Reverand Yasuhara and Graham Lamont Debate Acquired Enlighenment and Original Enlightenment of the Common Mortal

Graham Lamont: Forgery, Hongaku (Original Enlightenement) is not Nichiren's doctrine. (Here Mr. Lamont refutes Rev. Yasahara's view of Hongaku).

It is has been stated that opposition to hongaku (innate original enlightenment) is wrong and that the “Matter of the Ten Thusnesses” (Junyoze no koto) is a genuine work simply because it is recorded in the “Rokunai gosho” collection.

1) The “Rokunai” catalogue is not any guide to authenticity; although at one time it was a slightly better standard for genuine works than the “Rokuge” collections, the naive belief that it was compiled on the first anniversary of Nichiren’s death has long since been discredited; it is a catalogue from long after. (“Nichiren Shonin Ibun jiten”, 1212c); as far as I can see the first reference to such collection is by Honjobo Nichijitsu of the Nakayama Lineage in 1461. Clearly given the state of Nichiren Buddhism then under the influence of the most corrupt monistic tendencies of the Medieval Tendai (chuko Tendai) establishment, the “Rokunai mokuroku” is by no means any guarantee of authenticity; in light of the sophisticated studies done in modern times when access to texts of various sects and lineages became easier, to cling to the notion that any document in this collection is ipso facto reliable and genuine is the height of ignorance and naivete.

[Note: in Maltz’s so-called “Kempon Hokke Vision, v. 3, no. 6, p. 7, Yashuhara admits that this was compiled not later than 120 years after Nichiren; plenty of time for all sort of forgeries to be admitted to the canon.]

Graham Lamont points out:

"Of all the forgeries under Nichiren’s august name, this particular document is perhaps the most egregious fake, because it can be shown to be derived from a work FALSELY attributed to Genshin (Eshin sozu: 942 1017) and included in “Eshin sozu zenshu”, v. 3, the “Essential Notes on Attaining Buddhahood in this Very Body by the ‘Hokke’” (“Hokke sokushin jobutsu yoki”); the “Junyoze no koto” itself was long ago a subject of dispute even in traditional times and was once regularly attributed to (of all people) Jikaku Daishi (Ennin: 794-864), a man whose errors Nichiren sharply attacked! As to the “Essential Notes on Attaining Buddhahood in this Very Body by the ‘Hokke’”, of which this work is clearly a revision or adaptation, at various times it was also attributed to Kakucho (960 1034); textual studies by Shigyo Kaishu showed decades ago that the present “Junyoze no koto” and the “Essential Notes on Attaining Buddhahood in this Very Body by the ‘Hokke’” are extremely close. (See Asai Yorin, “Nichiren kyogaku no kenkyu”, pp. 275-277, 303); this conclusion, far from being overturned in recent years has been adopted by standard reference works: (See“Nichiren Shonin Ibun jiten”, 503c) Moreover, even the editors of the “Showa Teihon” in the Nichiren Sect, who were not very strict in separating out forgeries decided to put this “Junyoze no koto” in the Continuation Section (zokuhen) which is reserved for questionalbe texts. (v. 3, 2030-2033; no.3) [Note, even if one were to concede that this work is by Nichiren, it is supposedly from the year (Shoga 2 = 1258) and thus would have less significance than Sado and post-Sado writings.]

Let us now turn to the assertion that Honda Nissho was fervent believer in this hongaku monism, so beloved of Maltz and other “ex” Gakkai “New Agers”. From the Kanjin Honzon-Sho, Nichiren Dai Shonin (trans. Kyotsu Hori), Chapter 4 (Upholding the Lotus Sutra and Attaining Buddhahood), Pages 88-96

"Question (20): You have not responded to the serious question raise earlier regarding the Buddha residing in our minds, have you?

Answer: It is said in the Sutra of Infinite Meaning (Muryogi-kyo), an introductory teaching to the Lotus Sutra: "though unable to perform the six kinds of practice leading to Buddhahood: charity, observing precepts, perseverance, effort, meditation and wisdom, upholders of this sutra will inevitably receive merits from practicing them." The second chapter of the Lotus Sutra states: "We wish to hear the way to perfection;" and in the Nirvana Sutra it is said: "'Sad' in the Saddharmapundarika (Lotus Sutra) means 'perfection'." Bodhisattva Nagarjuna says in his great Wisdom Discourse (Daichido-ron) that "sad" means "six" while the Annotations on the Four Mahayana Treatises (Wu-i wu-te ta-cheng ssu-lun hsuan-i chi) by Hui-chun of T'ang China means "perfection" in India. The Annotations on the Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Fa-hua i-su) by Chi-tsang states that "sad" is translated as "perfection"; while Grand Master T'ien-t'ai states in his Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Fa-hua hsuan-i) that "sad" is a Sanskrit term which is translated as "miao" (wonderful) in China.

I fear that I may debase these passages if I try to interpret them, but I dare do so in order to answer your question. The gist of these passages is that Sakyamuni Buddha's merit of practicing the bodhisattva way leading to Buddhahood, as well as that of preaching and saving all living beings since His attainment of Buddhahood are altogether contained in the five words of myo, ho, ren, ge, and kyo (Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Dharma) and that consequently, when we uphold the five words, the merits which He accumulated before and after His attainment of Buddhahood are naturally transferred to us. Thus, it is stated in the Lotus Sutra (chapter four, "Understanding by Faith) that four great sravaka such as Kasyapa rejoiced in their understanding of the teaching of the Lotus Sutra enabling sravaka to attain Buddhahood, and reported to the Buddha that they had been given invaluable jewels without asking for them. This represents the attainment of Buddhahood by the sravaka realm contained in our minds.

Not only the sravaka but also Sakyamuni Buddha is within us. For we encounter such a statement like this in the second chapter of the Lotus Sutra: "It was my (Sakyamuni's) original vow to let all beings become like Myself. My vow has now been fulfilled. I have helped them all enter the way of the Buddha." Does this not mean, that Sakyamuni Buddha, who has attained Perfect Enlightenment, is our flesh and blood, and all the merits He has accumulated before and after attaining Buddhahood are our bones?

Moreover, the eleventh chapter of the Lotus Sutra "Appearance of the Stupa of Treasures", states: "Those who uphold the teaching of this sutra are deemed to serve me, Sakyamuni, and Taho Buddha. They also serve Buddhas in manifestation here who adorn and glorify their respective worlds." This means that Sakyamuni Buddha, Taho Buddha, and all the Buddhas in manifestation are in our minds, and that we, upholders of the Lotus Sutra, will follow their steps and inherit all the merits of those Buddhas.

This is the meaning of the passage in the tenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra,"The Teacher of the Dharma", which reads: "Those who hear of this Lotus Sutra even for a moment, will instantly attain Perfect Enlightenment." A passage in the sixteenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra, "Duration of the Life of the Buddha", contends: "It has been many hundreds of thousands of billions of nayuta of kalpa (an incalculably long period of time) since I have attained Buddhahood." It means that Sakyamuni buddha, within our minds, is an ancient Buddha without beginning, manifesting Himself in three bodies, and attained buddhahood in the eternal past described as 500 dust-particle kalpa ago.

In the same chapter, another passage reads: "The duration of My life, which I obtained through the practice of the way of bodhisattvas, has not yet expired. It is twice as long as the length of time stated above: 500 dust-particle kalpa." This reveals the bodhisattva-realm within out minds. The bodhisattvas described in the fifteenth chapter, "Appearance of Bodhisattvas from Underground", who have sprung out of the great earth, as numerous as the number of dust-particles of 1,000 worlds, are followers of the Original Buddha Sakyamuni who resides within our minds.

They are like T'ai-kung-wang and Duke of Chou, retainers of King Wu of the Chou dynasty in ancient China, who at the same time served the King's young son, King Ch'eng; or Takeuchi-no Sukune of ancient Japan, a leading minister to Empress Jingu, who concurrently served her son, Prince Nintoku. Just like them Bodhisattvas Jogyo, Muhengyo, Jogyo and Anryugyo, the four leaders of those bodhisattvas sprung up from the earth, are simultaneously followers of the Original Buddha and Bodhisattvas who reside in the minds of us, ordinary people.

Therefore, Grand Master Miao-le has declared in his Annotation on the Mo-ho chih-kuan (Mo-ho chih-kuan fu-hsing-chuan hung-chueh): "You should know that both our bodies and the land on which we live are a part of the 3,000 modes of existence which exist in our minds. Consequently, upon our attainment of Buddhahood, we are in complete agreement with the truth of '3,000 existences contained in one thought', and our single body and single thought permeate through all the worlds in the universe."

------------------------------------------------------------

Let us take a look at Honda’s “Hokekyo kogi” (“Lectures on the Lotus Sutra”); commenting on the “Chapter of the Measure of Life of the Tathagata”: in volume 2, p. 215, he specifically states in commenting the first line of the central “Jiga ge”:

“The saintly patriarch relying on the vast numbers preaches the innumerable, and therewith judges it to reveal the Beginningless Really-existing Original Buddha of Concrete (or Tangible) Character of the Enjoyment and Response [Bodies], when as he says it ‘is the Beginningless Ancient Buddha of kalpas as many as the dust of countries touched or not by the dust of five hundred of tens of trillions of nayutas of asamkheyas of great trichiliocosms (gohyaku jinden gô) and so on to the Three Bodies that are revealed’, it is this. Although in discussing this Original Buddha there are those who cull out the Buddha Who practiced and manifested the Effect and point to the Ideality (Abstraction) of Unmanifest Original Enlightenment (hongaku no ritai) and take this Abstract Buddha (ributsu) that is the unenlightened worldling (bombu) to be the Original Buddha (hombutsu) and take the Actual Buddha (jibutsu) as the Manifestation Buddha (shakubutsu);"

"This is by no means (kesshite) the conclusion of the faith and practice of [the Bodhisattva] Converted by the Original Buddha (honge). However, among the Saint’s latter lineages they frequently assert this doctrine and advocate that it is the sublime doctrine revealed by the ‘[Chapter] of the Measure of Life’ alone and the Ultimate Theory exceeding the {Bodhisattva] Converted by the Original Buddha (honge); the ignorant heedlessly would follow suit. Alas! This child is to be pitied !” The passage is reasonably clear: in interpreting this central part of the “Lotus Sutra” Honda makes it clear that the Buddha spoken of in Chapter Sixteen is of a concrete or tangible character (gutaikaku) relating to the Enjoyment and Response Bodies (hojin and ojin) and he utilizes a phrase from the “Kanjin honzon sho” to describe this Buddha; although there are some who have tried to twist the phrase to mean something else Honda is fairly clear: he believes in the “Actual Buddha” (ji butsu) and dismisses the theory of the Abstract or Ideal (ritai) Original Enlightenment, which, as every scholar should know, is oriented towards the Dharma Body (hosshin) of the Buddha

(See the comparison between the two views, the “Beginningless Ancient Buddha” and the “Hongaku Uncreate Three Bodies” in Asai Yorin, “Nichiren kyogaku no kenkyu”, pp. 287-315, especially the summary on p. 295)

It should be noted that Honda’s description tallies with the idea found in the “Kaimoku sho” (STN, v. 1, 5536-8) where Nichiren says the feature that separates the “Hokekyo” from all other Mahayana Sutras is the concept of the “revelation of the original” (kempon) of the Enjoyment Body (hojin) and of the Response Body (ojin). (Shigyo Kaishu, “Nichiren no ‘Kanjin honzon sho’ no busshin ron ni tsuite” p. 181, cites this “Kaimoku sho” passage to show Nichiren was NOT oriented towards the Hosshin based hongaku view of the Buddha

Significantly Honda then goes on to criticize in no uncertain terms those ignorant people who willy-nilly follow those who take ri hongaku to be the Original or Fundamental Buddha and take the Actual Buddha to be a a mere Manifestation Buddha. (This hongaku doctrine is clearly expressed in “On the Reality of the Dharmas” (Shoho jisso sho) (STN, v. 1, 724 l. 11)), a work much praised by Taisekiji and the Soka Gakkai. Surely this fact is significant: the position vehemently proclaimed by the Fuji Branch is the very position which Honda condemns as being by no means the final doctrine of Nichiren Shonin; he then continues by noting the prevalence of this view among the latter-day religious groups of the Nichiren movement he pities the children who blindly take this view point. Could there be a better description of Maltz and his Soka Gakkai followers? Truly they are to be pitied !

As for Yasuhara’s claim that Honda cited the “Junyoze no koto” in the“Daizokyo yogi” (“Essential Doctrine of the Great Sutra Store”), I do not doubt it; but in what context did he use it? Moreover, as the title implies this appears to be an over-all view of the Buddhist canon, not the quintessential Truth of all Truths, the “Lotus Sutra”.

Nor again can Yasuhara wriggle out of the charge of promoting Medieval Tendai by saying that the Medieval Tendai (Chuko Tendai) idea required no practice; of course, the people who introduced this sort of thought into the Nichiren canon tack on chanting the Daimoku and so on in order to make their fundamental alteration of Nichiren’s world view more acceptable and plausible.

Moreover, even some Chuko Tendai works included some kind of nod in the direction “practice”. The sin here is to twist Nichiren’s doctrine of an actually-existing Buddha into this abstract Hongaku in which the worldling is the Original Buddha.

In fact, those people who passed off such works as these as genuine writings of Nichiren fundamentally changed the metaphysics behind his religion from the concept of an objective, actual Eternal Buddha Who is omnipresent and even in our minds and Who out of Great Compassion grants us His merit through the Daimoku into that of a highly subjective monistic view in which the Buddha Body is reduced to a mere projection of ourselves. (Again: see the writings by Shigyo and Asai cited above.)

Despite attempts by various groups (such as the forerunners of themodern so-called Nichiren Shu) to reconcile the two concepts of the Buddha Body, they are fundamentally different and the people who combined them always gave the Hongaku view precedence. Because of the relative complexity of some of the issues I will defer this. (Again: see the writings by Shigyo and Asai cited above.)

I have to say Maltz’s recent statements seem to bear out my belief that he and his followers really do not understand the difference between hongaku thought and the historical Nichiren’s hommon thought.

The terms “hombutsu” (original Buddha) or “hondo” (original land) do not of themselves imply the hongaku monistic world view. Likewise the concept of the Buddha in our minds does not imply the Tathagata of Original Enlightenment. [Likewise on rare occasions “hongaku” can be synonym for the actual Original Buddha but this appears to be a relatively rare usage and that is clearly not what is meant in these forgeries attributed to Nichiren.] Denying “Hongaku” is not equivalent to denying the Original Buddha (hombutsu). Quite the contrary it is defending and giving honor to the Original Buddha Shakyamuni!

There is much more I could say and possibly will say on this subject but Iwant to make the following observations: First: Maltz has declared on the basis ofone passage in Stone’s book that every one who dares to oppose his Soka Gakkai Hongaku philosophy is “out of bounds” and “in the penalty box”. Who gave him authority to cut off rational discussion in this preemptive and dictatorial way?

Cannot anyone see what is happening here? Not only is he chiming inwith the Gakkai/Taisekiji metaphysical view (he only differs from them where he needs a hook to pull in their members or ex-members to build his own organization) but he is acting like an absolute ruler in cutting off discussion!

Well, let us see who is in the “penalty box” with me:Most of the Old Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju) before the lineage began to decline. (Unless, of course, Kubota and Yasuhara want to show me that these men were gung-ho for “Ri hongaku”.)

The above cited scholars, Asai Yorin and Shigyo Kaishu, two of the best historical and textual scholars of the mid-twentieth century Tamura Yoshiro, author of the monumental work, “Kamakura Shin Bukkyo no kenkyu” (“A Study of the New Buddhism of Kamakura”) Miyazaki Eishu (I believe he is an acquaintance of Rev. Kubota) who says in his excellent little reference work “Nichiren jiten” p. 261, where he labels the “Ongi kuden” and “Onko kikigaki” forgeries and notes that if Nichiren used these concepts it was as a warning and was exceptional, for Hongaku was not really part of the original Tendai doctrinal system." - Graham Lamont

Yasuhara: Many Nichiren sect and scholars mistake Hongaku (Original Enlightenment of the common mortal after developed faith and practice) for Hongaku Shiso (Original Enlightenment of the common mortal before developed faith and practice)

"Needless to say, the explanation I wrote about Hongaku and Shigaku have nothing to do with the ideology of Hongaku of middle-old T'ien-T'ai, which teaches that we need not practice because everyone is already enlightened."

Hongaku and Shigaku

Hongaku means original enlightenment, Shigaku means the attainment of enlightenment. To explain the meaning, between Hongaku and Shigaku, there, are some parables. For one example, a man is in a dark room with furniture, but he can not see and make use of anything inside theroom because it is dark. However, when once he turns on the light, he is able to see the furniture clearly in the room. In this situation, the furniture was there from the beginning, however, he sees it only after he turns on the light. It is not that the furniture suddenly appeared, the furniture was always there. It was just that he could not see it... The fact that the furniture was there from the beginning stands for the "Hongaku." And turning on the light and being able to see the furniture stands for the "Shigaku."

Another example, there was a blind man. He could see nothing. One day an excellent doctor came to see him and had an operation on his eyes. As a result, the doctor opened his eyes and he is then able to see the sun and the moon. As we know, the sun and the moon were originally there (Hongaku). But he saw them for the first time when his eyes were cured (Shigaku).Therefore, when one attains enlightenment (Shigaku), they never fail to attain the original enlightenment (Hongaku). And it is not until when one has Shigaku, that he becomes aware of Hongaku (Oh! Everything is originally in the enlightened state!!).

So, until the time we have Shigaku, we should make use of our power of belief that this world is in reality the Buddha's Pure Land. Nichiren Daishonin said in his writings named "Junyoze, no koto": On Dreams and Waking Reality; after cleaning off the deluded thought and view, then you will see that everywhere in the dharma world is the, Pure Land of tranquil light, and that the body of your own is the Tathagata of original enlightenment (Hongaku) possessing the three bodies in-one."

Note. The parables regarding "Hongaku and Shigaku' are from the Mahaparinirvana-Sutra (pp.522-523, Vol- 2) which Rev. Honda cited in his book along with "Junyoze no koto."

Regarding my last letter about Hongaku and Shigaku Other schools of Nichiren say that the Jumonryu is using forgeries to support our view, and Rev. Honda would be rolling over in his grave" Does the word "forgery"indicate " Junyoze no koto' , this Gosho is one of Roku-nai Goshos, so it should be considered as a genuine Gosho. I think the attitude of discarding every Gosho that contradicts one's own opinion would prevent one from understanding properly Nichiren Buddhism. Moreover, I was surprised to hear the name of Rev. Honda. mentioned, because the answer note I wrote about Hongaku and Shigaku was what I studied from Rev. Honda's book named "Daizokyo Yogi" (a commentary on the essential point of the Buddhist Canon), which consists of thick eleven volumes, and Rev. Honda preaches about Hongaku and Shigaku in PP35-37 of its fourth volume, where Rev .Honda himself cites the very same part of "Junyoze no koto" that I translated and wrote about on another occassion. So that is of course no problem.

Incidentally, I have obtained almost all books of Rev. Honda, and Studiedthem precisely before. So I want to say that people should not have a falsely fixed idea on the teachings of Jumonryu, the Bukkoku HokkeKai ortrue Buddhism. Needless to say, the explanation I wrote about Hongaku and Shigaku have nothing to do with the Ideology of Hongaku of middle-oldT'ien-T'al, which teaches that we need not practice because everyone isalready enlightened.

Let s think more like Buddhist.

Contending with each other over whether a cone is round or triangle is nonsense. If our one eye and another engaged in a controversy over their views, it would be ridiculous.or if someone seriously had a tug of war with his one hand and another, it would seem very strange. Buddhism is not to be a fool, Enlightenment is to understand consistently what seems a contradiction at a glance to us worldly beings. Buddhism teaches us that it is A at one time, but another time it teaches it is B. Both A and B are the true aspects of the reality, but People tend to think A and B are not compatible because of their habitual flat thinking, Buddhism expects us to grow up toward the third dimension. In other words, we are apt to be a 'Tanbankan' (a foolish trainee) who is carrying a board on his shoulder and can see only one side of the way, then falls into a ditch a last. So Buddhism suggests Tanbankans to put such a board down from our shoulder (this is the Shakubuku), but Tanbankans would not easily stop disputing with each other (they think such a disputing is Shakubuku, but it isn't). If we do not care about this point, Nichiren's Buddhism will be a supplier of endless disputing as if disputing is the only work for the Nichiren Buddhists.

Hongaku Shigaku what is the difference?

Some of the other Nichiren schools and scholars think -Junyoze no Koto" is a forgery... But teachers of Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju) do not. Rev. Honda used this Gosho to support his view not only in -Daizokyo yogi- but also even in -Hokekyo Kogi" ("Lectures on the Lotus Sutra") the copy of which stated he had in his last note. Also Rev, Honda put this Gosho into his "Seigoroku- (analects of sacred words). Moreover. another famous teacher of Jumonryu, Rev. Nisshi Nakagawa also put this Gosho into his "Seigoroku' (analects of sacred words). I think the reason why other's insists that this Gosho is a forgery is that it upsets their biased view on Nichiren's Buddhism. It is a matter of course that this Gosho, and all Goshos listed on the "Roku Nai" do not bother the correct view of Jumonryu at all. Sects who dispute this original list "Roku Nai" dated exatly after St. Nichirens death, either have dicarded goshos or have added goshos from or too this ORIGINAL LIST; one only need simple logic to see clear in this instance...When one goes back to Nichiren's teachingsas did our orthodox founder Nichiju Daishoshi one may accept Nichiren'steaching exactly as they are!

Moreover, many Nichiren scholars and sects bring forward the so-called "Hongaku shiso" (ideology of Hongaku) and refutes it citing Rev. Honda's words in -Hokekyo kogi-, with which he thinks it a refutation to my last note regarding "Hongaku and Shigaku." And they hate Hongaku monism and thinks Hongaku monism is not the view of Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju),

I agree with them on the point that "Hongaku shiso- is wrong. But it is totally beside the mark to refute us with refuting "Hongaku shiso". Because the, term " Hongaku-itself never mean nor imply the "Hongaku shiso"- People misunderstand to take the term "Hongaku" immediately as "Hongaku shiso." This is the most critical and fundamental error in theirview, as I explained before, the term "Hongaku" only means the "Original Enlightenment." This, as everyone can see, very easily, is what is preached in the Honmon (Original Doctrine), especially in the Chapter 16 "Measure of life". On the other hand, in the Shakumon (Manifestation Doctrine) it preaches on the basis of "Shigaku" (Attainment of enlightenment).

Therefore, needless to say, the subject of "Hongaku and Shigaki" is parallel to the subject of "Honmon and Shakumon." If I add a little more explanation here, in the Shakumon there is a matter of attaining" but in the Honmom there is no such a matter because Honmon is the view or world which is preached from the stand point of Original (Eternal). In other words, Shakumon is based on dualism and preaches distinction (Discrimination) between worldly beings and Buddha; Honmon is based on monism and preaches that when Buddhism only upholds dualism, it loses its life.

There are in the world many other religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam which is based on dualism with the teachings of absolute discrimination between divinity and humanity. And they are wrong in their object of Worship and doctrine of Ultimate dualism. In other words, it is a matter of common knowledge that Nichiren Buddhism is a religion of monism, because the Lotus Sutra (Hokekyo) is the teaching of One Vehicle (Ichi-jo). More importantly, it does not mean mechanical monism but means the monism that can only be attained by our faith of whole-hearted devotion (Namu). In this sense, chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (Daimoku) wholeheartedly is essential for this monism. It is so to speak a bridge between dualism and monism. And this is the theory of Soku shin-Jobutsu (attaining buddhahood in this very body) of Nichiren Buddhism. So if one stays attached to the view that the dualism is the ultimate substance of the doctrine of Nichiren Buddhism, where can one find the chance of Jobutsu (attaining buddhahood)? With such a wrong view, Buddha and we have to be the parallel lines forever. In the 'Kanjin honzonsho" (On the Object of Worship in Contemplation), Nichiren Daishonin states:

"Now the saha World Of the Original Time is the Ever-abiding pure land" ,apart from the Three Calamities and outside of the Four Kalpas. The Buddha has not already been extinguished in the past and will not be born in the future. "Those who are converted are of the same essence."This is identical to the complete possession of the three thousand (realms.) of one's own mind, the three types world" (In the Kanjin Honzon Sho). How do people read this essential part of this Gosho? Do they reject the "Kanjin honzon sho' as a forgery, too. Moreover, "Hongaku shiso' is a distorted view derived from the erroneous understanding of the doctrine of Buddha's three bodies. This view does not take the three bodies unitedly,

Instead, after separating worldly beings and Buddha, the view links the Dharma Body (but this is merely an abstract one which is equivalent to a man in the dark or a blind man before the operation in the parables I wrote about on another occasion) only to the worldly beings and the other two bodies (Enjoyment Body and Response Body) to the Buddha, Then, one who has this view stays conceited thinking that it is the worldly beings that are the Original Buddha and Buddhas like Shakya, Taho are merely the Manifestation Buddha. In this way this view shuts the door to attaining buddhahood. Therefore, the subject of "Hongaku shiso" is a matter of misunderstanding regarding the doctrine of Buddha's three bodies. That is by no means the matter of 'Hongaku and Shigaku', One must not be confused to connect the two wrongly.

I will cite from "Junyoze no koto" it was ...

"Like waking up to reality from dream where one saw various illusion; after cleaning off the deluded thought and view. Now you will see that everywhere in the dharma world is the Pure Land of tranquil light, and that the body of your own is the Tathagata of original enlightenment possessing the three bodies in one."

Let us see the underlined part, it expresses the ultimate state of us which comes after cleaning off the deluded thought and view (practice). And what one should know here is that the "Tathagata of original enlightenment possessing the three bodies in one" is the very"Actual Buddha' (Ji-Butsu.) revealed in the Chapter 16 of the Hokekyo, That is by no means the Ideality (Abstraction) of Unmanifest Original Enlightenment (Hongaku no ritai) or Abstract Buddha (Ributsu). Accordingly, there was no room for argument in here from the first without peoples confusion and misunderstanding. If theyhave some more confusion in these regards, they should read carefully the writings of Nichiren Daishonin or teachers of Jumonryu, especially Nichiju Daishoshi's "Fuji- sho" instead of those commentaries written by the other sect's and, or, scholars. So they will surely find the break-through.

Written by Reverend Sorin Yasuhara

HONGAKU AND SHIGAKU

CORRECTING H.G. LAMONT'S CRITICISM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

HONGAKU and SHIGAKU:

Hongaku means Original Enlightenment. Shigaku means the attainment of enlightenment. To explain the relationship between Hongaku and Shigaku, there are some metaphors. For one example, a man is in a dark room with furniture, but he can not see and make use of anything inside the room because it is dark. However, when once he turns on the light, he gets to be able to see the furniture clearly in the room. In this situation, the furniture was there from the beginning, however, he sees it only after he turns on the light. It is not that the furniture suddenly appeared. The furniture was always there. It was just he could not see it. The fact that the furniture was there from the beginning stands for the Hongaku. And the fact that turning on the light and getting to be able to see the furniture stands for the Shigaku. Another example, there was a blind man. He could see nothing. One day in excellent doctor came to see him and had an operation on his eyes. As a result, the doctor opened his eyes and he gets to be able to see the sun and the moon. As we know, the sun and the moon were originally there (Hongaku). But he saw them for the first time when his eyes were cured (Shigaku).

Therefore, when one attains enlightenment (Shigaku), he never fails to attain original enlightenment (Hongaku). And it is not until when one has

Shigaku that he becomes aware of Hongaku (Oh! Everything has been originally in the enlightened state!!).

So, until the time we have Shigaku, we should make use of our power of belief that this world is in reality the Buddha's Pure Land. Nichiren Daishonin said in his writing named "Junyoze no koto", "Like waking up to reality from a dream where one saw various illusion; after cleaning off the deluded thought and view, then you will see that everywhere in the dharma world is the Pure Land of tranquil light, and that the body of your own is the Tathagata of original enlightenment (Hongaku) possessing the three bodies in one."

Some say that "Junyoze no koto" is a 'forgery' ? However, this Gosho is one of Roku-nai Goshos. So it should be considered as a genuine Gosho. I think the attitude of discarding every Gosho that contradicts one's own opinion would prevent one from properly understanding Nichiren Buddhism. The note I wrote about Hongaku and Shigaku was from what I studied from Rev. Honda's book named "Daizokyo Yogi" (a commentary on the essential point of the Buddhist Canon), which consists of eleven thick volumes. Rev. Honda preaches about Hongaku and Shigaku in PP35-37 of the fourth volume, where he cites the very same part of 'Junyoze no koto' that I translated and wrote in the last answer note. So that is of course no problem. Incidentally, I have obtained almost all books of Rev. Honda and studied them precisely before. So I want to say that people should not have a false fixed idea of the teachings of Kempon Hokke or true Buddhism Needless to say, the explanation I wrote about Hongaku and Shigaku have nothing to do with the Ideology of Hongaku of medieval old T'ien T'ai, which teaches that we need not practice because everyone is already enlightened.

Rev. Sorin Yasuhara

Kempon Hokke Shu

FOLLOW UP AND CORRECTING H.G. LAMONT'S VIEW:

September 22, 1998

As you know the parables regarding "Hongaku and Shigaku" I wrote before was from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (pp.522-523 Vol,2) which Rev. Honda cited in his book along with the "Junyoze no koto".

Answer to Mr. Lamont's last note

1) Lamont and some of the other sect's scholars thinks "Junyoze no Koto' is a forgery. But teachers of Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju) do not. Rev. Honda used this Gosho to support his view not only in "Daizokyo yogi" but also even in "Hokekyo Kogi" ("Lectures on the Lotus Sutra") the copy of which Lamont stated he had in his last note. Also Rev. Honda put this Gosho into his "Seigoroku" (analects of sacred words). Moreover, another famous teacher of Jumonryu, Rev. Nisshi Nakagawa also put this Gosho into his "Seigoroku" (analects of sacred words). I think the reason why he insists that this Gosho is a forgery is that it vexes his view on Nichiren Buddhism. It is a matter of course that this Gosho does not hinder the correct view of the Jumonryu.

2) Lamont brings forward the so-called "Hongaku shiso" (ideology of Hongaku) and refutes it citing Rev. Honda"s words in "Hokekyo kogi," with which he believes is a refutation of my last note regarding "Hongaku and Shigaku'. Lamont hates Hongaku monism and thinks Hongaku monism is not the view of the Jumonryu (followers of Nichiju).

I agree with him on the point that "Hongaku shiso" is wrong. But it is totally beside the point to refute us with refuting "Hongaku shiso". Because the term "Hongaku" itself never means nor implies "Hongaku shiso". He misunderstands to take the term "Hongaku" as meaning "Hongaku shiso". This is the most critical and fundamental error of his view.

As I explained earlier, the term "Hongaku" only means "Original Enlightenment". This, as everyone can very easily see, is what is preached in the Honmom (Original Doctrine), especially in the Chapter 16 'Measure of life'. On the other hand, the Shakumon (Manifestation Doctrine) preaches on the basis of "Shigaku" (Attainment of Enlightenment). Therefore, needless to say the, subject of "Hongaku and Shigaku" is parallel to the subject of "Honmon and Shakumon".

To add a little more explanation here, in the Shakumon there is a matter of "attaining" but in the Honmom there is no such matter because Honmon is the view or world which is preached from the stand point of Original (Eternal) Buddha, In other words. Shakamon is based on dualism and preaches distinction (discrimination) between worldly beings and Buddha; Honmom is based on monism and preaches the ultimate equality of worldly beings and Buddha. If Buddhism does not preach monism and only upholds dualism, it loses its life. There are in the world many other religions like Judaism, Christianity and lslam which are based on dualism and the teachings of absolute discrimination between divinity and humanity. And they are wrong in their object of worship and doctrine of ultimate dualism. In other words, it is common knowledge that Nichiren Buddhism is a religion of monism, because the Lotus Sutra (Hokekyo) is the teaching or One Vehicle (Ichi-jo). More importantly, it does not mean mechanical monism but means monism that can only be attained through faith and whole-hearted devotion (Namu). In this sense, chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo (Daimoku) wholeheartedly is essential for this monism. It is a bridge between dualism and monism and the theory of Sokushin-Jobutsu (attaining buddhahood in this very body).

So if one remains attached to the view that the dualism is the ultimate substance of the doctrine of Nichiren Buddhism, where can we find Jobutsu (attaining buddhahood)? With such a wrong view, Buddha and we would remain parallel lines forever.

In the "Kanjin Honzon Sho" (On the Object of Worship in Contemplation), Nichiren Daishonin states "Now the Saha World of the Original Time is the Ever-abiding Pure Land apart from the Three Calamities and outside of the Four Kalpas. The Buddha has not already been extinguished in the past and will not be born in the future. Those who are converted are of the same essence. This is identical to the complete possession of the three thousand (realms) of one's own mind, the three types of world" (translated by Lamont).

How does Lamont read this essential part of this Gosho? Does he reject the "Kanjin Honzon Sho" as a forgery, too? "Hongaku Shiso", on the other hand, is a distorted view derived from the erroneous understanding of the doctrine of the Buddha's three bodies. This view does not take the three bodies as a unity. Instead, it separates worldly beings and the Buddha. The view merely links the Dharma Body (but this is merely an abstract one which is equivalent to a man in the dark or a blind man before the operation in the parables I cited above in the first note) to worldly beings and the other two bodies (Enjoyment Body and Response Body) to the Buddha.

Then, one who adopts this view becomes conceited thinking that the worldly beings are the Original Buddha and Buddhas like Shakya, Taho are merely Manifestation Buddhas, In this way this view shuts the door to attaining buddhahood. Therefore, "Hongaku shiso" is a misunderstanding regarding the doctrine of the Buddha's three bodies. That is by no means the matter of "Hongaku and Shigaku". One must not confuse or connect incidentally, the part of the Gosho I cited from the Junyoze no koto:

"Like waking up to reality from a dream where one saw various illusions; after deluded thoughts and views, then you will see that everywhere is the Pure Land of tranquil light and that the body of your own is the Tathagata of original enlightenment possessing the three bodies in one."

This expresses our ultimate state of life after cleaning off deluded thoughts and views through practice. The "Tathagata of original enlightenment possessing the three bodies in one" is the very "Actual Buddha" (Ji Butsu) revealed in Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra. It is not Ideality (Abstraction) of Unmanifest Original Enlightenment (Hongaku no ritai) or the Abstract Buddha (Ributsu).

Accordingly, without Lamont's confusion and misunderstanding, there is no argument. If he has any more confusion in this regard, he should read carefully the writings of Nichiren Daishonin and the teachers of the Jumonryu, especially Nichiju Daishoshi's "Fuju-sho" instead of those commentaries written by the other sect's's scholars. Then he will surely experience a break-through.

With Gassho,

Rev. Sorin Yasuhara