In order to introduce Buddhism to the Chinese, basic Buddhist teachings were excerpted from various sutras and compiled as the forty-two entries in [the Sutra of Forty-two Chapters], which imparts easily assimilated knowledge of Buddhism and its moral teachings. …
“The Buddha said, ‘If the evil man would criticize the wise man, that is as a man who spits looking up at heaven. His spit does not defile heaven, but his own body instead. That is [also] as a man who throws rubbish at the windward man. The rubbish does not defile him, but the thrower himself instead. You should not criticize the wise man. Your own faults are certainly enough to ruin yourself.’ “
Yes, indeed, my own faults are certainly enough to ruin me.
Can one be a Buddhist who believes in protective deities and still enjoy moments of serendipity? I pick up one book and it leads me to another and that book talks about something I’m currently posting on this website. Coincidence?
When I was reading Daniel Montgomery’s Fire in the Lotus I enjoyed his summary of the life of Kumārajīva and posted it here. Montgomery noted that he picked up the story from Kōgen Mizuno’s “Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission.”
“Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission” was adapted by Mizuno in 1982 from a series of articles originally published in Kōsei, a monthly magazine of Risshō Kōsei-kai. In finding this book, I realized I had found the perfect companion for Keisho Tsukomoto’s “Source Elements of the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Integraton of Religion, Thought, and Culture,” which Rev. Ryuei McCormick recommended. The two Risshō Kōsei-kai books will provide an excellent foundation upon which I can build my understanding of the Lotus Sutra.
While personally enjoying this esoteric material, I’ve been feeling a tad guilty about whether this might put off others who won’t see the value. Then the other day I came across this quote in Mizuno’s “Buddhist Sutras”:
In his Miao-fa lien-hua-ching wen-chü (Textual Commentary on the Lotus Sutra), Chih-i examined individual words and phrases of the Lotus Sutra from four points of view and further developed his thoughts in thirteen minutely considered facets. For instance, a Chinese ideogram meaning “buddha” is analyzed thoroughly from thirteen different perspectives. Such a study is invaluable from a scholar’s point of view because it encompasses all Chinese views on the Buddha current at that time; however, in terms of practical value, Chih-i’s commentary is so copious in its detail that it simply compounds any confusion that the average person might have been troubled with before consulting it.
In general, the following four interpretations of the word “buddha” offered by Chih-i seem to be most germane for the nonspecialist curious about the theoretical and practical meanings of the word.
The Buddha is one’s focus of devotion in the true sense. He is the savior who delivers human beings from their sufferings and fulfills their desires and is also the figurative parent and lord of humankind. Thus one should offer prayer and reverence to him with an attitude of total dedication and of obedience to his teaching. (This is regarded as the “first-step” view of the Buddha.)
When considering the essence of the Buddha objectively, the discriminating person thinks of his Law (that is, of the universal, logical truth of the universe), of justice and benevolence as the basic ideal virtues of humankind, and of selfless compassion as the means of saving all sentient beings.
Since the second interpretation alone is not sufficient to sustain a living faith, it must be merged with the first. Thus the third interpretation unites the abstract theory of the first with the concrete practice implied by the second.
When one has at last arrived at a state of profound faith, one has attained unity with the Buddha and is always embraced by him even if one’s awareness of the Buddha is not perfect (that is to say, not in complete accord with the union of theory and practice set forth above in the third interpretation). In this fourth interpretation one has already achieved buddhahood and sees the buddhanature in all the objects and beings one encounters and venerates all those objects and beings as buddhas. It is at this point that the buddha-land, or paradise, becomes a reality rather than an ideal or goal.
Although the T’ien-t’ai sect enjoyed a very highly developed intellectual and philosophical appreciation of Buddhism as a religion, unlike the Hua-yen sect [Flower Garland], for example, it also embraced a thoroughly pragmatic, down-to-earth practice of the religion that enabled it to survive while the completely academically oriented schools perished.
A timely message about the need for practice to leaven study.
Serendipity of simple coincidence or the intervention of the protective deities?
Enjoyed attending the Kaji Kito service at the Sacramento Nichiren Buddhist Church Sunday. By the time the next Kaji Kito service is held on June 27 Rev. Kenjo Igarashi hopes to be able to return to individual blessings. For more than a year now, the group blessings has had to suffice.
Following the blessing Rev. Igarashi gave a sermon that covered a number of points. For me, the most notable point was the difference in the motivation of Nichiren to become a monk in comparison to the other Kamakura-era reformers – Honen, Shinran and Dogen. Nichiren had questions he wanted resolved, most important why people are born into this suffering world. The other reformers were placed by their families or because their parents had died.
That search for answers brought Nichiren to the realization that the greatest sin one can commit is to slander the Lotus Sutra.
The Lotus Sutra, Nichiren found, was the Supreme Teaching. In the Lotus Sutra everyone is equal. Everybody can become a Buddha because everyone has the Buddha nature in their mind.
“That’s why we chant Namu Myoho Renge Kyo, Namu Myoho Renge Kyo to awaken our Buddha nature,” Rev. Igarashi said. “That’s why we chant Namu Myoho Renge Kyo, Namu Myoho Renge Kyo so that our Buddha nature will come out some day. Then we can make a paradise in this world.”
In Daniel B. Montgomery’s Fire in the Lotus, he mentions that Mugaku Nishida (1850-1918) inspired the creation of the Nichiren lay organization Reiyukai, which was founded in 1924.
Nishida said:
The living individual is the body left behind by the ancestors in this world, so we should treat our ancestors as if they were our own bodies . . . In our hearts we have the seed of buddhahood, which also remains in the ancestors’ souls, so we must protect it for our own salvation. The salvation of the ancestors is our own salvation, and our salvation is the ancestors’ salvation.
Montgomery got the quote from Helen Hardacre’s “Lay Buddhism in Contemporary Japan,” p14, Princeton University Press, 1984.
I believe Nishida’s sentiment fits well with Nichiren Shu and the reason why memorial prayers and services are important. But that’s not to say I particularly like Reiyukai. Later in Fire in the Lotus, Montgomery quotes Joe Walters, Manager of Reiyukai America Association, on the subject of prayer:
Our prayer, which in reality is a sincere wish from the bottom of our heart, is not directed towards any particular deity, but is given freely for the ears of whomever or whatever is in the unseen world, the spiritual world, and may have the power to help us fulfill that wish. In this way, we can all harmoniously wish for and strive for world peace together.
Praying “to whom it may concern” has never been acceptable me. I Googled “praying to the universe” and got back 11.2 million results, including a pullout box with “Prayers for Surrender” from millennial-grind.com:
Universe, I surrender my agendas, timelines, and desires to you. I trust that you are leading me towards solutions of the highest good for all. 2. Universe, I step back and let you lead the way.
I just do better focusing my prayers on my causes and conditions while I embrace the protection from the ever-present Eternal Śākyamuni Buddha.
Fire in the Lotus includes a wonderful quote from Nikkyo Niwano, founder and president of Rissho Kosei-kai:
It was because of the guidance of my teacher, Sukenobu Arai, that I became fond of the Sutra, threw myself into it, and made it a part of me. Until then I had gone from one religion to another; each had the power to save, but they were like coarse nets through which many fish could slip. The more I read the Lotus Sutra, the more I realized that its truth was infinite in scope, infinite in precision, infinite in power to save. The Lotus Sutra, I saw, is a finely woven net through which no captive can slip. The ecstacy of discovering this made me want to shout and sing and dance for joy.
If I have an affinity with one chapter of the Lotus Sutra more than any other, I suppose it would be Chapter 7. After all, this is 500yojanas.org, On the Journey to the Place of Treasures.
So it is little wonder that I bristled at this slide:
Long, highly repetitive chapter? Miles and miles of unending monotony, the scenery never changing?
For more than five years I’ve made it my daily practice to read a portion of the Lotus Sutra in shindoku in the morning and then in English in the evening. Even after more than 63 times through the Lotus Sutra, none of the Lotus Sutra is monotonous. It was really very hard to focus on the lecture after this. In reviewing the slide deck afterward, I felt better. The summary points I would have emphasized were mostly mentioned.
But then we got to this:
First the chapter is declared boring and now the plain words of the sutra are said to have no meaning. Chapter 7 explains why the Buddha taught the lesser teachings. It was an expedient to allow those followers who could not make the full journey to the treasure of enlightenment to rest and gain strength. Those in the crowd hearing the Lotus Sutra had been hearing him for life after life since he was a śramaṇera teaching the Lotus Sutra.
Using the Ongi Kuden to explain the Lotus Sutra is like relying on a commentary for understanding instead of reading the sutra itself.
The Ongi Kuden is not the oral teachings of Nichiren. Modern scholars suggest the book was actually written by Nikko’s followers at the height of the popularity of the Tendai teaching of Original Enlightenment between 110 and 185 years after Nichiren’s death.
Yesterday I published Original Enlightenment and Nichiren as the Original Buddha, an excerpt from Daniel Mongomery’s Fire in the Lotus, explaining why the Ongi Kuden is an unreliable source of Nichiren’s teachings. The most troubling implication to me, is the extent to which Nichiren Shoshu and, by extension, Soka Gakkai have used the Ongi Kuden to reject the Eternal Śākyamuni of Chapter 16 while elevating Nichiren to the status of Original Buddha.
In Jacqueline Stone’s prize winning book Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism, she explains that such games with words were “characteristic of medieval Tendai kanjin-style interpretations: The seed surpasses the harvest; the stage of practice surpasses that of attainment; Superior Conduct, a bodhisattva, is superior to Śākyamuni, a Buddha; and Nichiren, who lived after Śākyamuni in historical time, becomes his teacher in beginningless time.”
The slide deck for the lecture included several supporting slides, one of which was this one:
This is the full text from the Ongi Kuden used earlier to say every moment is the Magic City.
To say “From the magic city to the treasure land is a distance of 500 yojanas” is nonsensical. The magic city was created 300 yojanas from the start to give a rest to those who wanted to turn back. What’s the point of changing that plain fact?
In describing Daniel Montogemery’s Fire in the Lotus, I mentioned that it appeared to adhere to a Nichiren Shu doctrinal line that Senchu Murano drew. This is most evident in Montgomery’s discussion of Original Enlightenment thought and the Ongi-kuden.
“Are the Ongi-kuden and the Onko-kikigaki of any value or not?”
Murano responded on Feb. 24, 1986:
“Recent investigations have reached the conclusion that the Ongikuden was written by a priest of the Nikko Monryu during the Muromachi Period (1392-1467). It stresses the importance of the Hongaku-shiso (the philosophy of original enlightenment). The Hongaku-shiso was naturalistic optimism, which flourished in those days of national disintegration. The logic favored by the philosophers was, roughly speaking, we have the Buddha-nature; we are Buddhas in essence; we are already Buddhas; we do not have to practice anything. Thus, secularism was justified. The purpose of Buddhism became just to enjoy speculation by arbitrary self-will, ignoring the study of texts. Bold equations were endlessly created, such as “we are Buddhas,” “illusions are enlightenment,” “this world is the Buddha-land,” “one is three,” “three are one” etc., etc. These equations are fascinating, but produce no value. The Hongaku-shiso was advocated by the Medieval Age Tendai (Chuko Tendai), and many Nichiren Buddhists were also attracted to this philosophy. Even today, the impact of this philosophy is still found in the terminology of the liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism. The Onko-kikigaki was written probably by someone connected with the Itchi-ha, who attempted to cope with the Ongi-kuden, also during the Muromachi Period.”
In Fire in the Lotus, Montgomery examines the idea of Original Enlightenment thought as it evolved in Japan and shows how the distortion of Original Enlightenment theory led to Nichiren Shoshu’s idea that Nichiren, not Śākyamuni, is the original Buddha.
There is a difference between Original Enlightenment as taught in India and China, and as it developed in Japan, where it encountered ‘the basically optimistic Shinto mentality of the Japanese.’ In its pure form Original Enlightenment may be the highest reaches of Buddhist thought. The idea is that all the contradictions and conflicts of the world as we know it are transcended by Emptiness. Subject and object, male and female, mind and body, life and death, good and evil, and other polarities are not opposed to each other, but mutually dependent. Take away one, and you lose the other. In the Vimalakirti Sutra this idea of interdependence is expressed as non-duality (Japanese, funo.) Nonduality refers to the absolute, not to the everyday world, which is clearly full of dualities and contradictions.
In Japan, however, Tendai thinkers pushed the idea further. They affirmed the absolute nature of the contradictions. The everyday world is the absolute; it is not-two.
Yoshiro Tamura, in his study entitled ‘Interaction between Japanese Culture and Buddhism: The Thought of Original Enlightenment,’ points out that a very thin dividing line has been crossed here. From maintaining the tension between the absolute and the relative as not two, we have crossed over to the affirmation of the relative itself as the not-two (Osaki Gakuho, No. 138 (1985) 2).
This is the Japanese version of Original Enlightenment. It spread gradually, almost as if its proponents were not fully aware of what they were implying. The idea of Original Enlightenment was already developing at the time of the Kamakura reformers, and it became pervasive after them. It is found everywhere, especially in Tendai, Shingon, Nichiren, Kegon and Zen. It is forcefully repudiated only by the Pure Land schools, who reject this world entirely, putting all their hope in the world to come. But even there, it sometimes sneaked in by the back door, for we are saved naturally by Amida without any contrivance on our part.
The logic of Original Enlightenment is that since we are already enlightened, we do not have to do anything about it. We are already Buddhas just as we are. It follows that any religious practice — any morality, for that matter — will only confuse the matter. We must ‘do our own thing’ because ‘our own thing’ is the Buddha nature operating within us.
The vocabulary of Original Enlightenment produced grandiose slogans: ‘I am Buddha’; ‘illusions are enlightenment’; ‘this world is the Buddha-land’; ‘the three bodies of Buddha are one’; ‘one is three’; ‘earthly desires are enlightenment’; ‘body and mind are one’; ‘the sufferings of life and death are nirvana’. In his authenticated writings Nichiren rarely used such terms, and when he did, he carefully explained their meaning.
‘Earthly desires are enlightenment and … the sufferings of life and death are nirvana. When one chants Namu Myoho Renge Kyo even during sexual union of man and woman, then earthly desires are enlightenment and the sufferings of life and death are nirvana. Sufferings are nirvana only when one realizes that the entity of human life throughout its cycle of birth and death is neither born nor destroyed.’ (MW 2:229)
Nichiren’s explanation is orthodox Mahayana. Reality viewed from wisdom is nirvana and enlightenment (bodai); reality viewed from illusion is passion and suffering. In either case, reality is reality. Many Tendai, Shingon, and Pure Land teachers of the times crossed a subtle line here with their careless use of dramatic slogans, but Nichiren held to that line. A highly moral man, he objected to the amorality latent in Original Enlightenment. He saw it clearly in the iconoclasm of Zen, which he described as ‘inspired by devils.’
After his death, however, there appeared collections of his unauthenticated ‘oral teachings,’ which were loaded with the vocabulary of Original Enlightenment. A well-meaning author compiled a book to bring Nichiren up-to-date by recasting his teachings in the then-popular slogans of Original Enlightenment. He called it Ongi Kuden (‘Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings [attributed to Nichiren]’). Appearing at the height of the Original Enlightenment craze, it is saturated with its phraseology. Here is its exegesis of a line from Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra:
‘Since I truly became Buddha (there have passed) infinite, boundless . . .’ (Ga jitsu jobutsu irai muryo muhen): Gajitsu (‘I truly’) means Buddha’s attaining enlightenment in kuon, the infinite past. However, the true meaning is that Ga (‘I’) is indicative of all living things in the universe or each of the Ten Worlds, and that Jitsu (‘truly’) is defined as Buddha of Musa Sanjin (natural Three Bodies) . . . The person who realizes this is named Buddha. I (literally, ‘already’) means the past and rai (literally, ‘to come’) the future. Irai includes the present in it. Buddha has attained the enlightenment of Ga jitsu, and His past and future are of uncountable and unfathomable length . . . Kuon means having neither beginning nor end, being just as man is, and being natural. It has neither beginning nor end because Musa Sanjin is not created in its original form. It is just as man is because it is not adorned by the 32 wonderful physical features and 80 favorable characters [of a Buddha]. It is natural because the Buddha of Honnu Joju (‘unchanging inherently existing’) is natural. Kuon is Namu Myoho Renge Kyu Kuon Jitsujo — really enlightened, enlightened as Musa (‘not being produced by conditions’). (Ongi Kuden, quoted by Ikeda, Science and Religion 200)
All the main ideas of Original Enlightenment are here: ‘just as man is’; ‘not produced by conditions’; ‘not adorned with any special characteristics’; ‘inherently existing’; ‘all living things are originally enlightened’. The only important idea which is missing is ‘earthly desires are enlightenment’, but that appears elsewhere in the same text: ‘Burn the firewood of earthly desires and reveal the fire of enlightened wisdom’ (Ongi Kuden, quoted by Kirimura, Outline of Buddhism 172).
Ongi Kuden, which may have been written at Taiseki-ji in the first place, became prominent in the theology of Nichiren Shoshu. It was widely believed to contain the authentic verbal teachings of Nichiren as recorded by Nikko. Ironically, one forgery provoked another one. The rival ‘Unity’ branch produced its own ‘oral transmission’ called Onko-kikigaki, and claimed that it had been put into writing by Niko of Mount Minobu. Its real purpose seems to have been to counteract the influence of Ongi Kuden. Only in recent times have both works come to be regarded as pious forgeries (Murano 1982).
The Nichiren Shoshu doctrine that Nichiren himself is the Original Buddha follows logically from Original Enlightenment. Nichiren is originally enlightened to the true Dharma. ‘Original’ here does not mean first at a point in time, but eternal — timeless. We are all originally enlightened, and Nichiren reveals what this means. When we practice what he practiced (as when Shakyamuni practices what he practiced) we uncover our originally enlightened nature.
Nichiren is said to have realized his own Original Enlightenment at the moment the executioner raised the sword above his head on the beach at Tatsunokuchi. From that moment on Nichiren’s teachings are the infallible words of the Originally Enlightened Buddha.”
Fire in the Lotus, p177-180
To underscore this focus on the Ongi-kuden in Nichiren Shoshu at the expense of Nichiren Shu foundational teachings, Montgomery points out that in 1950, Jōsei Toda, a founder of Soka Gakkai, promised to rebuild Taiseki-ji, which had been largely abandoned during the war years. To do this, he vowed to emphasize the Ongi Kuden and to shun Chih-i’s philosophy. Montgomery points out that he gets this information from Daisaku Ikeda’s Human Revolution, Volume IV, pages 249-56.
Available on AmazonWhen I first picked up Fire in the Lotus and saw that it devoted four chapters to Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai, I assumed it was going to be another homage to President Daisaku Ikeda. Instead I found a reasoned exploration of Nichiren Buddhism and its many varieties. If anything, Daniel Montgomery walks a doctrinal line established by Professor Senchu Murano (1908-2001), who translated the Lotus Sutra in 1974 for Nichiren Shu. Montgomery was the editor of the Second Edition revision of Murano’s translation.
Fire in the Lotus was published in 1991. As a result it does not address the excommunication of Soka Gakkai members by Nichiren Shoshu on Nov. 28, 1991. It also discusses groups such as Nichijo Shaka’s Buddhist School of America that have since disappeared. But on a whole, it stands up well today.
That’s not to say that I don’t have any complaints. Montgomery erroneously conflates the Parable of the Priceless Gem of Chapter 8, The Assurance of Future Buddhahood of the Five Hundred Disciples, with the Parable of the Priceless Gem in the Top-Knot of Chapter 14, Peaceful Practices.
Another parable in the Sutra treats the matter from a different angle. A young man became drunk after an evening of carousing and passed out. A wealthy friend had to leave him there, but decided first to do him a favour. He took a valuable jewel and placed it in the drunken man’s topknot. Surely, he reasoned, when his friend woke up, he would notice the jewel, use it to pay any expenses, and still have plenty left over for whatever he wanted.
But this did not happen. When the drunken man got up the next day, it never occurred to him that he was now wealthy. First he was thrown out of the inn for not paying his bill. Then things went from bad to worse. He wandered from place to place, doing odd jobs when he could and living from hand to mouth.
Years later, his wealthy friend ran into him and was shocked by his appearance. ‘What happened to you?’ he asked. ‘How did you lose all your money?’
‘What money? I never had any. You know that.’
The money from the jewel I left in your topknot. I left it for you so that you could pay your expenses, invest the rest, and go into business for yourself.’
The poor man dug into his topknot and, sure enough, there was the priceless jewel! It had been there all along. He had been a rich man, carrying a fortune with him wherever he went, but he had never known it.
So it is, says the Buddha, with everyone. The priceless jewel, the Buddha nature, lies within us untapped. The only difference between the Buddha and us is that he knows this, has unraveled his topknot, and exposed the jewel of the Buddhahood. (Page 50)
Then there’s the question of how one writes the Daimoku in English. For most of the book, Montgomery uses Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. But occasionally Soka Gakkai’s spelling with Nam sneaks in. It is understandable when Montgomery is quoting a Nichiren Shoshu or a Soka Gakkai source, but then it pops up unexpectedly:
Even more extraordinary is the story of Nisshin Nabekamuri, the ‘pot-wearer’ (1407-88). A representative of Toki Jonin’s Nakayama School, he arrived in Kyoto at the age of 22, and promptly set to work writing a thesis in imitation of Nichiren’s, which he called, ‘Establish the Right Law and Rule the Country’. When he finished it he presented it to Shogun Ashikaga Yoshinori, which was a mistake. The Shogun had once been an ordained monk on Mount Hiei, and had inherited a bitter hatred for Nichiren Buddhism. He decided to break Nisshin for his impertinence. The young priest was arrested and tortured. Nisshin was not tortured only once, but daily for two years. The Shogun took a perverse delight in watching the sufferings of the priest; he supervised the daily tortures by fire, rack, sword, and whatever else he could think of. Nothing would make Nisshin stop chanting, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Finally the Shogun ordered that a metal pot be jammed over his head to keep him quiet, but from underneath the pot could still be heard, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! Nam-myoho-renge-kyo!
Nisshin’s ordeal might have continued indefinitely had not the cruel Shogun been assassinated one day while watching a theatrical performance. Nisshin was released, and the pot was removed from his head. He rebuilt his temple, which had been destroyed, took up his drum, and went back to the street corners to chant, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! Never one to avoid a challenge, he is said to have triumphed in 60 religious debates in the course of his 65-year career. (Page 161-162)
One assumes Montgomery got this version of the tale from Nichiren Shoshu/Soka Gakkai materials, but the inconsistency grates.
Montgomery has something of pattern of picking up material whole. For example, in discussing Shariputra’s dislike for women he quotes from Buddha-Dharma: New English Edition, published by the Numata Center for Buddhist Translation in 1984.
However, there is a delightful Sanskrit story that even Shariputra met his match when he encountered a woman saint in heaven and asked her, ‘Now that you have the ability, why don’t you change yourself into a man?’ Instead of answering him, she turned him into a woman and asked him if he felt any different.
That “delightful Sanskrit story” is actually the Vimalakīrti Sūtra and the “saint in heaven” is actually a goddess who has been living in Vimalakīrti’s room for 12 years. Here’s Burton Watson’s translation of the exchange:
Shariputra said, “Why don’t you change out of this female body?
The goddess replied, “For the past twelve years I have been trying to take on female form, but in the end with no success. What is there to change? If a sorcerer were to conjure up a phantom woman and then someone asked her why she didn’t change out of her female body, would that be any kind of reasonable question?”
“No,” said Shariputra. “Phantoms have no fixed form, so what would there be to change?”
The goddess said, “All things are just the same—they have no fixed form. So why ask why I don’t change out of my female form?”
At that time the goddess employed her supernatural powers to change Shariputra into a goddess like herself, while she took on Shariputra’s form. Then she asked, “Why don’t you change out of this female body?”
Shariputra, now in the form of a goddess, replied, “I don’t know why I have suddenly changed and taken on a female body!”
The goddess said, “Shariputra, if you can change out of this female body, then all women can change likewise. Shariputra, who is not a woman, appears in a woman’s body. And the same is true of all women—though they appear in women’s bodies, they are not women. Therefore the Buddha teaches that all phenomena are neither male nor female.”
Then the goddess withdrew her supernatural powers, and Shariputra returned to his original form. The goddess said to Shariputra, “Where now is the form and shape of your female body?”
Shariputra said, “The form and shape of my female body does not exist, yet does not not exist.”
The goddess said, “All things are just like that—they do not exist, yet do not not exist. And that they do not exist, yet do not not exist, is exactly what the Buddha teaches.”(Page 90-91)
All things considered, Fire in the Lotus is an excellent addition to any library devoted to Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra.
The founding of the Nichiren school brought to mind the account contained in “Nichiren, The Buddhist Prophet” by Masaharu Anesaki:
The young monk, now no longer a seeker after truth, but a reformer filled with ardent zeal, bade farewell to the great center of Buddhism on Hiei and went back to the old monastery on Kiyozumi, which he had left fifteen years before. He visited his parents, and they were his first converts. His old master and fellow monks welcomed him, but to their minds Nichiren, the former Renchō, was nothing more than a promising young man who had seen the world and studied at Hiei. Keeping silence about all his plans and ambitions, Nichiren retired for a while to a forest near the monastery. Everyone in the monastery supposed that he was practicing the usual method of self-purification, which they themselves employed; but, in fact, Nichiren was engaged in a quite different task, and occupied with his original idea, neither shared nor guessed by anyone else.
The seven days of his seclusion, as the tradition says, was a period of fervent prayer, in preparation for launching his plan of reformation and proclaiming his new gospel. When his season of meditative prayer had reached the stage when he was ready to transform it into action, Nichiren one night left the forest and climbed the summit of the hill which commands an unobstructed view of the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean. When the eastern horizon began to glow with the approaching daybreak, he stood motionless looking toward the East, and as the golden disc of the sun began to break through the haze over the vast expanse of waters, a loud voice, a resounding cry, broke from his lips. It was “Namu Myōhō-renge-kyō” “Adoration be to the Lotus of the Perfect Truth!” This was Nichiren’s proclamation of his gospel to heaven and earth, making the all-illumining sun his witness. It happened early in the morning of the twenty-eighth day of the fourth lunar month 1253.
The proclamation of the Lotus of Truth, with the sun as witness, was, indeed, the first step in translating into action the ideal symbolized in his name, the Sun-Lotus. After this unique proclamation, Nichiren came back among human beings, and at noon of the same day, in an assembly hall facing south, he preached his new doctrine, and denounced the prevailing forms of Buddhism, to an audience composed of his old master and fellow monks, and many others. There was none who was not offended by his bold proclamation and fierce attack. Murmurs grew to cries of protest; and when the sermon had been finished, everyone assumed that the poor megalomaniac was mad. The feudal chief ruling that part of the country was so incensed that he would not be satisfied with anything short of the death of the preposterous monk. This lord, who was Nichiren’s mortal foe throughout the subsequent years of his mission, was watching to attack Nichiren, who was now driven out of his old monastery. His master, the abbot, pitied his former pupil, and gave instruction to two elder disciples to take Nichiren to a hidden trail for escape. It was in the dusk of evening that Nichiren made his escape in this way. The sun, which at its rising had beheld Nichiren’s proclamation, the sun which at noon had witnessed Nichiren’s sermon, set as the hunted prophet made his way through the darkness of a wooded trail; only the evening glow was in the sky. What must his thoughts have been? What prospect could he have cherished in his mind for his future career and for the destiny of his gospel?
As Rev. Igarashi pointed out in his sermon, after this declaration Nichiren suffered years of persecution, but he was not unhappy because he was living out the prediction in the Lotus Sutra that those who propagate this sutra in today’s Age of Defilement are sure to be harassed.
Rev. Igarashi explained that he became a monk on April 28, 1968, 53 years ago.
“At that time I was not happy,” he said. “That’s why I decided to become a monk. Maybe I can get something good, I thought. Becoming a monk completely changed my life. Little by little I studied Nichiren Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra and little by little my mind changed. Then I came to the United States and my life was very hard and not happy. Many priest who come from Japan don’t stay because it is very hard. But I stayed because I was happy to propagate the Lotus Sutra here in the United States.”
Just as Nichiren was happy to experience the persecution foretold in the Lotus Sutra, Rev. Igarashi was happy to be propagating the Lotus Sutra in America. He changed his life with the Lotus Sutra.
Rev. Igarashi explained much of our unhappiness stems from our past karma.
“That’s why we chant Namu Myoho Renge Kyo and feel happy. That’s why I want all of you to chant the Lotus Sutra and Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. If we chant Namu Myoho Renge Kyo we can change our lives. If we are happy, then I’m pretty sure happiness is coming.”
Ven. Kenjo Igarashi explains meaning of Memorial Prayers
Following the Hanamatsuri service Sunday, Ven. Kenjo Igarashi brought out his portable chalkboard and set in on an easel next to his lectern. Already written in chalk were two Chinese characters. These were labeled E and Kou, which translate to Memorial Prayers.
For some reason I feel compelled to point out that the easel originally was part of a large floral display used at a funeral. After the funeral, the display was moved to the parking lot and attendees were invited to scavenge individual flowers to take home. When all the flowers were gone, Rev. Igarashi kept the easel. The thin green legs of the easel and the green chalkboard look as if they were purchased together. The easel can be found on the altar dais behind a curtain next to his lectern.
And I think the juxtaposition of these two peripherally related tidbits inadvertently illustrates why I am unable to give a detailed recounting of the sermon Rev. Igarashi gave on the topic of Memorial Prayers.
Last month, I recorded Rev. Igarashi’s sermon after the Ohigan service, knowing in advance that I’d want a record of what he said so I could add it to my Higan content. But instead of immediately posting the sermon after I transcribed the recording, I let it sit around for a week. Sunday I didn’t record the sermon and instead I am left to try to remember the lesson he gave.
Here is my dilemma: I want to explain the lesson I took from the sermon on E Kou without impugning Rev. Igarashi’s lesson. What I took in, what I recall, the lesson I received – it’s quite possible none of that was Rev. Igarashi’s intent.
This is what happens when “a bhikṣu, a bhikṣunī, an upāsakā, an upāsikā, or some other wise person, whether young or old, rejoices at hearing this sūtra in a congregation after my extinction. After leaving the congregation, he or she goes to some other place, for instance, to a monastery, a retired place, a city, a street, a town, or a village. There he or she expounds this sūtra, as he or she has heard it, to his or her father, mother, relative, friend or acquaintance as far as he or she can. Another person who has heard [this sūtra from him or her], rejoices, goes [to some other place] and expounds it to a third person. The third person also rejoices at hearing it and expounds it to a fourth person. In this way this sūtra is heard by a fiftieth person.” [Chapter 18, The Merits of a Person Who Rejoices at Hearing This Sutra]
What I can provide is my “fiftieth person” understanding. Please don’t blame Rev. Igarashi.
For Memorial Services, I’ve operated under a simple understanding: I accumulate merit with my practice and during the services I transfer that merit to my deceased ancestors. “Simple” is key here. Rev. Igarashi explained that the merit attained from our daily practice allows us to seek the intercession of Śākyamuni, Tahō Buddha, the great Bodhisattvas and all the protective deities. That’s where the power to help our deceased ancestors lies.
When I heard this I was reminded of a quote from Nichiren:
The Lotus Sūtra is called “Zui-jii,” namely it expounds the true mind of the Buddha. Since the Buddha’s mind is so great, even if one does not understand the profound meaning of the sūtra, one can gain innumerable merits by just reading it. Just as a mugwort among hemp plants grows straight and a snake in a tube straightens itself, if one becomes friendly with good people, one’s mind, behavior, and words become naturally gentle. Likewise, the Buddha thinks that those who believe in the Lotus Sūtra become naturally virtuous.
Zui-jii Gosho, The Sūtra Preached in Accordance to [the Buddha’s] Own Mind, Writings of Nichiren Shōnin, Faith and Practice, Volume 4, Page 155
It is this merit of Śākyamuni that we are able to transfer to our deceased ancestors. The more we practice Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō, our practice of the Lotus Sutra, the greater the merit. Rev. Igarashi explained that we need to devote our entire body to the effort. Not literally but figuratively like Gladly-Seen-By-All-Beings Bodhisattva, in the previous life of Bodhisattva Medicine King, who sacrificed his body as an offering to the Buddha.
Rev. Igarashi recalled his five times through the grueling Aragyo 100-day ascetic practice to illustrate how he gained his ability to offer purifying prayers for those who attend Kaji Kito services.
I will be 70 in December. Not a lot of physical body I can devote to my practice, but what there is goes to Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.
While I was at the church I asked Rev. Igarashi to bless a new set of Juzu I had purchased from the Nichiren Buddhist International Center. The beads came with a brochure, which offered this tidbit:
Prayer Beads are used by all Buddhists and by many other religions as well. These beads are called Juzu or Nenju in Japanese, Mala by the Tibetans and in Sanskrit they are called Japamala. When the Romans first saw prayer beads (Japamala) used by the Hindus, they mistakenly heard “jap” instead of “japa.” Jap in Sanskrit stands for rose. Translated into Latin Japmala comes out as “Rosarium” and in English as “Rosary.” The Juzu or Mala may have been the inspiration for the prayer beads used by some Christians and Muslims today.
