The following is a translation of Soka Gakkai Youth Division Chief Masaaki Masaki's letter to High Priest Nikken dated Sept. 27, 1992. The letter appeared in three installments in the Sept. 30 and Oct. 1-2 issues of the Seikyo Shimbun.
At a nationwide certified priests seminar on Aug. 28, 1992, you gave a sermon regarding the transmission of the heritage of the Law. In the sermon, you vilified and calumniated the Soka Gakkai; furthermore, you propounded many erroneous views that none of the previous high priests have ever mentioned. This sermon brought your unprincipled nature to light. Many priests at the seminar felt disturbed by your incomprehensible, self-serving argument.
The Soka Gakkai now has no relation to the 'Nikken sect,' which is headed by you as high priest. In this sense, whatever you may say deserves no more attention than the suspicious teachings of a new-age cult leader. Your recent sermon, however, concerns the heritage of the Law -- a matter of great import in Buddhism. If you and the rest of the Nikken sect continue to spread self-serving, erroneous doctrines and cause people to sink more deeply into the abyss of unhappiness, I, as a Buddhist practitioner, cannot remain silent. In the following, therefore, I indicate the main issues that arise from contradictions contained in your sermons. In so doing I wish to refute your views.
You have a habit, as time goes by, or either forgetting or reversing your statements without any sense of remorse. To avoid such a situation in this case, I demand that you answer my questions within ten days of receiving this letter.
I would regard the lack of your sincere response to mean that the recent sermon is your own improvised doctrine based on your disturbed mind and, especially, no response to my questions regarding your own heritage of the Law would indicate that you have some compelling circumstances preventing you from answering.
If tried to address every problem in your recent sermon in great detail here, it would be futile -- there are too many to enumerate. Many of your statements are incoherent and inconsistent. So the strict scrutiny of your recent sermon shall be conducted some other time. In this letter I would like to discuss only the main issues, which can be summarized in the following nine points:
1. You acknowledged the historical existence of boy high priests.
6. You acknowledged that a high priest can be ousted by believers if he commits an error.
9. You avoided making any specific statement about your own receipt of the heritage of the Law.
In the following I examine each issue and refute your views.
1. You acknowledged the historical existence of boy high priests.
Nitchin (1469-1527) became twelfth high priest at 14, and Nichiin (1518-1589) became the thirteenth high priest at 10. Regarding this, you stated:
There were times when boys became high priests. There was a certain historical background to this....
Under certain circumstances people in the sect considered the appointment of a boy high priest appropriate and supported him, thus securing the transmission of the heritage of the Law.
You clearly admitted that in the past there had been boy high priests. The fact of Nitchin and Nichiin becoming high priest as young boys is recorded in The Chronology of the Fuji School published by the [Nichiren Shoshu] Fuji Seminary and is shared knowledge within the sect. And now you yourself as a high priest are voluntarily acknowledged it. In this regard, I ask you the following questions:
(1) The existence of boy high priests raises several important issues about the transmission of the heritage of the Law.
First, for example, when a 10-year-old boy receives the heritage of the Law and thus becomes a high priest, he may not understand difficult Buddhist doctrines. As you stated in the sermon, 'If you wanted to teach a child [Buddhist doctrines], you would have to teach him everything.' Common sense tells us that it would be almost impossible to teach the most profound Buddhist doctrines, solely during the transfer ceremony, to a boy who just began his Buddhist practice and needs to learn everything.
However, you argued that even if a high priest is a boy, he inherited the heritage of the Law. If so, it is natural to assume that one can become a high priest although he does not have a thorough understanding of the Buddhist teaching.
Or do you think that one can become a high priest only when he understands the profound Buddhist teaching? What is your view on this? I demand a clear answer from you.
(2) If a boy high priest did not have thorough understanding of the essential Buddhist teaching that had been transmitted within Nichiren Shoshu, it indicates that the Buddhist teaching is not exclusively the possession of a high priest. In other words, the heritage of the Law with regard to the Buddhist teaching had been transmitted by the entire clergy. Again, as you stated, "People in the sect considered the appointment of a boy high priest appropriate and supported him, thus securing the transmission of the heritage of the Law."
This view accords with the view of Nichio (1848-1922), the fifty-sixth high priest. He categorized the transmission of the heritage of the Law into the transmission of the entity of the Law (the specific transmission) and the transmission of the Buddhist teaching (the general transmission). Nichio states in his Benwaku Kanjinsho: 'Not a single person among disciples -- priests or lay believers -- of Nichiren Daishonin and Nikko Shonin receives the general transmission of the Buddhist teaching alone.' Nichio held that the heritage of the Law in terms of the Buddhist teaching is transmitted by the entire sect.
If the Buddhist teaching is transmitted by the entire sect, the authority to define and interpret the Daishonin's doctrine does not reside in the high priest alone; rather, it lies in the consensus of the entire sect. What is your view on this point?
If this is the case, the Nikken sect's view that only the high priest possesses the entirety of the Daishonin's teaching is erroneous and thus should be retracted.
Or do you still insist that the high priest alone is vested with the authority to interpret the Buddhist doctrine? If so, did the entire sect follow the boy high priest's understanding of the Buddhist doctrine in the past? If you insist that the rest of the priesthood just followed the child high priests' doctrinal interpretation, it would contradict your statement that the rest of the priesthood 'supported' the child high priest, would it not? How do you explain this contradiction?
(3) It is recorded that a 10-year-old boy became high priest. How early in age can one become a high priest? Can a 2- or 3-year-old become a high priest? How about a newborn baby? If a 10-year-old boy can become a high priest while a newborn baby cannot, why is that so? You, who, as a high priest, publicly recognized the existence of boy high priests, have an obligation to clarify these points.
(4) Currently both the priests and lay believers of the Nikken sect are spreading the distorted doctrine that the high priest's true identity is one and same as the Dai-Gohonzon and the Daishonin. If this assertion were correct, would the true identity of a boy high priest -- even if he is a newborn baby -- be same as the Daishonin? If so, this would mean that many priests in the past received the profound Buddhist teaching from children. What kind of teaching did these boy high priests expound?
The fact that boy high priests indicates that high priest who supposedly received the heritage of the Law were not people of special power beyond that of ordinary people.
Nichiko (1867-1957), the fifty-ninth high priest, once expressed his personal feelings after having become high priest: 'I am completely uncertain as to whether my person and character have improved because my status is the priesthood advanced and my name changed' (Dai-Nichiren, April 1926). He indicated that a person does not undergo some special change just by becoming high priest.
Your acknowledgment of the existence of boy high priests, therefore, is the same as admitting the error of your own esoteric, mysterious view of the heritage of the Law that one gains some special ability and life-condition upon becoming high priest. Can I interpret your sermon to indicate that you revised your previous view of the heritage of the Law?
(5) To take the matter further, when a boy became high priest, there were adults of more capability supporting him. This indicates that a high priest's ability and capacity have no bearing on his eligibility to be high priest.
The significance of the transmission of the heritage of the Law, therefore, lies in choosing not a most capable successor but an individual who is considered fit for the symbolic position of high priest to unify the priesthood. For this reason, even a boy whose ability was not sufficient could become a high priest if he was not considered to be fit for that symbolic position. What is your view on this point?
(6) Nisshu (1555-1617), who became the fourteenth high priest at 19, later wrote in his 'On the Transfer Document from Nikko to Nichimoku':
At Taiseki-ji, the Gohonzon is in itself the letter of transfer [of the heritage of the Law]. In other words, this is the meaning of the specific transmission [of the heritage of the Law] to a sole individual.
Here Nisshu clarifies that the specific transmission of the heritage of the Law is the transfer of the Gohonzon. As you quoted in the sermon, Nichio (1848-1922), the fifty-sixth high priest, explained that the transmission of the heritage of the entity of the Law is the transfer of the Dai-Gohonzon of the High Sanctuary. Therefore, it is clear that the meaning of the transmission of the heritage of the entity of the Law lies in the protection and transmission of the Dai-Gohonzon of the High Sanctuary. What is your view on this point?
What is important in the transmission of the heritage of the entity of the Law, that is, embracing and preserving the Gohonzon, is the lifeblood of faith. As the Daishonin states in 'Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life,' 'Without the lifeblood of faith, it would be useless to embrace the Lotus Sutra' (MW-1, 25).
In your recent sermon, however, you downplayed the significance of the lifeblood of faith, which is indispensable for the transmission of the heritage of the entity of the Law, calling it 'leaves and branches.' Later in this letter I will clarify this point in more detail. The lifeblood of faith is the foundation and the essence of the transmission of the heritage of the Law. Slighting the significance of the lifeblood of faith, therefore, is to deny the entirety of the transmission of the heritage of the Law. What is your view on this point?
In their letter dated July 31, 1991, and addressed to the Soka Gakkai Senior Council members, who have been practicing since the time of the first Soka Gakkai president, Makiguchi, the senior executive priests arrogantly proclaimed, 'In the future you will end up denying the heritage of the Law, which has been transmitted only from one high priest to the next in Nichiren Shoshu.
However, by making a statement to deny the importance of the lifeblood of faith, you yourself denied the heritage of the Law, exposing your true identity as a destroyer of the Law. Your act is grave enough to call for not only your resignation but your eternal ouster from the Daishonin's Buddhism. How do you intend to repent of this and expiate your sins? Please clarify your intention.
(7) Nichiren Daishonin transmitted the entirety of his teachings to Nikko Shonin on the profound level of life, which can be described with the passage from the Lotus Sutra, 'The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas.' After all, the existence of boy high priests in the past indicates that the transmission of the heritage of the Law from the Daishonin to Nikko Shonin is fundamentally different in nature from the protection and transmission of the entity of the Law (i.e. the Dai-Gohonzon) after Nichimoku, the third high priest. And the two should never be confused.
Nichido, the fourth high priest, states in his 'Account of the Three Teachers': 'At the time [of the Atsuhara Persecution], the Daishonin felt the bond with Nikko Shonin and thus inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon' (Essential Writings of the Fuji School, vol. 5, p. 8). Nichido explains that through his life-to-life bond of master and disciple with Nikko Shonin, the Daishonin inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon. The true intent of the transmission of the heritage of the Law after Nichimoku lies in the transmission of the Dai-Gohonzon for posterity through faith. As proof, Nikko Shonin explains in 'The Transfer Document from Nikko to Nichimoku' that the reason he entrusted Nichimoku with 'the Dai-Gohonzon of the second year of Koan, which Nikko inherited' is the latter's outstanding faith and practice. Nichimoku always served the Daishonin, as he remonstrated with authority for fifty years after the Daishonin's passing. How do you, who recognized the existence of boy high priests, respond to this?
Return To Top
2. You acknowledged instances in the past where the heritage of the Law was transferred, for so-called temporary custody, to someone other than a high priest.
Regarding the so-called temporary custody of the heritage of the Law, in the recent sermon you said, 'Even if [the heritage of the Law] was transferred to [someone other than a high priest] for temporary custody, it does not present any problem.
As you mentioned in your sermon, the transmission of the heritage of the Law was conducted from Nissho (1562-1622), the fifteenth high priest, to Nichiju (1567-1632), the sixteenth high priest, via Rikyo-bo Nichigi as a 'temporary custodian.' As a most recent example, Nissho (1861-1923), the fifty-seventh high priest, entrusted two 'lay' believers with the heritage of the Law later to be transferred to Nitchu (1865-1928), the fifty-eighth high priest. I ask you to clarify the following questions regarding temporary custody of the heritage of the Law.
(1) The temporary custody of the heritage of the Law indicates that someone other than a high priest can know of the content of the transmission; it does not have to be a secret. It also indicates that the content of the transmission is not the sole property of the high priest. What is your view on this?
(2) As well as the existence of boy high priests, the temporary custody of the heritage of the Law disproves your assertion that the Daishonin's enlightened life-condition gets transferred to a high priest when he receives the heritage of the Law. According to your theory that the identity of an individual who receives the heritage of the Law is the same as the Daishonin, there would be individuals who possess the identical life-condition as the Daishonin other than the high priest whenever the heritage of the Law is placed under temporary custody. This clearly contradicts your long-standing assertion that the heritage of the Law shall be transmitted to a sole successor -- to no one but a high priest.
If you assert that someone other than a high priest who received the heritage of the Law for temporary custody does not possess the same life-condition as the Daishonin, it would be admitting your assertion that a person who received the heritage of the Law possesses the identical life-condition as the Daishonin is wrong. What is your view on this point?
(3) Regarding temporary custody of the heritage of the Law, what is placed under custody anyways? Is it the Daishonin's enlightened life? If as, an individual who received it would possess the identical life-condition as the Daishonin. Is it a secret doctrine? Or is it some article that proves the legitimate transmission? Since you said in your sermon that the temporary custody 'does not present any problem,' I ask you to clarify this point.
(4) In the sermon you also stated that as long as there is a prior reciprocal communication of the high priest's will to transmit the heritage of the Law and the next successor's will to accept it, there is no problem with entrusting the heritage of the Law to someone other than the next high priest. If so, can I assume that the content of the transmission is simply the reciprocal exchange of the will between a high priest and his successor? How did the reciprocal communication between high Priest Nittatsu and you take place?
Regarding the oral transmission of the heritage of the Law, you stated that a high priest 'from time to time' would orally transmit the heritage of the Law to the next person 'before' he officially transferred the heritage of the Law, that is, bestowed the position of high priest. What is the difference between the contents of the oral transmission prior to the transfer of the position and contents of the final transmission, which, in the case of temporary custody, has to be transmitted to someone else? Which is more important? If something must be transmitted, even by the hands of someone other than a high priest, that seems to be more important. What is your position? Does oral transmission of the heritage of the Law conducted before the official transfer regard the doctrine or the entity of the Law? Please answer each question with clarity.
Return To Top
3. You stated that a transfer ceremony is not indispensable for the heritage of the Law to be transmitted from one high priest to the next.
In the sermon, you stated: 'High Priest Nittatsu said that the formality [of the transfer ceremony] is not necessary.' Borrowing High Priest Nittatsu's words, you mentioned that it is not necessary to have a ceremony to transmit the heritage of the Law. Regarding this, I ask you the following questions:
(1) One significance of holding the transfer ceremony lies in making it known to the rest of the priesthood that the transmission of the heritage of the Law actually took place. If you say that the transfer ceremony is not necessary, then where should we seek proof of the legitimate transmission of the heritage of the Law?
(2) Nichiko, the fifty-ninth high priest, stated in his thesis 'Historical Analysis on the Extinction of the Heritage of the Law':
About the transmission of the heritage of the Law, especially the oral transmission, the following question naturally arises. Does the validity of the transmission derive from the ceremony and formality or from the person of the high priest?
High Priest Nichiko states that the validity and legitimacy of the transmission of the heritage of the Law can be based on either the ceremony or the person. As you say, if the transfer ceremony is not necessary, the faith and practice of the person who received the transmission is naturally the only source of his legitimacy. What is your position on this?
If so, as you clearly stated at the scroll-airing ceremony in 1987, the foundation of the transmission of the heritage of the Law is nothing but the lifeblood of faith to correctly inherit the Daishonin's spirit. If the high priest's faith and practice has no bearing on his legitimacy and the high priest's authority derives solely from the fact that he is the high priest, the transfer ceremony to make the entire sect known of the legitimate transmission becomes necessary. This would contradict the assertion in your recent sermon. What do you think?
(3) However, you are trying to validate your legitimacy with a method that is neither the lifeblood of faith nor the transfer ceremony. In the sermon you talked about your dream thirty year ago. Your body got up while you were still asleep, and your mouth, while you were still unconscious, uttered 'study department chief'; when you went to the head temple the next day, High Priest Nittatsu appointed you a study department chief -- so your story goes. Assuming an air of importance, you talked about your experience and then stated that such is the 'mind of reciprocal response.' You continued that in transmitting the heritage of the Law having such 'mind' is more important that the ceremony itself.
If a story such as yours can be considered important proof of the transmission of the heritage of the Law, Nichiren Shoshu would be no different from new-age religions whose founders base their teachings on divine revelation or an oracle. You were compelled to resort to such a weaker proof of legitimacy than faith and practice because you lack confidence in your faith and practice. Am I correct?
(4) Jikaku (794-864), a high priest of the Japanese Tendai sect, had dreamt of shooting an arrow at the sun and justified his erroneous doctrine [that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Shingon teaching] based on his dream. Regarding him, the Daishonin issues a strict admonishment:
He should not make dreams a basis for evaluating the Buddhist teachings. Rather, he should pay particular attention to those sutras and treatises that make clear the relative superiority of the Lotus Sutra and the Dainichi Sutra. (MW-3, 156)
The Daishonin here refutes Jikaku, saying that one should evaluate Buddhism based not on dreams but on documentary proof. If a dream can be a basis for Buddhism, any proof can establish their own teachings based on their alleged dreams. You attempt to consider your dream a basis for Buddhism clearly goes against the instruction of the Daishonin, who always valued theoretical and documentary proof. You have committed yet another error by going against the Gosho. How will you take responsibility for this?
In any case, you proved yourself to be a slanderous high priest just like Jikaku, who distorted the orthodox Buddhism of T'ien-t'ai into the esotericism of Shingon.
(5) You talked about your dream revelation when you became a study department chief. How about when you received the transmission of the heritage of the Law from High Priest Nittatsu? Did you not receive an oracle in your dream? You even used the Buddhist terms 'mind of reciprocal response' to describe such an 'important' event. If there was such an occurrence when you became study department chief, you must have had a much more wonderful revelation when you became high priest. Did you not? And if not, why is it that you had a revelation only when you became study department chief? This question regards your own transmission of the heritage of the Law, so please clarify your view on this.
Return To Top
4. You stated that the lifeblood of faith is 'leaves and branches' for the transmission of the heritage of the Law.
In the recent sermon, you stated:
[Soka Gakkai members] are discussing the lifeblood of faith, excluding the heritage of the entity of the Law. They are just preoccupied with leaves and branches.
You referred to the lifeblood of faith, whose importance the Daishonin explains in the Gosho 'Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life,' as being merely 'leaves and branches.' I ask you the following questions on this point:
(1) Regarding the lifeblood of faith, the Daishonin states: 'Never seek any other way to inherit the ultimate law and manifest it in your life' (MW-1, 25). Your arrogant statement, which slights the lifeblood of faith shows grave disrespect toward the ideas expressed in the Gosho. What is your response?
(2) Your statement also goes against the following instructions of high priest Nichiu and Nichiko, who stressed that the heritage of the Law is same as faith.
Nichiu (1402-1482), the ninth high priest, states in his 'On the Formalities of True Buddhism':
Faith, the heritage of the Law and the pure flow of the entity of the Law are identical. Unswayed faith indicates the unbroken lineage, thus the correctly transmitted heritage of the Law and the uninterrupted pure flow of the entity of the Law. (The Essential Writings of the Fuji School, vol. 1, p. 64)
High Priest Nichiko states in his 'Commentary on 'On the Formalities of True Buddhism'':
In the final analysis, faith, the heritage of the Law and the pure flow of the entity of the Law refer to the same thing....
If faith is swayed, the pure flow of the entity of the Law ceased to flow. If one insists that it does not cease to flow, then the heritage of the Law and the pure flow of the entity of the Law, I shall say, become defiled and corrupt. Then Buddhism still ceases to exist. (ibid., p. 176)
In light of these instructions, your statement not only slights faith but also describes the heritage of the Law and the pure flow of the Law as 'leaves and branches.
What is the heritage of the entity of the Law that you talk about from the lifeblood of faith? It is clear that there is no such thing. Such is a doctrine of the newly established Nikken sect.
Furthermore, it is indicative of your own lack of faith that you do not understand that the heritage of the Law and the pure flow of the Law are the same as faith. As High Priest Nichiko points out, what you think you inherited is already 'defiled and corrupt' and the Daishonin's Buddhism ceased to exist in the Nikken sect. What do you think?
(3) At the scroll-airing ceremony in 1987, you stated that the lifeblood of faith constitutes the foundation for the transmission of the heritage of the Law, thus completely contradicting your recent sermon. How do you explain this contradiction?
You stated:
How did Nikko Shonin come to attain the state of oneness with Nichiren Daishonin? As the Daishonin states in 'Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life,' 'Without the lifeblood of faith, it would be useless to embrace the Lotus Sutra' (MW-1, 25). For he, honest and upright, gentle in mind, accepted the teaching and decree of the original Buddha of the Buddhism of the sowing in the Latter Day regarding the doctrine and the entity of the Law of the profound Three Great Secret Laws of the true Buddhism, the revelation of which is the ultimate purpose of the Daishonin's advent in this world. For he understood -- through his lifeblood of faith -- the entirety of the Daishonin's ultimate wisdom to perceive the ultimate truth and he received the entirety of the pure flow of the Daishonin's wisdom....
The lifeblood of faith constitutes the foundation for the transmission of the heritage of the Law. Through the lifeblood of faith does the heritage of the teaching and the entity of the Law, the foundation of which lies in the Buddha's true and profound wisdom to perceive the ultimate reality, flow through from one vessel to another.
When did the lifeblood of faith change form 'the foundation' to 'leaves and branches'? Please indicate when you changed your view and the motivation and rationale behind it.
Return To Top
5. You stated that it is wrong to think the Daishonin's Buddhism lives within the practice of the successive Soka Gakkai presidents.
(1) In the sermon, you stated that it is wrong to think that the Daishonin's Buddhism lives in the practice of the successive Soka Gakkai presidents. However, you did not cite a single Gosho passage to validate your assertion. If you choose to insist on your assertion, you should be able to clarify the rationale in light of the Gosho and reason. If you cannot do so, your assertion is nothing more than a false accusation. This would be utterly unbecoming of a high priest, would it not?
(2) Your assertion also contradicts your own somewhat recent statement about the lifeblood of faith existing in the practice of the successive Soka Gakkai presidents. Five years ago, you stated:
When individuals of outstanding faith and understanding assiduously and courageously strive without harboring any doubt about the lifeblood of faith shared between the founder and the second high priest, they -- whether priests or lay believers -- can widely transmit the lifeblood of faith from laity to laity or from priest to priest, thus benefiting the people. This is an aspect of the Buddhism of sowing. The great proof of this lies in the transmission of the lifeblood of faith through the first, second and third presidents of the Soka Gakkai who established the foundation of the widespread propagation of the True Law in Japan and the rest of the world.
This is your official guidance at the scroll-airing ceremony, one of the most important and traditional ceremonies of the priesthood. I assume that you did not deliver this speech out of your whim. How do you explain such inconsistency?
(3) In your recent sermon, you also said, 'I cannot tolerate [the Gakkai's] heritage of master and disciple.' You denied the existence of the master-and-disciple relationship in the Soka Gakkai. This statement fundamentally contradicts the instruction of High Priest Nichijun, who acknowledged the master-and-disciple relationship in the Soka Gakkai.
At the second Kyushu Soka Gakkai general meeting, High Priest Nichijun stated:
What is the basis of faith in the Soka Gakkai? It is of foremost importance that [Soka Gakkai members] clearly establish the master-and-disciple relationship and thereby deepen their faith. The Soka Gakkai's stout faith that we see today entirely originates there.
Do you think that High Priest Nichijun's view is wrong? If so, can you clarify where his error lies?
Return To Top
6. You acknowledged that a high priest can be ousted by believers if he commits an error.
Nikko Shonin states in 'The Twenty-six Admonitions,' 'Do not follow even the high priest if he goes against the Buddha's Law and propounds his own views' (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1618; World Tribune, Oct. 28, 1991). Regarding this passage, you said in the sermon, 'If the high priest propounds his own views, people should not follow him -- I think there can be such an instance.' You admitted the possibility that a high priest can go against Buddhism. If a high priest starts chanting nembutsu (the name of the Amida Buddha), you added, 'you must impeach him.' Regarding this, I ask you to answer the following questions.
(1) Many priests hold that a high priest is absolute and infallible, saying, 'If the high priest calls white black, it's black.' With your recent statement, do you deny the infallibility of high priest and admit that those priests are making a mistake?
(2) In the past, you interpreted 'Do not follow even the high priest...' as passive resistance. 'Impeach,' however, is clearly an active verb. Do you now say that your past interpretation was wrong?
(3) I think that erecting a headstone in a Zen temple cemetery is as justifiable a reason for the high priest's impeachment as is chanting nembutsu. Yet you continue to hold on to your position. What is your rationale for this in light of Buddhism?
What can be a reason for the high priest's impeachment other than chanting nembutsu? If your impropriety in Seattle is proven, it would mean that you not only paid for prostitutes but also lied to the entirety of Nichiren Shoshu and to the public at large. Would this be enough for your impeachment? If not, can you clarify the reason?
(4) You acknowledged Nikko Shonin's statement '[the high priest] goes against the Buddha's Law and propounds his own views.' Does this mean that you also acknowledged the erroneousness of your own view that the high priest's interpretation is the Buddha's teaching?
In light of Nikko Shonin's admonishment, it is obvious that the high priest's interpretation is not the Buddha's teaching. If you accept this statement of Nikko Shonin, then where do you seek the criteria to judge whether one is going against the Buddha's teaching? I think it is nowhere other than in the Gosho.
If the Gosho is the standard of evaluating one's view on Buddhism, the Gakkai's attitude to base everything on the Gosho clearly accords with the intent of the Daishonin and Nikko Shonin. Do you accept this?
If you say this, you might say that although believers of other Nichiren sects read the Gosho, if people wish to read the Gosho correctly, they must strive to understand it in accordance with the guidance of the high priest who inherited the heritage of the Law.
Nikko Shonin already established the doctrinal basis of Nichiren Shoshu. Nichiren Daishonin is the original Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law and the object of worship in terms of the Person; the Dai-Gohonzon of the High Sanctuary is the object of worship in terms of the Law for the Latter Day. How then can anyone say that reading the Gosho based on this foundation laid by Nikko Shonin would be to propound the same misunderstanding as that held by other erroneous Nichiren sects? The Gosho Zenshu published by the Soka Gakkai was thoroughly compiled with the strict editorial supervision of High Priest Nichiko and also contains many important writings that the Daishonin transmitted to Nikko Shonin. How can regarding the Gosho Zenshu as the basis of faith and practice be compared to the practice of other Nichiren sects?
If the Gosho cannot be read correctly without the high priest's guidance, what did believers do when the high priest was a young boy? How did they resolve doctrinal disputes in those days?
If you acknowledge the high priest's fallibility and at the same time deny the Gakkai position to seek the basis of the Daishonin's Buddhism in the Gosho, then you have an obligation to answer the above questions.
Return To Top
7. You stated that the Gakkai's belief in the importance of directly connecting with the Daishonin and seeking the Gosho as the basis of faith and practice are wrong.
In your sermon, you harshly criticized the Gakkai's belief in the importance of directly connecting to the Daishonin and seeking the Gosho as the basis of his Buddhism. Consumed by your emotions, you called the Gakkai's view 'the fearful, evil doctrine.
On a different occasion, you also stated:
"Directly connect with the Daishonin,' 'The Gosho is the basis' -- so they say. In the correct Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin, however, there is absolutely no such self-centered, self-serving teaching. If so, their argument is no different from the excuses of other newly established religions. They are truly confused."
(1) First, regarding the Gakkai's belief in directly connecting to the Daishonin, your statement 'there is absolutely no such self-centered, self-serving teaching' contradicts the following statement by High Priest Nittatsu. 'Our sovereign, teacher and parent, that is, our master is only Nichiren Daishonin. All of you are directly connected with Nichiren Daishonin for all eternity.' How do you explain this?
High Priest Nittatsu clearly taught the imperativeness of directly connecting to the Daishonin. Then, what do you mean by 'there is absolutely no such self-centered, self-serving teaching'? Do you mean that there is such a teaching in Nichiren Shoshu but not within the confines of your own head? If so, then what is in your head is not Nichiren Shoshu but the Nikken sect, a newly established religion. Do you also call high Priest Nittatsu's guidance a 'fearful, evil doctrine'?
(2) What the Gakkai means by directly connecting to the Daishonin is to strive to practice for kosen-rufu cherishing the Daishonin's spirit and not fearing any persecution. As the Gosho states, 'of the same mind as Nichiren' (MW-1, 93), and as Nikko Shonin states, 'must not differ in the least from the teachings spread by the late master' (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1617; World Tribune, Oct. 28, 1992). The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda, expressed this spirit, saying, 'When it comes to faith, let us return to the days of the Daishonin!
Through the Gakkai's spirit to directly connect with Nichiren Daishonin, when the priesthood accepted the Shinto talisman during World War II, the Gakkai could admonish the priesthood's error and take action in accord with the teaching of the Daishonin and Nikko Shonin.
It was the priesthood who committed the slander of accepting the Shinto talisman. If it were not for the Gakkai's faith to directly connect to the Daishonin, the priesthood would have been swallowed by the defiled torrent of slander thereafter.
If you insist that the Gakkai's spirit and action are wrong and self-centered, it is the same as saying that going against the Daishonin's teaching is both correct and the way of Nichiren Shoshu. What do you think?
(3) You called the Gakkai's assertion that the Gosho is the basis of the Daishonin's Buddhism 'the fearful, evil doctrine.' To regard the Gosho as the basis, however, is the teaching of Nikko Shonin, who stated, 'Followers of this school should engrave the teachings of the Gosho in their lives' (Gosho Zenshu, p. 1618; World Tribune, Oct. 28, 1991). Nikko Shonin himself based his propagation activities on the Gosho. Therefore, to say that to regard the Gosho as the basis is 'the fearful, evil doctrine' is to claim that the teaching and action of Nikko Shonin is 'evil.' Do you think this is correct?
As I mentioned before, you already acknowledged that the high priest is not infallible. Then, what do you think is the standard of evaluating Buddhism? Is there such a standard other than the Gosho?
(4) You call the Gakkai a 'newly established' religion. Isn't a religion that denies believers' direct connection with the original Buddha and places more emphasis on the high priest, who came along after, clearly 'newer' than the Gakkai? The Nikken sect, whose high priest regards his dream as a divine revelation, deserves to be called a 'newly established' religion. Don't you think so?
Return To Top
8. You stated that the seventeenth high priest, Nissei (1600-1683), did not commit slander after he became a high priest.
(1) In the recent sermon, you asserted that High Priest Nissei did not commit slander after he became a high priest. Your assertion is entirely based on the document by the [Nichiren Shoshu] Committee on Current Affairs published September of last year. You did not present more than what already appeared in that document. Does this mean that you completely support the document?
(2) The Committee's document states that High priest Nissei had committed slander by erecting statues of Shakyamuni and reciting the entire Lotus Sutra before becoming high priest, but that he did not commit any slander thereafter.
I would like to verify how unfounded the committee's argument is on a different opportunity. In this letter, I ask you one thing: can you present more convincing evidence regarding High Priest Nissei's slander than the committee's document?
I am prepared, based upon objective information, to easily refute the committee's document. If I disprove your assertion, how will you take responsibility for your statement? Please clarify.
Return To Top
9. You avoided making any specific statement about your own receipt of the heritage of the Law.
Lastly I must ask you an unresolved question arising from your sermon -- one that anyone would ask -- about your own heritage of the Law.
(1) You spent more than three hours to discuss the transmission of the heritage of the Law in detail but did not make any specific statement about your own receipt of this heritage. Why is that?
You discussed the subject in detail using a variety of historical information. So why did you not choose to talk about the subject using the most recent example -- your own heritage of the Law?
If circumstances compelled you not to talk specifically about your own case, I ask you to explain them.
(2) If there is no special reason for not having mentioned your own case, please describe the transmission of the heritage of the Law that you claimed took place on April 15, 1978. Don't you think you should clarify the transmission of the heritage of the Law through the most concrete example?
(3) You said that you had a revelation in a dream on the morning when High Priest Nittatsu appointed you a study department chief. Yet you did not mention anything about when you became a high priest. Did you have another revelation in your dream on April 15, 1978? Did High priest Nittatsu talk to you directly at that time?
(4) Throughout your sermon, you appeared to stress that the ceremony is not necessary for the transmission of the heritage of the Law. Is this because you did not have a transfer ceremony on April 15, 1978, when you claimed that you received the heritage of the Law? Please clarify this matter so as not to cause further confusion.
In the above, I asked questions regarding the main points of your sermon on the transmission of the heritage of the Law at the nationwide certified teachers seminar.
As I mentioned at the beginning, since your sermon regards the transmission of the heritage of the Law in the Daishonin's Buddhism -- a fundamental issue for the priesthood, this is an excellent opportunity for you to dispel any doubt about the transmission to the priesthood and the rest of the world. In this sense, I urge you once again to respond sincerely to my questions.
September 27, 1992
Soka Gakkai Youth Division Chief Masaaki Masaki
To Mr. Nikken Abe (Nichiren Shoshu)
Return To Top
(Seikyo Times, December 1992, No. 377, p. 12-25) 1992 by World Tribune Press, Soka Gakkai International - USA