Rev. Abe and the Shoshinkai
artie
This is a repost of a previous message under a more appropriate title:
In article <nert-ya02348000...@news.primenet.com>,
ne...@bobco.com (Mr T) wrote:
>
> by Rev. Nichijun Fujimoto,
> General Administrator of Nichiren Shoshu
> Published in NST Daibyakuho, 9/1/94
> The Daibyakuho Editorial board is responsible for the wording of this
article.
> <snip>
> The Shoshinkai Problem and the Various Lawsuits
> Within the priesthood, however, there was a group of young priests who
had
> been criticizing the Soka Gakkai since the time of Nittatsu Shonin.
These
> priests rallied together with a group of former Gakkai members who had
> since become believers directly connected with the temple. They
initially
> held the First Convention of Direct Temple Believers at the Head
Temple in
> August of 1978. Their second convention was held in January of 1979.
Even
> after Nikken Shonin became High Priest, they continued on and held
their
> third and fourth meetings in August of 1979 and January of 1980,
> respectively. On July 4, 1980, the same day on which the guidance
meeting
> for senior teacher priests was held at the Head Temple, a group of
activist
> priests congregated and formed an organization called the Shoshinkai.
> Claiming to conduct a movement to arouse the people to the correct
faith,
> the priests were showing signs of intensifying their criticism of the
> Gakkai. The Nichiren Shoshu Bureau of Religious Affairs learned of
plans
> for their Fifth Convention of Direct Temple Believers designed to
> increasingly heighten their critical activities. The bureau repeatedly
> attempted to persuade the Shoshinkai to cancel such a meeting aimed at
> criticizing the Gakkai, in complete defiance of the directions in the
> internal guidelines given to the senior priests. On August 24,
however, the
> Shoshinkai ignored all the advice and warnings it had received and
brazenly
> held its convention of direct temple believers at the Budokan Hall in
Tokyo
> where it fiercely criticized the Gakkai.
> The priesthood was inevitably forced to discipline the priests who
attended
> this meeting, according to the by-laws of Nichiren Shoshu. The
disciplinary
> procedures were varied according to the degree of involvement of each
of
> the priests.
> Protesting against this disciplinary action, the Shoshinkai brought
the
> matter before a legal court. In the process, the Shoshinkai priests
made
> reference to the notes of Masatomo Yamazaki, an attorney who was
formerly a
> Gakkai member, which were published in a weekly magazine in December
of
> 1980. Based on those notes, they implicated that Nikken Shoninąs
Heritage
> of the Law was questionable and presented him with a letter of
inquiry.
> Since they did not receive a response to this letter, they deemed that
> Nikken Shonin did not receive the Heritage of the Law. Based upon
this,
> they proclaimed that the disciplinary action performed by someone who
was
> not the High Priest or superintendent priest was, indeed, invalid.
Thus,
> they refused to abide by the prescribed action. Moreover, in the
lawsuits,
> they demanded that the High Priest agree that he lacked the
qualifications
> for the position of superintendent priest. In short, they were finally
> committing the outrageous act of renouncing the reception of the
Heritage
> of the Law by Nikken Shonin.
> Based upon this course of events, the priesthood took the appropriate
> requisite steps and ultimately defrocked all the Shoshinkai priests.
The
> lawsuits continued, however. In the case concerning the superintendent
> priest, last September, the Supreme Court rejected the demands made by
the
> Shoshinkai and made an irrevocable judgment in complete favor of the
> priesthood. There are two other pending lawsuits: one in which the
> Shoshinkai priests, claiming to be staff representing chief priests,
are
> demanding to have their position confirmed; the other suit involves a
claim
> made by the priesthood, demanding the return of the temples illegally
> occupied by the Shoshinkai. In both the Superior and Supreme Courts,
these
> two lawsuits are expected to be dismissed soon, based on the reason
that
> the problems involve religious affairs in which the courts should not
> intervene. Matters are not conclusive as yet with all the temples, but
the
> present course of affairs will most likely remain unchanged.
> Presently, there are temples that are unlawfully occupied by the
> Shoshinkai, but according to the statutes, these temples will be
legally
> returned to Nichiren Shoshu when the occupants are no longer present
due to
> death or other circumstances. Thus, this problem will undoubtedly be
> resolved gradually in this way.
> --
> Kurt
>
> My new anti-spam measure:
> to reply send to: martman at primenet dot com
>
This being the official Nichiren Shoshu version of things, there are
several
matters which were left out.
For example, it fails to mention that the second General Meeting of the
Danto, held at Taisekiji in January 1979, was attended by half the
active
priesthood (300 priests in all) and was addressed by Nittatsu Shonin.
The
address, one of the last two he gave in the 6 months prior to his death,
gives no hint of the beliefs which Rev. Abe was later to attribute to
him -
If you would like a copy of Nittatsu Shonin's address (in Japanese or
English) to see for yourself, please e-mail me with your mailing
address. In
fact, the continuing criticism of the Sokagakkai after Nittatsu Shonin's
death was entirely consistent with the guidance he gave at that time.
The account also omits the fact that both the priests' congress and
court
attempted to oppose the sanctions imposed by Rev. Abe on the priests who
attended the Danto kai, and that, in order to thwart their intention, he
took
actions which rendered them unable to act.
It is my understanding that the Shoshinkai priests took that name only
after
their excommunication, but that is not really worth disputing.
The priests who were to become Shoshinkai did, in fact, ask questions
regarding the legitimacy of Rev. Abe's succession, and a number of those
were
based on an article written by Yamazaki. Unfortunately, discrediting
Yamazaki
does not discredit the questions - which were never answered. Yamazaki
was
one of Sokagakkai's top lawyers, and as such, was intimately familiar
with
the bylaws of Nichrien Shoshu. Some of the logic underlying the points
raised
by Yamazaki and the Shoshinkai is as follows:
1. In the course of their 'career', priests receive titles which are
intended
to indicate spiritual development. If they serve in administrative
functions,
they may be given administrative titles as well.
2. According to the bylaws of Nichiren Shoshu, when and if the High
Priest
designates a successor, that priest is given the spiritual title of
GakuTo.
Furthermore, unless the circumstances are 'urgent and unavoidable', the
High
Priest is to nominate his successor from priests with the spiritual
title of
Noke.
3. At the time Rev. Abe claims to have had his meeting with Nittatsu
Shonin,
he held the title of DaiSozu, which is one rank below Noke. He was never
promoted to the rank of Noke, nor was he ever announced to have the
title of
GakuTo. At the time of Nittatsu Shonin's death, four priests held the
rank of
Noke.
4. Among the purposes of these formalities is to clearly show who the
next
High Priest will be, so there will be no doubts as to the matter. From
the
above, it should be clear that Rev. Abe's claimed designation as
Nittatsu
Shonin's successor is at least open to question.
5. The other possibility would have been that Nittatsu Shonin
transferred the
kechimyaku to Rev. Abe at the time of their meeting (never taking the
intermediate step of naming a successor). However, in such instances,
the High
Priest immediately retires and allows the new High Priest to assume the
role
(having received the kechimyaku). This clearly did not take place at the
time of their meeting either.
6. Nichiren Shoshu has, on occasion, claimed that Rev. Abe, by virtue of
his
administrative position as head of the study department, was GakuTo,
since
GakuTo literally means 'chief teacher'. However, head of the study
department
is an administrative title, where as GakuTo is a spiritual title. (The
High
Priest, for example holds two titles, Hossu, which reflects his
spiritual
authority, and Kancho, which represents the administrative head of the
sect).
Technically, the petitions presented by Shoshinkai priests asked Rev.
Abe to
provide responses so that they could answer questions posed by their
temple
members, based on the Yamazaki letters.
Further, to the best of my knowledge, Rev. Abe has produced no tangible
evidence which would indicate that he is Nittatsu Shonin's legitimate
successor.
I have written an lengthy letter to a believer at Myosetsuji Temple in
New
York with a more extensive writeup of these issues and copied Rev.
Nagasaka,
the chief priest of the temple. I have received no answers. Similarly,
Rev.
Tono has offered to debate Rev. Nagasaka on doctrine. His offers have
been
similarly ignored. To me, questioning Rev. Abe's succession is the only
reasonable position to take.
Regarding the Shoshinkai temples, I'm not really familiar with the
lawsuits,
or what their resolutions mean from a technical standpoint. I do know
that
the Shoshinkai priests remain in their temples. If this occupation is
illegal, as the memo states, I don't know why they should be allowed to
stay,
but there they are.
Artie