Published by Soka Spirit Editor
Posted on December 07, 2011
SGI President Ikeda has been submitting peace proposals to the United Nations since 1983. They cover a broad range of topics and offer solutions to the challenges facing humankind. In some of them, he has addressed the nature of the conflict between the SGI and the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood and religion in general. The following excerpts are from those proposals.
1996 Peace Proposal—
Increasingly, people around the world are reexamining the significance of religion, a phenomenon that no doubt reflects a kind of spiritual anxiety they feel as the end of an era approaches. I believe this can be taken as proof of a growing awareness that the roots of our modern crisis are to be found in the human spirit.
How can religion respond to the deep-rooted insecurities and fundamental needs of people? What is the role of a living religion in today’s society? What are the necessary conditions for a world religion? Every religion is called upon to carefully consider and develop answers to such questions. Taking into account the prevailing conditions of our times, last year, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of our founding, we formulated and adopted the Charter of the Soka Gakkai International. Reaffirming the path we have pursued thus far, the charter gives voice to our core philosophy and offers guidelines for future action.
The basic spirit of the charter is expressed by the following passage, which appears in the Preamble:
“We believe that Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism, a humanistic philosophy of infinite respect for the sanctity of life and all-encompassing compassion, enables individuals to cultivate and bring forth their inherent wisdom and, nurturing the creativity of the human spirit, to surmount the difficulties and crises facing humankind and realize a society of peaceful and prosperous coexistence.
“We, the constituent organizations and members of SGI, therefore, being determined to raise high the banner of world citizenship, the spirit of tolerance, and respect for human rights based on the humanistic spirit of Buddhism, and to challenge the global issues that face humankind through dialogue and practical efforts premised on a steadfast commitment to nonviolence, hereby adopt this charter . . . .”
These three basic tenets—world citizenship, the spirit of tolerance, and respect for human rights—constitute essential conditions for a world religion in today’s world. Further, the charter sets out ten purposes and principles that will serve as guides for our future activities. Of these, three in particular are of special relevance to the idea of a united struggle by humankind against threats to human dignity.
#2. SGI, based on the ideal of world citizenship, shall safeguard fundamental human rights and not discriminate against any individual on any grounds.
#3. SGI shall respect and protect the freedom of religion and religious expression. . . .
#7. SGI shall, based on the Buddhist spirit of tolerance, respect other religions, engage in dialogue and work together with them toward the resolution of fundamental issues concerning humanity.
Twenty-two years ago, attempting to clarify the social mission of people who uphold religious beliefs, I had similar principles in mind as I presented the following argument in a lecture I gave at the 36th General Meeting of the Soka Gakkai in Japan.
At every opportunity, I have asserted that Buddhism thoroughly protects the sanctity of life and the freedom of the human spirit, and that this constitutes our mission. At times such as these, however, when a crisis is once again building, I wish to take the further step of reaffirming, as part of our religious belief, that we will go to all lengths to uphold the sanctity of life, the freedom of the human spirit, and genuine democracy. We are naturally committed to protecting freedom of religious belief.
Furthermore, responding to any crisis of human dignity that may emerge, we must be prepared to protect people whose rights are in danger, or who are threatened by tyranny or oppression, even if their beliefs and opinions differ from our own. For example, we should protect people who practice different religious faiths, as well as people who uphold systems of thought that deny religion altogether, because this is a necessary outgrowth of the core tenets of Buddhism, which extol the dignity of humanity.
I sought to emphasize in that speech the necessity of mounting a common struggle, transcending religious or doctrinal differences, against threats to human dignity. It is no exaggeration to say that human solidarity, the bonds of humanity, are at the very core of Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism. Because of its doctrinal rigor, Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism has often been viewed historically as rejectionist or dogmatic. This, however, must be termed a biased and one-dimensional view. While he consistently maintained the rigor and purity of his teaching, Nichiren Daishonin also emphasized: “The Nirvana Sutra states: ‘The sufferings of all living beings are the sufferings of the Buddha.’ And I say: ‘The sufferings experienced by all people are the sufferings of Nichiren.'”
As this statement shows, we must not forget that Nichiren Daishonin’s teachings were inspired by a profound empathy and compassion for people’s pain and sorrow; they are rooted in the concept, to put it in contemporary terms, of the universality of human rights. It is only natural for us to conclude, therefore, that we must transcend sectarian differences when the very foundation of what makes us human is being undermined by a crisis of human dignity.
I believe I made our position clear at that time. Furthermore, the various campaigns for peace we have pursued since then are a concrete manifestation of our understanding of the social mission of religion.
Since then, however, our progress was obstructed by our relationship with the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood, which sought to enforce their authority over the laity. They represent a reactionary force and have stubbornly clung to arguments of extraordinary absurdity. (They have insisted, for example, that singing the choral movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony violates Buddhist teachings because Schiller’s poem makes mention of ‘gods’). Under these circumstances we were unable to fully engage in interreligious dialogue or join in common causes with other organizations.
Happily, over the past several years, the SGI has been able to sever ties with the “Nikken Sect” through our efforts for religious reformation, and we have been able to shed the shackles of the old order.
Therefore, we have been able to return once more to the original sense and purpose of Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism. Based on this, we have sought to widen our efforts to engage others in open dialogue, with the aim of becoming a world religion capable of contributing to humanity in the twenty- first century. I also wish to emphasize that the recent adoption of the Charter of the Soka Gakkai International was intended as a step in this direction.
Remaining true to these core values, the SGI will continue to pursue socially engaged activities that enhance peace, culture, and education. Through these means, we will work to strengthen the fabric of solidarity throughout the world, fostering a new spirit of humanism. In order to overcome and rectify the inhumanity of our world, the time has come for people to choose hope and take decisive action.
Formulated on the basis of this understanding, the SGI charter is intended to respond to the needs of our times. I would now like to discuss some of the problems presently confronting the international community, developing my comments around the three principles of world citizenship, the spirit of tolerance, and respect for human rights as expressed in the charter and rooted in its underlying spirit of humanism.
2005 Peace Proposal—
In the Buddhist scriptures we find these words: “Shakyamuni taught that the shallow is easy to embrace, but the profound is difficult. To discard the shallow and seek the profound is the way of a person of courage.” People seem too easily to lose sight of and forget their own capacity for courage, to cling and become captive to a particular dogma. We seem to possess an instinctive weakness that drives us to the shallow and easy choice of unquestioning, blind belief in dogma.
There the snares of extremism await, ready to take advantage of the weakness and folly that are found in all people, where pandering and other stratagems are used to stir up such destructive tendencies as hatred, fury, jealousy and arrogance. This kind of dogmatism works to degrade, weaken and stultify the human spirit. It stands at the opposite pole to humanism.
The controversy between the members of the SGI and the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood that flared up in 1990 is a case in point. In its essence a struggle against the perils of religious authoritarianism, it embodies a movement for religious reform that is at its heart the struggle of humanism against anti-humanism. Hiding behind their assumed authority as priests, the Nichiren Shoshu establishment sought to blind others to their corruption and degradation, and to crush and oppress the spirits of lay believers. This indeed represents the worst form of anti-humanism.
For the members of the SGI, to have allowed ourselves to be cowed and defeated by this would have been to surrender our humanity. The implications of this controversy go beyond the scope of a single school of Buddhism. Rooted in the universal spirit of human dignity—that which we feel to be human—we believe it would be a disservice to humanity if we were to retreat on this issue.
When the priesthood issue first arose, the educator Taro Hori (1920–95) (at the time president of Newton College, Shiga) offered this analysis: “This represents a challenge to the authoritarianism and supplicant faith lurking in each person’s heart. By overcoming this, each member [of the SGI] will grow and develop to an astonishing degree.”
In the years since this issue first surfaced, through our struggles against corrupt religious authority, members of the SGI have, both as individuals and as an organization, outgrown the restraints of our past selves, strengthening and tempering the hearts of the courageous. It is something of which I believe we can be justly proud. This pride stems from the confidence that our struggle ties into the larger challenge— inherent in the nature of civilization itself—of constructing a genuine and robust humanism.
2008 Peace Proposal—
As a Buddhist, I direct my deepest concern toward the mentality that might be described as a slide toward fundamentalism. This is not limited to the religious fundamentalism that has been the subject of so much debate, but includes ethnocentrism, chauvinism, racism, and a dogmatic adherence to various ideologies, including those of the market. Such fundamentalisms flourish in conditions of chaos and disorder. What is common to all of them is that abstract principles and ideas take precedence over living human beings who in turn are forced into a subservient role.
The kind of humanism I am convinced our times require is one capable of confronting and halting the slide toward fundamentalism. This is the work of restoring people and humanity to the role of central protagonist, something which ultimately can only be undertaken through a ceaseless spiritual effort to train and to temper ourselves.
The Buddhist teaching is that the ultimate principle and essential nature of all phenomena is to be found nowhere other than in the human heart. This universal “Buddha nature”—sometimes symbolized by the image of the Buddha seated on a lotus flower dais—is the pure, undefiled, and indestructible aspect of the human heart. The determination to respect all people that forms the bedrock of Buddhist humanism brings us to see that not only sectarian differences but also differences of ideology, culture, and ethnicity are never absolute. These differences, like the order and organization of human society itself, are only relative; they should be treated as flexible, fluid concepts that need to be constantly renegotiated so as best to serve human needs. This is what it means for people—and not abstract principles—to be the protagonists of destiny.
If we are to halt this slide toward fanaticism, we cannot be content to regard it as passive bystanders. A true humanist cannot avoid or abandon the struggle against evil. Humanism, as mentioned, is a word and a concept with both positive aspects—peace and tolerance, moderation—and negative possibilities—a tendency for easy compromise and merely lukewarm commitment. Unless we can break through and rise above these negative aspects, we will not be capable of countering the extremism that is the special characteristic of fanaticism.
Today, the SGI’s Buddhist movement has spread globally and enjoys the support of a wide range of sectors of society. I believe this is because we propound a universal humanism that transcends sectarian and dogmatic frameworks. In doing so, we have taken up the challenge that is so central to the history of civilization—the humanization of religion.
The key to waging a successful struggle for the ideals of humanism lies in dialogue, a challenge that is as old (and as new) as humanity itself. It is part of the essential nature of human beings to be dialogical; to abandon dialogue is in effect to abandon our humanity. Without dialogue, society is wrapped in the silence of the grave.
Rooted in the conviction that dialogue is the very lifeblood of religion, I have met with more than 7,000 thinkers and leaders in various fields, and have published almost 50 dialogues, beginning with that which I conducted with the British historian Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975) (published in English as Choose Life in 1976). My interlocutors have included representatives of the Christian and Confucian spheres of civilization, as well as people hailing from Islamic and Hindu civilizations—cultures with which Japan had relatively little historical contact. I conducted numerous dialogues with representatives of the former communist bloc. In terms of disciplines, my meetings with scholars have not been limited to specialists in the humanities but have included physicists, astronomers, and other practitioners of the natural sciences.
The Buddhist scriptures teach that “immeasurable meanings derive from the one law.”[i] In conducting these dialogues, I have based myself on my personal commitment to Buddhist humanism. I have been motivated by the desire to create, through the steady practice of dialogue, bridges linking different religions, civilizations, and disciplines, and to contribute to making an open and universal humanism the tenor of the new era.
SGI representatives regularly participate in interfaith dialogue. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the SGI represented the Buddhist tradition at a symposium on the role of religion in building peace sponsored by the European Academy of Sciences and Arts which was also attended by representatives of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths. In addition, research institutions I have founded—the Institute of Oriental Philosophy, the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, and the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century—are all actively engaged in promoting dialogue among religions and civilizations.
In the realm of religion, with its tragic legacy of fanaticism and intolerance, nothing is more vital than dialogue that transcends dogmatism and is predicated on the exercise of reason and self-mastery. For any religion to relinquish dialogue is to relinquish its reason for being. For the SGI, this means that in our quest to promote Buddhist humanism, we must never allow the banner of dialogue, the sine qua non of humanism, to fall—no matter how threatening the rejectionist forces of fanaticism, mistrust or dogmatism may loom.
Dialogue that is abandoned midway is meaningless. Genuine dialogue is that which is pursued consistently and with conviction. To manifest our true worth as Homo loquens requires that we wage this kind of committed spiritual struggle. And this requires that we bring forth our highest virtues as human beings: our goodness, strength, and wisdom. To be worthy of the name, religions must offer us the means for unleashing these qualities: they must promote a revolutionary change in human beings. This was the reason that my Harvard address focused on the essential role Mahayana Buddhism can play in 21st century civilization. This has been my consistent conviction.
[i] Nichiren, Writings, 295.