930 Soka Kyoikugaku
. Taikei (The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy) that the
. goal of education must in fact be the happiness of the
. child. In the March 1942 issue of Kachi Sozo (Value
. Creation), the short-lived periodical of the Soka Kyoiku
. Gakkai, Makiguchi criticizes the ideologically central
. concept of messhi hoko -- sacrificing the interests of
. the individual to those of the state. He noted that this
. was mere rhetoric to ordinary Japanese, impossible to
. put into practice. Rather, he stressed, it is natural to
. strive for the realization of one's own and others'
. happiness. In May 1942, he was ordered to halt
. publication of Kachi Sozo. While Makiguchi did view the
. state as having an important role to play, this is
. entirely different from holding the ultra nationalist
. view of education that people should be educated to
. ensure their uncritical acceptance of the policies of
. the state. Here I refer Dr. Victoria to "Value-Creating
. Pedagogy and Japanese Education in the Modern Era," in
. TJOS, by Kazunori Kumagai in which he compares
. Makiguchi's educational philosophy with the statist
. educational system.
.
. Thirdly there is the problem of the emperor system.
. Quoting a section from Kyodoka Kenkyu in which Makiguchi
. argues that loyalty to the emperor is synonymous with
. love of one's country, Victoria implies that Makiguchi's
. view was identical to that of the military government.
. This, however, is a far too loosely framed argument that
. ignores the interpretative issues associated with the
. 1889 Meiji Constitution. The preamble to the Meiji
. Constitution recognizes the supreme authority of the
. emperor, while Article 3 declares the sacred nature of
. the emperor, and Article 4 his sovereign rights over the
. state -- making the state and the emperor system
. inseparable. If we stress the supreme authority of the
. emperor, the emperor is then cast in the role of
. absolute monarch. If we consider instead the role of the
. Constitution as a brake on the supreme authority of the
. emperor, he becomes a constitutional monarch. The former
. view is represented by the imperial fascism supported by
. the military regime, while the latter corresponds to
. Tatsukichi Minobe's theory of the emperor as an organ of
. the state. From the era of Taisho democracy through to
. the suppression of Minobe's theory in 1935, this view
. held sway among constitutional scholars and members of
. the Diet. The idea that loyalty = patriotism is common
. to both views, and by aligning Makiguchi with the
. imperial fascism of the military simply on the basis of
. his comments here, Victoria again appears determined to
. ignore the written record of Makiguchi's thoughts. From
. his earliest writings, Makiguchi viewed the emperor as a
. constitutional monarch, and was critical of moves to
. make the emperor's powers absolute.
.
. Victoria also quotes from a report produced by the
. special police on their interrogation of Makiguchi as
. proof that Makiguchi acknowledged the divine status of
. the emperor. Again, this assertion arises from a
. distortion of the relevant passage. Victoria quotes a
. reference by Makiguchi to "praying" to the emperor. He
. could hardly, however, have been more distorting in
. selecting the passage he quoted, deliberately excluding
. the following extract, which I have underlined:
.
... "The august virtue of His Majesty the Emperor is
... manifested in the security and happiness of the
... people, through the organs of his civil and
... military officials. Should these be deficient in
... some way, the people can petition him through
... the Diet or other bodies. In light of this, who
... is there, apart from His Majesty, the Emperor
... himself, to whom we should reverently pray?"
... ("Pray" is Victoria's translation; "beseech" is
... probably more accurate in this context.)
.
. It is obvious that "beseech/pray" and "petition" have
. the same meaning in this context. The manner in which
. Victoria has misused Makiguchi's choice of a term
. normally used in a religious context, but with a special
. meaning in this context, to claim that Makiguchi
. supported emperor worship, is not what one would expect
. from a serious scholar endeavoring to document his
. claim. Surely in examining the interrogation report
. Victoria must have encountered the following statements
. by Makiguchi:
.
... "His Majesty the Emperor is an ordinary man, who
... went to the Peers' School as Crown Prince, and
... studied how to be an emperor. The Emperor too
... makes mistakes. They say that in the early years
... of the Meiji era Tesshu Yamaoka admonished the
... Meiji Emperor and pointed out his mistakes on
... many occasions." [Tokko Geppo (Monthly bulletin
... of Special Higher Police), August 1943 issue, p.
... 152]
.
. These comments indicate clearly that Makiguchi rejected
. completely the deification of the emperor. Victoria
. mentions the military indoctrination of soldiers that
. "the orders of one's superiors are the orders of the
. emperor," and asserts that Makiguchi supported this
. view. In fact, however, Makiguchi commented: "The orders
. of the emperor could be mistaken, mind you", thereby
. rejecting the absolute authority of the emperor. This
. point is an important one when we come to consider the
. next, that of the relationship between Makiguchi's
. criticism of the religious policies of the military
. government and his anti-war activities. I refer Dr.
. Victoria here to Hiroo Sato "Nichiren Thought in Modern
. Japan: Two Perspectives" in TJOS in which he discusses
. the relationship between Makiguchi and the emperor
. system from a religious-historical perspective.
.
. My fourth point concerns the significance of Makiguchi's
. persecution by the military government for criticizing
. its policy on religion. This is also relevant to the
. arguments of Robert Kisala, which Victoria cites in
. developing his own argument. We must remember that when
. Makiguchi was persecuted by the authorities for
. instructing members of the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai to burn
. talismans provided by the Ise shrine, regarded as home
. of the ancestral deity of the imperial family, it was
. not under any law dealing with religious matters, but
. the Peace Preservation Law. Neither Victoria nor Kisala
. appear to understand the significance of this. The Peace
. Preservation Law was demanded by the Privy Council in
. exchange for approving the Universal Manhood Suffrage
. Law in 1925 to ensure that the newly enfranchised
. populace did not begin criticizing the emperor system.
. It was originally designed for the suppression of anti-
. Establishment groups such as socialists, communists and
. anarchists. Having all but eliminated anti-Establishment
. activity of an overtly political nature with a massive
. crackdown on the Communist Party in the early years of
. the Showa era (1926-1989), the military government next
. targeted liberals and religious movements as impediments
. to implementation of their war policies. By completely
. obliterating Tatsukichi Minobe's liberal view of the
. emperor as organ of the state in 1935, the militarists
. established the absolute authority of the emperor,
. brooking no opposition whatsoever their policies, now
. fully shielded by imperial authority.
.
. Next they turned to the religious movements. Religions
. having as their object of worship gods, or the Buddha,
. which their teachings accord a position in the cosmic
. order far superior to that of the emperor, religious
. groups tended to have less regard for his authority. The
. year 1936 saw a crackdown on Ohmotokyo, a new Shinto
. movement that preached the restoration of peace and
. order to the world under a mythical god. To enable more
. systematic repression of religious movements, the
. military government revised the Peace Preservation Law
. in 1939 to provide for punishment of religious groups
. found to be committing blasphemy against the Ise shrine.
. This shows the military government viewed religious
. movements that rejected the authority of the emperor as
. the last remaining impediments to rallying the nation
. behind its war policies. It was against this political
. and social backdrop that Makiguchi came to criticize the
. religious policy of the military regime. His arrest
. under the Peace Preservation Law shows that the regime
. judged his actions a hindrance to their conduct of the
. war. Thus, Makiguchi directly opposed the militarist
. ideology of imperial fascism for its religious policies,
. and because this opposition constituted an impediment to
. conduct of the war by the military regime, there is no
. doubt that he was persecuted for implicitly anti-war
. activities. I refer Dr. Victoria to my Introduction to
. TSOJ in which I examine the historical background and
. significance of Makiguchi's wartime persecution.
.
. I have responded to the views of Brian Victoria on four
. fronts. I can only imagine that in order to prove
. Tsunesaburo Makiguchi cooperated with the war effort,
. Victoria has shaped his arguments to fit his pre-
. established conclusion, willfully quoting only those
. passages of Makiguchi's writings that would seem to
. support it. I cannot imagine he studied all ten volumes
. of Makiguchi's writings in Japanese to reach this
. conclusion. While there is ample room for the frank
. exchange of academic views, including highly critical
. ones, it is important that a tendentious agenda, clothed
. in the guise of academic research, not stand
. unchallenged.
______________________________________________________
From "The Entity of the Mystic Law", Writings of Nichiren Daishonin,
p. 427 ...
T'ien-t'ai says, "Even successors of the Buddha of the provisional
teachings do not know people who have received instruction from the
Buddha of the theoretical teaching, and people taught by that Buddha
do not know people who have received instruction from the Buddha of
the essential teaching." [Note 36: Possibly a rephrasing of a passage
in The Annotations on "The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra."] The
Great Teacher Dengyo explains, "This is a direct way, but it is not
the great direct way." [Note 37: A Commentary on the Immeasurable
Meanings Sutra.] He also says, "Because they have not yet understood
the great direct way to enlightenment." [Note 38: Ibid.] The point
being made in these passages is clear.
The bodhisattvas of the teachings preached before the Lotus Sutra or
of the theoretical teaching have, in a certain sense, eradicated
delusion and gained understanding of truth. Nevertheless, in the light
of the essential teaching, they have gained only a temporary cutting
off of delusion, not the kind that extends beyond a certain dimension.
Therefore, it is said that they have in fact not yet cut off delusion.
Thus, although it is said that the bodhisattvas had already gained
entrance [to enlightenment] through the various sutras, the term
"gained entrance" is simply applied here in a temporary manner as a
means of disparaging the achievement of the people of the two
vehicles. Therefore, even the great bodhisattvas of the pre-Lotus
Sutra teachings and the theoretical teaching arrive at the realization
of the lotus of the Buddha only when they are exposed to the essential
teaching, and achieve a true cutting off of delusion only when they
hear the teachings of the "Life Span" chapter.
juanjo
Shoshu has been polluted'' May 2000 Dai-Nichiren" <o3p2q1r...@aol.com>
wrote:
> Prochronists Brian Victoria, Jon Petry and now Robert Kisala Risk
> Becoming Liars Through the Repetition of Debunked Falsehoods -
>
The true tragedy of Chas' repeated attempts to raise this issue is his
inability to address actual facts. Instead he relies on regurgitated
agit-prop from his organization, the Soka Gakkai. He also
deliberately mis-attributes authorship of material in that he quotes
material as my own when in fact it is in not. It is material I have
quoted from. Most troubling is that neither Chas nor the voluminous
material he quotes from actually addresses the material presented but
rather attempts ot overwhelm the reader with massive volumes of
material which speaks all around the subject or misquotes and
misinterporets the material presented. This is the classic straw man
argumnet in which on ignores the actual points presented and instead
invents another false issue and "rebuts" it instead.
Rather than actually address the simple fact that his own sensei as
well as two of the Soka Gakkai's own tame "scholars" disagree with
Chas, he chooses to post the same nonsense again and again. This
shows actual proof of the cowardly spirit that infuses his so called
"buddhist" practice which is nothing more than a personality cult
centered around an old, dying Japanese man known for shameless self
promotion and his actions in beating up Buddhist priests in his youth.
Dr. Victoria's comments are his own and as to when he knew what he
knew, I have no idea. However, the Soka Gakkai has worked long and
hard to rewrite history and erase reality. Chas has twisted all
matter of claptrap together to make a case where none exists. Most
of his "writing" is taken verbatim from SGI spin by its tame
"scholars". The reality is that there is no indication whatsoever
that Makiguchi was a pacifist and there is
sufficient evidence that he was not. While Chas, as his handlers,
place great emphasis on statement made pre-1935, they ignore both
history and the records of the time period. The most damning part of
that portion they ignore is Makiguchi's own statements post-1935 as
well as the records of the Imperial Government including the very
charges made against Makaguchi, i.e. slandering the Imperial
Talisman. Chas of course has no idea what any of the actual facts are
as he neither reads nor understands Japanese. He has never seen a
single document nor done any research in the matter. All he is doing
here is repeating the spin created by his organization. Dr. Victoria
is an actual scholar. He does read and speak Japanese. He does
publish in peer reviewed journals and does not take money from any
group to write apologia for them. But let's not quibble about Dr.
Victoria's credentials.
Let's first consider what is written in a 2008 edition of Tricycle
Magazine in a supposed "interview" with Daiseku Ikeda. I say
“supposed interview” as it is simply a cobbled together series of
questions posed via e-mail and responded to by the Soka Gakkai, hardly
what I would call a real interview. However Ikeda is quoted as saying
in the article:
"During World War II, however, they found themselves facing
persecutions when they resisted the currents of Japanese militarist
fascism and criticized the state’s use of Shinto to spiritually unite
the Japanese people behind the war effort. They were arrested and
imprisoned as a result."
In addition the article, which was approved by the SGI leadership and
presumably Ikeda himself states:
"Makiguchi was arrested under the Peace Preservation Act in 1943 by
the Japanese government for refusing to consolidate with other
Buddhist sects under the banner of State Shinto, effectively
challenging the authority of the military government. He died in
prison a year later."
Note that Ikeda does not mention anything about Makiguchi opposing the
actual war. In fact he cannot make such a claim because there are
comments on the record by Makiguchi supporting the war but stating
that the war effort is doomed to failure if the Imperial Government
did not discard provisional teachings such as Zen and Shingon and
embrace Nichiren Buddhism. It was Makiguchi's Rissho Ankoku-ron
moment and I am certain he saw it as exactly as that. So Chas' own
sensei is saying that Chas is a liar.
If that is not enough then let us consider another scholar, a favorite
of the Soka Gakkai in fact:
"Thus, Makiguchi and Toda defied the government and went to prison
not
necessarily for anti-war beliefs, which the Soka Gakkai preaches
today, but because it was against their deeply felt religious
principles to adopt Shinto practices or to merge with another
religious sect, even if it had Nichiren connections. While Makiguchi
may have indeed made the pro-Emperor statements that Victoria alleges,
his overall thinking and demeanor was certainly not pro-militarist.
The evidence simply does not support Victoria's argument." A
Critical Analysis of Brian Victoria's Perspectives on Modern Japanese
Buddhist History by Daniel A. Metraux
So Professor Metraux disputes Professor Victoria's position that
Makiguchi was in fact pro-militarist as of course does the Soka
Gakkai's scholar, Koichi Miyata. Prof. Metraux does agree with the
position put forward by Prof. Victoria, namely that Makiguchi and Toda
went to prison for what they were charged with - lesse majesty.
Professor Metraux also admits that Makiguchi made the pro-Emperor
statements that Professor Victoria quotes although he disagrees on the
import of those statements. So Professor Metraux is also calling Chas
a liar.
Now I have suggested a position somewhat simpler and quite obvious to
anyone who actually pays attention to what is being said and what is
not being said by either Prof. Metraux or the Soka Gakkai's scholar,
Koichi Miyata. The assertion is made that Prof Victoria is taking
statements out of context to make Makiguchi into a supporter of the
military government and its view of the emperor. That may or may not
be, I cannot say as I was not there and have not had the opportunity
to review the original materials they refer to in making their
assertions. However this is not the argument I made.
Let's review shall we?
SGI Myth 1: The SGI is the only Buddhist group who stood up to the
Japanese government during WWII and was pacifist.
SGI Fact 1: The SGI as it is formed now did not exist prior to WWII.
However its founders, Makaguchi and Toda were not pacifists, in fact
they were far from it. There are speeches in existence in which they
affirm their loyalty to the Japanese government and the war. However,
they did remonstrate against the imposition of the Imperial Talisman
as an object of reverence, as well as, in their interpretation of
Rissho Ankoku-ron, urged the Japanese Government to suppress all other
Buddhist sects and force everyone to convert to Nichiren Buddhism.
They were imprisoned for the crime of lese majeste, for their
disrespect of the Imperial Talisman not because they were pacifists.
President Ikeda admits this as does Professor Metraux, in an article
he was paid to write by the Soka Gakkai.
The “Makiguchi and Toda were the only pacifists” claim made by the SGI
adds insult to the injury endured by thousands of Buddhists in Japan
who did demonstrate against the war and who were abandoned by the
leaderships of their respective sects. Many of those people were
imprisoned and executed. Others such as Nichidatsu Fujii were sent
into exile.
My position is simpler than Prof. Victoria's. Both Makiguchi and Toda
affirmed their loyalty to the Emperor and there are no statements made
by either of them which show any actual opposition to the war effort.
However they did oppose the prosecution of the war effort based upon
Imperial Shinto. Based upon their interpretation of the Rissho Ankoku-
ron, any effort by the Japanese Government to prosecute that war was
doomed to failure unless the Japanese nation was immediately converted
to Nichiren Buddhism and all heretical sects suppressed. Indeed if
one carefully reads the comments made by Koichi Miyata in his
critique
of Prof. Victoria he affirms this position:
"To enable more systematic repression of religious movements, the
military government revised the Peace Preservation Law in 1939 to
provide for punishment of religious groups found to be committing
blasphemy against the Ise shrine. This shows the military government
viewed religious movements that rejected the authority of the emperor
as the last remaining impediments to rallying the nation behind its
war policies. It was against this political and social backdrop that
Makiguchi came to criticize the religious policy of the military
regime. His arrest under the Peace Preservation Law shows that the
regime judged his actions a hindrance to their conduct of the war.
Thus, Makiguchi directly opposed the militarist ideology of imperial
fascism for its religious policies, and because this opposition
constituted an impediment to conduct of the war by the military
regime, there is no doubt that he was persecuted for implicitly anti-
war activities."
Now Miyata is guilty of sloppy logic here. I have no doubt that the
Imperial Government wished to stifle any opposition to its
expansionist, militaristic policies, including any opposition from the
religious institutions of Japan. The record is clear that the
Japanese Government came down hard on dissenting views to its
policies. This includes acting against pacifists of which there were
some, both religious and otherwise. It also includes those who would
not go along with the system that the government was instituting,
namely of blind obedience to the government policies. Makiguchi did
indeed threaten this blind obedience because he asserted that the
state policy regarding the supremacy of the Imperial Talisman over the
Buddha was wrong. And equally important, that the prosecution of the
war would fail unless the government undertook to fulfill the
admonishments of the Rissho Ankoku-ron prior to such an effort. Thus
Makiguchi's direct criticism of the religious policy of the Imperial
Japanese Government did not arise out of any basis of pacifism but
rather out of something completely different. Miyata's comments
support my position quite well. The Japanese Government was quite
pathological when it came to their requirement that all the people of
Japan must be in absolute support of the government’s policy. Any nail
head sticking up was most certainly going to be hammered down.
Makiguchi was such a nail head. Makiguchi wanted the Imperial
Government to suppress all other forms of Buddhism and accept Nichiren
Buddhism as the only form of state accepted Buddhism. His position
was that if they failed to do so the war effort was doomed to
failure. This was a position that the Imperial Japanese Government
was unwilling to tolerate and hence his imprisonment along with that
of Toda.
Chaz in his hurry to smear Prof. Victoria has leapt to conclusions and
not bothered to read what was written. This is typical of Chaz and
actually in his defense, it really is not his fault. He is simply
regurgitating the nonsense he has been given as speaking points by the
Soka Gakkai leadership he works for. However the level of
incompetence among the Soka Gakkai leadership is such that they
attempt to “disprove” Professor Victoria’s statements by having their
own paid “scholars” issue rebuttals which are not rebuttals of the
main issue raised by Dr. Victoria, namely that Makiguchi was a
pacifist and opposed the Japanese war effort on that basis.
Nikken: ''My view of the teachings of Nichiren Shoshu has been polluted'' May 2000 Dai-Nichiren
Becoming Liars Through the Repetition of Debunked Falsehoods -
Jon Petry continues to misunderstand the history of Japan, in
Petry continues:
| majestè and the violation of the Peace Preservation Law
| on July 6, 1943.
Petry continues:
Petry continues:
Petry continues:
| Entitled Kyodoka Kenky (Study of Folk Culture), this
Petry continues:
So noble.
Petry continues:
| one's sovereign and love of country" [Châkun Aikoku]
| (Makiguchi 1933:411- 412).
More from Jon Petry:
More from Jon Petry:
More from Jon Petry:
More from Jon Petry:
More from Jon Petry:
More from Jon Petry:
| Matsâra, eds. 1975:172). Further, as contradictory as it
| may seem, Makiguchi's refusal to worship a talisman of
| the Sun Goddess did not even signify a lack of respect
| for this alleged progenitress of the Imperial family.
| Makiguchi made this clear when he told the police,
|.
| "The Sun Goddess is the venerable ancestress of our
| Imperial Family, her divine virtue having been
| transmitted to each successive emperor who ascended the
| throne up to and including the present emperor. Thus has
| her virtue been transformed into the August Virtue of
| His Majesty which, shining down on the people, brings
| them happiness. It is for this reason that Article III
| of the Constitution states: "The person of the Emperor
| is sacred and inviolable."
|.
| "Just as we [association members] recognize the
| fundamental unity of filial piety and loyalty, so it is
| our conviction that it is proper to reverently venerate
| His Majesty based on the monistic view that "His
| Majesty, the Emperor is One and Indivisible" [Tenno
| Ichigen-ron], thus making it unnecessary to pay homage
| at the Grand Shrine at Ise. . . . In light of this, who
| is there, apart from His Majesty, the Emperor himself,
| to whom we should reverently pray?" (Akashi & Matsâra,
| eds. 1975:174-175).
More from Jon Petry:
Live with it.
-Chas.
_________________________________________________
. systematic repression of religious movements, the
. military government revised the Peace Preservation Law
. in 1939 to provide for punishment of religious groups
. found to be committing blasphemy against the Ise shrine.
. This shows the military government viewed religious
______________________________________________________
Question: How do we know that the bodhisattvas of the perfect teaching
expounded before the Lotus Sutra, or the bodhisattvas of the perfect
teaching set forth in the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra,
were not enlightened to the lotus of the entity of the essential
teaching?
Answer: The bodhisattvas of the perfect teaching expounded before the
Lotus Sutra did not understand the lotus of the theoretical teaching
of the Lotus Sutra, and the bodhisattvas of the perfect teaching set
forth in the theoretical teaching did not understand the lotus of the
essential teaching.
juanjo
> Becoming Liars Through the Repetition of Debunked Falsehoods -
>
Poor Chas, condemned to repeated his group's agit prop with the
determined advocacy of a tin foil hat wearing member of the Obama
birther community
Buku
Dear John:
Excellent work. Here is a short passage from the "Saint' of the Soka
Gakka '"peace" movement, Tsunesaburu Makiguchi
"'Sacrifice your own skin to slash the opponent's flesh. Surrender
your
own flesh to saw off the opponent's bone.' With their faithful
implementation of this well-known Japanese fencing (kendo) strategy
into actual practice during the war, the Japanese military is able to
achieve her glorious, ever-victorious invincibility in the Sino-Japan
conflict and in the Pacific war, and thus, easing the minds of the
Japa-
nese people. This [strategy of sacrifice] should be held as an ideal
lifestyle for those remaining on the home front and should be applied
in every aspect of our daily life."
From:"The Instruction Manual Summarizing the Experiments and
Testimonials of
Life based on the Philosophy of Value of the Supreme Goodness,"
Mark