Hi Mark, what do you think is the most reliable Nichiren Buddhist study material,and what should I be careful about when reading the books that I already have? I have the Sokkai Gakkai Gosho's 1-2, Gakkai Dictionary, and the Record of Orally Transmitted Teachings -Burton Watson translation. Which Lotus Sutra do you recommend- the Burton Watson translation?
Anything and everything. The Nichiren Shu Gosho translations, the SGI translations, Martin Bradley's, Jacqueline Stone's translations, Yamolsky's [if you can find them], the Aneseki translations [if you can find them], The Kempon Hokke's [in The Tradition of Nichiren Doctrine] etc. The Lotus Sutra also can be studied through the many translations but Burton Watson's is the worst in my opinion. Leon Hurvitz's is good, the Buddhist Translation Society's is good. My favorite is the Threefold Lotus Sutra by Bunno Kato. The Lotus Sutra translated by Sench Murano, a Nichiren Shu priest, is not much better than Burton Watson's in my opinion. Haven't yet read the modern version by Gene Reeves.
Thanks Mark, I think I read somewhere your writings/typings that you said that reading the Gakkai Gosho is good if you don't get influenced by reading the footnotes, does that also include the Background information? I've just had enough of being manipulated by their sneaky tactics. They have given me no reason why I should trust in them. 5 years ago I said to one of the state leader that I have lost trust in the leadership. For a long time I thought that it was the interpretation of the local leaders that was the problem, and years latter that it was from the top leaders of the Gakkai. Now, loath and behold I realise that it's coming from the man himself. It has been a long journey to reach this point. What you say rings true to my experience and builds confidence for the road ahead.
Hi Noel. I think I should qualify my statement. The footnotes based on factual references are fine. Those subjective footnotes explaining what the Daishonin means is BS. Nichiren is clear. The background information says nothing about whether the Gosho is definitely authentic [in Nichiren's hand], probably authentic, possibly authentic, probably inauthentic, definitely inauthentic etc. For example, if something in the Gosho references an event or even doctrine known to have originated after the death of Nichiren, it is definitely inauthentic. If something in a Gosho not in Nichiren's hand goes against what is written in the Five Major Works and the entire body of authenticated works [in Nichiren's hand], it is probably inauthentic. If something in a later Gosho references Chuko Tendai Original Enlightenment doctrine, it is probably inauthentic while in an earlier writings, before 1260 or so, it may well be authentic. These are just some things I picked up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark, what do you think is the most reliable Nichiren Buddhist study material,and what should I be careful about when reading the books that I already have?
ReplyDeleteI have the Sokkai Gakkai Gosho's 1-2, Gakkai Dictionary, and the Record of Orally Transmitted Teachings -Burton Watson translation.
Which Lotus Sutra do you recommend- the Burton Watson translation?
Anything and everything. The Nichiren Shu Gosho translations, the SGI translations, Martin Bradley's, Jacqueline Stone's translations, Yamolsky's [if you can find them], the Aneseki translations [if you can find them], The Kempon Hokke's [in The Tradition of Nichiren Doctrine] etc. The Lotus Sutra also can be studied through the many translations but Burton Watson's is the worst in my opinion. Leon Hurvitz's is good, the Buddhist Translation Society's is good. My favorite is the Threefold Lotus Sutra by Bunno Kato. The Lotus Sutra translated by Sench Murano, a Nichiren Shu priest, is not much better than Burton Watson's in my opinion. Haven't yet read the modern version by Gene Reeves.
ReplyDeleteThat should read Senchu Murano.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mark, I think I read somewhere your writings/typings that you said that reading the Gakkai Gosho is good if you don't get influenced by reading the footnotes, does that also include the Background information? I've just had enough of being manipulated by their sneaky tactics. They have given me no reason why I should trust in them. 5 years ago I said to one of the state leader that I have lost trust in the leadership. For a long time I thought that it was the interpretation of the local leaders that was the problem, and years latter that it was from the top leaders of the Gakkai. Now, loath and behold I realise that it's coming from the man himself. It has been a long journey to reach this point. What you say rings true to my experience and builds confidence for the road ahead.
ReplyDeleteHi Noel. I think I should qualify my statement. The footnotes based on factual references are fine. Those subjective footnotes explaining what the Daishonin means is BS. Nichiren is clear. The background information says nothing about whether the Gosho is definitely authentic [in Nichiren's hand], probably authentic, possibly authentic, probably inauthentic, definitely inauthentic etc. For example, if something in the Gosho references an event or even doctrine known to have originated after the death of Nichiren, it is definitely inauthentic. If something in a Gosho not in Nichiren's hand goes against what is written in the Five Major Works and the entire body of authenticated works [in Nichiren's hand], it is probably inauthentic. If something in a later Gosho references Chuko Tendai Original Enlightenment doctrine, it is probably inauthentic while in an earlier writings, before 1260 or so, it may well be authentic. These are just some things I picked up.
ReplyDelete