> dc wrote:
>
> > > No actually that is Major Writings I quoted.
> > >
> > > Your translation sucks.
> > >
> > > dc
> >
> > Citation please? When did you become an expert?<<<<<<<
> >
> > I became an expert when I promised, you became a empty shell when you
> > abandoned faith.
> >
> > dc
>
> Never mind the chest puffing. Let's have the citation for your
> quote.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> The citations? I already said twice, it is from the Major Writings here it
> is again, you know Watson et. all.
>
> MW-5, 207
> Letter of Petition from Yorimoto
>
>
> > > No actually that is Major Writings I quoted.
> > >
> > > Your translation sucks.
> > >
> > > dc
> >
> > Citation please? When did you become an expert?<<<<<<<
> >
> > I became an expert when I promised, you became a empty shell when you
> > abandoned faith.
> >
> > dc
>
> Never mind the chest puffing. Let's have the citation for your
> quote.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> The citations? I already said twice, it is from the Major Writings here it
> is again, you know Watson et. all.
>
> MW-5, 207
> Letter of Petition from Yorimoto
>
snip
>
> The Lotus Sutra states, "Now this threefold world is all my domain.
> The living beings in it are all my children." If this scriptural
> statement is correct, then Lord Shakyamuni is the father and mother,
> teacher and sovereign of all the people in Japan. Amida Buddha does not
> possess these three virtues. However, you ignore the Buddha of the three
> virtues and invoke the name of another Buddha [Amida] day and night,
> morning and evening, sixty or eighty thousand times a day. Is this not an
> unfilial deed? It was Shakyamuni Buddha himself who originally taught that
> Amida had vowed to save all people; but in the end he regretted it and
> said, "I alone can save them." After that, he never again taught that
> there are two or three Buddhas who can save the people. No one has two
> fathers or two mothers. What sutra says that Amida is the father of this
> country? What treatise indicates him as its mother? [NSIC version, page
225]
>
>
> The Lotus Sutra states, "Now this threefold world is all my domain.
> The living beings in it are all my children." If this scriptural
> statement is correct, then Lord Shakyamuni is the father and mother,
> teacher and sovereign of all the people in Japan. Amida Buddha does not
> possess these three virtues. However, you ignore the Buddha of the three
> virtues and invoke the name of another Buddha [Amida] day and night,
> morning and evening, sixty or eighty thousand times a day. Is this not an
> unfilial deed? It was Shakyamuni Buddha himself who originally taught that
> Amida had vowed to save all people; but in the end he regretted it and
> said, "I alone can save them." After that, he never again taught that
> there are two or three Buddhas who can save the people. No one has two
> fathers or two mothers. What sutra says that Amida is the father of this
> country? What treatise indicates him as its mother? [NSIC version, page
225]
>
>
snip
> So I listened to the sermons of various priests and inquired into
> which teaching leads to Buddhahood. And I came to believe that, according
> to the teaching of the Lotus Sutra, the sage Nichiren is the sovereign of
> the threefold world, the father and mother of all people, and the emissary
> of Shakyamuni Buddha - Bodhisattva Jogyo. [NSIC version, page 227]
>
> which teaching leads to Buddhahood. And I came to believe that, according
> to the teaching of the Lotus Sutra, the sage Nichiren is the sovereign of
> the threefold world, the father and mother of all people, and the emissary
> of Shakyamuni Buddha - Bodhisattva Jogyo. [NSIC version, page 227]
>
snip
> When the sage Nichiren, the envoy of Shakyamuni Buddha, was exiled >because
of the false charges leveled against him by the priest Ryokan, fighting >broke
out within one hundred days, just as he had predicted - and a great >number of
warriors perished. [NSIC version, page 231]
of the false charges leveled against him by the priest Ryokan, fighting >broke
out within one hundred days, just as he had predicted - and a great >number of
warriors perished. [NSIC version, page 231]
The wonderful thing about the NSIC translations is that they try hard to fiddle
with the wording to make it conform to NST/SGI doctrine. But they often then
have glaring inconsistencies in them which show the errors. A comparison of
the English in the above shows that the NONA version is a more exact translation
and the NSIC version has fiddled with the language.
with the wording to make it conform to NST/SGI doctrine. But they often then
have glaring inconsistencies in them which show the errors. A comparison of
the English in the above shows that the NONA version is a more exact translation
and the NSIC version has fiddled with the language.
The Japanese version shows that it should read:
"As a result I have come to believe in the Lotus Sutra in which it is
expounded that Nichiren Shonin is the Bodhisattva Jogyo [Superior
Conduct] commanded by Sakyamuni Buddha, Lord of the Saha World and
parent of all living beings, to appear in the Latter Days of the
Degeneration as a messenger of the Buddha with the duty of propagating
the Lotus Sutra. NONA translation, page 206 [the Japanese language
version is on page 207].
expounded that Nichiren Shonin is the Bodhisattva Jogyo [Superior
Conduct] commanded by Sakyamuni Buddha, Lord of the Saha World and
parent of all living beings, to appear in the Latter Days of the
Degeneration as a messenger of the Buddha with the duty of propagating
the Lotus Sutra. NONA translation, page 206 [the Japanese language
version is on page 207].
If we look at the NSIC version we see that the changing of the language to make
Nichiren "the sovereign of the threefold world, the father and mother of all
people" [NSIC version, page 227] is inarticulate and contradictory to other
statements in the Gosho itself. The most immediate conflict arise in the next
phrase: "and the emissary of Shakyamuni Buddha - Bodhisattva Jogyo." [NSIC
version, page 227] Were this language to be read as Dave would like, namely
that it makes Nichiren the "true" Buddha, it would then make the "true" Buddha
subordinate to Sakyamuni Buddha [Sakyamuni the Honbutsu or the Eternal Original
Buddha of the 16th Chapter] since Nichiren is his [Sakyamuni's] emissary, the
Bodhisattva Jogyo.
Nichiren "the sovereign of the threefold world, the father and mother of all
people" [NSIC version, page 227] is inarticulate and contradictory to other
statements in the Gosho itself. The most immediate conflict arise in the next
phrase: "and the emissary of Shakyamuni Buddha - Bodhisattva Jogyo." [NSIC
version, page 227] Were this language to be read as Dave would like, namely
that it makes Nichiren the "true" Buddha, it would then make the "true" Buddha
subordinate to Sakyamuni Buddha [Sakyamuni the Honbutsu or the Eternal Original
Buddha of the 16th Chapter] since Nichiren is his [Sakyamuni's] emissary, the
Bodhisattva Jogyo.
The NONA translation is further reinforced simply by looking at other language
in the Gosho as translated by the NSIC:
in the Gosho as translated by the NSIC:
"The Lotus Sutra states, "Now this threefold world is all my domain.
The living beings in it are all my children." If this scriptural
statement is correct, then Lord Shakyamuni is the father and mother,
teacher and sovereign of all the people in Japan."
The living beings in it are all my children." If this scriptural
statement is correct, then Lord Shakyamuni is the father and mother,
teacher and sovereign of all the people in Japan."
The writer clearly believes this statement about Sakyamuni being the parent
teacher and sovereign as true as he immediately states:
teacher and sovereign as true as he immediately states:
"Amida Buddha does not possess these three virtues. However, you
ignore the Buddha of the three virtues and invoke the name of another
Buddha [Amida] day and night, morning and evening, sixty or eighty
thousand times a day. Is this not an unfilial deed? It was
Shakyamuni Buddha himself who originally taught that Amida had vowed
to save all people; but in the end he regretted it and said, "I alone
can save them." After that, he never again taught that there are two
or three Buddhas who can save the people. No one has two fathers or
two mothers. What sutra says that Amida is the father of this
country? What treatise indicates him as its mother?"
ignore the Buddha of the three virtues and invoke the name of another
Buddha [Amida] day and night, morning and evening, sixty or eighty
thousand times a day. Is this not an unfilial deed? It was
Shakyamuni Buddha himself who originally taught that Amida had vowed
to save all people; but in the end he regretted it and said, "I alone
can save them." After that, he never again taught that there are two
or three Buddhas who can save the people. No one has two fathers or
two mothers. What sutra says that Amida is the father of this
country? What treatise indicates him as its mother?"
Similarly if Sakyamuni is the parent, teacher and sovereign, then Nichiren
cannot be for the same question arises as posed by Nichiren in the above passage.
What person can have two mothers?; two fathers?; two sovereigns?; two teachers?
[in the Japanese sense of a sensei]. The correctness of the NONA translation
is confirmed later in the NSIC version when it states the following:
cannot be for the same question arises as posed by Nichiren in the above passage.
What person can have two mothers?; two fathers?; two sovereigns?; two teachers?
[in the Japanese sense of a sensei]. The correctness of the NONA translation
is confirmed later in the NSIC version when it states the following:
"When the sage Nichiren, the envoy of Shakyamuni Buddha, was exiled
because of the false charges leveled against him by the priest Ryokan,
fighting broke out within one hundred days, just as he had predicted -
and a great number of warriors perished." NSIC version page 231.
Note that the above quote is very similar to the NONA translation:
"In the eighth year of the Bun'ei Era [1271] when Nichiren Shonin,
messenger of Sakyamuni Buddha, was exiled because of the slander of
Ryokan-bo, a civil war broke out within one hundred days, as Nichiren
predicted, and not a few warriors lost their lives." NONA
translation, page 214.
Similarly the language for the first passage is almost identical:
The chapter on the 'Parable' of the Lotus Sutra states: 'Now this Saha
World is all my domain, where all living beings are my children.' If
this is true, Lord Sakyamuni Buddha is the father, the master and the
lord of all the people in Japan. Amida Buddha has no such three
virtues as Sakyamuni Buddha. Never the less, people put aside this
Buddha with three virtues, enshrine Amida Buddha and chant 'Namu Amida
Butsu' 60,000 or 80,000 times every morning and evening. How can it
not be an unfilial act?
Amida Buddha's original vow was originally expounded by Sakyamuni
Buddha. As it was, however, an expedient teaching, it was stated
later in the Lotus Sutra: 'I, Sakyamuni, alone can save all living
beings.' The only Buddha who can save us, therefore is the very
Sakyamuni Buddha. sakyamuni never seems to have appointed two or
three saviors; we do not have two father or two mothers, do we? Is
there any sutra in the world that asserts Amida Buddha is the father
of this country? Is there any commentary that mentions Amida Buddha
is the mother of this country?"
Buddha. As it was, however, an expedient teaching, it was stated
later in the Lotus Sutra: 'I, Sakyamuni, alone can save all living
beings.' The only Buddha who can save us, therefore is the very
Sakyamuni Buddha. sakyamuni never seems to have appointed two or
three saviors; we do not have two father or two mothers, do we? Is
there any sutra in the world that asserts Amida Buddha is the father
of this country? Is there any commentary that mentions Amida Buddha
is the mother of this country?"
Dave's theory falls yet again when the Gosho states:
"In your official letter you also state, "I revere the elder of Gokuraku-ji temple as the World-Honored One reborn," but this cannot accept. The reason is: if what the sutra states is true, the sage Nichiren is the envoy of the Buddha who attained enlightenment in the remote past, the provisional manifestation of Bodhisattva Jogyo, the votary of the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra, and the great leader in the fifth five-hundred-year period [following the Buddha's passing]. [NSIC version, page 217]
The differences here are subtle but it still supports the NONA translation:
"It is also stated in your lordship's letter that your lordship
reveres Ryokan-bo, Chief Priest of the Gokurakuji Temple, as if he
were an incarnation of Sakyamuni Buddha. However this is hard for me
to accept for if the teaching of the sutras is correct, Nichiren is a
reincarnation of Bodhisattva Visistacarita [Superior Practice], a
practitioner of the Lotus Sutra and a direct disciple of the Original
and Eternal Sakyamuni Buddha who attained Buddhahood in the remotest
past, according to the essential part of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren
Shonin is a great leading master in the beginning of the fifth 500
year period after the Buddha's extinction." NONA translation, page
184.
reveres Ryokan-bo, Chief Priest of the Gokurakuji Temple, as if he
were an incarnation of Sakyamuni Buddha. However this is hard for me
to accept for if the teaching of the sutras is correct, Nichiren is a
reincarnation of Bodhisattva Visistacarita [Superior Practice], a
practitioner of the Lotus Sutra and a direct disciple of the Original
and Eternal Sakyamuni Buddha who attained Buddhahood in the remotest
past, according to the essential part of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren
Shonin is a great leading master in the beginning of the fifth 500
year period after the Buddha's extinction." NONA translation, page
184.
The NSIC version seeks to perpetuate a meaningless and unsubstantiated
distinction between the remote past and the remotest past based upon a very
strained reading of the 16th chapter of the Latest Sutra. One that even the
simplest reader can see is incorrect. In fact Prof. Burton who did the NSA
translation of the Lotus Sutra indicates that the NONA version "the remotest"
[or infinite] past is the correct interpretation.
distinction between the remote past and the remotest past based upon a very
strained reading of the 16th chapter of the Latest Sutra. One that even the
simplest reader can see is incorrect. In fact Prof. Burton who did the NSA
translation of the Lotus Sutra indicates that the NONA version "the remotest"
[or infinite] past is the correct interpretation.
"But as Ananda proceeds to describe the staggering number and variety
of human, non human and heavenly beings who have gathered to listen to
the Buddha's discourse, we realize that we have left the world of
factual reality behind. This is the first point to keep in mind in
reading the Lotus Sutra. Its setting, its vast assembly of listeners,
its dramatic occurrences in the end belong to a realm that totally
transcends our ordinary concepts of time, space and possibility.
Again and again we are told of events that took place countless,
indescribable numbers of kalpas or eons in the past, or of beings or
worlds that are as numerous as the sands of million and billions of
Ganges rivers. Such "numbers" are in fact no more than pseudo-numbers
or non-numbers, intended to impress on us the impossibility of
measuring the immeasurable. They are not meant to convey any
statistical data but simply to boggle the mind and jar it lose from
its conventional concepts of time and space. For in the realm of
Emptiness, time and space as we conceive them are meaningless;
anywhere is the same as everywhere, and now, then, never, forever are
all one."
On page xix: " In chapter sixteen Sakyamuni reveals the answer to this
riddle. The Buddha he says is an eternal being, ever present in the
world, ever concerned for the salvation of all living beings. He
attained Buddhahood an incalculably distant time in the past and has
never ceased to abide in the world since then. ... From this we see
that in the Lotus Sutra the Buddha who had earlier been viewed as a
historical personality, is now conceived as a being who transcends all
boundaries of time and space, an ever abiding principle of truth and
compassion that exists everywhere and within all beings." [Watson
preface to the Lotus Sutra]
riddle. The Buddha he says is an eternal being, ever present in the
world, ever concerned for the salvation of all living beings. He
attained Buddhahood an incalculably distant time in the past and has
never ceased to abide in the world since then. ... From this we see
that in the Lotus Sutra the Buddha who had earlier been viewed as a
historical personality, is now conceived as a being who transcends all
boundaries of time and space, an ever abiding principle of truth and
compassion that exists everywhere and within all beings." [Watson
preface to the Lotus Sutra]
This shoots down the meaningless claim that the 16th chapter refers to a
remote as opposed to remotest time, the language is clearly intended to mean an
infinitely long time period, extending into the past and forward into the
future. From here the attempt to then build the distinction between Nichiren
as a true Buddha which is not supported by this gosho although it does try to make
reference to a "provisional" manifestation of Bodhisattva Jogyo. The entire
concept collapses like a house of cards. The passage in the NSIC version also
reinforces the NONA version of "Sakyamuni Buddha, Lord of the Saha World and
parent of all living beings" as opposed to the tortured NSIC translation of
"the sage Nichiren is the sovereign of the threefold world, the father and
mother of all people, and the emissary of Shakyamuni Buddha - Bodhisattva
Jogyo." A claim at odds with the rest of the same Gosho as well as other Gosho
and the Lotus Sutra."
remote as opposed to remotest time, the language is clearly intended to mean an
infinitely long time period, extending into the past and forward into the
future. From here the attempt to then build the distinction between Nichiren
as a true Buddha which is not supported by this gosho although it does try to make
reference to a "provisional" manifestation of Bodhisattva Jogyo. The entire
concept collapses like a house of cards. The passage in the NSIC version also
reinforces the NONA version of "Sakyamuni Buddha, Lord of the Saha World and
parent of all living beings" as opposed to the tortured NSIC translation of
"the sage Nichiren is the sovereign of the threefold world, the father and
mother of all people, and the emissary of Shakyamuni Buddha - Bodhisattva
Jogyo." A claim at odds with the rest of the same Gosho as well as other Gosho
and the Lotus Sutra."
No comments:
Post a Comment