 |
|
 |
|
|
June 20, 1994
Volume 4, No. 3 (Part 1)
The New York Youth Division
Declares: Victory!
New York Temple Chief Priest Refuses To Hold Open Debate
As reported in the June 13 issue of “The SGI-USA
Newsletter,” a group of youth division members in
New York began a correspondence with the chief priest
of Myosetsu-ji temple. The youth took a clear stand for
the righteousness of Nichiren Daishonin?s teachings. The
second and last volley of letters presented in this issue
clearly reflects the victory of the youth division members,
which they eloquently state in their “Declaration
of Victory” (see page 8).
The youths? action arose from their concerted prayer and
effort to meet and talk with many of those who had been
influenced by the deceptions of this priest. The format
they decided upon was that of an open letter, requesting
that the priest, Jisei Nagasaka, provide written support
for his many statements distorting the teachings of Nichiren
Daishonin. In writing this open letter, the youth hoped
to make public Nagasaka?s erroneous statements and refute
them in a precise way based on the Three Proofs of Buddhism
— documentary, reason and actual fact — so
that they could leave a clear record of the rightness
of the SGI and its practice.
At the same time, they hoped to illuminate the real intention
of Nikken and his supporters like Mr. Nagasaka, so that
those following them might have an opportunity to understand
more clearly the real position of the Nichiren Shoshu
priesthood.
In this issue of “The SGI-USA Newsletter”
we print, unedited, the second letter of the New York
youth division members, in which they ask the priest to
face them in open debate, and Mr. Nagasaka?s letter rejecting
the debate. The language of the letter may seem harsh
or cutting, but this is an expression of the passionate
conviction of the writers in addressing someone who, they
are fully convinced, is knowingly engaged in deceit.We
congratulate the New York youth division members for their
victory in confronting the priesthood and clearly illuminating
the insubstantial foundation on which the priesthood stands.
************************
The Youth Division Responds
to the Chief Priest?s Letter
May 14, 1994
Mr. Jisei Nagasaka
Dai-hozan Myosetsu-ji
143-63 Beech Avenue
Flushing, New York 11355-2176
Dear Mr. Nagasaka:
ON April 23, 1994, we received your response to our open
letter of April 2, 1994 (see “The SGI-USA Newsletter,”
June 13). In accordance with the Daishonin?s instruction
to “accept what is clearly stated in the texts of
the sutras but discard anything that cannot be supported
by the text” (The Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin,
vol. 5, p. 65), we have clarified right and wrong based
on documentary proof.
On the other hand, you ignored the Daishonin?s instruction,
as well as historical facts and documentary proof, and
contented yourself with empty criticism. The fact that
you boast to having responded to the open letter is appalling.
The Daishonin said, “The most important thing in
practicing Buddhism is to follow and uphold the Buddha?s
golden teachings, not the opinions of others” (MW-1,
102).
We will demonstrate in the following pages that you did
not provide answers to our questions, but instead used
twisted logic to fit your needs. Your behavior fits that
described in the Gosho of a person who “cleverly
uses lies and flattery to capture the hearts of those
of little knowledge and destroy the goodness within them”
(Gosho Zenshu, p. 7).
If you at all consider yourself to be a priest who upholds
the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, let us determine
right and wrong in public by engaging in an open debate.
Should you refuse, the Hokkeko members will come to know
that you have again avoided and ignored our request for
an open debate. Consider this to be a challenge to an
open debate.
The following is our refutation of your response to our
letter:
1) Your equating the Soka Gakkai, an organization dedicated
to the promotion of kosen-rufu, and the Shoshinkai, a
group of priests who exist to destroy true Buddhism, is
outrageous. Until now, we have remained silent about your
having been an active Shoshinkai priest. But you have
taken advantage of this silence and equated the Soka Gakkai
with the Shoshinkai in order to deceive those who do not
know the truth.
2 We want you to reflect upon your own life as a priest.
Your father was able to represent the Komei party and
to hold a political office in his township due to sincere
support by Soka Gakkai members. Utterly lacking in any
sort of appreciation, you began to engage in Shoshinkai
activities around 1978. Actively criticizing the Soka
Gakkai, you ultimately drew your parents-in-law out of
the Soka Gakkai.
However, when Nikken became the high priest in 1979, you
suddenly turned into a Nikken supporter and betrayed your
fellow Shoshinkai priests, who later were excommunicated
by Nikken. In contrast to those excommunicated Shoshinkai
priests, your position within the priesthood was saved
due to your last-minute betrayal.
Having done this, you visited Soka Gakkai community centers
in the area in Hokkaido where you were posted, and with
tears in your eyes, apologized, saying, “I will
dedicate my life for the sake of the Soka Gakkai.”
Shoshinkai priests at that time, including your former
senior in faith, Jikei Sasaki, labeled you a traitor.
After this incident, both the priesthood and the Shoshinkai
ceased to trust you. Subsequently, you were assigned to
a temple in the United States. Is this just a coincidence?
When the priesthood issue surfaced, you completely forgot
the apology you made to the Soka Gakkai, and turned against
it. This pattern of behavior makes us seriously question
your integrity as a person. You have no personal standards
with respect to these issues. You simply change your mind
and attitude like a chameleon, based on the surrounding
environment. This is not the kind of behavior for a person
practicing true Buddhism.
You?re someone who owes a debt of gratitude to the Soka
Gakkai. Instead you betrayed it. You then joined the Shoshinkai,
but betrayed it as well. Thereafter, you apologized to
the Soka Gakkai, but ultimately betrayed it a second time.
You have no right to engage in any sort of criticism of
the Soka Gakkai. You should know that no one in either
the Soka Gakkai, the Shoshinkai or the Nichiren Shoshu
priesthood trusts you. (The above information was provided
by Jikei Sasaki as related around 1986, and by your former
associates and now reform priests, the Revs. Gen?ei Kudo
and Shojun Ohashi).
3) Taking advantage of the fact that not many Hokkeko
members know the true background of President Ikeda?s
resignation in 1979, you are misusing the essay “Reconfirming
Our Fundamental Mission” to justify your own distortions.
You intentionally ignore President Ikeda?s utmost sincerity
in protecting the correct path of propagating true Buddhism
at any cost, and instead launch yet another baseless attack
against the Soka Gakkai. This is most outrageous. The
background and truth that led to publication of the essay
is attached heretofore (see page 3) your reference, entitled
“The Soka Gakkai?s True Path, the History of the
Priesthood?s Corruption and the Shoshinkai Incident.”
4) You accused the Soka Gakkai of distributing “counterfeit”
okatagi Gohonzon, alleging that the side script was “erased,”
and called this a slander. The reality is that these Gohonzon
are based on a Gohonzon transcribed by Nichikan Shonin,
and offered to the Soka Gakkai by the chief priest of
Joen-ji temple in Tochigi Prefecture. However, omitting
a side script, which does not constitute the essence of
the Gohonzon, does not in the least go against the Daishonin?s
teachings. Based on his great compassion, Nichiren Daishonin
inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon for the sake of all people.
Based on a correct understanding of the significance of
kosen-rufu, the Soka Gakkai has omitted the name of Honshobo
during the printing process for the okatagi Gohonzon,
which are being distributed to new SGI members throughout
the world. [Editor?s note: See also the article by SGI-USA
General Director Fred Zaitsu on the so-called Nichikan
Gohonzon on page 7 of the June 20 World Tribune.]
You must be aware of a few Gohonzon, including one transcribed
by Nikko Shonin, at the head temple whose side scripts
are torn and missing. If we follow your argument, then
these Gohonzon at the head temple also become counterfeits.
Haven?t you noticed that the more you accuse the Soka
Gakkai of slander, the further you sink into a swamp of
self-contradiction?
5) You pretend that you have answered all our questions,
but in reality you just repeated the same words, without
any explanation. Your statements lack documentary proof:
“This is the unchangeable creed of Nichiren Shoshu
for 700 years.”
“This is an unchangeable creed that has been handed
down for 700 years at Head Temple Taiseki-ji.”
“This is the 700-year-old traditional faith and
practice of Nichiren Shoshu.”
“[I]t is better that we avoid making comments about
the content of the Face to Face Bestowal of the Essence
of the True Law….”
“It is difficult to believe in, or understand the
Daishonin?s teaching.”
Do you consider these answers? They are nothing but empty
theories to subjugate lay believers. We believe the reason
you did not publish your answer to our questionnaire in
the “Myosetsu-ji Temple News” is that you
did not want the Hokkeko members to know how poor your
answers were.
6) The fact that Nikken erected a tombstone in a Zen temple,
a sect that the Daishonin refuted as a teaching of the
Devil of the Sixth Heaven, is a grave slander that will
remain in the history of kosen-rufu. You have completely
ignored the historical facts delineated in our questionnaire.
Because you could not provide any answer, you simply called
us slanderers, using the position of priest to do so.
Your behavior is no different from that of people in power
who utilize their position to persecute others.
We challenge you to an open debate that befits the American
tradition of freedom and openness. We propose the early
evening of June 11 as a date, but are ready to discuss
details regarding time and place forthwith.
This letter will be made widely available to all SGI members,
as well as the Hokkeko members of Myosetsu-ji temple.
SGI-USA
New York Youth Division
*************************
The Soka Gakkai?s True Path,
the History of the Priesthood?s Corruption and the Shoshinkai
Incident
DESPITE the priesthood?s many efforts to complicate the
Daishonin?s Buddhism, the essential part of our faith
and practice is surprisingly simple. We regard Nichiren
Daishonin as the original Buddha, worship the Dai-Gohonzon
of the High Sanctuary as the true object of worship for
the Latter Day of the Law and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
to it with strong faith. If you keep this in mind and
examine each allegation that the priesthood brings against
the SGI, you will find that the SGI has always held fast
to this foundation of the Daishonin?s Buddhism, and that
there is no self-contradiction in the SGI on the fundamental
level of doctrine and spirit.
Since his inauguration as the third president of the Soka
Gakkai on May 3, 1960, President Ikeda has exerted himself
in propagating the Daishonin?s Buddhism on a global scale
and in protecting the head temple and the priesthood.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, the Soka Gakkai donated
several buildings to the head temple: the Daikejo Hall
(1960), the Dai-bo hall (1962), the Grand Reception Hall
(1964), the old structure of the Mutsubo hall (1965),
the Tenrei-in hall (1969), and the Sho-Hondo (1972), as
well as many lodging facilities on the head temple grounds.
In just 10 years after his inauguration, the Soka Gakkai,
led by President Ikeda, donated a huge expanse of land
to the head temple, enlarging the head temple grounds
by seven times. Furthermore, during President Ikeda?s
leadership, the Soka Gakkai donated 320 branch temples.
All these were nothing other than an expression of President
Ikeda?s sincere dedication to the priesthood?s development.
On the other hand, prior to the early 1970s, the Soka
Gakkai did not have enough facilities to meet the needs
of its rapidly growing membership, and its legal structure
needed to be modernized. After the completion of the Sho-Hondo
in 1972, with the support of Nittatsu Shonin, the Soka
Gakkai declared it would build more community centers
and improve its legal structure.
In the area of Buddhist study as well, the Soka Gakkai
started to shed light on the Daishonin?s Buddhism, making
it accessible to a wider range of people. This new phase
of the Soka Gakkai?s development was called the “Second
Phase of Kosen-Rufu.” The Soka Gakkai firmly believed
that by developing itself and promoting propagation, it
could better spread Buddhism into society and protect
the priesthood.
However, the priesthood did not fully understand the Soka
Gakkai?s true intent in the “Phase II” movement.
It was misinterpreted as a sign of the Soka Gakkai?s preparation
for its eventual separation from the priesthood. Animosity
toward the Soka Gakkai grew, and was especially strong
among many of the young student priests. The source of
their discontent may be in their fear that the Soka Gakkai
would not build enough local temples where they could
be assigned as chief priests when they finished their
training and became certified priests. From this group
was later born the Shoshinkai, the group of priests who
were excommunicated by Nikken for questioning the legitimacy
of his accession to the office of high priest.
In 1977, the priesthood?s resentment and doubt toward
the Soka Gakkai, which had been growing over the years
as the Gakkai grew, intensified. At the ninth study department
meeting in January, President Ikeda gave a lecture titled
“On the History of Buddhism.” During his lecture,
President Ikeda touched upon the corruption prevailing
in the established Japanese Buddhist clergy and identified
a cause of the Buddhist clergy?s corruption as its separation
from the common people. He also stated that in light of
the original significance of a temple as a place where
believers gather together to practice and study Buddhism,
Soka Gakkai community centers could be considered as temples
in the modern day. To this speech, the priesthood responded
emotionally, charging President Ikeda with lack of respect
for the priesthood and the function of the temples.
In February 1977, President Ikeda gave a speech in which
he emphasized the Gohonzon and the Gosho as the most important
basis of faith and practice. The priesthood condemned
President Ikeda for disregarding the role of the successive
high priests. In April, President Ikeda contributed to
the Seikyo Shimbun a series of lectures on the Gosho “Heritage
of the Ultimate Law of Life.” The priesthood complained
that President Ikeda put too much emphasis on the “lifeblood
of faith” as opposed to the “heritage of the
Law only passed on by the successive high priests.”
President Ikeda?s statements were absolutely correct in
light of the orthodox doctrines of the Daishonin?s Buddhism.
Unfortunately, the priesthood interpreted everything President
Ikeda said in a defensive and negative way, based on their
malicious preconceived judgment of the Soka Gakkai. Attacks
intensified from the mass media, secretly orchestrated
and manipulated by the Soka Gakkai?s then-legal counsel,
Masatomo Yamazaki. Using his position as a point of contact
between the priesthood and the Soka Gakkai, he exerted
all possible efforts to undermine relations between the
two and profit personally from the situation.
In June 1978, the priesthood accused the Soka Gakkai of
deviating from the orthodox doctrines of the Daishonin?s
Buddhism and demanded that the Soka Gakkai apologize.
This action was based on a document written by Yamazaki,
but read aloud at a meeting of the priesthood as an anonymous
“Letter From a Certain Believer.” On June
30, the Soka Gakkai published in the Seikyo Shimbun a
statement acknowledging its “doctrinal deviations.”
This is the so-called June 30 agreement. (The translation
of this document was published in the Feb. 5, 1979, issue
of the World Tribune, pp. 8-10.)
If the Soka Gakkai had refused to comply with the priesthood?s
demand, the situation would have been irreparable. It
could be easily imagined then that the rift between the
priesthood and laity would deal a fatal blow to the progress
of kosen-rufu, and would result in confusion and a flood
of “taiten” among many sincere Gakkai members.
The priesthood?s tactics here were similar to those of
kidnappers or terrorists, taking the progress of kosen-rufu
and Gakkai members? faith hostage, and demanding as ransom
an “apology.” Using the apology as leverage,
coupled with the threat of excommunication, the priesthood
demanded more and more to gain complete control of the
Soka Gakkai.
None of the issues brought up in this June 30 agreement,
however, dealt with “doctrinal deviations”
as the priesthood asserts; they are basically matters
of expression. For instance, the priesthood questioned
the statement that the enlightenment President Toda attained
constituted the foundation of Soka Buddhism. In the agreement,
the Soka Gakkai agreed not to use expressions such as
“Soka Buddhism” as it could be taken to mean
that the Gakkai was advocating a different Buddhism from
the Daishonin?s. The term has not been used since.
But it is undeniable that the conviction the second Soka
Gakkai president, Josei Toda, gained during his imprisonment
became the driving force behind the development of the
Soka Gakkai after World War II. In The Human Revolution,
vol. 1, President Ikeda writes:
He [Toda] removed his glasses and scrutinized each character,
bending so close it seemed his face would touch the scroll.
“It was just like this. No mistake. Exactly, just
as I saw it.”
Murmuring silently, he satisfied himself that the solemn
and mysterious ceremony in the air which he had witnessed
in his cell was indeed inscribed on the Gohonzon. Profound
delight surged through him and tears streamed down his
face. His hands shook. He cried out from the depth of
his being:
“Gohonzon! Daishonin! I, Toda, will accomplish kosen-rufu!”
He felt that this resolve was burning in his soul with
an incandescent glow. It burned in spite of him, a flame
nothing could extinguish, like the eternally glowing sunrise
of kosen-rufu. (The Human Revolution, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.
26-27)
As depicted here, while he was in prison, President Toda
gained the great conviction that the Gohonzon is the basis
of everything.
This agrees with the original teachings of the Daishonin,
which can be summarized as the One Great Secret Law, or
the True Object of Worship of True Buddhism. The enlightenment
President Toda attained rekindled the spirit of Nichiren
Daishonin in modern times. In this sense, the expression
that “President Toda?s enlightenment became the
foundation of Soka Buddhism” is in no way doctrinally
incorrect.
In April 1979, the priesthood?s relentless onslaught,
which had continued over several years, forced President
Ikeda to step down from the presidency of the Soka Gakkai.
He relinquished his administrative responsibilities and
took the position of honorary president. The priesthood
demanded that unless President Ikeda stepped down, there
would be no way for the priesthood administration to silence
discontent among the priests.
Again, President Ikeda did not step down from his position
because he reflected on a “series of mistakes,”
but because the priesthood demanded that he do so. Therefore,
your implied assumptions of President Ikeda?s motives
are wrong.
It is also interesting to note the four conditions that
were set on President Ikeda at the time of his resignation.
They were: 1) President Ikeda could not attend any meetings;
2) the Seikyo Shimbun could not report any of his activities
or speeches; 3) members were prohibited from calling him
“Sensei”; and 4) no reference was to be made
to a mentor/disciple relationship existing in the Soka
Gakkai.
Knowing that the strength of the Soka Gakkai derives from
the heart-to-heart bond between President Ikeda and members,
the priesthood attempted to sever this spiritual tie of
mentor and disciple and thus weaken the Soka Gakkai.
In July 1979, Nittatsu Shonin passed away. Nikken then
became the high priest, but his position was very unstable,
as many priests (including those in the Shoshinkai) actively
criticized and slandered him.
In March 1980, the terms of the Nichiren Shoshu Council
members were due to expire, and in June, an election for
Council members was scheduled. It was expected that many
of the radical anti-Gakkai priests, who were not sympathetic
toward Nikken, would become Council members and form a
majority faction. In order to solidify his position, Nikken
needed to elicit further apology from President Ikeda
to appease these active priests.
In January 1980, President Ikeda met with Nikken. At this
meeting, Nikken demanded that President Ikeda apologize
again, under the pretext that other priests were demanding
of Nikken that the Soka Gakkai apologize again for their
actions. From this point on, tremendous pressure was applied
to the Soka Gakkai to issue an apology.
Under these circumstances, the Soka Gakkai?s executive
leaders prepared a manuscript based on the priesthood?s
instructions, and asked President Ikeda to publish it
under his name. To this, President Ikeda consented.
This essay, titled “My Thoughts on the 23rd Anniversary
of the Death of My Late Master,” was published in
the April 2 issue of the Seikyo Shimbun. The translation
of this article was published under the title of “Reconfirming
Our Fundamental Mission” in the May 1980 issue of
the Seikyo Times. President Ikeda, who was not allowed
to review the article, published it solely to protect
Nikken and the rest of the priesthood from further falling
into the abyss of political turmoil.
Therefore, the passage that you have quoted in your answer
to Part I, Question 4 does not reflect President Ikeda?s
true intentions. It was written by others, based on instructions
from the priesthood.
Conclusion
We have presented a brief history of key events that occurred
around the late 1970s. Because of President Ikeda?s wise
and unbegrudging leadership, SGI members have continued
practicing and studying up to this day, building lives
of great fortune. This has happened even as they sometimes
found themselves in the midst of events whose true meaning
or significance could not be immediately discerned.
On reviewing all these facts, the difference is clear.
On the one hand is the SGI, whose unchangeable desire
accords with the Daishonin?s will: to allow every single
human being to achieve absolute happiness. On the other
hand lies the priesthood, which, instead of making the
Daishonin?s Buddhism open and accessible to all people,
uses the Daishonin?s Buddhism and the Dai-Gohonzon to
further their goals of self-preservation and authoritarian
rule. The conclusion must be that the divergence between
the SGI and the priesthood was not only natural, but inevitable.
General Comment
Before specifically refuting each of your points, we declare
that your sparse use of the Gosho in your document is
testimony to the low priority you place on the Gosho as
a standard for judgment on doctrinal matters.
Cover Letter. Paragraph 6: Regarding Dedications and Side
Scripts (Jpn. ?wakigaki?) on the Gohonzon.
In the cover letter of your rebuttal, you say the SGI
“disrespectfully erased the name of Honsho-bo Nissho,1
the chief priest of Joen-ji temple, from the Gohonzon….
Erasing Honsho-bo Nissho?s name from the Gohonzon is injuring
the heart and the body of the Buddha himself.”
First, let us make it clear that Honsho-bo Nissho?s name
was not “erased” from the Gohonzon. The Gohonzon
transcribed by Nichikan Shonin in 1720 remains in exactly
the same condition as it always was. To say that the Gohonzon
or any part of it was “erased” constitutes
simply another example of the way you distort facts to
fit your needs at the moment.
You insist that an essential aspect of the Gohonzon is
the name of the person on whom it was bestowed, or the
side script. This viewpoint is invalid and bears no relationship
to Nichiren Daishonin?s Buddhism, as evidenced below.
In the Gosho “The Real Aspect of the Gohonzon,”
the Daishonin makes a clear statement regarding the meaning
of the inscriptions on the Gohonzon:
This mandala is in no way Nichiren?s invention. It is
the object of worship which perfectly depicts Lord Shakyamuni
in the Treasure Tower and all the other Buddhas who were
present, as accurately as the print matches the woodblock….
Dwelling in the Gohonzon are all the Buddhas, bodhisattvas
and great saints, as well as the eight groups of sentient
beings of the two realms who appear in the first chapter
of the Lotus Sutra. Illuminated by the five characters
of the Mystic Law, they display the enlightened nature
they inherently possess. This is the true object of worship.”
(MW-1, 212)
The essence of the physical appearance of the Gohonzon
is the Daimoku and the true Buddha (Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
Nichiren) as the center, surrounded by the ten worlds
and the beings within them. This expresses in concrete
form the embodiment of the life of the true Buddha as
manifested through the principle of ichinen sanzen. For
this reason, we worship the Gohonzon as the Daishonin?s
body and mind. There is no Gosho that states that the
recipient?s name or the side script is an essential part
of the Gohonzon. It was with full knowledge of this fact
that the name of Honshobo Nissho was omitted during the
printing process for the okatagi (paper image) Gohonzon
distributed by the SGI.
On the Dai-Gohonzon, the name of Yashiro Kunishige is
inscribed as the recipient. If the side script is an essential
part of the Gohonzon, why did the successive high priests
not include the name of Yashiro Kunishige on all the Gohonzon
they transcribed?
The form and content of side scripts and dedications on
Gohonzon vary greatly. To cite just one example, an extant
Gohonzon contains the names of five generations of recipients;
each name was added as the Gohonzon changed hands. This
lack of uniformity with the Dai-Gohonzon, which bears
just one person?s name, is irrefutable evidence that side
scripts bear no relation to the appearance of the Gohonzon
or its power.
The side script “Conquer Russia” appears on
an okatagi Gohonzon transcribed by the 56th high priest,
Nichio Shonin, during the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
One wonders whether encouraging war contributes in any
way to the Gohonzon?s power.
There are many examples of Gohonzon which are missing
the side script. These include three Gohonzon held at
Josen-ji temple and one transcribed by Nichifu Shonin
where the side script is torn and missing.
Nikko Shonin explained the reason for putting side scripts
or dedications on the Gohonzon as follows:
Even if the parents have strong faith and receive Gohonzon,
their children may abandon it. Teachers may receive Gohonzon
due to their sincere service, but their disciples may
abandon them…. Therefore, to add the name of the
recipient [to the Gohonzon] is done for the purpose of
honoring and illustrating the recipient?s strong faith
for future generations. (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1606)
This is the true reason why side scripts and dedications
are sometimes added. SGI members? strong faith in the
Gohonzon entirely accords with Nikko Shonin?s spirit as
expressed here.
The fact that side scripts vary in content, are missing
from extant Gohonzon, and can be added at a later date
indicates that they bear no relationship to the power
of the Buddha and the Law contained within the Gohonzon.
Part I
Question 1: High Priest?s Possession of the Essence of
the Daishonin?s Teachings
In our open letter, we asked you to provide doctrinal
justification for your assertion that the high priest
has inherited the life of Nichiren Daishonin, and therefore
has the ability to transcribe the Gohonzon.
Where is the documentary proof for your assertion?
In your response, you state “…the high priest
possesses in his heart the essence of the Daishonin?s
teachings, and this is why he can transcribe the Gohonzon.”
However, in “On the Formalities of True Buddhism,”
Nichiu Shonin, the ninth high priest, states:
Those at branch temples who have disciples and lay patrons
may transcribe the mamori [Gohonzon]. However, they should
not place their seals on it…. Those at branch temples
who have disciples and lay patrons may transcribe the
mandala [i.e. the Gohonzon] yet may not place their seals
on it. (Essential Writings of the Fuji School, vol. 1,
p. 71)
During this era, branch temples transcribed Gohonzon for
their believers, subject to the condition that local priests
not place their personal seals on the Gohonzon.
These facts contradict your assertion that only the high
priest has the life-condition and authority to transcribe
the Gohonzon. “The heritage of the Law that only
the successive high priests inherit” is by no means
an absolute condition for the transcription of the Gohonzon.
Your statement reflects yet again your desire to confuse
sincere believers by turning formalities into essentials,
and essentials into formalities.
Merely by citing the historical fact that the high priest
transcribed the Gohonzon, you cannot assert that the high
priest holds the essence of the Daishonin?s teachings
within him. Doctrinal, theoretical and actual proof are
required to support such a statement, and we have ample
material on hand that demonstrates the falsity of your
thesis. We insist that you provide supporting evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
