Inleiding, vergelijking met de christelijke visies
De indruk bestaat dat in tegenstelling tot (sommige) christenen boeddhisten niet moeilijk doen over de evolutietheorie, soms ten onrechte 'evolutieleer' genoemd.
Al vanaf de publicatie van 'The Origin of Species ' door Charles Darwin hebben christenen zich tegen aspecten ervan verzet, met name tegen het feit dat er geen rol in is weggelegd voor God als Schepper van aarde, planten, dieren en mens. Het verzet is, met name in de Verenigde Staten, het laatste decennium eerder versterkt dan verzwakt. Er worden door (fundamentalistische) christenen alternatieven geformuleerd - respectievelijk 'Creationisme' en 'Intelligent Design' genaamd - en scholen worden verplicht die ook in het curriculum op te nemen. Vergelijk het boek 'God én Darwin. Geloof kan niet om evolutie heen' van Taede Smedes (ook een christen, we moeten niet generaliseren) hierover.
De rooms-katholieken zijn wat dit betreft slimmer (opportunistischer), zie Bijlage 1.
De volledige titel van het hoofdwerk van Darwin, uitgekomen in 1859, is te vertalen als: 'Over de oorsprong van soorten door middel van natuurlijke selectie, of: het behoud van begunstigde rassen in de strijd om het bestaan'.
Er zijn zeer veel overzichtsartikelen over wat de evolutietheorie inhoudt, ook vele geschikt voor boeddhisten, denk ik. Ik ben geen echte deskundige maar het Wikipedia-artikel lijkt me geschikt.
Heel in het kort: het gaat om de verklaring voor de evolutie van het leven en voor de verscheidenheid aan soorten op Aarde; het belangrijkste mechanisme is dat van selectie van eigenschappen, doorgegeven aan een volgende generatie. 'Soortvorming' treedt op als uit een populatie twee of meer populaties ontstaan die zich onderling niet kunnen voortplanten. De evolutie, en dus de soortvorming, gaat zonder vooropgezet plan, is niet gericht op de een of andere vooruitgang en heeft ook geen vooruitgang als effect.
Daarom de aanhalingstekens in de kop van deze blog bij het woord 'ladder': er is geen ladder, de mens staat niet hoger dan de dieren.
=======================================================================
Knelpunten
Op het boeddhistische front is het in tegensteling tot bij christenen opvallend stil t.a.v. de evolutietheorie.
Ik hoor nog al eens zeggen dat het boeddhisme (i.t.t. andere religies) zo goed verenigbaar is met de natuurwetenschap. Vaak worden daaronder ook - expliciet of impliciet - de twee grote theorieën verstaan: de Big Bang Theorie en de Evolutie Theorie.
Dat is fijn. Maar ik zie toch wel een paar knelpunten:
* Boeddhistische teksten bevatten ook uitgewerkte kosmologie en evolutie van levende wezens, Zie bijvoorbeeld Bijlage 2. Hoewel er enige overeenkomsten zijn tussen deze teksten en de Darwiniaanse theorie, zijn er toch ook essentiële verschillen. Niet alleen de hierarchie tussen de diverse levende mensen maar ook het cyclische (herhalingen van processen) boeddhistische model tegenover de lineaire (wat geweest is, komt nooit meer terug) westerse denktrant.
* Het leerstuk van wedergeboorte, gecombineerd met het karma-concept is m.i.volstrekt niet verenigbaar met de biologische concepten van de evolutietheorie. Dit is alleen een probleem voor die boeddhisten die een dogmatische opvatting ten aanzien van wedergeboorte hebben. Ik niet, zoals ik al in diverse blogs heb beschreven.
* Het boeddhisme, eigenlijk alle Aziatische tradities erbinnen, kent naast mensen en het dierenrijk nog een paar gebieden van levende wezens: hellewezens, hongerige geesten, deva's en (in principe ook sterfelijke) goden.
Het is relatief eenvoudig deze gebieden (hier noem ik er vier maar in andere teksten worden er tientallen onderscheiden) als symbolisch bestaand, als projecties van de menselijke geest te beschouwen, maar niet iedereen kijkt daar zo licht tegen aan.
* Boeddhistische tradities hebben in hun filosofie een andere wijze van logisch redeneren, een andere causaliteits-opvatting. Bijvoorbeeld de werking van het leerstuk van het 'afhankelijk ontstaan ' (Pali: Paticca samuppada). Ook het principe van 'het uitgesloten midden' uit de Westerse logica (en dus ook de evolutietheorie) wordt door sommige boeddhistische filosofen bestreden. Mijn reactie: ik ga er van uit dat deze principes betrekking hebben op bewustzijns-ervaringen en bedoeld zijn het 'ontwaken' te bevorderen (soteriologisch dus), en niet als natuurwetenschappelijke principes bedoeld zijn.
* Het moeilijkste, voor mij meest essentiële, probleem is de verhouding tussen materie (ook wel 'lichaam' genoemd) en bewustzijn (ook wel: 'geest' of 'ziel')
Kernvraag: wat is de plaats van het bewustzijn en wanneer, en waarom (want wat is het evolutionaire voordeel?) is in de evolutie van de dier plus mens ergens zo'n vijftigduizend jaar geleden (denk ik) het bewustzijn een kenmerk van homo sapiens geworden?
Hoofdstuk 5 van het boek 'Evolutionair denken' door Chris Buskes, getiteld 'Evolutie en bewustzijn ', beschrijft de stand van zaken. Zonder eindoordeel, want wetenschappers kunnen eerlijk toegeven het nog niet te weten (ze kunnen trouwens ook wel arrogant zijn). Er zijn zoveel aspecten, dat het niet is samen te vatten
Een interessante vraag is of 'bewustzijn' wel een evolutionaire functie heeft, er zijn filosofen (een minderheid) die menen dat het een niet-functioneel bijverschijnsel van ons brein is.
Ten aanzien van het nog altijd niet opgeloste en misschien wel onoplosbare lichaam-geest probleem biedt een beroemd artikel van Thomas Nagel enige duidelijkheid: 'Wat is het om een vleermuis te zijn ?' Dat kunnen we niet weten; 'Nagel grijpt overigens niet terug op een cartesiaans dualisme van lichaam en geest. Zijn positie is iets subtieler. Nagel verdedigt een zogeheten dubbel-aspecttheorie... Waar de werkelijkheid in laatste instantie precies uit bestaat, weten we niet. Maar we kennen in elk geval twee aspecten van de werkelijkheid: het fysische en het mentale. Deze twee aspecten zijn echter vooralsnog niet tot elkaar te herleiden.' (p. 201-202)
=======================================================================
Opvattingen van boeddhisten
Het kan dus zo zijn dat boeddhisten achter hun trots dat het boeddhisme zo goed verenigbaar is met de natuurwetenschap, er eigenlijk net zo als sommige christenen over denken.
Specifieke literatuur over de relatie boeddhisme - evolutietheorie is er relatief weinig, de meeste boeddhisten zijn niet zo met dit thema bezig, is m'n indruk.
Een overzichtsartikel op Wikipedia maakt onmiddellijk (waarschijnlijk onbedoeld) de inconsistentie van boeddhistische opvattingen zichtbaar.
Het begin met "As no major principles of Buddhism contradict it, many Buddhists tacitly accept the theory of evolution. Questions about the eternity or infinity of the universe at large are counted among the 14 unanswerable questions which the Buddha maintained were counterproductive areas of speculation. As such, many Buddhists do not think about these kinds of questions as meaningful for the Buddhist goal of relieving oneself and others from suffering. One does not need to know the origin of life, nor agree with the Buddha's position on scientific topics, in order to achieve enlightenment."
Maar vervolgt deze opmerking over stilzwijgend accepteren met:
"Dalai Lama dismisses the element of randomness in the theory of evolution based on natural selection:
From the Buddhist's perspective, the idea of these mutations being random events is
deeply unsatisfying for a theory that purports to explain the origin of life."
Ook niet positief is: "Albert Low, a Zen master and author of The Origin of Human Nature: A Zen Buddhist Looks at Evolution, (2008) opposes neo-Darwinism and the selfish gene as he claims they are materialistic. He also opposes creationism for being dogmatic and instead advocates spiritual evolution."
De Agganna Sutta wordt genoemd (zie Bijlage 2)
Het artikel verwijst naar twee artikelen van de bekende Zen-boeddhist David Loy, A Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution en Buddhism, Cosmology and Evolution .
Ik weet niet goed wat ik van deze artikelen moet vinden. Volgens mij gaan ze helemaal niet over de evolutietheorie, ondanks de titels er van. Het zijn positief denkende (tevens ecologisch bezorgde) teksten over een universum dat zich van zichzelf bewust wordt als volgende fase in de evolutie, die niet als toevallig maar als creatief proces wordt gezien.
Misschien wel in dezelfde richting: de aankondiging van een Congres over 'Buddhism, Science, and Ideology in Modern Japan in Erfurt in augustus 2015'
"G. Clinton Godart - 'Buddhist Receptions of Evolutionary Theory in Modern Japan '
I will argue that overall Japanese Buddhist intellectuals not only responded positively to evolutionary theory, but also became active interpreters and transmitters of evolutionary thought. Evolutionary theory also stimulated the development of new interpretations of Buddhism. On the other hand, while Buddhist intellectuals tended to accept the fact of evolution, they strongly opposed materialist and reductionist interpretations of evolutionary theory, and tried to embed evolution within an idealist and pantheist worldview."
Onderstreping door mij. Ik ben benieuwd hoe die 'worldview' er dan precies uit ziet.
Een vraag in een discussieforum: Did Buddha or do most Buddhists believe in Evolution?
Deze leverde tientallen antwoorden op, de meesten ervan gingen in de richting van 'Yes'.
Het is m.i. een onjuiste en onzinnige vraagstelling. Een (wetenschappelijke) theorie is geen geloofsartikel, hoogstens iets waarvan je waarschijnlijk acht dat die correct is.
In tegenstelling tot wat vaak verondersteld wordt, heeft de Dalai Lama helemaal niet zo'n duidelijke positieve attitude t.o.v. de evolutietheorie. Vergelijk de bespreking in the New York Times van zijn boek 'The Universe in a Single Atom: Reason and Faith' door G. JOHNSON:
"He and his guests discuss things like the neuroscientific basis of Buddhist meditation and the similarities between Eastern concepts like the "philosophy of emptiness" and modern field theory. In "The Universe in a Single Atom" he tells how he walked the mountains around his home trying to persuade hermits to contribute to scientific understanding by meditating with electrodes on their heads.
But when it comes to questions about life and its origins, this would-be man of science begins to waver. Though he professes to accept evolutionary theory, he recoils at one of its most basic tenets: that the mutations that provide the raw material for natural selection occur at random. Look deeply enough, he suggests, and the randomness will turn out to be complexity in disguise - "hidden causality," the Buddha's smile. There you have it, Eastern religion's version of intelligent design. He also opposes physical explanations for consciousness, invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an idea rejected long ago by mainstream science"
Onderstreping door mij. Alan Wallace, ook actief in Dalai Lama's Mind & Life, reageerde negatief-belerend op deze bespreking, zie ook hier .
=======================================================================
Wie was de eerste boeddhist op aarde?
Eigenlijk gaat het me ook om iets anders.
Okay, men kan het boeddhisme een religie noemen, of een filosofie of wat dan ook, dat zijn allemaal reïficaties, doen alsof het om een ding gaat.
Het gaat echter - in ieder geval voor mij - om een boeddhistisch pad. Het Achtvoudige Pad , zoals ik dat de vorige blog beschreef, is een woord voor een concretisering daarvan maar meer algemeen gaat het in de beoefening van een boeddhistische traditie om het 'ontwaken', het beëindigen (in dit leven) van het lijden.
Anders (niet helemaal correct) gezegd: het boeddhisme is niet een kosmologie, niet een ontologie, niet een evolutietheorie; maar het boeddhisme is een soteriologie, een heilsleer: het beschrijft de methode van ontwaken. (In meervoud: methoden )
En de mens sterft alleen, ook het 'ontwaken' doe je alleen, ook al doe je dat samen met anderen, ook al wacht je er als een bodhisattva lange tijd mee uit compassie voor anderen.
Terwijl de evolutietheorie geen theorie over levende wezen op individueel niveau is, maar over soorten gaat. Hoe moet dat dan?
Waar het me daarbij om gaat is de vraag: wanneer in de evolutie was de mens (homo sapiens) of voorganger van de mens voor het eerst in staat dat te doen wat we nu 'beoefenen van het boeddhisme' noemen?
M'n antwoord op de vraag wanneer in de loop van de evolutie van de mens die voor het eerst - althans theoretisch want hij/zij had wel andere dingen aan het hoofd - het 'boeddhisme kon beoefenen' is met slagen om de arm: hoogstens vijftigduizend jaar geleden en misschien wel veel korter. Tot die tijd ontsnapte dus geen enkel levend wezen aan samsara.
Voor die tijd had homo sapiens eenvoudigweg niet de capaciteiten in taal en bewustzijn om welke vorm van beoefening die we nu kennen bij de diverse boeddhistische tradities (rituelen uitvoeren, mantra's en andere teksten reciteren, mediteren, reflecteren op ethisch handelen, etc.) uit te voeren.
En dieren konden dat - met één uitzondering - al helemaal niet en nu ook niet. Zeker, dieren hebben een mate van bewustzijn, maar geen zelfbewustzijn; ze kunnen zingen en spraakachtige geluiden uiten, maar alleen een vastgelegde repertoire; dieren kunnen - voor zover we weten - geen verhalen bedenken en vertellen, en dat is het boeddhisme toch grotendeels?
Wel kunnen dieren compassie hebben, vergelijk huidig onderzoek (Frans de Waal bv bij bonobo's) t.a.v. soortgenoten; en in klassieke teksten ook naar andere levende wezens wat een wedergeboorte tot mens (zelfs tot toekomstige Boeddha) tot gevolg kan hebben.
Dat is één van de twee paradoxen waar sommige boeddhisten mee moeten leven: weliswaar hebben ook dieren Boeddha-natuur, dat is de mogelijkheid een Boeddha te worden, maar de realisering daarvan is een lange weg: niet binnen één leven (die mogelijkheid is alleen aan de mens voorbehouden) en dus moet je er wel voor in wedergeboorte en door het dier te verwerven goed karma geloven.
De andere paradox voor sommige boeddhisten (ik vermoed: dezelfde, met name in sommige Mahayana-tradities): men is tegen logisch en intellectueel redeneren, staat daar althans zeer kritisch tegenover omdat het dualistisch is; maar realiseert zich alleen met tegenzin dat dat wat nodig is om 'bevrijd te worden', 'te ontwaken', 'een realisatie te bereiken' precies dat is wat de mens van het dier onderscheid: bewustzijn, taal en dus het vermogen om met symbolen om te gaan en dus ons vermogen om te kunnen denken. De paradox anders geformuleerd: deze vermogens zijn nodig om het 'niet-zelf' bij zichzelf te doorgronden, wat eerste voorwaarde 'ontwaken' is. Zonder dualisme geen non-dualisme !
Om Descartes te parafraseren:
ik (homo sapiens) denk en kan iets met mijn bewustzijn, dus kan ik mezelf bevrijden.
=======================================================================
NAWOORD
De evolutietheorie geeft een verklaring - volgens mij de meest plausibele verklaring al staat het op gespannen voet met nogal wat aspecten van het boeddhisme - van het ontstaan en bestaan van de soorten (dieren, plus mens); van de biodiversiteit dus.
Soorten ontstaan en sterven weer uit.
De laatste honderden jaren sterven soorten vooral uit door het ingrijpen van de mens.
Het afnemen van de biodiversiteit is iets dat me bezorgd en verdrietig maakt.
Er is één troostrijke gedachte: ook de menselijke soort (homo sapiens) sterft wel een keer uit, net zo als dat bij de naaste concurrent de Neanderthaler het geval is geweest. Misschien door eigen ingrijpen binnen honderden jaren, misschien doet de natuur er wat langer over.
Dat is op een bepaalde manier wel jammer want dan is er niemand (geen levend wezen) meer, die in staat is zich bewust te worden van dukkha, anicca en anatta en zodoende te 'ontwaken'.
(Er blijven overigens dan wel levende wezens met compassie bestaan want sommige diersoorten hebben dit vermogen duidelijk ook)
Wellicht ontstaat er op de lange duur op aarde wel weer een diersoort met deze vermogens (en dus die van taal en bewustzijn), die dit ook kan zonder de nadelen van de menselijke soort.
Eindig ik toch nog positief.
=======================================================================
Bijlage 1
EVOLUTIE EN RELIGIE
... We hebben gezien dat de evolutietheorie eventueel verzoenbaar is met deïsme maar niet met theïsme, een letterlijke lezing van de religieuze leerstellingen. Schepping en evolutie bijten elkaar. De proclamatie van het Vaticaan in 1996 dat de evolutietheorie niet in conflict is met de katholieke geloofsleer moet dan ook met een korreltje zout worden genomen. Het Vaticaan snoept namelijk van twee walletjes. Paus Johannes Paulus II stelde dat het menselijk lichaam best door een natuurlijk proces uit eerdere levensvormen kan zijn geëvolueerd, maar dat de menselijke ziel rechtstreeks in ons is geplant door God. Afgezien van de netelige kwestie wat de ziel precies is, heeft deze dubbele visie meer problemen. Het roept bijvoorbeeld de vraag op wannéér onze voorouders precies een ziel kregen. De evolutie verloopt immers gradueel en er is geen plotselinge overgang van aapmensen naar echte mensen aan te wijzen. Elke keuze voor bepaald tijdstip van zielinplanting wordt dan arbitrair. ... In de poging het beste van twee werelden te verenigen, maakt de Kerk van Rome er een potje van."
Bron: Chris Buskes Evolutionair denken - De invloed van Darwin op ons wereldbeeld
Uitg. Nieuwezijds, 2006, pagina 292
=======================================================================
Bijlage 2
Digha-Nikaya vertaling door Jan de Breet & Rob Janssen
Nr. 27: Agganna-Sutta - De leerrede over het begin der dingen
"INLEIDING
...
Tevens wordt in dit sutta, en wel in de vorm van een mythe, het ontstaan van de maatschappij met haar diverse rangen en standen beschreven. Zoals in vele andere mythen is het uitgangspunt een gouden tijd, waarin geen onrecht voorkwam en de mensen in vrede leefden. Geleidelijk nam de moraliteit af en werd de wereld zoals zij nu is. Dan treedt er een kentering op, doordat de mensen de waarde van zelfbeheersing ontdekken en gaan mediteren.
...
Nu volgt de bovengenoemde mythe - een kosmogenese om aan te geven dat de standen zijn ontstaan op grond van sociale gegevenheden en niet op grond van een goddelijke beschikking. ...
Op een zeker moment trekt de wereld samen (vergaat) en worden de meeste wezens herboren in een godenwereld, de wereld der Stralenden. Na lange tijd ontplooit de wereld zich weer. De wezens vallen uit de godenwereld en zweven vrij in de ruimte boven de oer-wateren van de nieuwe aarde. Dan vormt zich een soort vlies, de 'eetbare aarde', op het water en de wezens proeven en genieten ervan. Naarmate zij er meer van eten, worden zij grofstoffelijker. Hun straling verdwijnt en de zon en de maan verschijnen. ... Hun lichamen worden steeds grover en sexuele differentiatie wordt zichtbaar. De wezens, die hoe langer hoe meer op mensen beginnen te lijken, geven zich over aan sexualiteit en gaan huizen bouwen om hun 'immoreel gedrag' te verbergen.
...
Dan besluiten sommigen hun leven te beteren. Zij trekken de wildernis in en gaan mediteren. ... Anderen gaan diverse ambachten uitoefenen ...
Uit al deze standen trokken mensen de thuisloosheid in en zo ontstond de stand der asceten. iedereen van welke stand dan ook kan tot ontwaken komen door beheersing in daad, woord en gedachten. Wie dit ideaal nog niet bereikt heeft, maar een goed leven heeft geleid, wordt in een hemelse wereld wedergeboren. Een booswicht staat een hel te wachten."
Bron: De verzameling van lange leerredes, Asoka, 2001, pagina 583 e.v.
Posts tonen met het label Mahayana. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Mahayana. Alle posts tonen
zondag 26 april 2015
maandag 6 april 2015
Boeddhisme en het God-concept, een complexe en moeizame relatie - En mijn positie daarin: gewoon atheïstisch
Update 11 april
Goed nieuws voor de atheïst, dus ook voor de boeddhistische atheïst.
Dubbel nieuws zelfs.
* Het eerste is dat er ook vrolijke atheïsten zijn. Waldo Swijnenburg is er één van. Hij heeft een boek geschreven onder de titel 'De schoonheid en de troost van een wereldbeeld zonder God '. In de Volkskrant van 11 april een interview met hem. In OBA-Live (van HUMAN) ook, luister hier
* Het tweede is dat het universum mogelijk langzamer uitdijt dat we tot nu toe dachten. Het duurt misschien wel een miljard jaar langer voor het leeg is: wat een opluchting
Zie accelerating-universe-not-so-fast
========================================================================
Een paar maanden geleden (blog 14 jan.) noemde ik de discussie over het bewijzen van het wel of niet bestaan van God een non-onderwerp.
Vervolgens stortte ik me zelf in die discussie.
Zie bv de blog van Smedes , met mijn bijdragen in het eind daarvan. En zie ook hier
En in een andere discussie schreef ik:
In een TV-programma van de BOS 18 januari werd in een Soefi-tempel een kaars aangestoken met de volgende tekst: "Ter verheerlijking van de alom tegenwoordige God ontsteken wij het licht dat symbolisch de boeddhistische religie vertegenwoordigt"
Dit gebeurde ook voor de andere vijf wereldreligies.
Ik heb er geen bezwaar tegen dat het boeddhisme een religie wordt genoemd.
Maar ik herken mezelf volstrekt niet in het noemen (en zelfs verheerlijken) van een kennelijk alomtegenwoordige God. Het boeddhisme wordt hier in een vaag-christelijk keurslijf geduwd, vanuit de wens dat alle religies in wezen dezelfde zijn.
Ik heb er geen bezwaar tegen dat juist de verschillen benoemd worden
Alleen dan is een gesprek met een 'we agree to disagree'
Trouwens, die verschillen zijn er ook binnen de boeddhistische tradities; sommige kunnen wel met God of het goddelijke of De Ene door één deur; andere (waaronder de mijne) hebben niets met God.
In het soort boeddhisme waarin ik me het meeste juist voel, zit geen God-concept.
Maar eigenlijk ging het me om iets anders: hoe moet je met een theïst een gesprek voeren als die niet alleen overtuigd is van het bestaan van God, maar tegelijk denkt te kunnen bewijzen dat God bestaat. Waarom iets willen 'bewijzen' als je er toch al in gelooft, begrijp ik niet, maar waarschijnlijk denkt zo'n Christen dat ik van bewijzen houd.
Zo'n discussie is eigenlijk onmogelijk, zeker als het ook gaat om een persoonlijk God.
Ik ga ook niet meer proberen enigszins tot elkaar te komen door te zeggen dat er wel 'iets is', een soort goddelijk principe; of agnostisch te zeggen het niet te weten; ik heb gewoon geen behoefte aan het concept God.
Met een Moslim is zo'n discussie ook onmogelijk, denk ik, maar die zal het niet gaan hebben over 'Allah-bewijzen' in een poging mij te overtuigen.
[Toen mij werd gezegd dat dit afstandelijk was en het om eigen ervaring ging, schreef ik:]
Okay, eigen ervaring.
M'n eigen ervaring is dat ik voel er niets van te menen, een rol te spelen om de ander te pleasen als ik zeg "Ter verheerlijking van de alom tegenwoordige God ontsteken wij het licht dat symbolisch de boeddhistische religie vertegenwoordigt"
M'n eigen ervaring is dat ik niet, nooit, het gevoel heb gehad dat God bestaat en ook nooit (na m'n tiende jaar) het gevoel heb gehad daar iets mee te missen.
Ik geef er de voorkeur aan, tegen mensen van allerlei religies over hun geloof te zeggen: we agree to disagree. En liever langs elkaar heen te leven dan te doen alsof we van alles gemeenschappelijk hebben.
[En tegen iemand anders die, in het kader van deze God-discussie, schreef dat God in onze innerlijke ziel zit en wij hem moeten respecteren en dankbaar zijn; bv over het feit dat we een dak boven ons hoofd hebben en elke dag een bord eten:]
Er is geen God, en hij/zij kan dus ook niet in onze ziel zitten (er is ook geen ziel). Respecteren kan nooit kwaad maar er is niets om te respecteren; en bedanken dus ook niet.
De kunst is m.i. om dankbaar te zijn zonder object van dankbaarheid.
Deze flarden van een standpunt maken, ook voor mezelf, duidelijker
waar ik sta t.a.v. de vraag over het bestaan van God. Duidelijkheid die maakte
dat ik mezelf nu atheïstisch boeddhist noem, scherper dan seculier boeddhist.
In onderstaand betoog geeft ik met een aantal citaten waar het boeddhisme (althans diverse boeddhisten) staan t.a.v. de Godsvraag.
En afsluitend kom ik dan op m'n eigen positie terug.
========================================================================
In het discussieplatform 'Dhamma Wheel' leverde de vraag 'Where is God in Buddhism? ' maar liefst 368 reacties op. Die ga ik dus niet samenvatten. Zie hier
Het betreft hier een (overwegend) Theravada-forum.
In de Theravada (in de traditionele vorm dan, er zijn ook beoefenaren die beïnvloed zijn door Mahayana - zie onder - en New Age visies) is het standpunt helder. Ik beperk me tot het geven van links.
* 'Buddhism and the God-idea ' door Nyanaponika Thera.
Een genuanceerd artikel met een leuke aan Bertrand Russell toegeschreven oneliner
'It is improbable that the universe contains nothing better than ourselves.'
* 'Why we can be certain that God doesn’t exist' door Sujato noemde ik ook in januari.
* 'Buddhism and the God-idea ' door Ven. S. Dhammika is ook volstrekt helder:
'Question: Do Buddhists believe in a god? Answer: No, we do not.' Enzovoorts.
Het themanummer 'The God Issue ' van het electronische tijdschrift Inquiring Mind bevat een vijftiental artikelen over het thema 'God en Boeddhisme', de meeste geschreven door Mahayana-boeddhisten met duidelijke en nog steeds min of meer beleden theïstische (Christelijke of Joodse) wortels. Anders dus dan de Theravada-beschouwingen van hierboven.
Veel dichter bij mijn opvattingen zit het artikel 'Was the Buddha an Atheist? ; Preeminent Buddhist thinkers—Badiner, Kornfield, Batchelor, and Thurman—weigh in' door Philip Wolfson uit 'Tricycle' van januari 2015 (u ziet, het is en blijft een actueel thema, vgl ook het recente boek van Brad Warmer over God, of No God, dat is me niet duidelijk geworden)
Het betreft de stelling 'The Buddha was an atheist '
Alan Badiner zei hierover: " I would need time to do it, but there are passages from the Tripitaka that strongly indicate that the Buddha denied the existence of a creator god. Rather than classify him as an atheist or an agnostic, it would be more appropriate to use the term nontheist. An atheist believes only what he can see but, of course, the Buddha suggested that not all that you see is real. "
Stephen Batchelor's bijdrage aan deze discussie:
"I’m happy you are happy with nontheist. The problems are manifold. The term atheist as we use it today would not have been used in that way at the Buddha’s time. Nor, for that matter, would the concept nontheist. There are no equivalents for either in Pali or Sanskrit, though many Hindus today still regard the Buddha as a nastika, usually translated as nihilist but which means something like one who asserts there is nothing.
Again, the Buddha would have rejected this since he warns against the two extremes of atthi [it is] and natthi [it is not] and seeks to establish his dharma in the middle (madhyama), which does not lapse into the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. The Buddha simply did not define himself or his teaching in such ways. So trying to capture him in these terms is bound to misrepresent him.
On the other hand, the only way we can talk about him and his vision is via the concepts of our own time and language, which has been the case throughout Buddhist history in the different countries in which it took root. I take nontheist to mean one who does not employ God as a necessary term in his or her teaching. In this sense, yes, the Buddha was a nontheist.
However since he is recorded in the Agganna Sutta as mocking and rejecting the very idea of God, he also comes close to being an atheist in the modern sense. It is probably best to drop trying to categorize the Buddha in any of these ways, to cultivate a healthy skepticism regarding views and opinions, and to concentrate on practicing the dharma instead. "
Helder is ook een reactie op deze pagina: 'The more complete view is the Buddha was non-god-centric, in that belief in a God or Gods is not the central feature of the Dhamma '.
Tenslotte een lang en objectief overzichtsartikel over 'God in Buddhism ' in Wikipedia.
Ook dat ga ik niet proberen samen te vatten. Slechts mijn conclusie dat dit voldoende argument is voor de uitdrukking 'een complexe en moeizame relatie' in de kop van deze blogtekst.
========================================================================
In de rechterkolom van deze blog staat permanent de tekst van een song van John Lennon:
"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
...
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra "
... etc.
Dit geeft redelijk goed mijn opvatting weer: God is een concept. En concepten komen op en verdwijnen weer, zijn niet permanent, bestaan ook niet echt.
Subjectief gezegd: ik heb het concept God niet nodig, ook zonder denk ik ethisch en zinvol te kunnen leven, en doodgaan.
Ook geen God-light zoals de Wereldziel of Dharmakaya etc.
Alleen een onverschillig en leeg universum.
Goed nieuws voor de atheïst, dus ook voor de boeddhistische atheïst.
Dubbel nieuws zelfs.
* Het eerste is dat er ook vrolijke atheïsten zijn. Waldo Swijnenburg is er één van. Hij heeft een boek geschreven onder de titel 'De schoonheid en de troost van een wereldbeeld zonder God '. In de Volkskrant van 11 april een interview met hem. In OBA-Live (van HUMAN) ook, luister hier
* Het tweede is dat het universum mogelijk langzamer uitdijt dat we tot nu toe dachten. Het duurt misschien wel een miljard jaar langer voor het leeg is: wat een opluchting
Zie accelerating-universe-not-so-fast
========================================================================
Een paar maanden geleden (blog 14 jan.) noemde ik de discussie over het bewijzen van het wel of niet bestaan van God een non-onderwerp.
Vervolgens stortte ik me zelf in die discussie.
Zie bv de blog van Smedes , met mijn bijdragen in het eind daarvan. En zie ook hier
En in een andere discussie schreef ik:
In een TV-programma van de BOS 18 januari werd in een Soefi-tempel een kaars aangestoken met de volgende tekst: "Ter verheerlijking van de alom tegenwoordige God ontsteken wij het licht dat symbolisch de boeddhistische religie vertegenwoordigt"
Dit gebeurde ook voor de andere vijf wereldreligies.
Ik heb er geen bezwaar tegen dat het boeddhisme een religie wordt genoemd.
Maar ik herken mezelf volstrekt niet in het noemen (en zelfs verheerlijken) van een kennelijk alomtegenwoordige God. Het boeddhisme wordt hier in een vaag-christelijk keurslijf geduwd, vanuit de wens dat alle religies in wezen dezelfde zijn.
Ik heb er geen bezwaar tegen dat juist de verschillen benoemd worden
Alleen dan is een gesprek met een 'we agree to disagree'
Trouwens, die verschillen zijn er ook binnen de boeddhistische tradities; sommige kunnen wel met God of het goddelijke of De Ene door één deur; andere (waaronder de mijne) hebben niets met God.
In het soort boeddhisme waarin ik me het meeste juist voel, zit geen God-concept.
Maar eigenlijk ging het me om iets anders: hoe moet je met een theïst een gesprek voeren als die niet alleen overtuigd is van het bestaan van God, maar tegelijk denkt te kunnen bewijzen dat God bestaat. Waarom iets willen 'bewijzen' als je er toch al in gelooft, begrijp ik niet, maar waarschijnlijk denkt zo'n Christen dat ik van bewijzen houd.
Zo'n discussie is eigenlijk onmogelijk, zeker als het ook gaat om een persoonlijk God.
Ik ga ook niet meer proberen enigszins tot elkaar te komen door te zeggen dat er wel 'iets is', een soort goddelijk principe; of agnostisch te zeggen het niet te weten; ik heb gewoon geen behoefte aan het concept God.
Met een Moslim is zo'n discussie ook onmogelijk, denk ik, maar die zal het niet gaan hebben over 'Allah-bewijzen' in een poging mij te overtuigen.
[Toen mij werd gezegd dat dit afstandelijk was en het om eigen ervaring ging, schreef ik:]
Okay, eigen ervaring.
M'n eigen ervaring is dat ik voel er niets van te menen, een rol te spelen om de ander te pleasen als ik zeg "Ter verheerlijking van de alom tegenwoordige God ontsteken wij het licht dat symbolisch de boeddhistische religie vertegenwoordigt"
M'n eigen ervaring is dat ik niet, nooit, het gevoel heb gehad dat God bestaat en ook nooit (na m'n tiende jaar) het gevoel heb gehad daar iets mee te missen.
Ik geef er de voorkeur aan, tegen mensen van allerlei religies over hun geloof te zeggen: we agree to disagree. En liever langs elkaar heen te leven dan te doen alsof we van alles gemeenschappelijk hebben.
[En tegen iemand anders die, in het kader van deze God-discussie, schreef dat God in onze innerlijke ziel zit en wij hem moeten respecteren en dankbaar zijn; bv over het feit dat we een dak boven ons hoofd hebben en elke dag een bord eten:]
Er is geen God, en hij/zij kan dus ook niet in onze ziel zitten (er is ook geen ziel). Respecteren kan nooit kwaad maar er is niets om te respecteren; en bedanken dus ook niet.
De kunst is m.i. om dankbaar te zijn zonder object van dankbaarheid.
Deze flarden van een standpunt maken, ook voor mezelf, duidelijker
waar ik sta t.a.v. de vraag over het bestaan van God. Duidelijkheid die maakte
dat ik mezelf nu atheïstisch boeddhist noem, scherper dan seculier boeddhist.
In onderstaand betoog geeft ik met een aantal citaten waar het boeddhisme (althans diverse boeddhisten) staan t.a.v. de Godsvraag.
En afsluitend kom ik dan op m'n eigen positie terug.
========================================================================
In het discussieplatform 'Dhamma Wheel' leverde de vraag 'Where is God in Buddhism? ' maar liefst 368 reacties op. Die ga ik dus niet samenvatten. Zie hier
Het betreft hier een (overwegend) Theravada-forum.
In de Theravada (in de traditionele vorm dan, er zijn ook beoefenaren die beïnvloed zijn door Mahayana - zie onder - en New Age visies) is het standpunt helder. Ik beperk me tot het geven van links.
* 'Buddhism and the God-idea ' door Nyanaponika Thera.
Een genuanceerd artikel met een leuke aan Bertrand Russell toegeschreven oneliner
'It is improbable that the universe contains nothing better than ourselves.'
* 'Why we can be certain that God doesn’t exist' door Sujato noemde ik ook in januari.
* 'Buddhism and the God-idea ' door Ven. S. Dhammika is ook volstrekt helder:
'Question: Do Buddhists believe in a god? Answer: No, we do not.' Enzovoorts.
Het themanummer 'The God Issue ' van het electronische tijdschrift Inquiring Mind bevat een vijftiental artikelen over het thema 'God en Boeddhisme', de meeste geschreven door Mahayana-boeddhisten met duidelijke en nog steeds min of meer beleden theïstische (Christelijke of Joodse) wortels. Anders dus dan de Theravada-beschouwingen van hierboven.
Veel dichter bij mijn opvattingen zit het artikel 'Was the Buddha an Atheist? ; Preeminent Buddhist thinkers—Badiner, Kornfield, Batchelor, and Thurman—weigh in' door Philip Wolfson uit 'Tricycle' van januari 2015 (u ziet, het is en blijft een actueel thema, vgl ook het recente boek van Brad Warmer over God, of No God, dat is me niet duidelijk geworden)
Het betreft de stelling 'The Buddha was an atheist '
Alan Badiner zei hierover: " I would need time to do it, but there are passages from the Tripitaka that strongly indicate that the Buddha denied the existence of a creator god. Rather than classify him as an atheist or an agnostic, it would be more appropriate to use the term nontheist. An atheist believes only what he can see but, of course, the Buddha suggested that not all that you see is real. "
Stephen Batchelor's bijdrage aan deze discussie:
"I’m happy you are happy with nontheist. The problems are manifold. The term atheist as we use it today would not have been used in that way at the Buddha’s time. Nor, for that matter, would the concept nontheist. There are no equivalents for either in Pali or Sanskrit, though many Hindus today still regard the Buddha as a nastika, usually translated as nihilist but which means something like one who asserts there is nothing.
Again, the Buddha would have rejected this since he warns against the two extremes of atthi [it is] and natthi [it is not] and seeks to establish his dharma in the middle (madhyama), which does not lapse into the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. The Buddha simply did not define himself or his teaching in such ways. So trying to capture him in these terms is bound to misrepresent him.
On the other hand, the only way we can talk about him and his vision is via the concepts of our own time and language, which has been the case throughout Buddhist history in the different countries in which it took root. I take nontheist to mean one who does not employ God as a necessary term in his or her teaching. In this sense, yes, the Buddha was a nontheist.
However since he is recorded in the Agganna Sutta as mocking and rejecting the very idea of God, he also comes close to being an atheist in the modern sense. It is probably best to drop trying to categorize the Buddha in any of these ways, to cultivate a healthy skepticism regarding views and opinions, and to concentrate on practicing the dharma instead. "
Helder is ook een reactie op deze pagina: 'The more complete view is the Buddha was non-god-centric, in that belief in a God or Gods is not the central feature of the Dhamma '.
Tenslotte een lang en objectief overzichtsartikel over 'God in Buddhism ' in Wikipedia.
Ook dat ga ik niet proberen samen te vatten. Slechts mijn conclusie dat dit voldoende argument is voor de uitdrukking 'een complexe en moeizame relatie' in de kop van deze blogtekst.
========================================================================
In de rechterkolom van deze blog staat permanent de tekst van een song van John Lennon:
"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
...
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra "
... etc.
Dit geeft redelijk goed mijn opvatting weer: God is een concept. En concepten komen op en verdwijnen weer, zijn niet permanent, bestaan ook niet echt.
Subjectief gezegd: ik heb het concept God niet nodig, ook zonder denk ik ethisch en zinvol te kunnen leven, en doodgaan.
Ook geen God-light zoals de Wereldziel of Dharmakaya etc.
Alleen een onverschillig en leeg universum.
maandag 2 februari 2015
Soka Gakkai (nu BUN-lid) de complexe waarheid bij een simpele chantende discutabele vereringsreligie - Wie is de Boeddha van dit 'boeddhisme'?
De ledenvergadering van de BUN van november 2014 heeft Soka Gakkai International Nederland (SGIN), als nieuw lid geaccepteerd. "De leden van SGI-NL beoefenen de leer van Nichiren Daishonin, een priester die in 1222 in Japan werd geboren. Hij onderwees dat het reciteren van Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, de titel en essentie van de Lotus Soetra, de beoefening is die mensen in staat stelt verlichting te bereiken. Een van de grote doelen van het boeddhisme is dat alle levende wezens gelukkig worden en dat de mens zich bewust wordt van de onschendbaarheid en respectwaardigheid van het leven zelf." (BD 22-11-2014)
Voor mij is dit een nieuw dieptepunt in de toch al omstreden BUN.
Op de volgende diepgaande wijze heeft de BUN 'onderzocht' of de SGI wel deugt:
"SGI komt oorspronkelijk uit Japan, maar is ook in het Westen heel groot. Paula [de Wijs] en Michael [Ritman] hebben het centrum in Amsterdam bezocht en zijn daar bijzonder vriendelijk ontvangen door de voorzitter, Dhr. Hideki Iwami, en de contactpersoon, Johan van der Kreij. In Japan zou SGI ook een politieke organisatie zijn, maar dit is in Europa niet aan de orde. Ze willen graag meer naar buiten treden als sangha.
19 stemmen voor> aanvraag goedgekeurd. " (Concept Notulen ALV 22 november 2014
Opvallend is dat m.u.v. de voorzitter van de werkgroep ongeorganiseerde boeddhisten géén van de Theravada/vipassana-leden van de BUN op deze vergadering aanwezig was.)
Geen internationaal onderzoek door het BUN-bestuur, geen enkele kritische vraag door een BUN-lid: doe maar, weer een lid er bij, hun contributie kunnen we goed gebruiken. Voldoen ze niet aan wat we op onze eigen website (boeddhisme.nl/boeddhisme.html) onder 'Boeddhisme' verstaan? Geen probleem!
========================================================================
Wat is Soka Gakkai (Nederland) voor een organisatie ?
Soka Gakkai is de meest bekende vorm van Nichiren-boeddhisme, was daar oorspronkelijk alleen de lekenorganisatie van. Een uitgebreid Engelstalig artikel van Wikipedia 'Soka Gakkai '
Er is ook nog een andere Nichiren-groep: 'Nichiren Shoshu '. De twee bestreden elkaar al sinds WO II in grote hevigheid; ook in Nederland, zie de site 'De SGI Verlaten '. Het geschil schijnt te gaan over de rol van priesters in Nichiren.
Wat dat betreft hebben het (door Gelugpa's gedomineerde BUN-bestuur) en Soka Gakkai een punt van overeenstemming: de SGI heeft haar eigen Dorje Shugden ! (Of andersom natuurlijk)
Het heeft allang geen zin meer om iets te zeggen als: Nichiren (hier bedoeld als de stroming, niet de persoon Nichiren Daishonin) is geen boeddhisme. Want wat is wel boeddhisme?
Om deze reden is het beter, opnieuw te benadrukken dat er vele boeddhismen zijn die soms veel, soms wel wat en soms niets met elkaar te maken hebben.
Voor mij geldt: het boeddhisme zoals ik dat (uiteraard subjectief) als de waarheid zie en wens te beoefenen en Nichiren hebben niets met elkaar te maken, ik heb er geen enkele affiniteit mee.
Voor mij - en in Engelstalige literatuur wordt er door velen zo over gedacht, in de Japanse kennelijk ook - lijkt de SGI toch wel erg veel op een sektarische beweging.
Zie voor deze term 'sekte' dit Wikipedia-artikel dat zo begint: "Een sekte is een geloofsgemeenschap met opvattingen en gebruiken die zich onderscheiden van overige geloofsgemeenschappen die behoren tot dezelfde stroming als de sekte. Sekten zijn vaak gesticht door een charismatische leider met een nieuwe leer of openbaring." Ik zie wel een aantal overeenkomsten met de SGI.
Zelf beschrijven ze zich aldus:
" De oorsprong van het boeddhisme
... De Lotus Soetra staat hoog aangeschreven in de Mahayana-traditie die Oost-Azië bereikte. Hierin ligt nadruk op het bodhisattva-ideaal (het streven naar verlichting van zichzelf en anderen), en wordt uitgelegd dat alle mensen de levensstaat van boeddhaschap bezitten. Nichiren Daishonin, een Japanse priester in de 13e eeuw, besefte dat Shakyamuni's intentie en mededogen het volledigst tot uitdrukking komen in de Lotus Soetra.
Het boeddhisme van Nichiren Daishonin
Wij, leden van SGI-NL, beoefenen de leer van Nichiren Daishonin, een priester die in 1222 in Japan werd geboren. Hij onderwees dat het reciteren van Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, de titel en essentie van de Lotus Soetra, de beoefening is die mensen in staat stelt verlichting te bereiken. Een van de grote doelen van het boeddhisme is dat alle levende wezens gelukkig worden en dat de mens zich bewust wordt van de onschendbaarheid en respectwaardigheid van het leven zelf.
In de boeddhistische leer staat de wet van oorzaak en gevolg centraal. Deze wet stelt dat iedere oorzaak die wij leggen (in gedachte, woord of daad) een effect creëert in ons eigen leven en dat van onze omgeving. Door ons geloof en onze beoefening kunnen wij ons innerlijk veranderen. We ontwikkelen de kwaliteiten die nodig zijn voor persoonlijke ontplooiing en willen daarmee bijdragen aan de positieve ontwikkeling van de samenleving. "
Bron: SGI Nederland - Oorsprong
========================================================================
De Lotus Sutra is een dwaze sutra
Dat vind ik. Nadat ik de hele sutra een aantal maal heb gelezen (En wie zegt mij dat na?)
De Lotus Sutra gaat namelijk nergens over. Want de tekst ervan verwijst voortdurend naar zichzelf, naar de Lotus Sutra. Kortom: de Lotus Sutra gaat over de Lotus Sutra, en dat is dwaas.
Af en toe is er wel een zin die ergens over gaat, bijvoorbeeld het afzeiken van het zogeheten hinayana (het 'minderwaardige voertuig'), een scheldwoord voor wat nu Theravada genoemd wordt. Dat is weer op een andere manier dwaas; èn vijandig.
Ook de boeddholoog Alan Cole vindt dat; hij heeft er een boeiend boek over geschreven: ‘Text as Father: Paternal Seductions in Early Mahayana Buddhist Literature‘; Cal. Univ Press, 2005
De boodschap van de Sutra aan haar lezers is eigenlijk, zegt Cole: beschouw deze sutra als de autoriteit, en niet de leraren uit de monastieke traditie. Daarbij wordt sterk met de vader-zoon verhouding gewerkt.
Een uitgebreid citaat uit de hoofdstukken over de Lotus (het boek gaat ook over de Diamant-, de Tathagatagarbha- en de Vimalakirti-Sutra) is opgenomen in BIJLAGE 1.
Een blogtekst van Edel Maex, die deze sutra wel weet te waarderen: Shariputra danste . Zie ook commentaar daarop
Hier twee Engelse vertalingen: nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/ en www.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf
De tweede is betrouwbaarder, vermoed ik.
In het Nederlands is er het boek 'De Drievoudige Lotus Soetra', Servire, Utrecht, 1996,
met daarin 'De Soetra van de Lotusbloem der Wonderbaarlijke Leer '.
Als BIJLAGE 2 neem ik de tekst op uit de Lotus Sutra die een aanhanger van de SGI iedere dag (in het oud-Chinees/Japans, dus onbegrijpelijk) hoort te chanten. Delen ervan dan; daarnaast chanten ze ook de frase ' Nam-myohorenge-kyo ' (‘Eer aan de Lotus Sutra van de Mystieke Wet').
Wie het wil horen: hier en hier . Dit is de hele beoefening van hun 'boeddhisme'.
========================================================================
En dit is nog maar het onschuldige deel van Nichiren, de vermeende inhoud
Veel erger is de vorm: een autoritair geleide godsdienst, met een voorzitter - een Japanner zoals zijn voorganger en diens voorganger - die samen met Nichiren als een god verheerlijkt wordt door de volgelingen.
Eigenlijk is het doel van Soka Gakkai, voorzitter Ikeda te eren:
"DAISAKU IKEDA is de voorzitter van de Soka Gakkai Internationaal (SGI), een boeddhistisch lekengenootschap van meer dan 12 miljoen leden in 192 landen en gebieden, en oprichter van verschillende onderwijskundige, culturele en onderzoeksinstellingen. Hij is schrijver, dichter en vredesactivist. Wereldwijd wordt hij gezien als een van de belangrijkste personen die de tijdloze wijsheid van het boeddhisme weet toe te passen op de uitdagingen waarvoor de mensheid zich momenteel geplaatst ziet. " Bron: SGI - Ikeda .
Daar kan voorzitter Blatter van de FIFA (de voetbalfederatie) nog een puntje aan zuigen.
In BIJLAGE 3 een diepteanalyse van de relatie tussen Ikeda en zijn voorganger en mentor Toda.
Zijn onderdanige discipline t.o.v. Toda staat model voor de relaties die van volgelingen worden verwacht.
========================================================================
Een aantal Engelse kritische teksten over Soka Gakkai
Hierboven heb ik een paar bronnen genoemd waar de BUN uit had kunnen putten als ze er achter hadden willen komen wat de Soka Gakkai is.
Er zijn er veel meer, vooral uit Engeland, waar men al langer met deze cult te maken heeft.
' Many Bodies, One Mind: Movements In British Buddhism ' door Ken Jones
Jones begint meteen mooi: " SGI-UK is een afwijkende Japanse boeddhistische traditie die voor vele mainstream boeddhisten net zoveel gemeen heeft met hun religie als, laten we zeggen, het mormoonse geloof met het christendom. "
Hij constateert verder: "Voor Soka Gakkai kan het 'Boeddhaschap alleen en uitsluitend worden bereikt door het zingen van de Nam-myoho-renge-kyo'. Dit alles staat in contrast met de oecumenische boeddhistische traditie van 'vele wegen, één doel', gevonden in de meeste boeddhistische organisaties buiten deze beweging. Dit ultieme gevoel van superioriteit stelt onvermijdelijk grenzen aan het waarde van de dialoog tussen de beweging en meer 'open' boeddhisten. "
Een andere (Amerikaanse) bron van een boeddhist die lang bij de SGI actief is geweest, staat in een blog met de titel 'The EndlessFurther '. Zie The Fighting Forces of the Lotus .
In BIJLAGE 4 neem ik deze getuigenis over. Een helder, scherp, maar niet rancuneus stuk.
Nog scherper is Sokagakkailies 'The Dark Sides and Hidden Perils of Soka Gakkai Cult'
Eén ervan stelt - met een groot aantal argumenten - dat de SGI een destructieve sekte is.
In BIJLAGE 5 neem ik een andere tekst van deze site over.
'British Buddhism - Teachings, practice and development '
door Robert Bluck Routledge, 2006.
Hoofdstuk 6 (twintig pagina's) gaat over SOKA GAKKAI INTERNATIONAL UK
Hieruit een collage van vertaalde (soms licht geparafraseerde) citaten:
'Nam-myoho-renge-kyo' kan in een bredere boeddhistische context gezien worden als 'een tantrische transformerende mantra', met de nadruk op het heilige geluid in plaats van intellectuele betekenis. Echter, SGI-NL leden gaven er de voorkeur aan, de inzet van het chanten te benadrukken: ze waren ongemakkelijk met het concept van een 'magische' mantra, maar leken onduidelijk te zijn over de vraag of de kracht van het zingen zich 'in de mantra zelf of in de leven van het individu bevindt'.
Nieuwe leden moesten oorspronkelijk bij hun gojukai ... beloven om 'goed te beoefenen en geen enkele andere religie te volgen. [Deze sektarische eis is mogelijk niet meer in gebruik; echter:] Deelnemers mogen lezen wat ze willen, maar de leiders zullen hen er steeds aan te herinneren dat alle andere leringen dan die van Nichiren leringen van 'voorlopige aard' (provisional) zijn.
Er is een ongebruikelijke nadruk op bewijs: 'bewijsstukken' of 'het schriftelijk bewijs dat alle boeddhistische leer leiden tot de Lotus Soetra' wordt gezegd om te laten zien dat Nichiren Boeddhisme is zowel orthodox als geschikt voor allen. 'Theoretisch bewijs' wordt gezegd om te laten zien dat 'Nam-myoho-renge-kyo perfect de mysteries van leven en dood' belicht; en 'daadwerkelijk bewijs' laat zien hoe chanting het leven van mensen verbetert. Causton beschreef dit 'werkelijke bewijs' als een nieuwe leer van Nichiren, in plaats van deze te verbinden met de empirische benadering aanbevolen door de Boeddha.
De 'Eeuwigheid van het Leven'-doctrine leert dat levende dingen niet gecreëerd of vernietigd worden; ze zijn als leven en dood slechts 'wisselende aspecten waarin ons werkelijke zelf zich manifesteert'. Nichiren leert dat de traditionele vijf skandha's - hoewel wordt gezegd dat ze niet 'een ziel' zijn - 'gedurende het hele leven van het individu ongewijzigd blijven bestaan', tegelijk verdwijnen èn ongewijzigd blijven bij overlijden. Elke wedergeboorte van dit constante 'ware zelf' is slechts een verandering van identiteit, met de dood als onderdeel van 'het eeuwige proces waarin een individuee levens-entiteit voortdurend ververst en vernieuwt zodat het weer kan terugkomen in een andere gedaante'. Dit is dan wel niet de ziel-theorie zoals die door de traditionele anatta-leer wordt verworpen; maar het ondermijnt wel de klassieke Boeddhistische verwerping van het eternalisme, speciaal dat van een eeuwig 'zelf'.
De Lotus Soetra heeft een unieke status binnen SGI, als gevolg van de claim van Nichirens dat het de ultieme boeddhistische leer binnen haar titel bevat, zodat iedereen die Nam-myoho-renge-kyo reciteert, 'zelfs zonder inzicht in de betekenis ervan, niet alleen het hart van de Lotus Soetra, maar ook de essentie van de hele leer van de Boeddha verwerkelijkt.
Geïnterviewden bevestigden deze cruciale interpretatie van de soetra en de titel. Zowel Nichiren als de SGI betogen dat de Lotus Soetra zelf niet hoeft te worden bestudeerd, omdat alleen het reciteren van Nam-myoho-renge-kyo kan leiden tot verlichting. En de nadruk op bijeenkomsten wordt vaak gelegd op de interpretaties door Nichirens interpretatie of lezingen van voorzitter president Ikeda in plaats van op de tekst zelf.
Er wordt stellig verklaard dat de Boeddha zelf de Lotus Sotra uitsprak tegen het einde van zijn leven; en de geïnterviewden waren vaak niet bekend met de breed gedeelde wetenschappelijke opvatting dat de sutra pas enkele eeuwen later werd samengesteld.
Nichiren overschaduwt duidelijk de historische Boeddha in de SGI. Hij is is 'de Boeddha voor onze huidige tijd', voor wie de historische Boeddha 'de weg voorbereidde'. Terwijl andere Mahayana tradities de historische Boeddha in de context van verschillende mythische Boeddha's bekijken, of grote leraren soms worden gevisualiseerd als boeddha's tijdens tantrische praktijk, is het ongebruikelijk om Shakyamuni te presenteren als voorloper; in het bijzonder in een leerstellige in plaats van een devotionele context.
Nieuwkomers in SGI-UK worden 'aangemoedigd om te zingen voor wat ze willen', in de erkenning van het verlangen als een krachtige motivatie in ons leven '. [Er zijn] vele persoonlijke getuigenissen van de beoefenaars die boosheid, ziekte, alcoholisme, een laag zelfbeeld en andere problemen hebben overwonnen door aanhoudende beoefeniong van chanten. Nichiren Boeddhisme wordt gezien als de enige religie die problemen van de mensheid kan overwinnen . Deze zijn stevige claims, ze worden herhaaldelijk in SGI-UK literatuur gedaan.
Nieuwkomers in SGI-UK werden aangetrokken door een aantal factoren, zoals vriendelijke en oprechte leden, waargenomen veranderingen bij familieleden of vrienden die waren begonnen met de beoefening, of de praktische voordelen verwacht van chanting. Anderen werden aangetrokken door SGI-UK's eenvoudige ritueel, de nadruk op persoonlijke verantwoordelijkheid, aanspreekbare leiders of de afwezigheid van morele regels.
De SGI-UK wordt beschreven als 'een zeer gestructureerde hiërarchische organisatie met diverse bestuurlijke lagen', waar het hogere personeel in Groot-Brittannië nog steeds 'verantwoording verschuldigd is aan de centrale administratie in Japan'.
Als onderdeel van SGI, heeft SGI-UK aanzienlijke financiële steun ontvangen van Japan, met inbegrip van £ 2.600.000 om Taplow Court te kopen, nog eens £ 2.000.000 voor de restauratie en verdere financiering voor bijna alle lopende kosten. Ook voor de SGIN interessante informatie
De vroege betrokkenheid van Soka Gakkai in Japan van het 'krachtige bekeren' is gewijzigd in de afgelopen decennia. Wel wordt en SGI-UK leden duidelijk te erkennen dat een dergelijke benadering ongepast in Groot-Brittannië zou zijn. Nu wordt de werkwijze van de SGI-UK beschreven als "ijverig evangelisatie', in plaats van de eerdere en krachtiger methoden in Japan. Echter, terwijl sommigen het bekeren zien als een barmhartige daad jegens degenen die lijden, zien anderen het nog steeds als een eis van het lidmaatschap.
========================================================================
CONCLUSIE
Of Soka Gakkai International Nederland volgens godsdienstwetenschappelijke definities een 'sekte' genoemd moet worden, is moeilijk uit te maken; de Japanse moederorganisatie was dat (destijds) wel. Een sektarische beweging kan het wel genoemd worden.
Storend - maar dat is persoonlijk en dus niet doorslaggevend - is de beperkte beoefening door middel van het chanten van 'Myo ho renge kyo' en niets anders; ook de cultus om voorzitter Ikeda staat me niet aan.
Ernstiger is de opvatting van de volgelingen dat alleen hun Nichiren de enig juiste godsdienst en de enig juiste boeddhisme is; waarbij alle andere tradities als expliciet inferieur gezien worden. De (vroegere?) bekeringsijver is daar een logisch gevolg van.
Ook bedenkelijk is dat internationaal gezien Soka Gakkai big business is; en hun bemoeienis met de (Japanse) politiek.
Wat niet op een sekte lijkt is dat de deelname voor de beoefenaren goedkoop lijkt te zijn: de bijeenkomsten zijn bij de mensen thuis en ik lees nergens iets over betalen van contributie of dana. Tenminste: er staat niets over geldzaken op de verder zeer uitgebreide website www.sginl.org maar dat zegt natuurlijk niet alles. Onduidelijk is bv van wie z'n geld de culturele centra in Zeist en Amsterdam zijn betaald.
Het antwoord op de vraag uit de titel, 'Wie is de Boeddha van dit boeddhisme? ', van SGI dus, is volgens mij: niet de 2500 jaar geleden levende Gotama aka Shakyamuni, niet de Japanse priester Nichiren uit de 13e eeuw maar de nu 87-jarige Ikeda.
Mijn conclusie is:
- Tegen de individuele beoefenaar wil ik zeggen: ik zou maar verre van deze club blijven.
Wil je echt aangesloten zijn bij een groep zoals deze als je ook gewoon je eigen
beoefening kan doen?
- Tegen degene die de interreligieuze dialoog en dus ook de dialoog tussen boeddhistische
tradities van belang vinden, (de BUN bv) moet ik zeggen: vergeet dat maar met de SGIN,
ze achten zichzelf superieur.
=========================================================================
[Vanwege de lengte van dit artikel zijn de BIJLAGEN opgenomen in een afzonderlijke blogtekst.]
zondag 1 februari 2015
Soka Gakkai (nu BUN-lid etc) BIJLAGEN
Bijlagen, horend bij de blogtekst
Soka Gakkai (nu BUN-lid) de complexe waarheid bij een simpele chantende
discutabele vereringsreligie - Wie is de Boeddha van dit 'boeddhisme?' ,
die hier op 2 februari werd geplaatst.
BIJLAGE 1
' Text as Father: Paternal Seductions in Early Mahayana Buddhist Literature ',
door Alan Cole
Citaten uit het begin van het hoofdstuk
' Who’s Your Daddy Now? – Reissued Paternity in the Lotus Sutra '
en het eind van het hoofdstuk
' The Domino Effect – Everyone and His Brother Convert to the Lotus Sutra '
" One of the most striking things about the Lotus Sutra is its sophisticated use of father-son motifs to explain its own identity and then to insert itself as the defining element in creating a new identity for the reader and his relationship to the Buddhist tradition. The brilliance of the text lies in the way that it is designed as a pivot that achieves its own legitimation by offering legitimacy to the reader. Thus there is a formal mimesis between the text and the reader, both of whom are given their fathers in the reading event, and it is precisely by arranging that double fathering that the text effects its most basic seduction. That is, the text is designed to enact an amazing exchange: give me the paternal right to give you, the reader, your proper paternity.
More exactly, the Lotus Sutra attempts to draw the reader into accepting its redefinition of Buddhism by claiming that it, as text, was the final product of a perfect patriline of twenty thousand buddhas and that this heritage allows the text to then offer the reader entrance into that patriline, once the reader assents to the Lotus Sutra’s genealogical claim to be of that lineage.
In addition to this impressive narrative architecture, and its likely influence on other early sutras, the Lotus Sutra warrants special attention for displaying a complex relationship to earlier forms of Buddhism. Of particular interest is the way the Lotus Sutra defined this newly created Mahayana sonship as a kind of rebirth out of a previously established father-son identity that had already explained Buddhist identity as a kind of sonship to the Buddha. Standing back from this play of paternity, it seems that the Lotus Sutra created the image of a hyper-Buddhist family that is formed by explicitly renouncing a previously established paternal Buddhist family, even as it borrowed many of its defining elements and logics.
Thus, throughout these narratives of conversion there is something like a ritual structure for dying to one identity in order to adopt a new one, though there is no ritual format or institutional setting provided to support this shift in Buddhist identity. Hence the text attempts to effect what Pierre Bourdieu would call “rites of institution,” even though there is no institution mentioned other than the reading moment itself and no external props, save for the physical presence of the text as book. This lack of external or institutional support explains many of the narrative’s contortions as it attempts to legitimize itself from within itself in order to place itself at the center of a newly defined form of Buddhism that offered itself as the gateway to gaining a revamped form of Buddhist identity.
In organizing such a reading of the Lotus Sutra, I need to emphasize that I am assuming that the text, or at least the chapters that I analyze closelyhere, were composed as an integrated plot with a governing set of principlesdedicated to achieving goals that remain fairly constant over the arc of the narrative. In other words, I am assuming that at least a part of the Lotus Sutra has a plot and that we can, with care and attention, begin to understand its construction and the deeper set of authorial strategies that were relied on in creating a reading experience. If we do not adopt this kind of “reading for the plot” approach, then we have to fall back on one of three options.
The first is that we could simply consider that the text emerged as an unwished-for grab bag of unrelated narrative snippets, pasted together without a governing intent or a steady editorial notion of the work to be accomplished by the very act of compilation. This option is altogether unsatisfying since the text clearly shows authorial or editorial intention. The second option is the religious one that assumes that the narrative, in all its bits and pieces, reflects real events and thus cannot be read for a plot since it simply is what happened. In this view the text as text and the author as inventor completely disappear into the Real that the text creates for itself. The third option is trickier and I think represents the standard choice in Buddhist studies: the text has something of plot, but it is not the result of authorial ingenuity but instead reflects, in some distorted manner, a summation of the will and wishes of an early Mahayana community who wanted to create this document as a quilting point for their beliefs and practices.
As for this third possibility, on reflection this image of “writing by committee” is problematic and particularly so once we see how much seduction and deception are at work in the narrative. The assumption that the text is a kind of platform statement of the earnest Mahayana community in no way matches the subtle seductions that the text achieves precisely by working on the reader without the reader ever realizing these machinations. Moreover, it is altogether obvious that the Lotus Sutra is about making religious community rather than reflecting it in some Durkheimian manner. In short, I cannot see any way to interpret literary seduction, especially at this level of intricacy, other than via authorial intention. Too, by the final chapters of this book, I will have provided solid evidence that the Lotus Sutra and other sutras from this period belong to a literary culture of authors who, themselves, read each other’s work for the plot and borrowed and manipulated plotting techniques in the knowledge of how and why certain plot configurations were effective. Thus, though it is one of the heftier bugbears in the field of religious studies, we need not be afraid to imagine the role of the clever and complicated authors of religious content who gained their talents by reading tradition and seeing how it worked and then going on to create new and more inventive forms of tradition precisely because they had, in some measure, learned how tradition could be reworked. .....
CONCLUSION
While it would be revealing to work through more chapters in the Lotus Sutra, I believe I have offered enough material for recognizing the importance of father-son logic in this text as well as demonstrating the various tracks of seduction that the text employs in universalizing father-son connections and offering them to the reader so that he or she may consume them in the hope of reconstructing his or her identity. Equally important, we have seen how the narrative constructs the reader’s desire for truth and authenticity to circle around the narrative itself and the text that contains it. No longer is truth in the traditional forms of Buddhist doctrine, such as the four truths or the three marks, nor is it in the stalwart figures of the arhats and other reliable figures from the earliest days of Buddhism. Final truth is not even in the old buddhas such as Dipamkara and Maitreya, who are but students of the Lotus Sutra, whose scope and strength pale in comparison. Without a doubt, all those previous sites of sanctity have been demoted and absorbed by the Lotus Sutra and its new explanation of final truth and “real” Buddhist paternity.
Equally clear in this maneuver, the Lotus Sutra has shifted sanctity into a new medium—textuality. Though relic worship is recommended in some of the passages in chapters 2 and 3, still this does not compare to receiving and upholding the Lotus Sutra, and surely never was it said that one found one’s true sonship to the Buddha through relic worship. Similarly, no ethical action compares with maintaining a worshipful attitude toward the Lotus Sutra, with the corollary that there is no greater sin than disparaging or slandering the text. Obviously, there is now really only one final source for value in the universe, and it is the Lotus Sutra as text, the text that came pouring out of that ancient lineage of twenty thousand buddhas and eventually led to the production of the buddhas that we had known so well before, even if we did not understand their place in the history of the Lotus Sutra, a history that is essentially a history of the cosmos even as it is 'our' own history too.
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 2
Bij de SGI gechante passages uit de Lotus Sutra
Translation of Gongyo, the liturgy of Nichiren Daishonin
Expendient Means
Lotus Sutra – ‘Hoben’ Chapter 2
Myoho renge kyo – hoben pon dai ni
Niji seson. Ju sanmai. Anjo ni ki. Go shari-hotsu. Sho-but^chi-e. Jinjin muryo. Go chi-e mon. Nange nannyu. Issai shomon. Hyaku-shi-butsu. Sho fu no chi.
At that time the World-Honoured One calmly arose from his samadhi and addressed Shariputra, saying: “The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable. The door to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it.
Sho-i sha ga. Butsu zo shingon. Hyaku sen man noku. Mushu sho butsu. Jin gyo sho-butsu. Muryo doho. Yumyo shojin. Myosho fu mon. Joju jinjin. Mi-zo-u ho. Zui gi sho setsu. Ishu nange.
“What is the reason for this? A Buddha has personally attended a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million, a countless number of Buddhas and has fully carried out an immeasurable number of religious practices. He has exerted himself bravely and vigorously, and his name is universally known. He has realized the Law that is profound and never known before, and preaches it in accordance with what is appropriate, yet his intention is difficult to understand.
Shari-hotsu. Go ju jo-butsu irai. Shuju innen. Shuju hiyu. Ko en gonkyo. Mu shu hoben. Indo shujo. Ryo ri sho jaku.
“Shariputra, ever since I attained Buddhahood I have through various causes and various similes widely expounded my teachings and have used countless expedient means to guide living beings and cause them to renounce attachments.
Sho-i sha ga. Nyorai hoben. Chiken hara-mitsu. Kai i gu-soku.
“Why is this? Because the Thus Come One is fully possessed by both expedient means and the paramita of wisdom.
Shari-hotsu. Nyorai chiken. Kodai jinnon. Muryo muge. Riki. Mu-sho-i. Zenjo. Gedas.^Sanmai. Jin nyu musai. Joju issai. Mi-zo-u ho.
“Shariputra, the wisdom of the Thus Come One is expansive and profound. He has immeasurable [mercy], unlimited [eloquence], power, fearlessness, concentration, emancipation, and samadhis, and has deeply entered the boundless and awakened to the Law never before attained.
Shari-hotsu. Nyorai no. Shuju fun-betsu. Gyo ses^sho ho. Gonji nyunan. Ekka shushin. Sharihotsu. Shu yo gon shi. Muryo muhen. Mi-zo-u ho. Bus^shitsu joju.
“Shariputra, the Thus Come One knows how to make various kinds of distinctions and to expound the teachings skillfully. His words are soft and gentle and delight the hearts of the assembly. Shariputra, to sum it up: the Buddha has fully realized the Law that is limitless, boundless, never attained before.
Shi shari-hotsu. Fu shu bu setsu.^Sho-i sha ga. Bus^sho joju. Dai ichi ke-u. Nange shi ho.
“But stop, Shariputra, I will say no more. Why? Because what the Buddha has achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law.
Yui butsu yo butsu. Nai no kujin. Shoho jisso. Sho-i shoho. Nyo ze so. Nyo ze sho. Nyo ze tai. Nyo ze riki. Nyo ze sa. Nyo ze in. Nyo ze en. Nyo ze ka. Nyo ze ho. Nyo ze honmak^kukyo to.
“The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas. This reality consists of the appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, inherent cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end.”
Life Span
Lotus Sutra – ‘Juryo’ Chapter 16
Myoho renge kyo – nyorai juryo’hon dai ju-roku
Ji ga toku bur^rai. Sho kyo sho kosshu. Muryo hyaku sen man. Oku sai asogi. Jo seppo kyoke Mushu oku shujo. Ryo nyu o butsu-do. Nirai muryo ko.
“Since I attained Buddhahood the number of kalpas that have passed is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions, trillions, asamkhyas. Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting countless millions of living beings, causing them to enter the Buddha way, all this for immeasurable kalpas.
I do shujo ko. Hoben gen nehan. Ni jitsu fu metsu-do. Jo ju shi seppo.
“In order to save living beings, as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana but in truth I do not pass into extinction. I am always here preaching the Law.
Ga jo ju o shi. I sho jin-zu-riki. Ryo tendo shujo. Sui gon ni fu ken.
“I am always here, but through my transcendental powers I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement do not see me even when close by.
Shu ken ga metsu-do. Ko kuyo shari. Gen kai e renbo. Ni sho katsu-go shin.
“When the multitude see that I have passed into extinction, far and wide they offer alms to my relics. All harbor thoughts of yearning and in their minds thirst to gaze at me.
Shujo ki shin-buku. Shichi-jiki i nyunan. Isshin yok^ken butsu. Fu ji shaku shinmyo. Ji ga gyu shuso. Ku shutsu ryojusen.
“When living beings have become truly faithful, honest and upright, gentle in intent, single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha not hesitating even if it costs them their lives, then I and the assembly of monks appear together on Holy Eagle Peak.
Ga ji go shujo. Jo zai shi fu-metsu. I hobenrik^ ko. Gen u metsu fu-metsu. Yo-koku u shujo. Kugyo shingyo sha. Ga bu o hi chu. I setsu mujo ho.
“At that time I tell the living beings that I am always here, never entering extinction, but that because of the power of an expedient means at times I appear to be extinct, at other times not, and that if there are living beings in other lands who are reverent and sincere in their wish to believe, then among them too I will preach the unsurpassed Law.
Nyoto fu mon shi. Tan ni ga metsu-do. Ga ken sho shujo. Motsu-zai o kukai. Ko fu i gen shin. Ryo go sho katsu-go. In go shin renbo. Nai shutsu I seppo.
“But you have not heard of this, so you suppose that I enter extinction. When I look at living beings I see them drowned in a sea of suffering; therefore I do not show myself, causing them to thirst for me. Then when their minds are filled with yearning, at last I appear and preach the Law for them.
Jin-zu riki nyo ze. O asogi ko. Jo zai ryo jusen. Gyu yo sho jusho. Shujo ken ko jin. Dai ka sho sho ji. Ga shi do annon. Tennin jo juman. Onrin sho dokaku. Shuju ho Shogon. Hoju ta keka. Shujo sho yuraku. Shoten gyaku tenku. Jo sas^shu gi-gaku. U mandara ke. San butsu gyu daishu. Ga jodo fu ki. Ni shu ken sho jin. Ufu sho kuno. Nyo ze shitsu juman.
“Such are my transcendental powers. For asamkhya kalpas constantly I have dwelled on Holy Eagle Peak and in various other places. When living beings witness the end of a kalpa and all is consumed in a great fire, this, my land, remains safe and tranquil, constantly filled with heavenly and human beings. The halls and pavilions in its gardens and groves are adorned with various kinds of gems. Jeweled trees abound in flowers and fruit where living beings enjoy themselves at ease. The gods strike heavenly drums, constantly making many kinds of music. Mandarava blossoms rain down, scattering over the Buddha and the great assembly. My pure land is not destroyed, yet the multitude see it as consumed in fire, with anxiety, fear and other sufferings filling it everywhere.
Ze sho zai shujo. I aku-go innen. Ka asogi ko. Fu mon sanbo myo.
“These living beings with their various offenses, through causes arising from their evil actions, spend asamkhya kalpas without hearing the name of the Three Treasures.
Sho u shu ku-doku. Nyuwa shichi-jiki sha. Sokkai ken gashin. Zai shi ni seppo. Waku-ji i shi shu. Setsu butsu-ju muryo. Ku nai ken bussha. I setsu butsu nan chi.
“But those who practice meritorious ways, who are gentle, peaceful, honest and upright, all of them will see me here in person, preaching the Law. At times for this multitude I describe the Buddha's life span as immeasurable, and to those who see the Buddha only after a long time I explain how difficult it is to meet the Buddha.
Ga chi-riki nyo ze. Eko sho muryo. Jumyo mushu ko. Ku shugo sho toku.
“Such is the power of my wisdom that its sagacious beams shine without measure. This life span of countless kalpas I gained as the result of lengthy practice.
Nyoto u chi sha. Mot^to shi sho gi. To dan ryo yo jin. Butsu-go jip^puko. Nyo i zen hoben. I ji o shi ko. Jitsu zai ni gon shi. Mu no sek^komo. Ga yaku I se bu. Ku sho kugen sha.
“You who are possessed of wisdom, entertain no doubts on this point! Cast them off, end them forever, for the Buddha's words are true, not false. He is like a skilled physician who uses an expedient means to cure his deranged sons. Though in fact alive, he gives out word he is dead, yet no one can say he speaks falsely. I am the father of this world, saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
I bonbu tendo. Jitsu zai ni gon metsu. I joken ga ko. Ni sho kyoshi shin. Ho-itsu jaku go-yoku. Da o aku-do chu. Ga jo chi shujo. Gyo do fu gyo do. Zui o sho ka do. I ses^shuju ho.
“Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people, though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction. For if they see me constantly, arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds. Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five desires and fall into the evil paths of existence. Always I am aware of which living beings practice the way, and which do not, and in response to their needs for salvation I preach various doctrines for them.
Mai ji sa ze nen. I ga ryo shujo. Toku nyu mu-jo do. Soku joju busshin.
“At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?”
Bron: http://sokanotes.blogspot.nl/2008/10/translation-of-gongyo-liturgy-of.html
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 3
Cultivating Charisma: Ikeda Daisaku’s Self Presentations and Transformational Leadership
door Clark Chilson
Bron: Journal of Global Buddhism Vol. 15 (2014): 65-78
Because space does not permit a full answer to the question of how leaders shape followers’ understandings, this article focuses on just one specific leader and one specific method. The leader is Ikeda Daisaku, who despite not holding the top administrative office of the Sōka Gakkai since 1979, has been that Nichiren Buddhist organization’s undisputed leader since 1960. The method is autobiographical representation, which I argue fosters an interpretation of Ikeda as being an exemplary disciple to his own mentor, Toda Josei, the second president of Sōka Gakkai. Ikeda’s self representations as a completely dedicated disciple, despite the obstacles he faced, makes him seem extraordinary and worthy of great admiration in today’s Gakkai, in which the mentor-disciple relationship is a central concern ....
Who is Ikeda Daisaku?
Ikeda Daisaku (1928– ), has been among the most powerful Japanese leaders for more than 50 years. The Sōka Gakkai, which he became president of at age 32, today claims to have a membership of about 8.2 million families in Japan and 1.7 million individuals beyond Japan in over 190 countries and territories. Although the claimed number of members is almost certainly inflated, Sōka Gakkai is unquestionably Japan’s largest lay Buddhist movement and perhaps its largest current religious movement (McLaughlin, 2012b, 269). As Sōka Gakkai’s long-time leader, Ikeda is revered by Gakkai members, who attribute to him the founding of research institutes, numerous serial publications, the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum, the Min-On Concert Association, schools and two universities …
How has Ikeda been able to wield such influence? To answer this question, we must understand the centrality of the mentor-disciple relationship in the Gakkai in recent years.
The Mentor-Disciple Relationship in the Sōka Gakkai and the Life of Ikeda
Stories have power. In the Sōka Gakkai today few if any stories have more power than the life story of Ikeda Daisaku and his relationship with Toda Jōsei. Although Toda died in 1958 and Ikeda has done much since his mentor’s death, there is no part of his life that he talks about more, or with more enthusiasm, than the years he spent with Toda.
Ikeda tells of his time with Toda as a dramatic narrative. A short version of this narrative as he tells it and as many Gakkai members know it, goes something like this: In 1947, Ikeda is a young man living in Tokyo and has no clear direction in life. One night in August of that year a friend takes him to a Gakkai meeting and introduces him to Toda Jōsei. Impressed with Toda’s character and intellect, Ikeda decides to join the Gakkai. About sixteen months later he begins working for a business Toda owns. The economy is bad and the business struggles. Toda is a righteous and honest man. Ikeda is impressed with how he remains dignified in the face of adversity. Although Ikeda receives little money and often suffers from exhaustion and illness so severe that he thinks he might soon die, he devotes his life to Toda. When Toda has troubles with his business and the law, many abandon him, but Ikeda stands firmly by him. Toda tacitly recognizes Ikeda’s devotion and loyalty but he often scolds Ikeda and is harsh with him because he wants to make him a better person. Concerned with Ikeda’s education, Toda teaches him in the mornings and on Sundays. Ikeda soaks up this knowledge. He grows very close to Toda and is willing to do anything to protect him and to promote his vision for the Gakkai and Japan. When Toda dies there is no disciple who has been as close, devout or as loyal to Toda as Ikeda. Members of the Gakkai ask him to be the next president, but he repeatedly refuses. Eventually, however, with hopes of promoting his mentor’s vision, he consents to becoming the third president of the Gakkai in May 1960. After 1960 he expands the Gakkai and has great success, which he attributes to Toda. He also faces adversities, but he confronts them with the image of Toda never far from his thoughts.
This dramatic narrative Ikeda tells in the multivolume roman à clef, The Human Revolution (Ningen kakumei), which has sold millions of copies (McLaughlin, 2009: 150). He also tells it in speeches, in reflective essays, and in a diary that he kept at the time. Although Ikeda spent less than 11 years with Toda, has led the Gakkai for much longer than Toda, and has arguably done more for it than Toda did, Ikeda repeatedly in a public manner attributes his success to Toda. In doing so, Ikeda provides a model of the mentor-disciple relationship for Gakkai members.
In the Gakkai today, few issues, if any, receive more attention than the mentor-disciple relationship. Ikeda and Gakkai members say the relationship is so close as to be indivisible (shitei funi). The mentor is concerned with improving the lives of his disciples. Or, as the January 2010 Sōka Gakkai International Quarterly puts it, the mentor gives disciples “confidence in their own unrealized possibilities” and “is focused on the empowerment of others” (p. 28). Disciples support their mentor and his vision using their unique abilities. They are not passive followers of the mentor; in fact simple followers are not good disciples because they do not adequately seek ways to use their own individual talents to help realize their mentor’s vision. Good disciples protect and promote the mentor’s vision, with which they identify. Today Gakkai members both in and outside Japan commonly refer to Ikeda as their mentor. They often speak of the oneness of the mentor-disciple relationship (shitei funi), and some members say the relationship exceeds all others. They describe the relationship not as hierarchical but one in which there is mutual giving. Both the mentor and disciple are ideally selfless in their devotion to each other.
The idea of mentor-disciple can be found in the history of Nichiren Buddhism in general, and Sōka Gakkai in particular, before 1960. Since the split with Nichiren Shōshū in 1991, however, and particularly after the Aum sarin attacks that resulted in more intensive media critiques of Sōka Gakkai, Ikeda as well as leaders of the Sōka Gakkai have given it greater emphasis. Levi McLaughlin points out:
' Since the mid of 1990s, Sōka Gakkai in Japan has minimized its historical emphasis on proselytising in favor
of a singular focus on cultivating all members, particularly children born into the movement — called
children of fortune— in discipleship under Ikeda Daisaku. Members are urged to apply the of 'the
indivisibility of mentor and disciple' to their individual lives as they forge affective one-to-one relationships with Ikeda.'
It is in part because of the emphasis on the mentor-disciple relationship in the Gakkai that no Japanese religious leader in recent history has inspired as much loyalty among so many as Ikeda. To understand how Ikeda inspires such loyalty, it helps to understand how he is a transformational leader who provides an exemplary model of discipleship through his autobiographical writings. ….
The greatest transformational leaders, however, do more than simply gain the trust of their communities; they transform the very self-conceptions of those they lead. The social psychologist Shamir, along with others, has explained how transformational leaders motivate people at high levels by pointing out that such leaders often affect the self-conceptions of the led in a way that ties them to the leader’s vision (Shamir et al., 1993). Ikeda, with his emphasis on the mentor-disciple relationship, is a leader who does this. Those in the Gakkai today, following Ikeda’s lead, create a self-conception of themselves as not simply Gakkai members or Nichiren Buddhists, but as disciples of a helpful and caring mentor. Because they conceive of themselves as disciples with Ikeda as their mentor, Gakkai members are more likely to act beyond their own narrow self interests and for the accomplishment of the Gakkai’s goals.
If discipleship becomes part of a Gakkai member’s identity, how can he or she learn what discipleship entails? The answer for Gakkai members is found largely in Ikeda’s self representation of his own discipleship. Ikeda shows Gakkai members what it means to be a disciple by offering autobiographical portrayals of his relationship with Toda as a model to which his disciples can refer to understand the virtues of discipleship. What Ikeda’s model of discipleship involves can be understood from the entries in the diary Ikeda kept while with Toda. By reading the diary not as a historical source that tells us about Ikeda’s life in the 1950s, but rather as a text that can act in the present to offer an example of discipleship and to bring readers closer to Ikeda, we are able to see how it contributes to Ikeda’s leadership.
By showing his devotion to Toda in the above-mentioned ways (namely, characterizing him as his ultimate mentor, accepting Toda’s strict discipline, showing his desire to protect him, and by constantly thinking about Toda), Ikeda not only tells of his relationship with his mentor but also models the mentor-disciple relationship for Gakkai members who regard themselves as Ikeda’s disciples. ….
Conclusion
Ikeda’s autobiographical accounts of his youth in the 1950s and his discipleship to his mentor, Toda, are a means for leadership. With his diary, Ikeda fosters the idea that the mentor-disciple relationship, which is a central idea in the Sōka Gakkai today, is an empowering one. The diary as a set of autobiographical depictions of his dedication to Toda offers a model of discipleship for Sōka Gakkai members and encourages them to enter a mentor-discipleship with him. It does this first by giving an intimate self portrayal in a manner that helps readers feel they know Ikeda well and that helps them identify with him as someone not very different from themselves. Second, it does this by presenting the mentor-disciple relationship as an attractive one that can enormously benefit the disciple. Those who read Ikeda’s accounts learn that although Ikeda as a youth was in many ways ordinary, he achieved greatness as a leader as the result of his discipleship to his mentor. This holds the promise for Gakkai members that they too can achieve greatness in the mentor-disciple relationship, which in turn helps them see the self-conception of disciple as one of strength. With the self-conception of a disciple, Gakkai members are more likely to strive to achieve goals articulated by their mentor, Ikeda, that transcend their own self interests, such as the expansion of the Gakkai’s membership, and the promotion of culture, education, and world peace.
Skeptics might point out that Ikeda’s diary, as well as his other autobiographical writings, may have been constructed to present his life in a way that is not completely accurate. Indeed without access to handwritten originals, we cannot verify to what extent the printed version of the diary reproduces the original one. But what makes the diary important is not simply its historical value or veracity for understanding Ikeda’s youth but its consequences for Ikeda’s leadership of Gakkai members and his relationship with them today and in the future.
As mentor, Ikeda has provided the vision of an exemplary disciple. Various high level leaders of the Gakkai have told me they plan to keep that vision alive.
…
As [these] statement suggests, the Gakkai leadership is committed to promoting depictions of Ikeda’s relationship with Toda through publications so that future Gakkai members might know his “spirit of discipleship.” Primary among the sources for understanding this spirit of discipleship was, is, and will be Ikeda’s personal accounts of his life with his mentor. As sources for understanding discipleship, Ikeda’s autobiographical presentations, including those in the diary, exert influence on how Sōka Gakkai members conceive of their own discipleship with him. This indicates that autobiographical texts can serve as powerful sources for leadership even in the absence of the leader who wrote them.
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 4
The Fighting Forces of the Lotus Uit: Theendlessfurther van juli 2013
Recently I read a post at Emergent Dharma, described as a “Young Buddhist Blog,” in which the author writes of his visit to a Nichiren Shoshu temple in Ghana. A temple member introduced him to another member, saying the author was new to Nichiren but had been practicing Zen for a while. The second temple member replied, “Zen, huh? That is inferior.”
Anyone who has interacted with folks from the major Nichiren traditions will recognize this as a fairly typical experience. Now, there’s nothing wrong with believing your religion to be best. After all, who wants to practice a second rate religion? However, most of us don’t say to people right off in our first casual encounter that their religion sucks. And there is nothing new about Buddhist elitism. Many of us are aware of how the Mahayana continually criticized the so-called Hinayana for being inferior.
The difference here is that prejudice against other religions and forms of Buddhism is part of the Nichiren doctrine, and when prejudice and elitism are integral to a religion’s canon, it can be a dangerous thing. Eventually, the old Mahayana elitism diffused as it spread throughout Asian and time wore on. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the schools of Nichiren.
Nichiren’s belief in the superiority of the Lotus Sutra is founded on a number of assumptions. The first being the idea that the historical Buddha saved the Lotus Sutra as his highest teaching to be expounded during the final eight years of his life.
But there’s no historical evidence to support this. The Lotus Sutra is part of the Mahayana group of sutras that no reputable scholar in the world today believes the Buddha directly taught, since they were compiled centuries after the Buddha’s passing, a point that is conceded by leaders and scholars in the Nichiren traditions. Yet, among the rank and file, and for the purpose of disseminating their dharma, this inconvenient truth gets shoved aside. This notion is based in part on a doctrine called “Five Periods and Eight Teachings,” a classification of sutras erroneously attributed to T’ien-t’ai master Chih-i.
So, all other forms of Buddhism before the Lotus are “provisional,” and the Lotus alone is the “essential” teaching. Only chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra works in Mappo, the mythical “Latter Day of the Law,” every other Buddhist practice is impotent. There is a bit more to it than this, but that’s the gist.
When I was a member of the Soka Gakkai, I would hear variations of the same spiel over and over, “The historical Buddha’s practices are impotent; the Dalai Lama just talks about being a Bodhisattva, we actually help people; bad things will happen to you if you quit practicing Nichiren’s Buddhism” and so on. You weren’t allowed to have Buddhist statues or artwork, only Nichiren’s mandala, the Gohonzon. No Buddhist books, except those put out by the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu.
I knew it was BS, but I put up with it, for reasons too complicated to go into here, until like Popeye the Sailor, “That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands n’more!”
In Japan, hobobarai, or “removal of evil religions,” was an essential concept behind the Soka Gakkai’s aggressive conversion campaigns. Conversion has always been an important part of Gakkai activities. During my day, you were expected to convert people to Nichiren Buddhism, and your “faith” was often judged by the number of individuals you brought into the organization. Outside of Japan, the idea of “removal of evil religions,” was promoted with a soft-sell, but in Japan, especially in the early days of the Gakkai, it was militant.
Conversion is called shakubuku, a tradition Buddhist term that means “to break and subdue.” Gakkai members went to such extreme lengths to pressure people to join that according to Kiyoaki Murata, in Japan’s New Buddhism, “These tactics not only made the press highly critical of Soka Gakkai; they also alarmed the police and . . . the Ministry of Justice.”
In the U.S., shakubuku turned many people off, with good reason. We would often do “street shakubuku.” Go out on the street and corner strangers. I hated it and tried to get out of doing it as often as I could.
The Gakkai became so large in Japan during the late 1960’s that it was able to drop the aggressive tactics, but it didn’t cut loose from the philosophy behind it. In the United States, however, all through the 1980’s we participated in month-long membership drives twice a year. Every night of the week during February and August members were expected to carry out conversion activities. In 1985, the US branch of the Soka Gakkai, then called NSA, “converted” over 65,000 people. Only a tiny fraction of those remained with the organization for longer than six months.
On the Wikipedia page for Nichiren Buddhism, it reads “most Nichiren Buddhists enjoy a peaceful coexistence with other religious groups in modern times . . .” This is generally true. But there are several caveats. One being the superior attitude mentioned above. Another being that the different Nichiren factions tend to bicker each other – a lot. The most extreme example of this is the war between Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai that has been running for twenty years now.
Nichiren Shoshu is an official school of Nichiren Buddhism, and until the Soka Gakkai came along it was a relatively minor school. The SG was the lay organization affiliated with NS, but there were always problems between the two groups. Things first came to a head during WW2 when the NS priesthood was willing accept Shinto talismans that the Japanese military government was insisting everyone have to support the war effort. The 1st president of the SG, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, and 2nd President, Josei Toda, balked at this and were thrown in jail, where Makiguchi died in 1944.
One can certainly admire the two men for their unwillingness to compromise their principles, yet those principles came from Nichiren doctrine that it is a grave sin to possess religious items from evil religions, which is any religion other than Nichirenism.
Toda was released from prison in 1945, but he was no Nelson Mandela. He held a grudge against the NS priesthood for causing Makiguchi’s death. In 1952 Toda, and future 3rd President Daisaku Ikeda, led a group of Gakkai members who kidnapped and physically assaulted an elderly Nichiren Shoshu priest, Jimon Ogasawara, whom they believed responsible for the organization’s misfortune during the war. This is a well documented incident, one that to his credit, Ikeda provides a detailed description of in The Human Revolution, his account of Soka Gakkai history.
Fast forward to 1990, when all hell broke loose. After decades of rough relations, Ikeda formally denounced Nichiren Shoshu, and they responded by excommunicating the entire Soka Gakkai. It’s been like the Hatfields and the McCoys ever since. In my opinion both sides are to blame for this unfortunate schism, and neither seems willing to maintain peaceful co-existence. Each is out to destroy the other.
In Japan there have been accusations leveled at both groups regarding acts of violence. In recent years, I have heard accounts of U.S. Gakkai members getting together to pray for the destruction of Nichiren Shoshu, disrupting NS activities, and vandalism against NS temples. I have no doubt that those on the Nichiren Shoshu side have not been perfect angels either.
The Soka Gakkai in the U.S. maintains a website dedicated to setting the record straight on the “evil” Nichiren Shoshu. It’s called Soka Spirit which is described as,
"[The] spirit to protect and propagate the correct teaching of Nichiren Daishonin.
It is the spirit of the disciples to uphold the truth and justice of their teacher and mentor.
It is the spirit to recognize tendencies in human nature to distort the teachings of
Nichiren Buddhism for personal gain and to confront those who act upon those tendencies.
It is the spirit to defeat the fundamental darkness inherent in all life and manifest the Buddha nature."
Manifesting Buddha nature sounds good, but “teacher and mentor” is a veiled reference to the near-deification of Ikeda, who are SG members are encouraged to regard as their “eternal mentor in life,” and “distort the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism for personal gain and to confront those who act upon those tendencies” smacks of the familiar paranoia, persecution complex, and aggression.
There are articles on the Soka Spirit website such as “The Characteristics of Devils” (in other words, how to choose friends who are not anti-Gakkai), and “The Role of Rumors as a Function of Fundamental Darkness” (only believe what we tell you). This was the sort of thing that really drove me from SG. Articles that on the surface seem innocent and reasonable enough, but when you read between the lines you recognized a subliminal message that always coincided with whatever the organization was promoting at the time. Even the seemingly noble peace exhibits and seminars, seemed to be designed solely for the purpose of furthering the SG’s aims and lauding the greatness of Mr. Ikeda.
And of course, Soka Spirit has speeches from Mr. Ikeda. In one from Nov. 25, 2003, he told members of the Soka Gakkai,
"As comrades, family, brothers and sisters, fellow human beings, we will fight all
our lives for kosen-rufu. This is our mission. This is what unites us.
We are a fighting force, a fighting fortress.”
Publically, the SGI says that kosen-rufu “has been informally defined as ‘world peace through individual happiness’” and they link it back to a line in the Lotus Sutra. But within the Soka Gakkai, kosen-rufu really means a time when one-third of the world will believe in Nichiren’s Buddhism, one-third may not believe but will support it, and the remaining third oppose it.
There is much more to be said, but blog posts have their limitations. In these last two, I have focused on the troubling aspects of Nichiren Buddhism, because there were things that needed to be said, and no one else has been saying, or writing about them.
Extremists are uncompromising, prone to engage in fanatical behavior, and terrorism often begins when a group views themselves as victims persecuted by outside forces. In an open society, troubling things need to be brought into the light, aired, discussed, or else we remain in ignorance, the great ally of intolerance, extremism, and terror.
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 5
Uit : sokagakkailies.wordpress.com
Is SGI a cult? Does it matter? -- Cult Warning Signs in SGI
1. Authority without accountability. Soka Gakkai claims to have absolute authority withregard to Nichiren Buddhism; Nichiren Buddhism can only be correctly practiced if one is a member of SGI. Daisaku Ikeda is promoted by SGI to be the foremost authority on Nichiren Buddhism for the modern age. But SGI provides no accountability — members have no control over their leaders and have no mechanism by which to affect the policies and procedures of their organization.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. There are no opportunities to publicly question or critique the teachings of SGI in organizational publications. Critiquing SGI at small discussion meetings may be tolerated to a degree, but this behavior is called “negativity” and is discouraged.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure and no independently audited financial statement. Media reports and property tax records confirm that Soka Gakkai is a multi-billion dollar religious corporation. SGI refuses to disclose its finances even to members and donors who request this information. SGI has publicly maligned members who have pressed for financial disclosure.
4. Unreasonable fear about evil conspiracies and persecutions. Ikeda and his followers have denounced as “evil” a rival group called Nichiren Shoshu, and urged SGI members to fight this so-called devilish influence. SGI has sponsored prayer vigils focused on the destruction of Nichiren Shoshu and the demise of its leader, Nikken. SGI has also assigned at least one paid staff member to follow and spy on Nichiren Shoshu priests. Why? SGI claims that Nichiren Shoshu is out to destroy SGI.
5. The belief that former members are always wrong in leaving SGI. Former members often relate similar stories of being pressured to embrace certain beliefs, to say only positive things about SGI and to participate in fund raising, recruitment and public relations campaigns. Former members have a similar grievances regarding SGI: too much emphasis on the “evil” of Nichiren Shoshu, too much adulation of Daisaku Ikeda and too little emphasis on the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism. SGI leaders tell members that former members are deluded, cannot be trusted and should be avoided.
6. Dependence upon SGI guidance and activities for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. When SGI members are confronted with a problem, they are urged to seek “guidance” from local SGI leaders or to read guidance from Ikeda. Members are urged to recruit more members and participate in more SGI activities in order to have a “breakthrough” and solve their problems. If the problem is resolved, leaders are quick to claim that participation in SGI activities provides mystical benefits. If the problem is not resolved the member is often advised to make a greater commitment to SGI and “connect” with Ikeda’s heart.
7. Anything that SGI does can be justified, no matter how questionable or harmful. SGI members are good at making excuses for the shortcomings of their organization. “We’re still in our infancy — we’ve only been in America for a little over 30 years — mistakes are to be expected,” they say. “We are only human. Of course we make mistakes.” “We are fulfilling an important mission, so even if people are hurt by our activities, it will all work out for the best in the end.” “If people are hurt by our organization it is due to their karma, not ours.” “People are afraid of SGI not because we are deceptive and manipulative, but because we represent a real challenge to the status quo. People can’t handle the truth and justice we represent.” The list of excuses for bad behavior goes on and on.
8. SGI members are afraid. SGI members have been indoctrinated with a litany of fears: fear of visiting temples or investigating other forms of Buddhism, fear of not chanting enough or skipping gongyo, fear of contradicting the SGI, fear of listening to or entertaining criticism of the SGI, fear of chanting to the “wrong” Gohonzon, fear of leaving the SGI. SGI members fear that these things will invite severe “mystical” punishment such as financial hardship, illness, family strife, loss of a romantic relationship, getting fired from a job or a horrible, agonizing death.
Soka Gakkai (nu BUN-lid) de complexe waarheid bij een simpele chantende
discutabele vereringsreligie - Wie is de Boeddha van dit 'boeddhisme?' ,
die hier op 2 februari werd geplaatst.
BIJLAGE 1
' Text as Father: Paternal Seductions in Early Mahayana Buddhist Literature ',
door Alan Cole
Citaten uit het begin van het hoofdstuk
' Who’s Your Daddy Now? – Reissued Paternity in the Lotus Sutra '
en het eind van het hoofdstuk
' The Domino Effect – Everyone and His Brother Convert to the Lotus Sutra '
" One of the most striking things about the Lotus Sutra is its sophisticated use of father-son motifs to explain its own identity and then to insert itself as the defining element in creating a new identity for the reader and his relationship to the Buddhist tradition. The brilliance of the text lies in the way that it is designed as a pivot that achieves its own legitimation by offering legitimacy to the reader. Thus there is a formal mimesis between the text and the reader, both of whom are given their fathers in the reading event, and it is precisely by arranging that double fathering that the text effects its most basic seduction. That is, the text is designed to enact an amazing exchange: give me the paternal right to give you, the reader, your proper paternity.
More exactly, the Lotus Sutra attempts to draw the reader into accepting its redefinition of Buddhism by claiming that it, as text, was the final product of a perfect patriline of twenty thousand buddhas and that this heritage allows the text to then offer the reader entrance into that patriline, once the reader assents to the Lotus Sutra’s genealogical claim to be of that lineage.
In addition to this impressive narrative architecture, and its likely influence on other early sutras, the Lotus Sutra warrants special attention for displaying a complex relationship to earlier forms of Buddhism. Of particular interest is the way the Lotus Sutra defined this newly created Mahayana sonship as a kind of rebirth out of a previously established father-son identity that had already explained Buddhist identity as a kind of sonship to the Buddha. Standing back from this play of paternity, it seems that the Lotus Sutra created the image of a hyper-Buddhist family that is formed by explicitly renouncing a previously established paternal Buddhist family, even as it borrowed many of its defining elements and logics.
Thus, throughout these narratives of conversion there is something like a ritual structure for dying to one identity in order to adopt a new one, though there is no ritual format or institutional setting provided to support this shift in Buddhist identity. Hence the text attempts to effect what Pierre Bourdieu would call “rites of institution,” even though there is no institution mentioned other than the reading moment itself and no external props, save for the physical presence of the text as book. This lack of external or institutional support explains many of the narrative’s contortions as it attempts to legitimize itself from within itself in order to place itself at the center of a newly defined form of Buddhism that offered itself as the gateway to gaining a revamped form of Buddhist identity.
In organizing such a reading of the Lotus Sutra, I need to emphasize that I am assuming that the text, or at least the chapters that I analyze closelyhere, were composed as an integrated plot with a governing set of principlesdedicated to achieving goals that remain fairly constant over the arc of the narrative. In other words, I am assuming that at least a part of the Lotus Sutra has a plot and that we can, with care and attention, begin to understand its construction and the deeper set of authorial strategies that were relied on in creating a reading experience. If we do not adopt this kind of “reading for the plot” approach, then we have to fall back on one of three options.
The first is that we could simply consider that the text emerged as an unwished-for grab bag of unrelated narrative snippets, pasted together without a governing intent or a steady editorial notion of the work to be accomplished by the very act of compilation. This option is altogether unsatisfying since the text clearly shows authorial or editorial intention. The second option is the religious one that assumes that the narrative, in all its bits and pieces, reflects real events and thus cannot be read for a plot since it simply is what happened. In this view the text as text and the author as inventor completely disappear into the Real that the text creates for itself. The third option is trickier and I think represents the standard choice in Buddhist studies: the text has something of plot, but it is not the result of authorial ingenuity but instead reflects, in some distorted manner, a summation of the will and wishes of an early Mahayana community who wanted to create this document as a quilting point for their beliefs and practices.
As for this third possibility, on reflection this image of “writing by committee” is problematic and particularly so once we see how much seduction and deception are at work in the narrative. The assumption that the text is a kind of platform statement of the earnest Mahayana community in no way matches the subtle seductions that the text achieves precisely by working on the reader without the reader ever realizing these machinations. Moreover, it is altogether obvious that the Lotus Sutra is about making religious community rather than reflecting it in some Durkheimian manner. In short, I cannot see any way to interpret literary seduction, especially at this level of intricacy, other than via authorial intention. Too, by the final chapters of this book, I will have provided solid evidence that the Lotus Sutra and other sutras from this period belong to a literary culture of authors who, themselves, read each other’s work for the plot and borrowed and manipulated plotting techniques in the knowledge of how and why certain plot configurations were effective. Thus, though it is one of the heftier bugbears in the field of religious studies, we need not be afraid to imagine the role of the clever and complicated authors of religious content who gained their talents by reading tradition and seeing how it worked and then going on to create new and more inventive forms of tradition precisely because they had, in some measure, learned how tradition could be reworked. .....
CONCLUSION
While it would be revealing to work through more chapters in the Lotus Sutra, I believe I have offered enough material for recognizing the importance of father-son logic in this text as well as demonstrating the various tracks of seduction that the text employs in universalizing father-son connections and offering them to the reader so that he or she may consume them in the hope of reconstructing his or her identity. Equally important, we have seen how the narrative constructs the reader’s desire for truth and authenticity to circle around the narrative itself and the text that contains it. No longer is truth in the traditional forms of Buddhist doctrine, such as the four truths or the three marks, nor is it in the stalwart figures of the arhats and other reliable figures from the earliest days of Buddhism. Final truth is not even in the old buddhas such as Dipamkara and Maitreya, who are but students of the Lotus Sutra, whose scope and strength pale in comparison. Without a doubt, all those previous sites of sanctity have been demoted and absorbed by the Lotus Sutra and its new explanation of final truth and “real” Buddhist paternity.
Equally clear in this maneuver, the Lotus Sutra has shifted sanctity into a new medium—textuality. Though relic worship is recommended in some of the passages in chapters 2 and 3, still this does not compare to receiving and upholding the Lotus Sutra, and surely never was it said that one found one’s true sonship to the Buddha through relic worship. Similarly, no ethical action compares with maintaining a worshipful attitude toward the Lotus Sutra, with the corollary that there is no greater sin than disparaging or slandering the text. Obviously, there is now really only one final source for value in the universe, and it is the Lotus Sutra as text, the text that came pouring out of that ancient lineage of twenty thousand buddhas and eventually led to the production of the buddhas that we had known so well before, even if we did not understand their place in the history of the Lotus Sutra, a history that is essentially a history of the cosmos even as it is 'our' own history too.
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 2
Bij de SGI gechante passages uit de Lotus Sutra
Translation of Gongyo, the liturgy of Nichiren Daishonin
Expendient Means
Lotus Sutra – ‘Hoben’ Chapter 2
Myoho renge kyo – hoben pon dai ni
Niji seson. Ju sanmai. Anjo ni ki. Go shari-hotsu. Sho-but^chi-e. Jinjin muryo. Go chi-e mon. Nange nannyu. Issai shomon. Hyaku-shi-butsu. Sho fu no chi.
At that time the World-Honoured One calmly arose from his samadhi and addressed Shariputra, saying: “The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable. The door to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it.
Sho-i sha ga. Butsu zo shingon. Hyaku sen man noku. Mushu sho butsu. Jin gyo sho-butsu. Muryo doho. Yumyo shojin. Myosho fu mon. Joju jinjin. Mi-zo-u ho. Zui gi sho setsu. Ishu nange.
“What is the reason for this? A Buddha has personally attended a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million, a countless number of Buddhas and has fully carried out an immeasurable number of religious practices. He has exerted himself bravely and vigorously, and his name is universally known. He has realized the Law that is profound and never known before, and preaches it in accordance with what is appropriate, yet his intention is difficult to understand.
Shari-hotsu. Go ju jo-butsu irai. Shuju innen. Shuju hiyu. Ko en gonkyo. Mu shu hoben. Indo shujo. Ryo ri sho jaku.
“Shariputra, ever since I attained Buddhahood I have through various causes and various similes widely expounded my teachings and have used countless expedient means to guide living beings and cause them to renounce attachments.
Sho-i sha ga. Nyorai hoben. Chiken hara-mitsu. Kai i gu-soku.
“Why is this? Because the Thus Come One is fully possessed by both expedient means and the paramita of wisdom.
Shari-hotsu. Nyorai chiken. Kodai jinnon. Muryo muge. Riki. Mu-sho-i. Zenjo. Gedas.^Sanmai. Jin nyu musai. Joju issai. Mi-zo-u ho.
“Shariputra, the wisdom of the Thus Come One is expansive and profound. He has immeasurable [mercy], unlimited [eloquence], power, fearlessness, concentration, emancipation, and samadhis, and has deeply entered the boundless and awakened to the Law never before attained.
Shari-hotsu. Nyorai no. Shuju fun-betsu. Gyo ses^sho ho. Gonji nyunan. Ekka shushin. Sharihotsu. Shu yo gon shi. Muryo muhen. Mi-zo-u ho. Bus^shitsu joju.
“Shariputra, the Thus Come One knows how to make various kinds of distinctions and to expound the teachings skillfully. His words are soft and gentle and delight the hearts of the assembly. Shariputra, to sum it up: the Buddha has fully realized the Law that is limitless, boundless, never attained before.
Shi shari-hotsu. Fu shu bu setsu.^Sho-i sha ga. Bus^sho joju. Dai ichi ke-u. Nange shi ho.
“But stop, Shariputra, I will say no more. Why? Because what the Buddha has achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law.
Yui butsu yo butsu. Nai no kujin. Shoho jisso. Sho-i shoho. Nyo ze so. Nyo ze sho. Nyo ze tai. Nyo ze riki. Nyo ze sa. Nyo ze in. Nyo ze en. Nyo ze ka. Nyo ze ho. Nyo ze honmak^kukyo to.
“The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas. This reality consists of the appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, inherent cause, relation, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end.”
Life Span
Lotus Sutra – ‘Juryo’ Chapter 16
Myoho renge kyo – nyorai juryo’hon dai ju-roku
Ji ga toku bur^rai. Sho kyo sho kosshu. Muryo hyaku sen man. Oku sai asogi. Jo seppo kyoke Mushu oku shujo. Ryo nyu o butsu-do. Nirai muryo ko.
“Since I attained Buddhahood the number of kalpas that have passed is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions, trillions, asamkhyas. Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting countless millions of living beings, causing them to enter the Buddha way, all this for immeasurable kalpas.
I do shujo ko. Hoben gen nehan. Ni jitsu fu metsu-do. Jo ju shi seppo.
“In order to save living beings, as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana but in truth I do not pass into extinction. I am always here preaching the Law.
Ga jo ju o shi. I sho jin-zu-riki. Ryo tendo shujo. Sui gon ni fu ken.
“I am always here, but through my transcendental powers I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement do not see me even when close by.
Shu ken ga metsu-do. Ko kuyo shari. Gen kai e renbo. Ni sho katsu-go shin.
“When the multitude see that I have passed into extinction, far and wide they offer alms to my relics. All harbor thoughts of yearning and in their minds thirst to gaze at me.
Shujo ki shin-buku. Shichi-jiki i nyunan. Isshin yok^ken butsu. Fu ji shaku shinmyo. Ji ga gyu shuso. Ku shutsu ryojusen.
“When living beings have become truly faithful, honest and upright, gentle in intent, single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha not hesitating even if it costs them their lives, then I and the assembly of monks appear together on Holy Eagle Peak.
Ga ji go shujo. Jo zai shi fu-metsu. I hobenrik^ ko. Gen u metsu fu-metsu. Yo-koku u shujo. Kugyo shingyo sha. Ga bu o hi chu. I setsu mujo ho.
“At that time I tell the living beings that I am always here, never entering extinction, but that because of the power of an expedient means at times I appear to be extinct, at other times not, and that if there are living beings in other lands who are reverent and sincere in their wish to believe, then among them too I will preach the unsurpassed Law.
Nyoto fu mon shi. Tan ni ga metsu-do. Ga ken sho shujo. Motsu-zai o kukai. Ko fu i gen shin. Ryo go sho katsu-go. In go shin renbo. Nai shutsu I seppo.
“But you have not heard of this, so you suppose that I enter extinction. When I look at living beings I see them drowned in a sea of suffering; therefore I do not show myself, causing them to thirst for me. Then when their minds are filled with yearning, at last I appear and preach the Law for them.
Jin-zu riki nyo ze. O asogi ko. Jo zai ryo jusen. Gyu yo sho jusho. Shujo ken ko jin. Dai ka sho sho ji. Ga shi do annon. Tennin jo juman. Onrin sho dokaku. Shuju ho Shogon. Hoju ta keka. Shujo sho yuraku. Shoten gyaku tenku. Jo sas^shu gi-gaku. U mandara ke. San butsu gyu daishu. Ga jodo fu ki. Ni shu ken sho jin. Ufu sho kuno. Nyo ze shitsu juman.
“Such are my transcendental powers. For asamkhya kalpas constantly I have dwelled on Holy Eagle Peak and in various other places. When living beings witness the end of a kalpa and all is consumed in a great fire, this, my land, remains safe and tranquil, constantly filled with heavenly and human beings. The halls and pavilions in its gardens and groves are adorned with various kinds of gems. Jeweled trees abound in flowers and fruit where living beings enjoy themselves at ease. The gods strike heavenly drums, constantly making many kinds of music. Mandarava blossoms rain down, scattering over the Buddha and the great assembly. My pure land is not destroyed, yet the multitude see it as consumed in fire, with anxiety, fear and other sufferings filling it everywhere.
Ze sho zai shujo. I aku-go innen. Ka asogi ko. Fu mon sanbo myo.
“These living beings with their various offenses, through causes arising from their evil actions, spend asamkhya kalpas without hearing the name of the Three Treasures.
Sho u shu ku-doku. Nyuwa shichi-jiki sha. Sokkai ken gashin. Zai shi ni seppo. Waku-ji i shi shu. Setsu butsu-ju muryo. Ku nai ken bussha. I setsu butsu nan chi.
“But those who practice meritorious ways, who are gentle, peaceful, honest and upright, all of them will see me here in person, preaching the Law. At times for this multitude I describe the Buddha's life span as immeasurable, and to those who see the Buddha only after a long time I explain how difficult it is to meet the Buddha.
Ga chi-riki nyo ze. Eko sho muryo. Jumyo mushu ko. Ku shugo sho toku.
“Such is the power of my wisdom that its sagacious beams shine without measure. This life span of countless kalpas I gained as the result of lengthy practice.
Nyoto u chi sha. Mot^to shi sho gi. To dan ryo yo jin. Butsu-go jip^puko. Nyo i zen hoben. I ji o shi ko. Jitsu zai ni gon shi. Mu no sek^komo. Ga yaku I se bu. Ku sho kugen sha.
“You who are possessed of wisdom, entertain no doubts on this point! Cast them off, end them forever, for the Buddha's words are true, not false. He is like a skilled physician who uses an expedient means to cure his deranged sons. Though in fact alive, he gives out word he is dead, yet no one can say he speaks falsely. I am the father of this world, saving those who suffer and are afflicted.
I bonbu tendo. Jitsu zai ni gon metsu. I joken ga ko. Ni sho kyoshi shin. Ho-itsu jaku go-yoku. Da o aku-do chu. Ga jo chi shujo. Gyo do fu gyo do. Zui o sho ka do. I ses^shuju ho.
“Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people, though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction. For if they see me constantly, arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds. Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five desires and fall into the evil paths of existence. Always I am aware of which living beings practice the way, and which do not, and in response to their needs for salvation I preach various doctrines for them.
Mai ji sa ze nen. I ga ryo shujo. Toku nyu mu-jo do. Soku joju busshin.
“At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?”
Bron: http://sokanotes.blogspot.nl/2008/10/translation-of-gongyo-liturgy-of.html
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 3
Cultivating Charisma: Ikeda Daisaku’s Self Presentations and Transformational Leadership
door Clark Chilson
Bron: Journal of Global Buddhism Vol. 15 (2014): 65-78
Because space does not permit a full answer to the question of how leaders shape followers’ understandings, this article focuses on just one specific leader and one specific method. The leader is Ikeda Daisaku, who despite not holding the top administrative office of the Sōka Gakkai since 1979, has been that Nichiren Buddhist organization’s undisputed leader since 1960. The method is autobiographical representation, which I argue fosters an interpretation of Ikeda as being an exemplary disciple to his own mentor, Toda Josei, the second president of Sōka Gakkai. Ikeda’s self representations as a completely dedicated disciple, despite the obstacles he faced, makes him seem extraordinary and worthy of great admiration in today’s Gakkai, in which the mentor-disciple relationship is a central concern ....
Who is Ikeda Daisaku?
Ikeda Daisaku (1928– ), has been among the most powerful Japanese leaders for more than 50 years. The Sōka Gakkai, which he became president of at age 32, today claims to have a membership of about 8.2 million families in Japan and 1.7 million individuals beyond Japan in over 190 countries and territories. Although the claimed number of members is almost certainly inflated, Sōka Gakkai is unquestionably Japan’s largest lay Buddhist movement and perhaps its largest current religious movement (McLaughlin, 2012b, 269). As Sōka Gakkai’s long-time leader, Ikeda is revered by Gakkai members, who attribute to him the founding of research institutes, numerous serial publications, the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum, the Min-On Concert Association, schools and two universities …
How has Ikeda been able to wield such influence? To answer this question, we must understand the centrality of the mentor-disciple relationship in the Gakkai in recent years.
The Mentor-Disciple Relationship in the Sōka Gakkai and the Life of Ikeda
Stories have power. In the Sōka Gakkai today few if any stories have more power than the life story of Ikeda Daisaku and his relationship with Toda Jōsei. Although Toda died in 1958 and Ikeda has done much since his mentor’s death, there is no part of his life that he talks about more, or with more enthusiasm, than the years he spent with Toda.
Ikeda tells of his time with Toda as a dramatic narrative. A short version of this narrative as he tells it and as many Gakkai members know it, goes something like this: In 1947, Ikeda is a young man living in Tokyo and has no clear direction in life. One night in August of that year a friend takes him to a Gakkai meeting and introduces him to Toda Jōsei. Impressed with Toda’s character and intellect, Ikeda decides to join the Gakkai. About sixteen months later he begins working for a business Toda owns. The economy is bad and the business struggles. Toda is a righteous and honest man. Ikeda is impressed with how he remains dignified in the face of adversity. Although Ikeda receives little money and often suffers from exhaustion and illness so severe that he thinks he might soon die, he devotes his life to Toda. When Toda has troubles with his business and the law, many abandon him, but Ikeda stands firmly by him. Toda tacitly recognizes Ikeda’s devotion and loyalty but he often scolds Ikeda and is harsh with him because he wants to make him a better person. Concerned with Ikeda’s education, Toda teaches him in the mornings and on Sundays. Ikeda soaks up this knowledge. He grows very close to Toda and is willing to do anything to protect him and to promote his vision for the Gakkai and Japan. When Toda dies there is no disciple who has been as close, devout or as loyal to Toda as Ikeda. Members of the Gakkai ask him to be the next president, but he repeatedly refuses. Eventually, however, with hopes of promoting his mentor’s vision, he consents to becoming the third president of the Gakkai in May 1960. After 1960 he expands the Gakkai and has great success, which he attributes to Toda. He also faces adversities, but he confronts them with the image of Toda never far from his thoughts.
This dramatic narrative Ikeda tells in the multivolume roman à clef, The Human Revolution (Ningen kakumei), which has sold millions of copies (McLaughlin, 2009: 150). He also tells it in speeches, in reflective essays, and in a diary that he kept at the time. Although Ikeda spent less than 11 years with Toda, has led the Gakkai for much longer than Toda, and has arguably done more for it than Toda did, Ikeda repeatedly in a public manner attributes his success to Toda. In doing so, Ikeda provides a model of the mentor-disciple relationship for Gakkai members.
In the Gakkai today, few issues, if any, receive more attention than the mentor-disciple relationship. Ikeda and Gakkai members say the relationship is so close as to be indivisible (shitei funi). The mentor is concerned with improving the lives of his disciples. Or, as the January 2010 Sōka Gakkai International Quarterly puts it, the mentor gives disciples “confidence in their own unrealized possibilities” and “is focused on the empowerment of others” (p. 28). Disciples support their mentor and his vision using their unique abilities. They are not passive followers of the mentor; in fact simple followers are not good disciples because they do not adequately seek ways to use their own individual talents to help realize their mentor’s vision. Good disciples protect and promote the mentor’s vision, with which they identify. Today Gakkai members both in and outside Japan commonly refer to Ikeda as their mentor. They often speak of the oneness of the mentor-disciple relationship (shitei funi), and some members say the relationship exceeds all others. They describe the relationship not as hierarchical but one in which there is mutual giving. Both the mentor and disciple are ideally selfless in their devotion to each other.
The idea of mentor-disciple can be found in the history of Nichiren Buddhism in general, and Sōka Gakkai in particular, before 1960. Since the split with Nichiren Shōshū in 1991, however, and particularly after the Aum sarin attacks that resulted in more intensive media critiques of Sōka Gakkai, Ikeda as well as leaders of the Sōka Gakkai have given it greater emphasis. Levi McLaughlin points out:
' Since the mid of 1990s, Sōka Gakkai in Japan has minimized its historical emphasis on proselytising in favor
of a singular focus on cultivating all members, particularly children born into the movement — called
children of fortune— in discipleship under Ikeda Daisaku. Members are urged to apply the of 'the
indivisibility of mentor and disciple' to their individual lives as they forge affective one-to-one relationships with Ikeda.'
It is in part because of the emphasis on the mentor-disciple relationship in the Gakkai that no Japanese religious leader in recent history has inspired as much loyalty among so many as Ikeda. To understand how Ikeda inspires such loyalty, it helps to understand how he is a transformational leader who provides an exemplary model of discipleship through his autobiographical writings. ….
The greatest transformational leaders, however, do more than simply gain the trust of their communities; they transform the very self-conceptions of those they lead. The social psychologist Shamir, along with others, has explained how transformational leaders motivate people at high levels by pointing out that such leaders often affect the self-conceptions of the led in a way that ties them to the leader’s vision (Shamir et al., 1993). Ikeda, with his emphasis on the mentor-disciple relationship, is a leader who does this. Those in the Gakkai today, following Ikeda’s lead, create a self-conception of themselves as not simply Gakkai members or Nichiren Buddhists, but as disciples of a helpful and caring mentor. Because they conceive of themselves as disciples with Ikeda as their mentor, Gakkai members are more likely to act beyond their own narrow self interests and for the accomplishment of the Gakkai’s goals.
If discipleship becomes part of a Gakkai member’s identity, how can he or she learn what discipleship entails? The answer for Gakkai members is found largely in Ikeda’s self representation of his own discipleship. Ikeda shows Gakkai members what it means to be a disciple by offering autobiographical portrayals of his relationship with Toda as a model to which his disciples can refer to understand the virtues of discipleship. What Ikeda’s model of discipleship involves can be understood from the entries in the diary Ikeda kept while with Toda. By reading the diary not as a historical source that tells us about Ikeda’s life in the 1950s, but rather as a text that can act in the present to offer an example of discipleship and to bring readers closer to Ikeda, we are able to see how it contributes to Ikeda’s leadership.
By showing his devotion to Toda in the above-mentioned ways (namely, characterizing him as his ultimate mentor, accepting Toda’s strict discipline, showing his desire to protect him, and by constantly thinking about Toda), Ikeda not only tells of his relationship with his mentor but also models the mentor-disciple relationship for Gakkai members who regard themselves as Ikeda’s disciples. ….
Conclusion
Ikeda’s autobiographical accounts of his youth in the 1950s and his discipleship to his mentor, Toda, are a means for leadership. With his diary, Ikeda fosters the idea that the mentor-disciple relationship, which is a central idea in the Sōka Gakkai today, is an empowering one. The diary as a set of autobiographical depictions of his dedication to Toda offers a model of discipleship for Sōka Gakkai members and encourages them to enter a mentor-discipleship with him. It does this first by giving an intimate self portrayal in a manner that helps readers feel they know Ikeda well and that helps them identify with him as someone not very different from themselves. Second, it does this by presenting the mentor-disciple relationship as an attractive one that can enormously benefit the disciple. Those who read Ikeda’s accounts learn that although Ikeda as a youth was in many ways ordinary, he achieved greatness as a leader as the result of his discipleship to his mentor. This holds the promise for Gakkai members that they too can achieve greatness in the mentor-disciple relationship, which in turn helps them see the self-conception of disciple as one of strength. With the self-conception of a disciple, Gakkai members are more likely to strive to achieve goals articulated by their mentor, Ikeda, that transcend their own self interests, such as the expansion of the Gakkai’s membership, and the promotion of culture, education, and world peace.
Skeptics might point out that Ikeda’s diary, as well as his other autobiographical writings, may have been constructed to present his life in a way that is not completely accurate. Indeed without access to handwritten originals, we cannot verify to what extent the printed version of the diary reproduces the original one. But what makes the diary important is not simply its historical value or veracity for understanding Ikeda’s youth but its consequences for Ikeda’s leadership of Gakkai members and his relationship with them today and in the future.
As mentor, Ikeda has provided the vision of an exemplary disciple. Various high level leaders of the Gakkai have told me they plan to keep that vision alive.
…
As [these] statement suggests, the Gakkai leadership is committed to promoting depictions of Ikeda’s relationship with Toda through publications so that future Gakkai members might know his “spirit of discipleship.” Primary among the sources for understanding this spirit of discipleship was, is, and will be Ikeda’s personal accounts of his life with his mentor. As sources for understanding discipleship, Ikeda’s autobiographical presentations, including those in the diary, exert influence on how Sōka Gakkai members conceive of their own discipleship with him. This indicates that autobiographical texts can serve as powerful sources for leadership even in the absence of the leader who wrote them.
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 4
The Fighting Forces of the Lotus Uit: Theendlessfurther van juli 2013
Recently I read a post at Emergent Dharma, described as a “Young Buddhist Blog,” in which the author writes of his visit to a Nichiren Shoshu temple in Ghana. A temple member introduced him to another member, saying the author was new to Nichiren but had been practicing Zen for a while. The second temple member replied, “Zen, huh? That is inferior.”
Anyone who has interacted with folks from the major Nichiren traditions will recognize this as a fairly typical experience. Now, there’s nothing wrong with believing your religion to be best. After all, who wants to practice a second rate religion? However, most of us don’t say to people right off in our first casual encounter that their religion sucks. And there is nothing new about Buddhist elitism. Many of us are aware of how the Mahayana continually criticized the so-called Hinayana for being inferior.
The difference here is that prejudice against other religions and forms of Buddhism is part of the Nichiren doctrine, and when prejudice and elitism are integral to a religion’s canon, it can be a dangerous thing. Eventually, the old Mahayana elitism diffused as it spread throughout Asian and time wore on. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the schools of Nichiren.
Nichiren’s belief in the superiority of the Lotus Sutra is founded on a number of assumptions. The first being the idea that the historical Buddha saved the Lotus Sutra as his highest teaching to be expounded during the final eight years of his life.
But there’s no historical evidence to support this. The Lotus Sutra is part of the Mahayana group of sutras that no reputable scholar in the world today believes the Buddha directly taught, since they were compiled centuries after the Buddha’s passing, a point that is conceded by leaders and scholars in the Nichiren traditions. Yet, among the rank and file, and for the purpose of disseminating their dharma, this inconvenient truth gets shoved aside. This notion is based in part on a doctrine called “Five Periods and Eight Teachings,” a classification of sutras erroneously attributed to T’ien-t’ai master Chih-i.
So, all other forms of Buddhism before the Lotus are “provisional,” and the Lotus alone is the “essential” teaching. Only chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra works in Mappo, the mythical “Latter Day of the Law,” every other Buddhist practice is impotent. There is a bit more to it than this, but that’s the gist.
When I was a member of the Soka Gakkai, I would hear variations of the same spiel over and over, “The historical Buddha’s practices are impotent; the Dalai Lama just talks about being a Bodhisattva, we actually help people; bad things will happen to you if you quit practicing Nichiren’s Buddhism” and so on. You weren’t allowed to have Buddhist statues or artwork, only Nichiren’s mandala, the Gohonzon. No Buddhist books, except those put out by the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu.
I knew it was BS, but I put up with it, for reasons too complicated to go into here, until like Popeye the Sailor, “That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands n’more!”
In Japan, hobobarai, or “removal of evil religions,” was an essential concept behind the Soka Gakkai’s aggressive conversion campaigns. Conversion has always been an important part of Gakkai activities. During my day, you were expected to convert people to Nichiren Buddhism, and your “faith” was often judged by the number of individuals you brought into the organization. Outside of Japan, the idea of “removal of evil religions,” was promoted with a soft-sell, but in Japan, especially in the early days of the Gakkai, it was militant.
Conversion is called shakubuku, a tradition Buddhist term that means “to break and subdue.” Gakkai members went to such extreme lengths to pressure people to join that according to Kiyoaki Murata, in Japan’s New Buddhism, “These tactics not only made the press highly critical of Soka Gakkai; they also alarmed the police and . . . the Ministry of Justice.”
In the U.S., shakubuku turned many people off, with good reason. We would often do “street shakubuku.” Go out on the street and corner strangers. I hated it and tried to get out of doing it as often as I could.
The Gakkai became so large in Japan during the late 1960’s that it was able to drop the aggressive tactics, but it didn’t cut loose from the philosophy behind it. In the United States, however, all through the 1980’s we participated in month-long membership drives twice a year. Every night of the week during February and August members were expected to carry out conversion activities. In 1985, the US branch of the Soka Gakkai, then called NSA, “converted” over 65,000 people. Only a tiny fraction of those remained with the organization for longer than six months.
On the Wikipedia page for Nichiren Buddhism, it reads “most Nichiren Buddhists enjoy a peaceful coexistence with other religious groups in modern times . . .” This is generally true. But there are several caveats. One being the superior attitude mentioned above. Another being that the different Nichiren factions tend to bicker each other – a lot. The most extreme example of this is the war between Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai that has been running for twenty years now.
Nichiren Shoshu is an official school of Nichiren Buddhism, and until the Soka Gakkai came along it was a relatively minor school. The SG was the lay organization affiliated with NS, but there were always problems between the two groups. Things first came to a head during WW2 when the NS priesthood was willing accept Shinto talismans that the Japanese military government was insisting everyone have to support the war effort. The 1st president of the SG, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, and 2nd President, Josei Toda, balked at this and were thrown in jail, where Makiguchi died in 1944.
One can certainly admire the two men for their unwillingness to compromise their principles, yet those principles came from Nichiren doctrine that it is a grave sin to possess religious items from evil religions, which is any religion other than Nichirenism.
Toda was released from prison in 1945, but he was no Nelson Mandela. He held a grudge against the NS priesthood for causing Makiguchi’s death. In 1952 Toda, and future 3rd President Daisaku Ikeda, led a group of Gakkai members who kidnapped and physically assaulted an elderly Nichiren Shoshu priest, Jimon Ogasawara, whom they believed responsible for the organization’s misfortune during the war. This is a well documented incident, one that to his credit, Ikeda provides a detailed description of in The Human Revolution, his account of Soka Gakkai history.
Fast forward to 1990, when all hell broke loose. After decades of rough relations, Ikeda formally denounced Nichiren Shoshu, and they responded by excommunicating the entire Soka Gakkai. It’s been like the Hatfields and the McCoys ever since. In my opinion both sides are to blame for this unfortunate schism, and neither seems willing to maintain peaceful co-existence. Each is out to destroy the other.
In Japan there have been accusations leveled at both groups regarding acts of violence. In recent years, I have heard accounts of U.S. Gakkai members getting together to pray for the destruction of Nichiren Shoshu, disrupting NS activities, and vandalism against NS temples. I have no doubt that those on the Nichiren Shoshu side have not been perfect angels either.
The Soka Gakkai in the U.S. maintains a website dedicated to setting the record straight on the “evil” Nichiren Shoshu. It’s called Soka Spirit which is described as,
"[The] spirit to protect and propagate the correct teaching of Nichiren Daishonin.
It is the spirit of the disciples to uphold the truth and justice of their teacher and mentor.
It is the spirit to recognize tendencies in human nature to distort the teachings of
Nichiren Buddhism for personal gain and to confront those who act upon those tendencies.
It is the spirit to defeat the fundamental darkness inherent in all life and manifest the Buddha nature."
Manifesting Buddha nature sounds good, but “teacher and mentor” is a veiled reference to the near-deification of Ikeda, who are SG members are encouraged to regard as their “eternal mentor in life,” and “distort the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism for personal gain and to confront those who act upon those tendencies” smacks of the familiar paranoia, persecution complex, and aggression.
There are articles on the Soka Spirit website such as “The Characteristics of Devils” (in other words, how to choose friends who are not anti-Gakkai), and “The Role of Rumors as a Function of Fundamental Darkness” (only believe what we tell you). This was the sort of thing that really drove me from SG. Articles that on the surface seem innocent and reasonable enough, but when you read between the lines you recognized a subliminal message that always coincided with whatever the organization was promoting at the time. Even the seemingly noble peace exhibits and seminars, seemed to be designed solely for the purpose of furthering the SG’s aims and lauding the greatness of Mr. Ikeda.
And of course, Soka Spirit has speeches from Mr. Ikeda. In one from Nov. 25, 2003, he told members of the Soka Gakkai,
"As comrades, family, brothers and sisters, fellow human beings, we will fight all
our lives for kosen-rufu. This is our mission. This is what unites us.
We are a fighting force, a fighting fortress.”
Publically, the SGI says that kosen-rufu “has been informally defined as ‘world peace through individual happiness’” and they link it back to a line in the Lotus Sutra. But within the Soka Gakkai, kosen-rufu really means a time when one-third of the world will believe in Nichiren’s Buddhism, one-third may not believe but will support it, and the remaining third oppose it.
There is much more to be said, but blog posts have their limitations. In these last two, I have focused on the troubling aspects of Nichiren Buddhism, because there were things that needed to be said, and no one else has been saying, or writing about them.
Extremists are uncompromising, prone to engage in fanatical behavior, and terrorism often begins when a group views themselves as victims persecuted by outside forces. In an open society, troubling things need to be brought into the light, aired, discussed, or else we remain in ignorance, the great ally of intolerance, extremism, and terror.
========================================================================
BIJLAGE 5
Uit : sokagakkailies.wordpress.com
Is SGI a cult? Does it matter? -- Cult Warning Signs in SGI
1. Authority without accountability. Soka Gakkai claims to have absolute authority withregard to Nichiren Buddhism; Nichiren Buddhism can only be correctly practiced if one is a member of SGI. Daisaku Ikeda is promoted by SGI to be the foremost authority on Nichiren Buddhism for the modern age. But SGI provides no accountability — members have no control over their leaders and have no mechanism by which to affect the policies and procedures of their organization.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. There are no opportunities to publicly question or critique the teachings of SGI in organizational publications. Critiquing SGI at small discussion meetings may be tolerated to a degree, but this behavior is called “negativity” and is discouraged.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure and no independently audited financial statement. Media reports and property tax records confirm that Soka Gakkai is a multi-billion dollar religious corporation. SGI refuses to disclose its finances even to members and donors who request this information. SGI has publicly maligned members who have pressed for financial disclosure.
4. Unreasonable fear about evil conspiracies and persecutions. Ikeda and his followers have denounced as “evil” a rival group called Nichiren Shoshu, and urged SGI members to fight this so-called devilish influence. SGI has sponsored prayer vigils focused on the destruction of Nichiren Shoshu and the demise of its leader, Nikken. SGI has also assigned at least one paid staff member to follow and spy on Nichiren Shoshu priests. Why? SGI claims that Nichiren Shoshu is out to destroy SGI.
5. The belief that former members are always wrong in leaving SGI. Former members often relate similar stories of being pressured to embrace certain beliefs, to say only positive things about SGI and to participate in fund raising, recruitment and public relations campaigns. Former members have a similar grievances regarding SGI: too much emphasis on the “evil” of Nichiren Shoshu, too much adulation of Daisaku Ikeda and too little emphasis on the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism. SGI leaders tell members that former members are deluded, cannot be trusted and should be avoided.
6. Dependence upon SGI guidance and activities for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. When SGI members are confronted with a problem, they are urged to seek “guidance” from local SGI leaders or to read guidance from Ikeda. Members are urged to recruit more members and participate in more SGI activities in order to have a “breakthrough” and solve their problems. If the problem is resolved, leaders are quick to claim that participation in SGI activities provides mystical benefits. If the problem is not resolved the member is often advised to make a greater commitment to SGI and “connect” with Ikeda’s heart.
7. Anything that SGI does can be justified, no matter how questionable or harmful. SGI members are good at making excuses for the shortcomings of their organization. “We’re still in our infancy — we’ve only been in America for a little over 30 years — mistakes are to be expected,” they say. “We are only human. Of course we make mistakes.” “We are fulfilling an important mission, so even if people are hurt by our activities, it will all work out for the best in the end.” “If people are hurt by our organization it is due to their karma, not ours.” “People are afraid of SGI not because we are deceptive and manipulative, but because we represent a real challenge to the status quo. People can’t handle the truth and justice we represent.” The list of excuses for bad behavior goes on and on.
8. SGI members are afraid. SGI members have been indoctrinated with a litany of fears: fear of visiting temples or investigating other forms of Buddhism, fear of not chanting enough or skipping gongyo, fear of contradicting the SGI, fear of listening to or entertaining criticism of the SGI, fear of chanting to the “wrong” Gohonzon, fear of leaving the SGI. SGI members fear that these things will invite severe “mystical” punishment such as financial hardship, illness, family strife, loss of a romantic relationship, getting fired from a job or a horrible, agonizing death.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)