 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| |
12. September 2003 Supreme
Court dismisses appeal by Nichiren Shoshu |
|
|
|
On April 8, Tokyo High Court
overturned an initial ruling made by the Shizuoka District
Court in a trial in which four individuals sued Taiseki-ji
temple ?Chief Executive, Nikken? for damages over its
unlawful dumping of the cremated remains of family members
along with remains of numerous others. In the initial
ruling, the Shizuoka District Court had dismissed the
plaintiffs’ claims. On considering their appeal
of that ruling, the Tokyo High Court recognizing the plaintiffs’
claims as valid and ruled against Taiseki-ji, ordering
it to pay each family 500,000 yen in damages (2,000,000
yen total).
The four plaintiffs, who won their case on every count,
are Mr. Mitsuo Imamura of Yokohama, Kanagawa Pref., Mr.
Tadao Daiku of Izumisano, Osaka, Mr. Toru Kajita of Okawa,
Fukuoka Pref., and Ms. Miki Nakaya of Matsuyama, Ehime
Pref.
Deciding that the highest form of burial for their deceased
family member would be to have their ashes eternally housed
in Taiseki-ji's main charnel house, each of the plaintiffs
had their family member's ashes placed with the temple
sometime between 1968 and 1977.
However, beginning around 1993, horrifying facts concerning
the actual conditions of Taiseki-ji's handling and safekeeping
of ashes began to surface one by one.
Taiseki-ji had been mixing the ashes of those they had
received for joint burial with the ashes of numerous others,
and, as if that were not shocking enough, had been callously
stuffing these ashes in used rice bags. Cremated remains
were stored under conditions well beneath slovenly, and
the sight of bones protruding from rice bags burst open
from years of humidity and the weight of other rice bags
and of bones left strewn across the floor was simply too
tragic to look at.
In addition, anywhere from 150 to 200 of the rice bags
in which ashes had been packed were dumped as if they
were trash into a hole in an empty lot on the temple grounds,
a site that could in no way be considered a graveyard.
Needless to say, the state of their relatives’ ashes,
having being crammed into worn-out rice bags and unlawfully
dumped in a place other than the temple's main charnel
house, was beyond what any of the plaintiffs could have
imagined. Concerning this situation, Furthermore, they
had never received one word of explanation from Taiseki-ji
concerning this situation.
After this case came out into the open, the plaintiffs
repeatedly demanded an explanation from Taiseki-ji, but
as the temple never gave any response indicating even
a hint of sincerity, they came to the decision to file
a legal suit against the temple in March of 2000.
In court, Taiseki-ji admitted stuffing the ashes in the
rice bags as well as digging a hole and burying the bags
in it; instead of being remorseful, however, the priests
proceeded to assume a defiant attitude, manufacturing
excuses implying that such actions were in accordance
with the tenets of their religious denomination.
A priest named Jison Nomura testified before the High
Court, putting forward a series of lies in which he stated
that the ashes were buried under High Priest Nittatsu's
instruction, the burial place was also decided under High
Priest Nittatsu's instruction, and after the burial, High
Priest Nittatsu performed a Buddhist memorial service
and ordered that a cedar tree which he highly valued be
planted there, etc. Flagrantly trying to take advantage
of the principle that he dead cannot speak, Nomura contrived
to blame the entire affair on High Priest Nittatsu and
thus conceal the facts.
In response, the High Court's ruling completely dismissed
the temple's defense as having many questionable points
and thereby lacking credibility.
First, in regards to the period during which the ashes
were dumped, the court placed importance on the testimony
of a former temple employee who performed some of the
actual work. That employee testified that he dumping of
the ashes was conducted in late September of 1979, after
High Priest Nittatsu had passed away in July of the same
year. The court reasoned that if the dumping of the ashes
was indeed performed during this time period, then it
would have been impossible for High Priest Nittatsu to
have performed a Buddhist memorial service.
Also, the priest Nomura testified that the Buddhist memorial
service he claimed was performed at the time of the burial
was an extremely important ceremony with much meaning,
an event to be remembered in history, and an affair that
occupied the interest of every priest and follower, etc.
The court sternly rejected these assertions, however,
stating that here is absolutely no record of the aforementioned
Buddhist memorial service, it was never publicized in
any way, and there was never any notification given to
the bereaved families. If it had been the kind of important,
historic ceremony Nomura claimed, the court reasoned,
it is strange there is no record or press coverage of
the event.
Regarding the cedar tree that was supposedly planted at
the burial site, Taiseki-ji described it as a seedling
of special significance from a cedar tree that High Priest
Nittatsu himself cultivated with great care in the courtyard
of his personal residence, etc. The court also flatly
dismissed this assertion based on the testimony of former
temple employees and the fact that four of the five cedar
trees that High Priest Nittatsu had planted at the site
in question had been cut down in 2001. The court judged
that it is conceivable that the planted cedar had no special
significance.
In addition, the court ruling stated that it cannot trust
testimonies which are in accordance with the claims made
by the respondent (Taiseki-ji) struck down the entire
defense concluding that the court was not able to recognize
as a valid fact that High Priest Nittatsu had instructed
or was even present at the burial of the ashes, or that
High Priest Nittatsu had performed the Buddhist memorial
service, and finds it difficult to recognize that the
cedar planted at the burial site was one of special significance
as claimed by the respondent.
On the other hand, in response to Taiseki-ji's claims
that the place in which the ashes were buried is a spiritual
area, being the most sacred of places within the head
temple grounds, the court's ruling pointed out that he
area is merely a part of the woods in the eastern part
of the grounds accessible to anyone.
Lastly, in regards to the reality of the temple's unlawful
dumping of ashes, the court ruled that he temple simply
packed large volumes of ashes into bags, which were buried
and covered up with dirt in a part of the temple grounds
accessible by anyone, and planted a few cedar trees there
while the bereaved families had no knowledge of any of
it and that o Buddhist memorial service for the repose
of the deceased has been conducted, and not a single facility
appropriate for a burial site has been set up. In short,
the court ruled against the temple, stating that it cannot
avoid concluding that the defendants dumped the ashes
in a corner of the temple grounds.
Moreover, the court compared the format of joint burial
and joint interment conducted at the head temples of other
Buddhist school to and at municipally managed charnel
houses with Taiseki-ji's handling of cremated remains.
The court's evaluation was that Taiseki-ji's actions differ
from that of other religious schools in that they do not
suit the religious sentiments of or meet the standard
of practices generally accepted by the people (of Japan).
The court ruled that Taiseki-ji's actions amount to breaking
their contract to inter the ashes of the deceased on behalf
of the plaintiffs, and thereby ordered the payment of
damages.
This ruling has gained much interest in Japanese society.
The plaintiffs held a press conference with many media
representatives in attendance, and the ruling was reported
on television news that day.
Not only did the temple treat like trash the remains of
loved ones so dear to their families, they also tried
to conceal their own wrongful acts with lies. Such behavior
is clearly unsuitable for those supposedly devoted to
religious faith.
It can be said that this lawsuit has clearly brought to
light Taiseki-ji's predisposition for underhanded and
antisocial behavior.
|
|
(From Seikyo Shimbun,
April 9, 2003)
|
|
|
|
|
