4/4 The Write Stuff

We've looked at leadership (http://nichirenbuddhist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/14-leaders-of-pack.html), chanting (http://nichirenbuddhist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/24-mantra-and-mandala.html) and SGI specifics (http://nichirenbuddhist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/34-s-g-why.html), so today we have the Gosho.

On 24 April 1952, the Nichiren Shoshu Gosho was first published.  These complete writings of Nichiren Daishonin form the basis for today’s final look at the differences between the SGI and other Nichiren schools.

Complete or Compromised?

Before I look at what is included, let’s briefly look at what wasn’t included in the Soka Gakkai’s “Complete” writings.  First, any private rough notes, drafts or annotations of Buddhist sutras or the writings of T’ien-t’ai or Dengyo were excluded.  Second, even though Nichiren writes in Letter to Misawa, “As for my teachings, regard those before my exile to the province of Sado as equivalent to the Buddha’s pre-Lotus Sutra teachings” (WND-1, p896), Nichiren Shoshu took their starting point as any writings written from April 28^th 1253 onwards as this was the day that Nichiren Buddhism was established with Nichiren chanting “Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo” for the first time.

The Gosho of Nichiren Shoshu does contain many additional writings to the other schools though, as we include Nichiren’s writings in Nikko Shonin’s handwriting, which some of the other schools believe are DEFINITELY NOT Nichiren’s writings or MAY NOT be his writings.  The writings in Nikko’s handwriting are either those he wrote which Nichiren dictated or they are letters to followers, which Nikko copied after the Daishonin’s death, because the followers wanted to keep their original letters (which have since become lost or destroyed). 

I don’t really understand why some of the other major Nichiren schools are so negative towards these later letters in Nikko’s handwriting when the founders of their school (such as Nichiren Shu) used to disparage Nikko by referring to him as Nichiren’s secretary, rather than a priest of equal standing to them.  Surely, if they though he was simply a secretary, letters dictated to him and written in his handwriting should be more readily accepted as genuine.

Gosho vs. Lotus Sutra

Nichikan (and Josei Toda) interpreted “being familiar with the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin” as being familiar exclusively with the Gosho (which represents Nichiren’s Buddhism), whereas other schools believe that we should primarily study Shakyamuni’s Lotus Sutra as this is the Buddhist teaching that Nichiren adopted as true Buddhism and constantly praises in the Gosho.  It’s a subtle difference but to clarify Nichikan and Toda believed you didn’t need to specifically study the Lotus Sutra (as all of the key stories and wisdom of the Lotus Sutra are covered and explained within the Gosho). 

Having said that, the Lotus Sutra is still available to buy in SGI shops with an introduction by President Ikeda stating:

“The Lotus Sutra clearly and definitively reveals the Buddha nature that is an integral part of the lives of all people. … The Buddha nature, which is inherent in all living beings, is a universal and fundamental source or fountain of hope. …And the Lotus Sutra is the text that most forcefully asserts this truth”

And, President Ikeda has also published a series of six books explaining the relevance of the Lotus Sutra in connection with the Gosho and our lives today.  This would imply to me that while the SGI may ultimately see the Gosho as our main study material, we are not discouraged from studying the Lotus Sutra if we want further information on the teaching that informed Nichiren’s practice.

INTERPRETATIONS

In addition to assigning importance to certain Gosho over others or deciding to what extent the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin (the ultimate text of Nichiren Buddhism) supercedes the Lotus Sutra (the ultimate text of Buddhism), if at all, when we look at each sentence of the Lotus Sutra and Gosho, they may be open to misinterpretation by:

(i)      Mistranslation – The fact that there is such a fuss over the single word “Nam”/“Namu” implies that there could be a million possible errors when translating the Lotus Sutra into Japanese from the original language or similarly when translating the Japanese Gosho into the English Writings.

For example, some Japanese SGI members have said that the concept of “earthly desires are enlightenment” in the English Gosho should actually read “earthly desires become enlightenment“.  It’s a subtle difference but rather than supporting the belief that we should chant for earthly desires, it highlights that while we are chanting for earthly desires, as our wisdom comes out, we realize the value of chanting for something more beneficial to all humanity and change our focus or, if our chanting for earthly desires does manifest itself in a positive result, it deepens our faith in the practise which in turn changes the focus of our chanting.  So chanting for earthly desires can cause us to deepen our faith and awaken our Buddhahood to make more humanitarian causes in the future.  Earthly desires become enlightenment.

(ii)    Reading Between the Lines – Incorrectly reading either the direct intention of the Lotus Sutra or Gosho, or incorrectly understanding the “hidden meaning” of the writings.

(iii)  Subjective Reading – Only reading the passages that confirm your belief, but ignoring those that seem to contradict this belief or you feel may have been put in by mistake.

Tomorrow is the culmination of the series in which I look at why I believe the SGI is the true school of Nichiren Buddhism in the world today.
 (http://nichirenbuddhist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-single-truth.html)