I don't know if you've corrected this or not yet, but in hearing an interview with The Cult Vault, you kept insisting that Nichiren chanted Namu-Myouhou-Renge-Kyou, which I feel is something that needs to be addressed: while yes, literally, this is how it's phonetically spelled out, the Namu -> Nam pronunciation change is a purely Japanese thing.
Even the word "Gakkai" in Souka Gakkai is an example of this: while the original Japanese characters (学会・がっかい） read as "gaku" and "kai" individually, it's considerably easier to pronounce as "Gakkai" rather than "gakukai". Nam-Myouhou-Renge-Kyou is a similar situation, and ultimately, in Japanese, between the SGI and Nichiren's original writings, the characters used are the exact same (南無妙法蓮華経・なむみょうほうれんげきょう). I would suggest not using "Namu" versus "Nam" as an argument; this is simply a very common thing in the Japanese language. Consequently, suggesting that the two phrases have any true difference is very misleading. If you wish, I could go more in-depth into how these kinds of pronunciations come about, but I do think it's very much worth keeping in mind! Thanks for reading!
P.S. This is neither to hold up the Souka Gakkai nor is it to put you down. This is coming purely from an objective standpoint regarding the Japanese language, nothing more, nothing less!
Then we can further discuss the matter. Google Eagle Peak Blog search engine is fairly good for almost everything I know and have researched, for what that's worth.
Having read this, my point still stands; I've been studying the Japanese language very nearly my whole life, and can say with confidence that the differences you are describing are coming from a very English-oriented perspective. In Japanese, no such removal of characters exist. "Mu," or the character 無, has not and never has been removed. As far as "syllables" go, the "u" sound being essentially silent does not affect the syllable count in any way. It's not pronounced "na myou hou renge kyou", and if one did, that would 1000% be incorrect. That would be the true equivalent of removing the "mu". Once again, the "無" character has not, and never has been, removed in any capacity. The same thing applies to words like "Gakkai" - if pronounced as "Gakai" it would be completely incorrect. The extra letter k/m (in English) is key, as well as the way it affects the pronunciation of the word. As far as "words being pronounced as they are written" goes, there are a great deal of times where this isn't inherently true. For instance, in old Japanese, the character "fu" (or ふ) would be pronounced as "u" (う), despite phonetically being different - and instances of this are plentiful in the Gosho. The crucial difference is whether or not you pronounce the "m" and "nam" - failing to do so is what would truly make the pronunciation incorrect, and therefore slander Nichiren's statements regarding the five and seven characters.
Ultimately, writing it out in English as "nam" instead of "namu" is a purely English-oriented approach - trying to explain to people with not even a basic understanding of Japanese pronunciation as to why the "u" sound isn't there when spoken out loud would take entirely too much time, so writing it as "nam" is a way to get non-Japanese speakers to pronounce it the way that it is in Japanese. (As a note, this is not directed towards you specifically in any way!)
There are innumerable things to criticize the SGI for, and that much I can agree 100% on, but the phonetic pronunciation of Namu-myouhou-renge-kyou is, in my opinion as a student of Japanese, not one of them. Even other Nichiren Buddhist organizations (e.g. Nichiren Shuu, Nichiren Shoushuu) pronounce the phrase the same way. If there's any better way you'd like to discuss the matter, I would be more than willing to! Blog comments are definitely not the best means for in-depth discussions.
"You wrote: "As far as "words being pronounced as they are written" goes, there are a great deal of times where this isn't inherently true. For instance, in old Japanese, the character "fu" (or ふ) would be pronounced as "u" (う), despite phonetically being different - and instances of this are plentiful in the Gosho." But you can not the opposite, one instance in old Japanese where Tu, Bu, Mu, du, "fu", ku etc, in which the "u" is dropped.
And I maintain, Nichiren chanted Namu Myoho renge kyo because he lived before the East Asian Vowel Shift in which the last vowel of words was dropped. Incredibly, the East Asian vowel shift, more or less, coincided with the Great Vowel Shift of the English Language (between 1400 and 1700) After both the Great Vowel Shift and the East Asian vowel shift, language, English, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese had changed quite significantly, no? My final contention, Namu Myoho renge kyo is the formal name of the Law and not Nam Myoho renge kyo. Out of repect for the Law and the Buddha we invoke the formal name of the Law, written on the Gohonzon. Do you know Betto O'Rourke, the presidential wannabe. Do you think he would respond to "Bett" instead of Betto? This is according to my studies, quite limited, of course, compared to yours and my reasoning.
Either Way, I will keep chanting Namu Myoho renge kyo and for the sake of unity, I will continue to promote the chanting of Namu Myoho renge kyo and the Nichiren Gohonzon as our banner of propagation.
I have two questions for you. Why did so many disciples and believers, after the death of Nichiren, continue chanting Namu Myoho renge kyo, instead of Nam Myoho renge kyo, if as you site, Nam is actually more correct? Why didn't you take into account the East Asian Vowel Shift that began in China and spread to Japan, Korea, and the rest of Asia?
Black lives do matter , justly and legally protested American apartheid and the so called"new american racism" " the euphamistic Nazis of the new" alternative right" the Trump nazis and fascists. The same old reactionaries and racists, who are trying to take advantage of the chaos, in this backwards, militaristic, white American nuclear, imperial, police state. The trumpos want a full blown authoritarian, anti environmental police state, based on racism. White nationalism, procorporate-imperial agendas, isolationist dream state of their delusional creations. Half of the western United States is burning up, from wild fires now that are partially a consequence of climate change. The centrist liars, say they will do something. The Trump fascists are in total denial of climate change. There is flooding. There have been major tropical, storms in the south that no one is talking about. There will be hurricanes in the fall, that will further damage, old beat up nuclear power plants on the gulf coast and eastern seaboard.
Black people are standing up for themselves and woke, in spite of what old white reactionary jerks, say More people need to rise up against racism, militarism, nuclear arms, crappy killer nuclear reactors and climate change, like never before. If it offends u, reactionaries, and shriveled up old white posers, repuklikans and centrist corporate bootlickers, so be it! If it offends you Ayn Rand fascists, so be it! The Germans, the Vietnamese, taiwanese, some Chinese have stood up against nuclear power, while Fukushima pours radioactive waste into the Pacific. and the Russians, USA, the french, israhell, the Canadians , the British, and india continue with their insane nuclear power delusions. Delusions, that will destroy the world faster than you can imagine, ahead of climate change in this anthropocene, extinction era.
Space travel is probably not feasible Cosmic radiation in deep space. They will never perfect a nuclear reactor space engine. If they do, what good will it do! There are nuke subs, nuke ships, and reactors around the world contaminating everything and destroying life at a DNA level. Mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens of the worst kind destroying birds, bees and humans. There are thirty old reactors in orbits w plutonium and the other space junk waiting to tip the balance to massive radioculide catastrophes with the 400 or so old beat up reactors on earth. Como pendejo. How greedy, stupid, and crazy can humans be? Soon the insanity will stop because, we have, nuked, polluted, and used war to ourselves into Oblivion. They lie about covid and the superbugs, that we have brought upon ourselves.
Regarding the Great Vowel Shift, I can't find anything concerning such a thing in Japan. If you could direct me towards that, I would much appreciate it. What's worth noting, however, is that even in modern Japanese, the sounds you insist are being dropped, truly aren't - they're unvoiced, and to an untrained ear, may sound like they've been completely dropped, but they are still present.
Furthermore, the pronunciation of "namu" as "nam" occurs due to the similar sounds produced between "namu" and "myou" - both containing that "m" sound. In Japanese, trying to chant the "mu" without it truncating becomes difficult the more you do it, and the faster you do it. The reason for this and, as I mentioned before, the same reason words like "Gakkai" are pronounced "Gakkai" and not "Gakukai" is because of ease of, and the more natural flow of, these pronunciations.
Regarding why disciples and believers chanted Namu instead of Nam - if you could share sources, that would be great. But it's worth pointing out that what you're talking about would be based exclusively on *written* records. No person is alive to prove or disprove the spoken pronunciation one way or the other, but I think there's a good reason as to why, in Japan, it's pronounced the way it is today. Arguing, as a non-Japanese speaker, that the way the words are spoken in Japanese is wrong, is misleading. If you are a speaker of the language/have done thorough and extensive studies on it, I'll happily retract that statement in its entirety.
Once again, the character "mu" has not and never has been removed. 南無 is still 南無, in both the past and present, and the syllabic count is entirely unchanged. Some sources have even presented Namu as being pronounced as "nan", which, when connected to certain consonant sounds, is pronounced more like "m" (hence why some names in Japanese, when written in English, will be with an "m" instead of "n", like Gumpei versus Gunpei). Additionally, there are plenty of cases in which the "mu" sound, in ancient Japanese, sounded more like "m" or "n" (see: https://classicaljapanese.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/mu/) This is all well before the 15th century.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to strictly pronounce "mu" as you do, but to suggest that that's the only/most correct way is, in my opinion, misinformation, from the standpoint of someone familiar with the Japanese language. Regarding the Betto O'Rourke comparison, it's actually a perfect example of how the distinction of syllables is crucial. You would not drop the "o" in "Betto" or the "O" in "O'Rourke". You would instead likely have an elongated "o" sound, or you would put a pause between the two "o" sounds - the exact same thing one is intended to do when saying "nam-myou"; omitting the pause/elongation, and instead saying "na-myou" would be completely incorrect. A similar, very frequently used comparison is the difference in saying "sea top" versus saying "seat top". The same is once again true for "nam-myou".
Once again, you're completely within your right to wholeheartedly believe in strictly pronouncing the "mu". But unless you have a deep understanding of the Japanese language, I would recommend not using that as a point against the SGI or other such organizations. And again, this isn't coming from the standpoint of someone wishing to defend the SGI - I have my fair share of criticisms towards it as well, plenty of which we may agree on - rather, this is coming from the perspective of someone who is deeply passionate about the Japanese language, Japanese culture, and how both have evolved over time.
What I WOULD say, however, as an aside, is that it should be written as "myouhou-renge-kyou", rather than "myoho-renge-kyo". The extra u's are an important distinction in the pronunciation of the words - they prolong the "o" sound. It's みょうほう・れんげ・きょう rather than みょほ・れんげ・きょ. Of course, you see the same thing with other names like Tokyo instead of Toukyou, but the phonetic difference is noticeable and important.
Though you are familiar with the Japanese language, I assert that the "u" vowel was not devoiced in Nichiren's day, least of all when chanting Daimoku. I suspect that you chant Nam Myoho renge kyo and you are rationalizing its use and transferring what you do to what Nichiren did. This is an error. I still maintain that what Nichiren wrote on his Gohonzon and Gosho is how and what he spoke, otherwise, he would have delineated it, do you think Nichiren said when explaining the structure of Gohonzon to his priests, "Nam Myoho renge kyo is written down the center of Gohonzon." Again of course not. This too is one of my arguments against the DaiGohonzon. Nichiren NEVER wrote of a special Gohonzon of the Koan Era on October 12, 1279.
What you're arguing against is written word versus how it's pronounced. There's no reason a Japanese man would have to explain to other Japanese people how to pronounce their own language, unless he were preaching to infants. As I've stated several times, 南無, regardless of whether you pronounce it as "Namu" or "Nam", is still written as 南無. He would have no reason to delineate it given he was a Japanese man, speaking Japanese, to other Japanese people. They knew how to speak their own language.
I'm not rationalizing it based on whether or not I personally say Nam or Namu. I'm rationalizing it from the perspective of somebody deeply interested in the Japanese language. To be perfectly frank, the discussion of Buddhism is more of an aside than the main point I'm making. If you do not speak or understand the Japanese language, you should not speak to how you believe it should be pronounced. If you are not an authority on the matter, you should not speak on the matter. That's the only issue I have here; I'm not arguing doctrine, or what organization interprets Nichiren's writings better or worse, or what have you. My singular intent is to explain that the pronunciation of "Namu" versus "Nam" is not a point against any organization, whether you agree or disagree with their interpretations.
You're arguing about the linguistics of a language you do not speak or understand. That's the thing that confuses me.
In a sense, you are saying that the many millions of they who chant "Namu: Myoho renge kyo are wrong, such as this priest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HF22rzF2zk
That is an untenable position. My argument is that Nichiren always, without a single exception, wrote in his Gohonzon and writings the 5 or 7 characters. Nichiren was a scriptural Buddhist and what he wrote is what he spoke, I believe.
I've neither said nor implied that. I explicitly stated that pronouncing it as "Namu" is perfectly fine. What I *did* say is that the pronunciation of "Namu" as "Nam" is a purely linguistic thing, for the ease of flow and pronunciation. It's incredibly common in the Japanese language.
To me, the untenable position is in suggesting that the Japanese people are pronouncing their own language incorrectly/less correctly, especially if you are not someone who is either a native speaker or has extensively studied the language. Surely, if this were such a point of contention, it would've caused a rift in Japan well before now.
I'm not talking about how it's written. The written chant has always been 南無妙法蓮華経 regardless of organization, sect, or practitioner. There have been no changes to the 5 or 7 characters in any capacity.
Going back to that video, you can even hear that they pronounce "Namu" in one beat rather than "na" and "mu" being given equal length - this is the same length of time given to "Nam", furthering my point that "Nam" is purely for the sake of ease of pronunciation/flow.
Regarding "what he wrote is what he spoke" - the Japanese language has changed significantly over time. It's entirely plausible that the pronunciation of the chant was completely different given the phonological evolution of the language. And again, there are cases where, in ancient Japanese, "mu" was pronounced as "m" or "n". The link I sent goes more in-depth.
Now, if the chant became "Namu-Ikeda-Daisensei" (Devotion to the Great Teacher Ikeda, also 7 characters in Japanese), that would be a problem! THAT would be truly slanderous to the 5 and 7 characters. As it stands now, however, "Namu/Nam-myouhou-renge-kyou" has remained completely unchanged. Namu vs Nam is exclusively for the sake of flow; again, you and others are free to say "Namu". Nothing wrong with that. I only have a problem with the insistence that it's more correct/the only correct way to say it, especially with regards to other organizations or practitioners. It simply isn't the gotcha that you posit it is. Unless, again, you have extensively studied the Japanese language or are a native speaker, I feel that it is not your place to tell Japanese speakers (native or otherwise) what the correct pronunciation is. That's where my issue lies. If you are native/have studied the language in-depth, then I will retract everything I have said with regards to pronunciation.
Please note that I have no ill will towards you whatsoever - none of what I'm saying comes from a dark place! I just feel that efforts towards rebuking the SGI should lie in things like shady political/financial workings, Ikeda-ism, etc., rather than something that truly is not the point you've expressed it to be.
To my knowledge, the Nichiren Shoshu, for example, continued to chant Namu myoho renge kyo exclusively, well after 1919 when they separated from the Nichiren Shu, until they associated with the Soka Gakkai and well after the Japanese were dropping vowels. In the Langoinstitute blog, the author in talking about Japanese/Chinese/Korean correspondences. He states:
In Part 1 he states: "over the centuries have brought about some changes in pronunciation. ... This final vowel sound devoices (meaning it becomes difficult to hear)" ie Namu to Nam. The question arises, WHEN did this appear. I maintain that this appeared well after the Kamakura Era in Japan. Therefore, Nichiren did indeed chant Namu Myoho renge kyo. I've only begun to do this research but in my previous research, the dropping of vowels in pronunciation, roughly corresponded with the Great Vowel Shift in english. What say you? You are an expert in the Japanese language. When did this change of pronunciation begin?
Looking at the LanGo Institute blog you're referring to: This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's referring to how Japanese tried to mimic Chinese pronunciations (the Japanese term for this being "on'yomi"). The devoicing of the "i" sound in "ichi" was to approximate the Chinese pronunciation in Japanese, as no singular "t" or "ch" sound exists in Japanese. It does not indicate *when* devoicing began, or for that matter, that there was a "great vowel shift", for which I can find no indication of occurring, in either English or Japanese (with regards to resources). Once again, if you've done research into the matter, I would appreciate sources rather than hearsay/stray quotes; you ask me to cite references, but I've yet to receive any from your end, either, while I *have* provided some resources.
Furthermore, the Nichiren Shoushuu did not "associate" with the Souka Gakkai; the organization formed from within the Shoushuu by Makiguchi before being eventually excommunicated in 1991. Could you provide a reference showing that they continued to chant "Namu" rather than "Nam", or that any change in pronunciation occurred as a result of the Souka Gakkai?
As stated before, I can find no "East Asian Vowel Shift" with regards to Japanese. The closest information I *can* find has nothing to do with voicing/devoicing. Where are you finding information on this vowel shift occurring in Japanese? What, in your previous research, indicates that this occurred at all, let alone around the same time the Great Vowel Shift in England occurred? I would genuinely like to know, as I find linguistics to be a very fascinating topic.
As another note: this Japanese pronunciation with the devoiced "i" sound was the result of trying to mimic *Middle Chinese*, which was from a time period ranging around the 5th to 12th century (others suggesting it "ended" around the 10th century), before Nichiren's time. Therefore, the devoiced vowel would've existed even before Nichiren was born, and thus would not disprove "Nam" as a valid pronunciation.
This says nothing about the devoiced u. It is an argument but a weak argument concerning the devoiced u for two reasons: 1). Why is not "u" discussed in your research. 2). Nichiren was very explicit in his writings including structure of Gohonzon and what constituted his and the Lotus Sutra's doctrines such as the Three Great Secret Laws, the Three Treasures, Buddhahood attainable by all, and the eternity of the Buddha's life and environemnt. Since Nichiren was as close to omnicient as anyone in the Latter Day and the doctrine of chanting Daimoku is so central to his teaching, I believe he would be more specific as to its pronunciation (if it wasn't pronounced as it was written). What say you about this?
1. "u" and "i" are the only vowels that are consistently devoiced; a quick Google search into the matter will yield bountiful results. I didn't mention it because it is the core subject - any argument here should be assumed to be about devoiced vowels in whatever sense they are applicable to the discussion.
2. Languages evolve over time. Nichiren was not a devout linguist - he was a Buddhist monk devoted to studying and perfecting the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Not only would it not make sense logically to adhere to a strict pronunciation (again, languages evolve; expecting them to stay constant is foolish), but it would not make sense just from the standpoint of: this is a Japanese man writing in Japanese for Japanese people. The pronunciation would almost certainly be assumed to be understood by the Japanese readers. Furthermore, this is a linguistic point, not a doctrinal one.
As far as "if it wasn't pronounced as it was written": as I've stated before, plenty of characters in ancient Japanese did not match the pronunciation at the time. I will list a few examples to be as clear as possible.
は (ha) was frequently pronounced as "wa"; remnants of this are actually still present in modern-day Japanese, as the "topic particle". ふ (fu/hu) was pronounced more as "u". ひ (hi) was pronounced as "i". お (o) was at times pronounced as "wo". へ (he) was pronounced as "e" (like は, remnants of this still exist in modern Japanese). Perhaps most notably, む (mu) was at times pronounced as "m" or "n".
Since writing does not do this justice, I could provide recordings and/or do some sort of call to demonstrate the differences, should you wish to do so.
Thank you for your lectures on the Japanese Language. What I and the readers wish to know, "when exactly did devoicing occur". I maintain that it happened after the Kamakura period. In the case of the Daimoku, I maintain it is not devoicing but deletion. As I stated before, even the Nichiren Shoshu used to chant Namu Myoho renge kyo exclusively (and the Honmon Butsuryu) and it was a recent development for them to change to Nam Myoho renge kyo. The Nichiren Shoshu continues to chant Namu Myoho renge kyo when they perform "Hiki" Daimoku before and after their chanting sessions. This too leads me to believe that it was a later maqnifestation. Then how is it possible that Nichiren chanted Nam Myoho renge kyo rather than Namu Myoho renge kyo.
That was not my article on the near concurrence of the English ("Great") vowel shift and the East Asian vowel shift or devoicing of vowels. I am researching it right now but I am sure it occured after Nichiren's time. You say Nam is written as two characters. Have you read the Gosho in English? Only the Soka Gakkai has replaced Namu with Nam. Is this a faithful translation of Nichiren? Of course not!
You keep insisting on this happening after the Kamakura period, but my question to you is this: on what are you basing this? I cannot find anything suggesting this to be the case, or even anything suggesting it isn't, for that matter - ultimately, it becomes a moot point.
Once again, could you please provide proof of some sort that would suggest the Nichiren Shoushuu only recently (relatively speaking) began to chant Nam rather than Namu? From what I can tell, most sects of Nichiren Buddhism either do Nam or both. As far as the slower chanting, it makes more sense to sound it out completely because you are speaking slowly. Namu->Nam is for easier, quicker phonetic pronunciation. Retaining "Nam" in slower chanting could easily just be for the sake of consistency rather than switching between "Namu" and "Nam"; to each their own.
Regarding the article: I know you didn't write it. But you provided it for a reason, which I can only assume is that you felt it was relevant to your claim. But as I stated, the article would suggest that it occurred *before* the Kamakura period ended, as it was based upon Middle Chinese, which existed no later than the 12th century at best.
Regarding the Gosho in English: Nam is still written as two characters *in Japanese*. You're arguing over the English spelling of how something is *spoken* in Japanese. Namu and Nam mean the exact same thing, and are to be said with the exact same timing. Furthermore, as I've mentioned numerous times, some sources (in Japanese, and not through the SGI) actually write "Nan" (なん) rather than "Namu" (なむ). Namu->Nam is for the ease of English-speakers to pronounce it closer to how it's typically pronounced in Japanese.
At least, when writing Daimoku, they should be faithful to Nichiren. Of course, when they extremely rapidly mumble, i mean chant, the Daimoku, you can't hear the "mu". Since they, and possibly the Honmon Butsuryu Shu? are the only sects that chant Nam Myoho renge kyo EXCLUSIVELY, we need to very carefully examine their doctrines.
You wrote: "Once again, the character "mu" has not and never has been removed. 南無 is still 南無, in both the past and present, and the syllabic count is entirely unchanged.
Are you saying that in the modern SGI Japanese Gosho, the character "mu" is not removed. Then why is it removed in the SGI English gosho translations. When we chant Namu Myoho renge kyo, we sometimes chant 6 beats and sometimes 7 beats but the syllabic count is unchanged. However in the SGI English gosho translation of Namu to "Nam", DEFINITELY, the syllabic count is reduced.
I am 100% saying that, and I could even pull up the Gosho in Japanese, from the SGI, to prove it. It is demonstrably true that they have not removed the 無 in 南無. The 無 is what corresponds to "mu/m". Your lack of understanding of the Japanese language is what's undermining your point: the syllabic count is not reduced. The "m" in "Nam" is meant to last just as long as it would if you said "mu". It is NOT "na-myou", it is "naM-myou". Failing to pronounce the "m" in "nam" is what would contitute the equivalence of removing the 無 from 南無.
Ok, then we can work to change their English Gosho.
No argument that you make that reciting Nam is syllabic equivalent to reciting Namu whether the Nam is long or short. Nam is ONE syllable long or short, Namu is TWO syllables long or short. And please don't forget, Namu may be recited in 6 or seven beats. Your argument would be correct were you to mean "beats" when Namu is recited as one beat.
It *is* the syllabic equivalent. Here's a demonstration: https://voca.ro/1lPBqY5Aw9qx Stressing the "m" in "Nam" to demonstrate its syllabic equivalence to "Namu".
What you're arguing is based on an English approximation of how it is phonetically spoken in Japanese. To that extent, Japanese does not have "syllables"; it has what is known as "mora". For instance, I'll place a ・ between each mora in Japanese: な・む・みょ・う・ほ・う・れ・ん・げ・きょ・う Na-Mu-Myo-U-Ho-U-Re-N-Ge-Kyo-U Each one is technically one "beat", if you will, and this is what the Japanese pronunciation would ultimately be based upon. Morae are at times grouped together, something easily seen in the recitation of the Lotus Sutra, e.g. "Shari-hotsu".
I implore you to study Japanese, at least to some extent, before trying to speak to how something in Japanese is said, let alone something from an archaic form of the language to which we could not argue one way or the other the pronunciation of by a single person.
"Nam" would be approximated to "Na-m" in the same way it would be "Na-mu". The "m" in "Nam" corresponds to the character 無 in 南無.
You wrote: "To me, the untenable position is in suggesting that the Japanese people are pronouncing their own language incorrectly/less correctly, especially if you are not someone who is either a native speaker or has extensively studied the language. Surely, if this were such a point of contention, it would've caused a rift in Japan well before now."
Not the Japanese people and the minority of those who chant Namu Myoho renge kyo, merely the Fuji school adherents, and only EXCLUSIVELY the Soka Gakkai. not being a Japanese has zero to do with it. I am, at least, somewhat familiar with every one of your arguments because i have heard them before and I find them weak despite you erudition. Do you think that the chanting of Nam Myoho renge kyo has not contributed at least to having caused a rift. Then, you are wrong about this too.
Not being Japanese isn't the point: not *understanding* the Japanese language *is*. What you're arguing is based on the pronunciation of the Japanese language. Not having an understanding of the language destroys any credibility you would have in presenting a point regarding how to speak a phrase in Japanese. I would not and could not, in good faith, speak to the pronunciation of something in Chinese. That is not my place to speak, and it is of my firm belief that, unless you truly dedicate yourself to either learning Japanese or its history, it is not your place to speak to how it should be properly pronounced.
As far as Namu vs Nam causing a rift: please point me in the direction of this event. As far as I can tell, the rifts occurring within Nichiren Buddhism exist essentially based around two things: 1. Which descendant of Nichiren practitioners chose to follow and 2. How the organizations in question should be run.
I've not seen anything to suggest that Namu vs Nam has caused rifts. If you could point me in that direction, that would be wonderful; but research I've done has not suggested this to be the case, with most people agreeing that either pronunciation is acceptable (to the extent that such conversations even technically exist in Japanese).
You wrote: "To me, the untenable position is in suggesting that the Japanese people are pronouncing their own language incorrectly/less correctly, especially if you are not someone who is either a native speaker or has extensively studied the language. Surely, if this were such a point of contention, it would've caused a rift in Japan well before now."
It is not the Japanese people and not even the majority of the Japanese people who chant Nam Myoho renge kyo, merely the Fuji school adherents, and only EXCLUSIVELY the Soka Gakkai. Not being a Japanese has zero to do with it. I am, at least, somewhat familiar with every one of your arguments because i have heard them before and I find them weak despite your erudition. Do you think that the chanting of Nam Myoho renge kyo has not contributed at least to having caused a rift. Then, you are wrong about this too.
The Wiki article on Classical Japanese which I'm sure Nichiren Daishonin spoke states:
"Classical Japanese began to be written during the Heian period, at which point it was very similar to spoken Japanese. It became the written standard for the Japanese language for many centuries, though the spoken language continued to evolve. Futabatei Shimei's 1887 novel The Drifting Cloud was one of the first novels to be written in vernacular Japanese rather than classical. By 1908, novels no longer used classical Japanese, and by the 1920s the same was true of all Newspapers and by the Edo period was substantially different from classical Japanese.[1] This is known as diglossia, a situation in which two forms of a language, in this case a written and spoken form, coexist.[2] During the Meiji period, some intellectuals sought the abolition of classical Japanese, such as the Genbun Itchi movement, which proposed that written Japanese conform to the vernacular spoken language. was true of all newspapers.[3] Government documents remained in classical Japanese until 1946.[4] Classical Japanese continues to be taught in Japanese high schools and universities due to its importance in the study of traditional Japanese literature.[1]
Again, i maintain that Namu was the classical Japanese in both written AND spoken form and the modern Japanese vernacular "Nam" is a much later development. According to this Wike article, Mu's deletion could even have been synonymous with the rise of the Soka Gakkai in 1933. Can you even find any video from before 1920 or so of Nichiren Shoshu or any sect chanting Nam and not Namu myoho renge kyo. As an aside, did you know that most priests and scholars use the Showa Tehon collection of Gosho in Nichiren's hand (classical Japanese and Chinese) and not the modern Gosho Zenchu (stained with the translator's motivation and bent). The Showa Tehon is perfectly true regarding Nichiren's beliefs.
Have you tried chanting Namu myoho renge kyo for any length of time? Subjectively, for me, there is a powerful difference regarding my faith and understanding of the Daishonin's teachings having chanted Nam Myoho renge kyo and Namu Myoho renge kyo for more than 21 years.
This article has nothing to do with your argument. This is, to try and draw parallels to English, like insisting that literature be written in Old English, despite nobody actually speaking like that anymore. We speak modern-day English in the way that we do, so the Japanese intellectuals point was likely: why bother writing in an old form of the language that nobody actually speaks? This is essentially "literary form" for Japanese. Nothing on the article suggests that the SGI is at all relevant to this. Furthermore, the presence of "南無" is unchanged regardless of whether it's written in modern or classical Japanese. 南無 is a word that still has modern-day usage, and has maintained the same pronunciation. Whether the "mu" sounds more like "m" or "mu" is dependent entirely on the context in which it is being used, not based upon whether it is classical or modern Japanese.
Regarding the Shouwa Teihon: these writings are a part of the Gosho Zenshuu. Literally, all the "Gosho Zenshuu" is is the "Complete collection of the Gosho". According to the Nichiren Shuu's own website: "The Nichiren Shonin Zenshu is a modern Japanese version of Nichiren's original writings, translated and edited with annotations by modern scholars of Nichiren Buddhism. Despite its all-inclusive titles, the Zenshu is highly selective in that it takes into account only writings considered bibliographically authentic (i.e., attested to by original manuscripts)."
Another thing worth noting is that it's a *Modern Japanese* adaptation of the writings. While I don't have a Japanese copy of the book, I would assume this means (also based upon the "Shouwa Teihon" title) that it's written in modern Japanese, which would make sense since, ultimately, classical Japanese isn't as easily-readable as the modern-day language.
Regarding chanting Namu rather than Nam for an extended period of time: I'm glad you feel it deepens and strengthens your personal understanding of Nichiren Daishonin's teachings, and I meant that sincerely. My point, though, isn't about that; I'm simply urging you to avoid insisting that one pronunciation is more correct than the other. If you, or anyone else for that matter, prefers to say Namu, that's perfectly fine and I have no issue with that. My only issue is that you are essentially presenting yourself as an authority with regards to Japanese pronunciation when, to the absolute best of my knowledge, you do not speak the language. Nothing wrong with not knowing the language, the only problem is in your insistence on things you ultimately should not be speaking to.
First I want to thank you for your thorough heartfelt response and instructions regarding the Nam/Namu question. For now I will move on to other topics. I neither concede nor accept many of your premises. Once, a Nichiren priest insisted that because we don't read Japanese and Chinese, that we couldn't understand the heart of Nichiren and it would be much more difficult to attain the Way. I responded that Nichiren's teachings are a universal gate to Buddhahood whether or not we can read Medieval Japanese and Chinese. Still, he insisted that only those who can read and study the original documants are able to understand Nichiren's Buddhism. Not wanting to sever my relationship with this person we agreed to disagree.
I imagine that you and the men and women who continue to chant Nam Myoho renge kyo will, for the most part, continue to chant Nam Myoho renge kyo and those who chant Namu Myoho renge kyo, likewise, will continue to do so. I'm sure you will be a a staunch advocate for the former and me for the latter. Either way, I will refer those who wish to delve deeper into this important subject to this discussion. Once again, thank you for your in depth analysis of the subject.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion as well! As I've said throughout our discussion, I have no ill will towards you, and I think it was a pleasant discussion to have.
On your point regarding the priest: I agree completely! I don't think people should have to know Chinese or Japanese to be proper Nichiren Buddhists. That said, there a couple of things I would like to clarify real quick:
1. I'm not arguing that you (or anybody else practicing Nichiren Buddhism) needs to speak Japanese to properly practice. I, like you, believe that his teachings transcend language. That said, I do believe that when discussing how things in Japanese are pronounced, a deep knowledge or understanding of the Japanese language *is* vital. After all, pronunciation is a linguistic, rather than doctrinal, thing.
2. I'm not arguing that Nam is more correct than Namu - in my eyes, they are both perfectly fine and equal. My only point was in saying that Nam is not *less* correct than Namu, is all. As such, I'm not really a "staunch advocate" one way or the other, I simply believe that both are equal ways to chant. I'm not arguing *against* Namu, so much as I am saying that Nam is equivalent.
Likewise, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter! It's been a long, insightful discussion, and I'm glad to have been able to have it!
I don't know if you've corrected this or not yet, but in hearing an interview with The Cult Vault, you kept insisting that Nichiren chanted Namu-Myouhou-Renge-Kyou, which I feel is something that needs to be addressed: while yes, literally, this is how it's phonetically spelled out, the Namu -> Nam pronunciation change is a purely Japanese thing.
ReplyDeleteEven the word "Gakkai" in Souka Gakkai is an example of this: while the original Japanese characters (学会・がっかい） read as "gaku" and "kai" individually, it's considerably easier to pronounce as "Gakkai" rather than "gakukai". Nam-Myouhou-Renge-Kyou is a similar situation, and ultimately, in Japanese, between the SGI and Nichiren's original writings, the characters used are the exact same (南無妙法蓮華経・なむみょうほうれんげきょう). I would suggest not using "Namu" versus "Nam" as an argument; this is simply a very common thing in the Japanese language. Consequently, suggesting that the two phrases have any true difference is very misleading. If you wish, I could go more in-depth into how these kinds of pronunciations come about, but I do think it's very much worth keeping in mind!
Thanks for reading!
P.S.
DeleteThis is neither to hold up the Souka Gakkai nor is it to put you down. This is coming purely from an objective standpoint regarding the Japanese language, nothing more, nothing less!
Please read: http://markrogow.blogspot.com/2019/03/it-is-namu-myoho-renge-kyo-not-nam.html
ReplyDeleteThen we can further discuss the matter. Google Eagle Peak Blog search engine is fairly good for almost everything I know and have researched, for what that's worth.
Having read this, my point still stands; I've been studying the Japanese language very nearly my whole life, and can say with confidence that the differences you are describing are coming from a very English-oriented perspective.
DeleteIn Japanese, no such removal of characters exist. "Mu," or the character 無, has not and never has been removed.
As far as "syllables" go, the "u" sound being essentially silent does not affect the syllable count in any way. It's not pronounced "na myou hou renge kyou", and if one did, that would 1000% be incorrect. That would be the true equivalent of removing the "mu". Once again, the "無" character has not, and never has been, removed in any capacity. The same thing applies to words like "Gakkai" - if pronounced as "Gakai" it would be completely incorrect. The extra letter k/m (in English) is key, as well as the way it affects the pronunciation of the word.
As far as "words being pronounced as they are written" goes, there are a great deal of times where this isn't inherently true. For instance, in old Japanese, the character "fu" (or ふ) would be pronounced as "u" (う), despite phonetically being different - and instances of this are plentiful in the Gosho. The crucial difference is whether or not you pronounce the "m" and "nam" - failing to do so is what would truly make the pronunciation incorrect, and therefore slander Nichiren's statements regarding the five and seven characters.
Ultimately, writing it out in English as "nam" instead of "namu" is a purely English-oriented approach - trying to explain to people with not even a basic understanding of Japanese pronunciation as to why the "u" sound isn't there when spoken out loud would take entirely too much time, so writing it as "nam" is a way to get non-Japanese speakers to pronounce it the way that it is in Japanese. (As a note, this is not directed towards you specifically in any way!)
There are innumerable things to criticize the SGI for, and that much I can agree 100% on, but the phonetic pronunciation of Namu-myouhou-renge-kyou is, in my opinion as a student of Japanese, not one of them. Even other Nichiren Buddhist organizations (e.g. Nichiren Shuu, Nichiren Shoushuu) pronounce the phrase the same way.
If there's any better way you'd like to discuss the matter, I would be more than willing to! Blog comments are definitely not the best means for in-depth discussions.
"You wrote: "As far as "words being pronounced as they are written" goes, there are a great deal of times where this isn't inherently true. For instance, in old Japanese, the character "fu" (or ふ) would be pronounced as "u" (う), despite phonetically being different - and instances of this are plentiful in the Gosho." But you can not the opposite, one instance in old Japanese where Tu, Bu, Mu, du, "fu", ku etc, in which the "u" is dropped.
DeleteAnd I maintain, Nichiren chanted Namu Myoho renge kyo because he lived before the East Asian Vowel Shift in which the last vowel of words was dropped. Incredibly, the East Asian vowel shift, more or less, coincided with the Great Vowel Shift of the English Language (between 1400 and 1700) After both the
ReplyDeleteGreat Vowel Shift and the East Asian vowel shift, language, English, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese had changed quite significantly, no? My final contention, Namu Myoho renge kyo is the formal name of the Law and not Nam Myoho renge kyo. Out of repect for the Law and the Buddha we invoke the formal name of the Law, written on the Gohonzon. Do you know Betto O'Rourke, the presidential wannabe. Do you think he would respond to "Bett" instead of Betto? This is according to my studies, quite limited, of course, compared to yours and my reasoning.
Either Way, I will keep chanting Namu Myoho renge kyo and for the sake of unity, I will continue to promote the chanting of Namu Myoho renge kyo and the Nichiren Gohonzon as our banner of propagation.
I have two questions for you. Why did so many disciples and believers, after the death of Nichiren, continue chanting Namu Myoho renge kyo, instead of Nam Myoho renge kyo, if as you site, Nam is actually more correct? Why didn't you take into account the East Asian Vowel Shift that began in China and spread to Japan, Korea, and the rest of Asia?
Black lives do matter , justly and legally protested American apartheid and the so called"new american racism" " the euphamistic Nazis of the new" alternative right" the Trump nazis and fascists. The same old reactionaries and racists, who are trying to take advantage of the chaos, in this backwards, militaristic, white American nuclear, imperial, police state.
ReplyDeleteThe trumpos want a full blown authoritarian, anti environmental police state, based on racism. White nationalism, procorporate-imperial agendas, isolationist dream state of their delusional creations. Half of the western United States is burning up, from wild fires now that are partially a consequence of climate change. The centrist liars, say they will do something. The Trump fascists are in total denial of climate change. There is flooding. There have been major tropical, storms in the south that no one is talking about. There will be hurricanes in the fall, that will further damage, old beat up nuclear power plants on the gulf coast and eastern seaboard.
Black people are standing up for themselves and woke, in spite of what old white reactionary jerks, say
More people need to rise up against racism, militarism, nuclear arms, crappy killer nuclear reactors and climate change, like never before. If it offends u, reactionaries, and shriveled up old white posers, repuklikans and centrist corporate bootlickers, so be it! If it offends you Ayn Rand fascists, so be it!
The Germans, the Vietnamese, taiwanese, some Chinese have stood up against nuclear power, while Fukushima pours radioactive waste into the Pacific. and the Russians, USA, the french, israhell, the Canadians , the British, and india continue with their insane nuclear power delusions. Delusions, that will destroy the world faster than you can imagine, ahead of climate change in this anthropocene, extinction era.
Space travel is probably not feasible Cosmic radiation in deep space. They will never perfect a nuclear reactor space engine. If they do, what good will it do! There are nuke subs, nuke ships, and reactors around the world contaminating everything and destroying life at a DNA level. Mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens of the worst kind destroying birds, bees and humans. There are thirty old reactors in orbits w plutonium and the other space junk waiting to tip the balance to massive radioculide catastrophes with the 400 or so old beat up reactors on earth. Como pendejo. How greedy, stupid, and crazy can humans be? Soon the insanity will stop because, we have, nuked, polluted, and used war to ourselves into Oblivion. They lie about covid and the superbugs, that we have brought upon ourselves.
Regarding the Great Vowel Shift, I can't find anything concerning such a thing in Japan. If you could direct me towards that, I would much appreciate it. What's worth noting, however, is that even in modern Japanese, the sounds you insist are being dropped, truly aren't - they're unvoiced, and to an untrained ear, may sound like they've been completely dropped, but they are still present.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the pronunciation of "namu" as "nam" occurs due to the similar sounds produced between "namu" and "myou" - both containing that "m" sound. In Japanese, trying to chant the "mu" without it truncating becomes difficult the more you do it, and the faster you do it. The reason for this and, as I mentioned before, the same reason words like "Gakkai" are pronounced "Gakkai" and not "Gakukai" is because of ease of, and the more natural flow of, these pronunciations.
Regarding why disciples and believers chanted Namu instead of Nam - if you could share sources, that would be great. But it's worth pointing out that what you're talking about would be based exclusively on *written* records. No person is alive to prove or disprove the spoken pronunciation one way or the other, but I think there's a good reason as to why, in Japan, it's pronounced the way it is today. Arguing, as a non-Japanese speaker, that the way the words are spoken in Japanese is wrong, is misleading. If you are a speaker of the language/have done thorough and extensive studies on it, I'll happily retract that statement in its entirety.
Once again, the character "mu" has not and never has been removed. 南無 is still 南無, in both the past and present, and the syllabic count is entirely unchanged. Some sources have even presented Namu as being pronounced as "nan", which, when connected to certain consonant sounds, is pronounced more like "m" (hence why some names in Japanese, when written in English, will be with an "m" instead of "n", like Gumpei versus Gunpei). Additionally, there are plenty of cases in which the "mu" sound, in ancient Japanese, sounded more like "m" or "n" (see: https://classicaljapanese.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/mu/)
This is all well before the 15th century.
There's nothing wrong with choosing to strictly pronounce "mu" as you do, but to suggest that that's the only/most correct way is, in my opinion, misinformation, from the standpoint of someone familiar with the Japanese language. Regarding the Betto O'Rourke comparison, it's actually a perfect example of how the distinction of syllables is crucial. You would not drop the "o" in "Betto" or the "O" in "O'Rourke". You would instead likely have an elongated "o" sound, or you would put a pause between the two "o" sounds - the exact same thing one is intended to do when saying "nam-myou"; omitting the pause/elongation, and instead saying "na-myou" would be completely incorrect. A similar, very frequently used comparison is the difference in saying "sea top" versus saying "seat top". The same is once again true for "nam-myou".
Once again, you're completely within your right to wholeheartedly believe in strictly pronouncing the "mu". But unless you have a deep understanding of the Japanese language, I would recommend not using that as a point against the SGI or other such organizations. And again, this isn't coming from the standpoint of someone wishing to defend the SGI - I have my fair share of criticisms towards it as well, plenty of which we may agree on - rather, this is coming from the perspective of someone who is deeply passionate about the Japanese language, Japanese culture, and how both have evolved over time.
What I WOULD say, however, as an aside, is that it should be written as "myouhou-renge-kyou", rather than "myoho-renge-kyo". The extra u's are an important distinction in the pronunciation of the words - they prolong the "o" sound. It's みょうほう・れんげ・きょう rather than みょほ・れんげ・きょ.
DeleteOf course, you see the same thing with other names like Tokyo instead of Toukyou, but the phonetic difference is noticeable and important.
Though you are familiar with the Japanese language, I assert that the "u" vowel was not devoiced in Nichiren's day, least of all when chanting Daimoku. I suspect that you chant Nam Myoho renge kyo and you are rationalizing its use and transferring what you do to what Nichiren did. This is an error. I still maintain that what Nichiren wrote on his Gohonzon and Gosho is how and what he spoke, otherwise, he would have delineated it, do you think Nichiren said when explaining the structure of Gohonzon to his priests, "Nam Myoho renge kyo is written down the center of Gohonzon." Again of course not. This too is one of my arguments against the DaiGohonzon. Nichiren NEVER wrote of a special Gohonzon of the Koan Era on October 12, 1279.
DeleteWhat you're arguing against is written word versus how it's pronounced. There's no reason a Japanese man would have to explain to other Japanese people how to pronounce their own language, unless he were preaching to infants. As I've stated several times, 南無, regardless of whether you pronounce it as "Namu" or "Nam", is still written as 南無. He would have no reason to delineate it given he was a Japanese man, speaking Japanese, to other Japanese people. They knew how to speak their own language.
DeleteI'm not rationalizing it based on whether or not I personally say Nam or Namu. I'm rationalizing it from the perspective of somebody deeply interested in the Japanese language. To be perfectly frank, the discussion of Buddhism is more of an aside than the main point I'm making.
If you do not speak or understand the Japanese language, you should not speak to how you believe it should be pronounced. If you are not an authority on the matter, you should not speak on the matter. That's the only issue I have here; I'm not arguing doctrine, or what organization interprets Nichiren's writings better or worse, or what have you. My singular intent is to explain that the pronunciation of "Namu" versus "Nam" is not a point against any organization, whether you agree or disagree with their interpretations.
You're arguing about the linguistics of a language you do not speak or understand. That's the thing that confuses me.
Antinuke, thanks for your perspective!
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, you are saying that the many millions of they who chant "Namu: Myoho renge kyo are wrong, such as this priest:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HF22rzF2zk
That is an untenable position. My argument is that Nichiren always, without a single exception, wrote in his Gohonzon and writings the 5 or 7 characters. Nichiren was a scriptural Buddhist and what he wrote is what he spoke, I believe.
I've neither said nor implied that. I explicitly stated that pronouncing it as "Namu" is perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteWhat I *did* say is that the pronunciation of "Namu" as "Nam" is a purely linguistic thing, for the ease of flow and pronunciation. It's incredibly common in the Japanese language.
To me, the untenable position is in suggesting that the Japanese people are pronouncing their own language incorrectly/less correctly, especially if you are not someone who is either a native speaker or has extensively studied the language. Surely, if this were such a point of contention, it would've caused a rift in Japan well before now.
I'm not talking about how it's written. The written chant has always been 南無妙法蓮華経 regardless of organization, sect, or practitioner. There have been no changes to the 5 or 7 characters in any capacity.
Going back to that video, you can even hear that they pronounce "Namu" in one beat rather than "na" and "mu" being given equal length - this is the same length of time given to "Nam", furthering my point that "Nam" is purely for the sake of ease of pronunciation/flow.
Regarding "what he wrote is what he spoke" - the Japanese language has changed significantly over time. It's entirely plausible that the pronunciation of the chant was completely different given the phonological evolution of the language. And again, there are cases where, in ancient Japanese, "mu" was pronounced as "m" or "n". The link I sent goes more in-depth.
Now, if the chant became "Namu-Ikeda-Daisensei" (Devotion to the Great Teacher Ikeda, also 7 characters in Japanese), that would be a problem! THAT would be truly slanderous to the 5 and 7 characters. As it stands now, however, "Namu/Nam-myouhou-renge-kyou" has remained completely unchanged. Namu vs Nam is exclusively for the sake of flow; again, you and others are free to say "Namu". Nothing wrong with that. I only have a problem with the insistence that it's more correct/the only correct way to say it, especially with regards to other organizations or practitioners. It simply isn't the gotcha that you posit it is. Unless, again, you have extensively studied the Japanese language or are a native speaker, I feel that it is not your place to tell Japanese speakers (native or otherwise) what the correct pronunciation is. That's where my issue lies. If you are native/have studied the language in-depth, then I will retract everything I have said with regards to pronunciation.
Please note that I have no ill will towards you whatsoever - none of what I'm saying comes from a dark place! I just feel that efforts towards rebuking the SGI should lie in things like shady political/financial workings, Ikeda-ism, etc., rather than something that truly is not the point you've expressed it to be.
To my knowledge, the Nichiren Shoshu, for example, continued to chant Namu myoho renge kyo exclusively, well after 1919 when they separated from the Nichiren Shu, until they associated with the Soka Gakkai and well after the Japanese were dropping vowels. In the Langoinstitute blog, the author in talking about Japanese/Chinese/Korean correspondences. He states:
ReplyDeleteIn Part 1 he states: "over the centuries have brought about some changes in pronunciation. ... This final vowel sound devoices (meaning it becomes difficult to hear)" ie Namu to Nam. The question arises, WHEN did this appear. I maintain that this appeared well after the Kamakura Era in Japan. Therefore, Nichiren did indeed chant Namu Myoho renge kyo. I've only begun to do this research but in my previous research, the dropping of vowels in pronunciation, roughly corresponded with the Great Vowel Shift in english. What say you? You are an expert in the Japanese language. When did this change of pronunciation begin?
Please cite references.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the LanGo Institute blog you're referring to:
ReplyDeleteThis has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's referring to how Japanese tried to mimic Chinese pronunciations (the Japanese term for this being "on'yomi"). The devoicing of the "i" sound in "ichi" was to approximate the Chinese pronunciation in Japanese, as no singular "t" or "ch" sound exists in Japanese. It does not indicate *when* devoicing began, or for that matter, that there was a "great vowel shift", for which I can find no indication of occurring, in either English or Japanese (with regards to resources). Once again, if you've done research into the matter, I would appreciate sources rather than hearsay/stray quotes; you ask me to cite references, but I've yet to receive any from your end, either, while I *have* provided some resources.
Furthermore, the Nichiren Shoushuu did not "associate" with the Souka Gakkai; the organization formed from within the Shoushuu by Makiguchi before being eventually excommunicated in 1991. Could you provide a reference showing that they continued to chant "Namu" rather than "Nam", or that any change in pronunciation occurred as a result of the Souka Gakkai?
As stated before, I can find no "East Asian Vowel Shift" with regards to Japanese. The closest information I *can* find has nothing to do with voicing/devoicing. Where are you finding information on this vowel shift occurring in Japanese? What, in your previous research, indicates that this occurred at all, let alone around the same time the Great Vowel Shift in England occurred? I would genuinely like to know, as I find linguistics to be a very fascinating topic.
As another note: this Japanese pronunciation with the devoiced "i" sound was the result of trying to mimic *Middle Chinese*, which was from a time period ranging around the 5th to 12th century (others suggesting it "ended" around the 10th century), before Nichiren's time. Therefore, the devoiced vowel would've existed even before Nichiren was born, and thus would not disprove "Nam" as a valid pronunciation.
DeleteThis says nothing about the devoiced u. It is an argument but a weak argument concerning the devoiced u for two reasons: 1). Why is not "u" discussed in your research. 2). Nichiren was very explicit in his writings including structure of Gohonzon and what constituted his and the Lotus Sutra's doctrines such as the Three Great Secret Laws, the Three Treasures, Buddhahood attainable by all, and the eternity of the Buddha's life and environemnt. Since Nichiren was as close to omnicient as anyone in the Latter Day and the doctrine of chanting Daimoku is so central to his teaching, I believe he would be more specific as to its pronunciation (if it wasn't pronounced as it was written). What say you about this?
Delete1. "u" and "i" are the only vowels that are consistently devoiced; a quick Google search into the matter will yield bountiful results. I didn't mention it because it is the core subject - any argument here should be assumed to be about devoiced vowels in whatever sense they are applicable to the discussion.
Delete2. Languages evolve over time. Nichiren was not a devout linguist - he was a Buddhist monk devoted to studying and perfecting the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Not only would it not make sense logically to adhere to a strict pronunciation (again, languages evolve; expecting them to stay constant is foolish), but it would not make sense just from the standpoint of: this is a Japanese man writing in Japanese for Japanese people. The pronunciation would almost certainly be assumed to be understood by the Japanese readers. Furthermore, this is a linguistic point, not a doctrinal one.
As far as "if it wasn't pronounced as it was written": as I've stated before, plenty of characters in ancient Japanese did not match the pronunciation at the time. I will list a few examples to be as clear as possible.
は (ha) was frequently pronounced as "wa"; remnants of this are actually still present in modern-day Japanese, as the "topic particle".
ふ (fu/hu) was pronounced more as "u".
ひ (hi) was pronounced as "i".
お (o) was at times pronounced as "wo".
へ (he) was pronounced as "e" (like は, remnants of this still exist in modern Japanese).
Perhaps most notably, む (mu) was at times pronounced as "m" or "n".
Since writing does not do this justice, I could provide recordings and/or do some sort of call to demonstrate the differences, should you wish to do so.
Thank you for your lectures on the Japanese Language. What I and the readers wish to know, "when exactly did devoicing occur". I maintain that it happened after the Kamakura period. In the case of the Daimoku, I maintain it is not devoicing but deletion. As I stated before, even the Nichiren Shoshu used to chant Namu Myoho renge kyo exclusively (and the Honmon Butsuryu) and it was a recent development for them to change to Nam Myoho renge kyo. The Nichiren Shoshu continues to chant Namu Myoho renge kyo when they perform "Hiki" Daimoku before and after their chanting sessions. This too leads me to believe that it was a later maqnifestation. Then how is it possible that Nichiren chanted Nam Myoho renge kyo rather than Namu Myoho renge kyo.
ReplyDeleteThat was not my article on the near concurrence of the English ("Great") vowel shift and the East Asian vowel shift or devoicing of vowels. I am researching it right now but I am sure it occured after Nichiren's time. You say Nam is written as two characters. Have you read the Gosho in English? Only the Soka Gakkai has replaced Namu with Nam. Is this a faithful translation of Nichiren? Of course not!
You keep insisting on this happening after the Kamakura period, but my question to you is this: on what are you basing this? I cannot find anything suggesting this to be the case, or even anything suggesting it isn't, for that matter - ultimately, it becomes a moot point.
DeleteOnce again, could you please provide proof of some sort that would suggest the Nichiren Shoushuu only recently (relatively speaking) began to chant Nam rather than Namu? From what I can tell, most sects of Nichiren Buddhism either do Nam or both. As far as the slower chanting, it makes more sense to sound it out completely because you are speaking slowly. Namu->Nam is for easier, quicker phonetic pronunciation. Retaining "Nam" in slower chanting could easily just be for the sake of consistency rather than switching between "Namu" and "Nam"; to each their own.
Regarding the article: I know you didn't write it. But you provided it for a reason, which I can only assume is that you felt it was relevant to your claim. But as I stated, the article would suggest that it occurred *before* the Kamakura period ended, as it was based upon Middle Chinese, which existed no later than the 12th century at best.
Regarding the Gosho in English: Nam is still written as two characters *in Japanese*. You're arguing over the English spelling of how something is *spoken* in Japanese. Namu and Nam mean the exact same thing, and are to be said with the exact same timing.
Furthermore, as I've mentioned numerous times, some sources (in Japanese, and not through the SGI) actually write "Nan" (なん) rather than "Namu" (なむ). Namu->Nam is for the ease of English-speakers to pronounce it closer to how it's typically pronounced in Japanese.
At least, when writing Daimoku, they should be faithful to Nichiren. Of course, when they extremely rapidly mumble, i mean chant, the Daimoku, you can't hear the "mu". Since they, and possibly the Honmon Butsuryu Shu? are the only sects that chant Nam Myoho renge kyo EXCLUSIVELY, we need to very carefully examine their doctrines.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Once again, the character "mu" has not and never has been removed. 南無 is still 南無, in both the past and present, and the syllabic count is entirely unchanged.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that in the modern SGI Japanese Gosho, the character "mu" is not removed. Then why is it removed in the SGI English gosho translations. When we chant Namu Myoho renge kyo, we sometimes chant 6 beats and sometimes 7 beats but the syllabic count is unchanged. However in the SGI English gosho translation of Namu to "Nam", DEFINITELY, the syllabic count is reduced.
I am 100% saying that, and I could even pull up the Gosho in Japanese, from the SGI, to prove it. It is demonstrably true that they have not removed the 無 in 南無. The 無 is what corresponds to "mu/m".
DeleteYour lack of understanding of the Japanese language is what's undermining your point: the syllabic count is not reduced. The "m" in "Nam" is meant to last just as long as it would if you said "mu". It is NOT "na-myou", it is "naM-myou". Failing to pronounce the "m" in "nam" is what would contitute the equivalence of removing the 無 from 南無.
Ok, then we can work to change their English Gosho.
DeleteNo argument that you make that reciting Nam is syllabic equivalent to reciting Namu whether the Nam is long or short. Nam is ONE syllable long or short, Namu is TWO syllables long or short. And please don't forget, Namu may be recited in 6 or seven beats. Your argument would be correct were you to mean "beats" when Namu is recited as one beat.
It *is* the syllabic equivalent.
DeleteHere's a demonstration: https://voca.ro/1lPBqY5Aw9qx
Stressing the "m" in "Nam" to demonstrate its syllabic equivalence to "Namu".
What you're arguing is based on an English approximation of how it is phonetically spoken in Japanese. To that extent, Japanese does not have "syllables"; it has what is known as "mora".
For instance, I'll place a ・ between each mora in Japanese:
な・む・みょ・う・ほ・う・れ・ん・げ・きょ・う
Na-Mu-Myo-U-Ho-U-Re-N-Ge-Kyo-U
Each one is technically one "beat", if you will, and this is what the Japanese pronunciation would ultimately be based upon. Morae are at times grouped together, something easily seen in the recitation of the Lotus Sutra, e.g. "Shari-hotsu".
I implore you to study Japanese, at least to some extent, before trying to speak to how something in Japanese is said, let alone something from an archaic form of the language to which we could not argue one way or the other the pronunciation of by a single person.
"Nam" would be approximated to "Na-m" in the same way it would be "Na-mu". The "m" in "Nam" corresponds to the character 無 in 南無.
You wrote: "To me, the untenable position is in suggesting that the Japanese people are pronouncing their own language incorrectly/less correctly, especially if you are not someone who is either a native speaker or has extensively studied the language. Surely, if this were such a point of contention, it would've caused a rift in Japan well before now."
ReplyDeleteNot the Japanese people and the minority of those who chant Namu Myoho renge kyo, merely the Fuji school adherents, and only EXCLUSIVELY the Soka Gakkai. not being a Japanese has zero to do with it. I am, at least, somewhat familiar with every one of your arguments because i have heard them before and I find them weak despite you erudition. Do you think that the chanting of Nam Myoho renge kyo has not contributed at least to having caused a rift. Then, you are wrong about this too.
Not being Japanese isn't the point: not *understanding* the Japanese language *is*. What you're arguing is based on the pronunciation of the Japanese language. Not having an understanding of the language destroys any credibility you would have in presenting a point regarding how to speak a phrase in Japanese.
DeleteI would not and could not, in good faith, speak to the pronunciation of something in Chinese. That is not my place to speak, and it is of my firm belief that, unless you truly dedicate yourself to either learning Japanese or its history, it is not your place to speak to how it should be properly pronounced.
As far as Namu vs Nam causing a rift: please point me in the direction of this event. As far as I can tell, the rifts occurring within Nichiren Buddhism exist essentially based around two things:
1. Which descendant of Nichiren practitioners chose to follow and
2. How the organizations in question should be run.
I've not seen anything to suggest that Namu vs Nam has caused rifts. If you could point me in that direction, that would be wonderful; but research I've done has not suggested this to be the case, with most people agreeing that either pronunciation is acceptable (to the extent that such conversations even technically exist in Japanese).
You wrote: "To me, the untenable position is in suggesting that the Japanese people are pronouncing their own language incorrectly/less correctly, especially if you are not someone who is either a native speaker or has extensively studied the language. Surely, if this were such a point of contention, it would've caused a rift in Japan well before now."
ReplyDeleteIt is not the Japanese people and not even the majority of the Japanese people who chant Nam Myoho renge kyo, merely the Fuji school adherents, and only EXCLUSIVELY the Soka Gakkai. Not being a Japanese has zero to do with it. I am, at least, somewhat familiar with every one of your arguments because i have heard them before and I find them weak despite your erudition. Do you think that the chanting of Nam Myoho renge kyo has not contributed at least to having caused a rift. Then, you are wrong about this too.
The Wiki article on Classical Japanese which I'm sure Nichiren Daishonin spoke states:
ReplyDelete"Classical Japanese began to be written during the Heian period, at which point it was very similar to spoken Japanese. It became the written standard for the Japanese language for many centuries, though the spoken language continued to evolve. Futabatei Shimei's 1887 novel The Drifting Cloud was one of the first novels to be written in vernacular Japanese rather than classical. By 1908, novels no longer used classical Japanese, and by the 1920s the same was true of all Newspapers and by the Edo period was substantially different from classical Japanese.[1] This is known as diglossia, a situation in which two forms of a language, in this case a written and spoken form, coexist.[2] During the Meiji period, some intellectuals sought the abolition of classical Japanese, such as the Genbun Itchi movement, which proposed that written Japanese conform to the vernacular spoken language. was true of all newspapers.[3] Government documents remained in classical Japanese until 1946.[4] Classical Japanese continues to be taught in Japanese high schools and universities due to its importance in the study of traditional Japanese literature.[1]
Again, i maintain that Namu was the classical Japanese in both written AND spoken form and the modern Japanese vernacular "Nam" is a much later development. According to this Wike article, Mu's deletion could even have been synonymous with the rise of the Soka Gakkai in 1933. Can you even find any video from before 1920 or so of Nichiren Shoshu or any sect chanting Nam and not Namu myoho renge kyo. As an aside, did you know that most priests and scholars use the Showa Tehon collection of Gosho in Nichiren's hand (classical Japanese and Chinese) and not the modern Gosho Zenchu (stained with the translator's motivation and bent). The Showa Tehon is perfectly true regarding Nichiren's beliefs.
Have you tried chanting Namu myoho renge kyo for any length of time? Subjectively, for me, there is a powerful difference regarding my faith and understanding of the Daishonin's teachings having chanted Nam Myoho renge kyo and Namu Myoho renge kyo for more than 21 years.
This article has nothing to do with your argument. This is, to try and draw parallels to English, like insisting that literature be written in Old English, despite nobody actually speaking like that anymore. We speak modern-day English in the way that we do, so the Japanese intellectuals point was likely: why bother writing in an old form of the language that nobody actually speaks?
DeleteThis is essentially "literary form" for Japanese. Nothing on the article suggests that the SGI is at all relevant to this. Furthermore, the presence of "南無" is unchanged regardless of whether it's written in modern or classical Japanese. 南無 is a word that still has modern-day usage, and has maintained the same pronunciation. Whether the "mu" sounds more like "m" or "mu" is dependent entirely on the context in which it is being used, not based upon whether it is classical or modern Japanese.
Regarding the Shouwa Teihon: these writings are a part of the Gosho Zenshuu. Literally, all the "Gosho Zenshuu" is is the "Complete collection of the Gosho". According to the Nichiren Shuu's own website:
"The Nichiren Shonin Zenshu is a modern Japanese version of Nichiren's original writings, translated and edited with annotations by modern scholars of Nichiren Buddhism. Despite its all-inclusive titles, the Zenshu is highly selective in that it takes into account only writings considered bibliographically authentic (i.e., attested to by original manuscripts)."
Another thing worth noting is that it's a *Modern Japanese* adaptation of the writings. While I don't have a Japanese copy of the book, I would assume this means (also based upon the "Shouwa Teihon" title) that it's written in modern Japanese, which would make sense since, ultimately, classical Japanese isn't as easily-readable as the modern-day language.
Regarding chanting Namu rather than Nam for an extended period of time:
DeleteI'm glad you feel it deepens and strengthens your personal understanding of Nichiren Daishonin's teachings, and I meant that sincerely.
My point, though, isn't about that; I'm simply urging you to avoid insisting that one pronunciation is more correct than the other. If you, or anyone else for that matter, prefers to say Namu, that's perfectly fine and I have no issue with that.
My only issue is that you are essentially presenting yourself as an authority with regards to Japanese pronunciation when, to the absolute best of my knowledge, you do not speak the language. Nothing wrong with not knowing the language, the only problem is in your insistence on things you ultimately should not be speaking to.
Dear Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to thank you for your thorough heartfelt response and instructions regarding the Nam/Namu question. For now I will move on to other topics. I neither concede nor accept many of your premises. Once, a Nichiren priest insisted that because we don't read Japanese and Chinese, that we couldn't understand the heart of Nichiren and it would be much more difficult to attain the Way. I responded that Nichiren's teachings are a universal gate to Buddhahood whether or not we can read Medieval Japanese and Chinese. Still, he insisted that only those who can read and study the original documants are able to understand Nichiren's Buddhism. Not wanting to sever my relationship with this person we agreed to disagree.
I imagine that you and the men and women who continue to chant Nam Myoho renge kyo will, for the most part, continue to chant Nam Myoho renge kyo and those who chant Namu Myoho renge kyo, likewise, will continue to do so. I'm sure you will be a a staunch advocate for the former and me for the latter. Either way, I will refer those who wish to delve deeper into this important subject to this discussion. Once again, thank you for your in depth analysis of the subject.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion as well! As I've said throughout our discussion, I have no ill will towards you, and I think it was a pleasant discussion to have.
DeleteOn your point regarding the priest: I agree completely! I don't think people should have to know Chinese or Japanese to be proper Nichiren Buddhists. That said, there a couple of things I would like to clarify real quick:
1. I'm not arguing that you (or anybody else practicing Nichiren Buddhism) needs to speak Japanese to properly practice. I, like you, believe that his teachings transcend language. That said, I do believe that when discussing how things in Japanese are pronounced, a deep knowledge or understanding of the Japanese language *is* vital. After all, pronunciation is a linguistic, rather than doctrinal, thing.
2. I'm not arguing that Nam is more correct than Namu - in my eyes, they are both perfectly fine and equal. My only point was in saying that Nam is not *less* correct than Namu, is all. As such, I'm not really a "staunch advocate" one way or the other, I simply believe that both are equal ways to chant. I'm not arguing *against* Namu, so much as I am saying that Nam is equivalent.
Likewise, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter! It's been a long, insightful discussion, and I'm glad to have been able to have it!
Correct your arrogant posturing and your angry rhetoric towards fellow believers who merely challenge your thin skinned self.
ReplyDeleteDiscuss your decision to promote Trump in 2016 and what your complicity has unleashed on our country.
Thanks!
~Katie Higgins
I made a mistake FOR A SHORT TIME. I repent for my sin. Now you too should reflect Ms. perfect.
ReplyDelete