About Nichiren Shoshu, pt.2
MarcInMD
"It is by no means certain that Nikko himself actually intended to break
decisively with Nichiren's other leading disciples and establish his own
school. Among his disciples, however, the tradition quickly emerged that only
he, of six senior monks, had correctly maintained the purity of Nichiren's
teachings. From there, it was but a short step to the claim that Nichiren had
in fact transferred his teaching to Nikko alone. The "Minobu sojo" (Minobu
transmission), and apocryphal transfer document, probably written at least a
hundred years after Nichiren's death, says, "Nichiren transfers the Dharma that
he spread throughout his lifetime to Byakuren Ajari Nikko, who is the be the
great leader of the propagation of the origin teaching." A second such
document, the "Ikegami sojo" ( Ikagami transmission), transfers to Nikko, in
Nichiren's name, the fifty years of Sakyamuni's Dharma preaching and entrusts
to him the charge of Minobusan Kuonji. Transmission texts were also produced
that purport to be Nikko's record of oral teachings conferred by Nichiren to
him alone, or that were written down by Nikko for Nichiren. During the Edo
period, the doctrines expressed in these transmission texts would be
systematized by the Fuji Taisekiji scholar
Kenju-in Nichikan (1665-1726) as the framework for interpreting Nichiren's
writings. The transmission texts themselves, however, were produced in the
Muromachi period and draw heavily on the structures of medieval Tendai thought
to formulate and legitimate the unique doctrinal interpretations emerging among
Nikko's later followers."
"Two of these transmission texts most important in the history of the Fuji
lineage are the 'Hon in-my sho' (On the original cause) and the 'Hyaku rokka
soja' (106 article transmission), together known as the "two transmission
texts" ( 'ryo kechimyaku sho'). They were probably compiled roughly at least a
hundred years after Nichiren's death. The 'Hon in-myo sho' presents itself as
Nichiren's explanation, from the standpoint of the origin teaching, of a secret
transmission concerning Chih-i's three major works that Tao-sui purportedly
conferred upon Saicho during the latter's journey to China. It follows the
structure of the 'Sandai shoho shichimen sojo kuketsu' ( Verbal decisions on
the seven-article transmission of [Chih-i's] three major writings), a medieval
Tendai text attributed to Saicho, which purports to record this transmission.
The 'Jyaku rakka sojo', which has similarities of content with the 'Hon in-myo
sho', consists of 106-articles concerning the superiority of the origin over
the trace teaching. The Fuji school adopted a very strong 'shoretsu' position,
although, as discussed below, it's scholars defined what constitutes the
"origin teaching" in a distinctive fashion. A detailed discussion of these two
texts is not possible here, but a few of their major ideas can be summarized,
showing how they appropriate structures from medieval Tendai thought to assert
the legitimacy of the Fuji doctrinal position."
"The 'Hon in-myo sho' develops a fourfold interpretation, in increasing
levels of profundity, of "name and essence" - two of the five aspects of the
Lotus Sutra set forth in
Chih-i's 'fa-hua hsuan-I' - name, essence, gist, function, and teaching:
"First, name and essence both have the meaning of
impermanence; this corresponds to the sutras preached
before the Lotus Sutra and to the schools based upon
them. Second, the essence is real but the name is
temporary; this corresponds to the trace teaching and to
acquired enlightenment, which is impermanent ('shikaku
mujo'). Third, name and essence are both real; this
corresponds to the origin teaching and to original
enlightenment, which constantly abides ('hongaku
joju'). Fourth, name and essence are [both]
inconceivable; this corresponds to the direct realization
of the contemplation of the mind ('kanjin jikidatsu'),
which is Namu-myoho-renge-kyo."
"This amounts to a comparative classification of teachings and is
structurally comparable to Eshin school's "fourfold rise and fall." The fourth
and highest category, ranking as even more profound than the text of the origin
teaching of the Lotus Sutra itself, is here equated with the 'daimoku', the
core of Nichiren Buddhist practice, and the direct realization of Buddhahood.
This understanding is very similar to the interpretation of Gyogakuin Nitcho of
the Minobu lineage, cited above, and the reading of other Muromachi period
Hokke scholars."
"As discussed in the previous chapter, Nichiren had spoken of the 'daimoku'
as "hidden in the depths of the text of the ''Fathoming the Life-span' chapter"
of the origin teaching. His claim here bears some resemblance, and is perhaps
partially indebted, to medieval Tendai notions of an ultimate truth or insight-
kanjin - that is not explicitly stated in the sutra itself. However, since he
held the daimoku to be "hidden in the depths" of the origin teaching, it would
appear that he did not see it as independent of the sutra, in the way that some
medieval Tendai lineages would come to define "contemplation of the mind" as a
Dharma prior to, and transmitted separately from, the scriptural text. Later
scholars within the Nichiren tradition would discuss the origin teaching of the
Lotus Sutra and daimoku as being inseparably related, respectively, as
"doctrinal teaching" (kyoso) and the "contemplation of the mind" (kanjin), or
as "the surface of the text (monjo) and "the depths of the text" (montei). In
the early fourteenth century, as mentioned above, a number of Hokke scholars
asserted that the sutra and the daimoku - or doctrine and contemplative
practice - are non-dual (kyo funi), probably in part to counter the claims of
Eshin Tendai lineage based at Senba that 'shikan' is altogether independent of
the written Lotus Sutra, (this "non-dual" position is also held today by the
mainstream Nichiren denomination, Nichirenshu.) Later, however, under the
influence of such medieval Tendai ideas as the "fourfold rise and fall" and
"shikan surpasses the Lotus," the daimoku was often said to be superior to the
origin teaching. The uniqueness of Fuji doctrine lies in the extreme status of
a Dharma virtually independent of the Lotus Sutra text."
{"Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism",
by Jacqueline Stone Ph.D., pp.336,337,338}
Cody
Feeding trolls only encourages them to come back for more.
Cody
"MarcInMD" <marc...@aol.com> wrote
> Part 2 of 5
MarkP
> Part 2 of 5
>
<snip>
Posted by someone who doesn't even know how cause and effect affects
his life. And they think they are on the right track!
MarcInMD
Here we have perfectly fine doctrinal statements by Dr. Stone and HG Lamont who
are both world class scholars. The essays are well referenced, well argued and
persuasive to any ordinarily objective person looking to learn the truth about
what NIchiren actually taught.
But Porter and Cody get out of their depth pretty quickly. They cannot take on
a cogent, well referenced analysis head on, so instead, they make silly
comments that only show how frustrated they are and how little they know about
Nichiren Buddhism.
HBSHU
Hardly a fair comparison. I never shirk from doctrinal debates and then fall
back on ad hominem attacks like you and your friends do. When you say something
soooo stupid that I am left breathless, I will sometimes mention what a stupid
idiot you are. But I dont run away from doctrinal debates like NST members do,
covering their retreat with personal remarks as a buffer between them and
making a case.