HONGAKU AND SHIGAKU
CORRECTING H.G. LAMONT'S CRITICISM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HONGAKU and SHIGAKU:
CORRECTING H.G. LAMONT'S CRITICISM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HONGAKU and SHIGAKU:
Hongaku means Original Enlightenment. Shigaku means the attainment of
enlightenment. To explain the relationship between Hongaku and Shigaku, there
are some metaphors. For one example, a man is in a dark room with furniture,
but he can not see and make use of anything inside the room because it is
dark. However, when once he turns on the light, he gets to be able to see the
furniture clearly in the room. In this situation, the furniture was there from
the beginning, however, he sees it only after he turns on the light. It is not
that the furniture suddenly appeared. The furniture was always there. It was
just he could not see it. The fact that the furniture was there from the
beginning stands for the Hongaku. And the fact that turning on the light and
getting to be able to see the furniture stands for the Shigaku. Another
example, there was a blind man. He could see nothing. One day in excellent
doctor came to see him and had an operation on his eyes. As a result, the
doctor opened his eyes and he gets to be able to see the sun and the moon. As
we know, the sun and the moon were originally there (Hongaku). But he saw them
for the first time when his eyes were cured (Shigaku).
Therefore, when one attains the enlightenment (Shigaku), he never fail to
attain the original enlightenment (Hongaku). And it is not until when one has
Shigaku that he becomes aware of Hongaku (Oh! Everything has been originally in
the enlightened state!!).
So, until the time we have Shigaku, we should make use of our power of belief
that this world is in reality the Buddha's Pure Land. Nichiren Daishonin said
in his writing named "Junyoze no koto", "Like waking up to reality from dream
where one saw various illusion; after cleaning off the deluded thought and
view, then you will see that everywhere in the dharma world is the Pure Land of
tranquil light, and that the body of your own is the Tathagata of original
enlightenment (Hongaku) possessing the three bodies in one."
Some say that "Junyoze no koto" is a 'forgery' ? However, this Gosho is one of
Roku-nai Goshos. So it should be considered as a genuine Gosho. I think the
attitude of discarding every Gosho that contradicts one's own opinion would
prevent one from understanding proper Nichiren Buddhism. The note I wrote
about Hongaku and Shigaku was from what I studied from Rev. Honda's book named
"Daizokyo Yogi" (a commentary on the essential point of the Buddhist Canon),
which consists of thick eleven volumes. And Rev. Honda preaches about Hongaku
and Shigaku in PP35-37 of its fourth volume, where Rev. Honda himself cites
the very same part of 'Junyoze no koto' that I translated and wrote in the last
answer note. So that is of course no problem. Incidentally, I have obtained
almost all books of Rev. Honda and studied them precisely before. So I want
to say that people should not have a falsely fixed idea on the teachings of
Kempon Hokke or true Buddhism Needless to say, the explanation I wrote about
Hongaku and Shigaku have nothing to do with the Ideology of Hongaku of medieval
old T'ien T'ai, which teaches that we need not practice because everyone has
already enlightened.
Rev. Sorin Yasuhara
Kempon Hokke Shu
FOLLOW UP AND CORRECTING H.G. LAMONT'S VIEW:
September 22, 1998
As you know the parables regarding "Hongaku and Shigaku" I wrote before was
from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (pp.522-523 Vol,2) which Rev. Honda cited in
his book along with "Junyoze no koto".
Answer to Mr. Lamont's last note
1) Lamont and some of the other sect's scholars thinks "Junyoze no Koto' is a
forgery. But teachers of Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju) do not. Rev. Honda
used this Gosho to support his view not only in "Daizokyo yogi" but also even
in "Hokekyo Kogi" ("Lectures on the Lotus Sutra") the copy or which Lamont
stated he had in his last note. Also Rev. Honda put this Gosho into his
"Seigoroku" (analects of sacred words). Moreover, another famous teacher of
Jumonryu, Rev. Nisshi Nakagawa also put this Gosho into his "Seigoroku"
(analects of sacred words). I think the reason why he insists that this Gosho
is a forgery is that it bothers his biased view on the Nichiren Buddhism. It
is the matter of course that this Gosho does not bother the correct view of
Jumonryu at all.
2) Lamont brings forward the so-called "Hongaku shiso" (ideology of Hongaku)
and refutes it citing Rev. Honda"s words in "Hokekyo kogi,"with which he
thinks is a refutation to my last note regarding "Hongaku and Shigaku'. And
Lamont hates Hongaku monism and thinks Hongaku monism is not the view of
Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju).
I agree with him on the point that "Hongaku shiso" is wrong. But it is totally
beside the mark to refute us with refuting "Hongaku shiso". Because the term
"Hongaku" itself never means nor imply the "Hongaku shiso". He misunderstands
to take the term "Hongaku" immediately as "Hongaku shiso". This is the most
critical and fundamental error in his view.
As I explained before, the term "Hongaku" only means "Original Enlightenment".
This, as everyone can see very easily, is what is preached in the Honmom
(Original Doctrine), especially in the Chapter 16 'Measure of life'. On the other
hand, in the Shakumon (Manifestation Doctrine) it preaches on the basis of
"Shigaku" (Attainment of Enlightenment). Therefore, needless to say the,
subject of "Hongaku and Shigaku" is parallel to the subject of "Honmon and
Shakumon".
If I add a little more explanation here, in the Shakumon there is a matter of
"attaining" but in the Honmom there is no such a matter because Honmon is the
view or world which is preached from the stand point of Original (Eternal)
Buddha, In other words. Shakamon is based on dualism and preaches distinction
(discrimination) between worldly beings and Buddha; Honmom is based on monism
and preaches the ultimate equality of worldly beings and Buddha. If Buddhism
does not preach the monism and only upholds dualism, it loses its life. There
are in the world many other religions like Judaism, Christianity or lslam which
is based on dualism with the teachings of absolute discrimination between
divinity and humanity. And they are wrong in their object of worship and
doctrine of ultimate dualism. In other words, it is a matter of common
knowledge that Nichiren Buddhism is a religion of monism, because the Lotus
Sutra (Hokekyo) is the teaching or One Vehicle (Ichi-jo). More importantly, it
does not mean mechanical monism but means the monism that can only be attained
by our faith of whole-hearted devotion (Namu). In this sense, chanting Namu
Myoho Renge Kyo (Daimoku) wholeheartedly is essential for this monism. It is
so to speak a bridge between the dualism and monism. And this is the theory of
Sokushin-Jobutsu (attaining buddhahood in this very body) of Nichiren Buddhism
So if one stays attached to the view that the dualism is the ultimate substance
of the doctrine of Nichiren Buddhism, where can he find the chance of Jobutsu
(attaining buddhahood)? With such a wrong view, Buddha and he have to be the
parallel lines forever.
In the "Kanjin Honzon Sho" (On the Object of Worship in Contemplation),
Nichiren Daishonin states "Now the Saha World of the Original Time is the
Ever-abiding Pure Land apart from the Three Calamities and outside of the Four
Kalpas. The Buddha has not already been extinguished in the past and will not
be born in the future. Those who are converted are of the same essence. This
is identical to the complete possession of the three thousand (realms) of one's
own mind, the three types world" (translated by Lamont). How does Lamont read
this essential part of this Gosho? Does he reject the "Kanjin Honzon Sho" as a
forgery, too? By the way, "Hongaku Shiso" is a distorted view derived from the
erroneous understanding of the doctrine of Buddha's three bodies. This view
does not take the three bodies unitedly. Instead, after separating worldly
beings and Buddha, the view links the Dharma Body (but this is merely an
abstract one which is equivalent to a man in the dark or a blind man before the
operation in the parables I wrote in the first note) only to the worldly beings
and the other two bodies (Enjoyment Body and Response Body) to the Buddha.
Then, one who has this view stays conceited thinking that it is the worldly
beings that are the Original Buddha and Buddhas like Shakya, Taho are merely
the Manifestation Buddha, In this way this view shuts the door to attaining
buddhahood. Therefore, the subject of "Hongaku shiso" is the matter of
misunderstanding regarding the doctrine of Buddha's three bodies. That is by
no means the matter of "Hongaku and Shigaku". One must not be confused to
connect Incidentally, the part of Gosho I cited from "Junyoze no koto" was
"Like waking up to reality from dream where one saw various illusion; after
deluded thought and view, then you will see that everywhere in is the Pure Land
of tranquil light, and that the body of your own is the Tathagata of original
enlightenment possessing the three bodies in one." Let us see the underlined
part, it expresses the ultimate state of us which comes after cleaning off the
deluded thought and view (practice). And what one should know here is that the
"Tathagata of original enlightenment possessing the three bodies in one" is the
very "Actual Buddha" (Ji Butsu) revealed in the Chapter 16 of the Hokekyo.
That is by no means the Ideality (Abstraction) of Unmanifest Original
Enlightenment (Hongaku no ritai) or Abstract Buddha (Ributsu).
Accordingly, there was no room for argument in here from the first without
Lamont's confusion and misunderstanding. If he has some more confusion in
these regards, he should read carefully the writings of Nichiren Daishonin or
teachers of Jumonryu, especially Nichiju Daishoshi's "Fuju-sho" instead of
those commentaries written by the other sect's's scholars. So he will surely
find the break-through.
With Gassho,
Rev. Sorin Yasuhara
No comments:
Post a Comment