Jacqueline Stone's Some Disputed Writings in the Nichiren's Corpus:
https://www.princeton.edu/~jstone/Dissertation/Some%20Disputed%20Writings%20in%20the%20Nichiren%20Corpus%20Textual,%20Herme.pdf"While their ambiguous status unsuits them as primary sources for Nichiren’s ideas…” — Dr. Jacqueline Stone*
I am not saying that Jacqueline Stone is the final arbiter of an understanding of Nichiren’s ideas and his philosophy of salvation but L brought up a point, referencing her famous dissertation, Some Disputed Writings In the Nichiren Corpus. I would say, however, that this snippet is the crux of our argument against the Soka Gakkai’s interpretation and manifestation of Nichiren's Lotus Sutra Buddhism. The SGI utilizes the ambiguous works as the primary source for Nichiren’s ideas while discarding many of Nichiren’s ideas found in the known authentic works [primary sources]. The true Nichiren faith and practice is not found in the Soka Gakkai. As an aside, the Nichiren Shoshu depends on less than the ambiguous works. It depends on known and near universally accepted forgeries.
Another fine essay https://nirc.nanzan-u.
*Dr. Jacqueline Stone was the principle translator of the SGI's Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. She admits also, to having had input from several non-Japanese speaking top Soka Gakkai leaders in the translations.
"The equation of Nichiren with the original Buddha is not easily reconciled with Nichiren's own clear expressions of reverence for Sakyamuni as "parent, teacher, and sovereign" of all living beings, and this particular strand of Nichiren Buddhist thought has been much criticized by other Nichiren schools. In recent decades, it has come under attack for lack of basis in Nichiren's writings by those sectarian scholars of Nichiren Shu intent on purifying the Nichiren corpus of apocryphal works as a basis for establishing a normative doctrine, a project in which the present-day inheritors of the Fuji lineage - Nichiren Shoshu - have evinced little interest. But authenticated writings of a founder are not the only basis upon which religious traditions have, historically, chosen to argue tier authority. Scholars of the medieval Fuji school, like the Tendai lineages of their day, based their interpretations of doctrine and their claims to legitimacy less on original texts than on secret transmissions, a hermeneutical approach that its modern descendants have in large measure inherited." {A Passage from Original Enlightenment and the transformation of Japanese Buddhism, by Jacqueline Stone Ph.d.,}
For your consideration!
ReplyDelete"As an aside, the Nichiren Shoshu depends on less than the
ambiguous works. It depends on known and near universally
accepted forgeries."
https://pounceatron.dreamhosters.com/nichirenscoffeehouse.net/gosho.html
The thing about that list is that it is the educated opinion (based on the evaluation of evidence or lack thereof) of a particular scholar or scholars. I am not sure who though. This list was given to me by a Nichiren Shu priest from Japan.
Another list of what is considered "authentic" in NIchiren Shu would be those gosho included in the Nichiren Shonin Zenshu (Complete Writings of Nichiren) which was translated in seven volumes by Nichiren Shu as the Writings of Nichiren Shonin. There are several gosho in this collection, however, which are not authenticated via the existence of copies by Nichiren or a close disciple. In fact, the Sandai Hiho-sho and Shoho Jisso-sho are both included!
People deeply misunderstand the issue of "authentication." Just because a gosho is not "authenticated" that DOES NOT MEAN it is not "authentic." ALL IT MEANS is that it can't be proven that it is authentic because there is no hard evidence. Also, there are very few gosho (that I am aware of) that have definitely been proven to be inauthentic. How could you even prove Nichiren did not write something? One way would be to show that the writing in question refers to things that happened after Nichiren's lifetime. Even then, it could be argued that the thing referred to (perhaps a treatise or doctrine) may have existed earlier then we thought or the reference might be an interpolation by a later hand into an otherwise authentic writing.
However, I would agree that if you want to be on firm ground insofar as what Nichiren himself taught, then base yourself primarily upon the five major writings, then perhaps the ten major writings, then the gosho that are authenticated or which scholarly consensus holds are likely authentic. Then, if there is something you find inspiring in some gosho or source (like the Ongi Kuden) that is not provably by Nichiren, consider it in light of the above materials.
However, the most important thing is the actual proof for yourself. Starting with the Buddha's advice to the Kalamas, determining what is true or not should not be based on hearsay, or what some authority figure said, or on tradition but on what you yourself know to be true in your heart. If you go against this criteria than you are not a Buddhist but just another dogmatist who is using Buddhism as an external authority to bolster your own insecurity.
P.S. From what I have read those who doubt the authenticity of the Sandai Hiho-sho are doing so (or were doing so) on the basis of political embarrassment post-WWII in regard to the unity of church and state. However, in Nichiren's time it was assumed by all that the Emperor would have to sanction any new precept platform. So those arguments that Nichiren would not have wanted an Emperor sanctioned platform don't hold any water whatsoever with me. Of course he would have! He was a 13th century Japanese monk! Any other course would have been unthinkable. Sandai Hiho-sho reads to me very much like something Nichiren would have written. It also reads to me very much like something he would have kept very close to his vest, as stating that he wanted a new national precept platform that would supersede the one on Mt. Hiei would have stirred up the soldier-monks of Mt. Hiei like nobody's business. Nothing would have been gained by making that ambition public. But it makes sense that he would want his close disciples to know and work toward that goal when it would be more feasible. They also still held out hope that some of their fellow Tendai monks, at least, would see the light and support their cause.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
90 percent or more of the Gosho most utilized by SGI to prove that SGI members are Buddhas as they are, are not in Nichiren's hand. The content of the Goshos that contain medieval Tendai Original Enlightenment, not only are near universally,after Sado, are not in Nichiren's hand. Before Tatsunokushi many Gosho in Nichirens hand are based on Medieval Tendai Original Enlightnment doctrine. Computer models of words used and phrase/sentence structure is helpful.
ReplyDeleteShould read...The content of the goshos that contain medieval Tendai Original Enlightenment, not only are near universally NOT in Nichiren's hand after Tatsunokuhe but those Gosho with medieval Tientai doctrine in Nichiren's hand are nearly all found before Tatsunokchi.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Nikko's Twenty Six articles and Nichiren's warnings about both forged writings and the Japanese being the most evil people in Jambydvipa, raise very high our radar about forgeries and alterations of Gosho.
ReplyDeleteEspecially, in light of a High priest admitting that as long as a forged writing is accepted and promoted by a high priest, it becomes part of the authentic teachings or something like this.
ReplyDeleteProo2f of what I say is the commentary by the High Priest Nichiko Hori, the greatest NST scholar. "In terms of doctrine it (forging writings) is justifiable". - Collection of Study Essentials for the Fuji School
ReplyDelete