LETTER DATED AUGUST 15, 1994 FROM ROY W. BOYCE, A MEMBER OF THE 	                      	NICHIREN SHOSHU HOKKEKO, TO A LEADER OF THE SGI

Dear [SGI Leader]:

Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1994 and the enclosed material.  Sorry to be again slow in responding.  I have been extremely busy this summer on a project concerning an FCC hearing involving a massive record.

I will first address your suggestion that even if I am not enamored of the SGI I should still leave the Temple.  Apart from the fact that I see no particular reason to do so,  I view the deficiencies of the SGI as constituting actual proof of the merits of the Temple position.  Accordingly, that dog don't hunt.

In attempting to justify the fact that the Gakkai's present posture is one hundred percent the opposite of its prior posture, you seek to place the blame on previous "priest-directed study" that allegedly formerly had "control" of the Gakkai's study and publications.  This ranks right up there with "But I didn't inhale" in the pantheon of lame excuses.  You say that the Gakkai has now based its study on the Gosho; however, the present version of the Gosho was completed over forty years ago.  Similarly, the historical studies of 59th High Priest Nichiko Shonin, from which the Gakkai extracts much of its current attack on the successive high priests, was completed during the same period.  It defies credibility to suggest that the Gakkai only recently became aware of the contents of these documents.  If such documents did in fact support the Gakkai's present posture, it would also have to be concluded that the Gakkai has been guilty of perpetrating a massive forty year fraud, which obviously would disqualify it from any present trust.

It is also pertinent to note that the Gakkai's new Buddhism is not something that was spontaneously presented as reflecting the independent results of the Gakkai's study.  It has rather been developed gradually in response to the developments in the Gakkai's attempts to constitute itself as a new sect of Buddhism.  It consists merely of opportunistic rationalizations designed to justify prior acts, such as the issuance of counterfeit honzons.  You allege that the former "priest-directed study" was designed in part to protect the "selfish" interests of the priests; however, it can well be posited that the Gakkai's new Buddhism is designed to protect its own enormous wealth as well as its obvious aspirations to political and social power.

A major premise of your letter is based on a portion of a Dai-Nichiren, Special Edition, that was not previously translated into English.  As translated by the Gakkai, this includes reference to the High Priest as the Daishonin's "replacement".  I suspect that the use of the word "replacement" reflects a tendentious translation, in so far as it is designed to suggest that we view the High Priest as constiuting a separate Buddha of some sort.  I have never heard such a teaching.  If "replacement" is viewed as meaning "representative" or "proxy", that would comport more nearly with our understanding, and I have no problem with it.  The Gosho "On the One Hundred and Six Articles" states:

	"I have appointed Byakuren Ajari Nikko as the So-Kanzu, the general chief priest, and transfer the entirety and every details of the true doctrine of Nichiren.  The top senior priests down to every disciple must regard each successive high priest transferred from Nikko to each in succession to be the So-Kanzu, general chief priest, without any opposition just like my time for throughout eternity in the future."  (Gosho Zenshu, p. 869) (tentative translation).

Similarly, the translation of the Dai-Nichiren article makes reference to a dictate that we "worship" the local priest.  Again, I suspect that this is a disingenuous choice of words.  We do fundamentally respect the priest who is a disciple of the High Priest as an essential link in the chain of transmission from the Daishonin; however, we have never been taught to "worship" him as that term is commonly understood in English.

It is, however, evident that the SGI views itself as a "replacement" to the Daishonin in a literal sense.  In the February 1994 Seikyo Times, former priests now associated with the SGI offer the following interpretation of a Gosho passage:

	". . . this passage may be interpreted as follows:  the 'shakubuku of the entity of the Law' undertaken by the Daishonin, the 'priest' indicated here, qualifies as 'shoju'; this is in contrast to the 'shakubuku of substantiation' undertaken by the SGI, the gathering of 'wise kings' to appear in the future.  Broadly speaking, it can be said that the mission of all members of the priesthood, including the Daishonin, lies in carrying out this practice of 'shoju from the standpoint of shakubuku' or 'shakubuku of the entity of the Law.' . . . However, with the emergence of the Soka Gakkai, a gathering of 'wise kings,' the situation dramatically changed and we suddenly entered the long-awaited time of 'shakubuku of substantiation.'"

P.  25 (emphasis added, paragraph breaks omitted).  The former priests go on to conclude:

	"We therefore confidently proclaim the end of the period for the preservation of the Law, the initial phase, when the figure of the high priest possessed supreme authority over the religious order, and welcome the long-awaited time when the SGI . . . protects and propagates the Gohonzon . . ."

P. 26.  As noted, the so-called "initial phase" which is declared to be at an end was defined as including the Daishonin, clearly reflecting a doctrine that the Daishonin is now obsolete and has been replaced by the SGI.  

It is also important to note that the doctrines concerning the High Priest and the priesthood are not an end in themselves.  They are rather a means employed by the Daishonin to ensure that believers  from his time into the distant future would have the correct understanding of his Buddhism and the basis for correct faith.  You state that the Gakkai does this by relying solely on the Gosho.[see note 1]  You may recall that we discussed whether anything in the Gosho directly and unambiguously clarifies the significance of the Dai-Gohonzon.  We could not resolve that point since none of us could read Japanese and not all of the Gosho has been translated.  Later that day, I received a visit from [another SGI leader], who does read Japanese.  He indicated that the Gosho does not contain such a direct clarification, so that we know about the Dai-Gohonzon based on the teachings transmitted through the successive high priests to which it was entrusted.   Similarly, the Daishonin's identity as the True Buddha is a basic premise of Nichiren Shoshu which I do not believe the Gakkai has yet wholly rejected.  While I believe this can be supported from Gosho passages that have already been translated, there are obviously numerous sects of Nichiren Buddhism that have read the same Goshos but come to different conclusions.  Of course, the Gosho contains all these teachings inherent within its meaning; however, if one interprets the Gosho solely on the basis of one's own limited understanding, there is great latitude for error.  This is why the Daishonin proceeded as he did in transferring the entirety of his teachings to one and only one person and why it has been similarly transferred for the past 700 years.

The SGI has now begun to attack the merits of the successive high priests, as indicated in the pamphlet you sent me.  As I mentioned, these are a handful of instances allegedly extracted in large part from Nichiko Shonin's history of Nichiren Shoshu.  That work, which I understand is 138 volumes long, is not available in English.  I am not about to accept the SGI's cursory reports of these matters, especially since I have never found it to be a particularly accurate reporter of facts in areas where I have access to the underlying documentation.  Moreover, it is obviously not the case that Nichiko Shonin, who conducted this research, was so shocked by what he found that he defected to the Minobu sect.  Further, the end result is that the successive high priests preserved for 700 years the understanding of the Daishonin's Buddhism that we have always believed and that even the SGI still professes to believe, including the Dai-Gohonzon and the Daishonin's identity as the True Buddha.  The SGI cannot deny the legitimacy of that heritage without also denying the doctrines it has transmitted and condemning itself as having been guilty of slander by association for the past 60 years.  Ultimately, apart from Nichiren Shoshu, the SGI has no doctrine and no legitimacy, which may account for its present tactic of substituting hatred of the "Nikken sect" for sound doctrine. 

Although the SGI still professes to believe in the Dai-Gohonzon, this in fact appears uncertain in light of Mr. Ikeda's suggestion that the Dai-Gohonzon is merely a physical object separate from some greater underlying Law and his apparent reliance on a scholar's characterization of the Dai- Gohonzon as "something narrow", which I have noted in prior letters.  It also appears that the doctrine of the Daishonin's identity as the True Buddha may be the next to go.  In the World Tribune of April 18, 1994 at p. 2, it is suggested that:

	"Unwisely, the Daishonin was all but deified . . ."

Moreover, in a May 24, 1994 speech, Mr. Ikeda stated:

	"Thus the philosophical significance of the doctrine that Nichiren Daishonin is the original Buddha in part lay in the effort to humanize Buddhism."

These statements suggest that the SGI will eventually replace this doctrine as traditionally understood with one attributing at most some vague "philosophical" understanding to the concept of the True  Buddha.

This brings us to various Gosho passages you cite for the proposition that I am in error in asserting "a distinction between believers and the Daishonin"; that "it is the life of the true Buddha within all which brings forth the life of Buddha from one's environment"; that "we are true Buddhas, the life of Nichiren Daishonin exists within us"; that "we already possess every thing necessary for our own enlightenment" and that 

	"The Daishonin and the Gohonzon function as parent, teacher and sovreign to us as we embrace the Gohonzon and Gosho with sincere faith.  But they do not endow us with anything we don't already possess.  And in fact, since their powers cannot be manifest except when a believer 'of the same mind as Nichiren' chants the daimoku, we must conclude that it is the common mortal who endows them [i.e., the Daishonin and the Gohonzon] with the three virtues."

The fundamental error of your analysis is that you take certain portions of the Gosho that explain generally or theoretically that all persons possess the Buddha nature and premise your entire posture on such theory.  In doing so, you ignore or deny the specific or essential aspects of this doctrine.  For instance, the Gosho states:

	" In general, this transfer was made to the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, but specifically, to Bodhisattva Jogyo himself.  If you confuse the general with the specific even in the slightest, you will never be able to attain enlightenment and will wander through endless lifetimes of suffering."

MW-1, p. 164.  Theoretically, all common mortals possess the Buddha nature, but only through our relationship with the Buddha can this theoretical proposition be made actual.  Thus, the Daishonin states:

	"My heart is where all Buddhas enter nirvana; my tongue, where they turn the wheel of doctrine; my throat, where they are born into this world; and my mouth where they attain enlightenment.  Because this mountain is where the wondrous votary of the Lotus Sutra dwells, how can it be any less sacred than the pure land of Eagle Peak?  Since the Law is supreme, the Person is worthy of respect; since the Person is worthy of respect, the Land is sacred."

MW-1, p. 264.   The Gosho Hundred and Six Comparisons states:

	"	Regarding the distinction between the essential and theoretical teachings of the Buddhism of the sowing in terms of the sovereign of this threefold world:  The one in all the universe from time without beginning worthy of supreme respect is I, Nichiren.  Beginningless time is the essential or true aspect and today is the theoretical or transient aspect.  I, Nichiren, who dwell in this world throughout the three existences, appear as a common mortal to benefit all people."

Seikyo Times, January 1982, p. 38.  The Daishonin also cautions in On the Buddha's Behavior:

	"One may make use of my counsel, but if I am not given due respect as the votary of the Lotus Sutra, then the country will perish."

MW-1, p. 190.  It is cleary incorrect to assert that that there is no distinction between the Daishonin and others.

The Daishonin also teaches in Three Tripitaka Masters Pray for Rain:

	"	Moreover, had the Buddha not appeared in the world, then in all the major world system, with the exception of Shariputra and Mahakashyapa, every single person would have sunk into the three evil paths.  But through the strong bonds formed by relying upon the Buddha, large numbers of people have been able to attain Buddhahood.  Even wicked persons such as King Ajatashatru or Angulimala, who one would expect could never reach enlightenment but would invariably fall into the Avichi Hell, by encountering a great man, the Lord Buddha Sakyamuni, were able to attain Buddhahood.  Therefore the best way to attain Buddhahood is to encounter a zenchishiki, or good friend.  How far can one's own wisdom take him?  If one has even enough wisdom to distinguish hot from cold, he should seek out a good friend."

MW-6, p. 109 (paragraph break omitted).  It also states in How Those Initially Aspiring to the Way Can Attain Buddhahood through the Lotus Sutra:

	"	Only when one understands all this clearly and has faith in it can the power of the Law be manifested and the Buddhas and bodhisattvas bring benefit to the people.  To illustrate, in kindling a fire, three things are needed:  a good piece of steel, a good flint and good tinder.  The same is true of prayer.  Three things are required -- a good teacher, a good believer and a good doctrine -- before the prayers can be effective and disasters banished from the land."

MW-6, p. 192-93.  It is evident that the fact that all people possess the potential Buddha nature does not mean that "we already possess every thing necessary for our own enlightenment". 

It should also be noted that the theoretical proposition that all people possess the Buddha nature is not original with the Daishonin.  It was implicit in the Lotus Sutra and was later explained theoretically by T'ien-t'ai.  As stated in Outline of Buddhism (Yasuji Kirimura, editor; NSIC 1981) at p. 175-76:

	"In T'ien-t'ai's Buddhism, through the practice of meditation one observes the three thousand realms in a single life-moment of his own being, thus perceiving the truth of life.  In Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, observing one's mind means that by virtue of the Gohonzon one associates his own life directly with the life-moment of the original Buddha of kuon ganjo and thereby manifests his latent Buddha nature, elevating his state of life and changing his karma for the better.  T'ien-t'ai's observation of the mind is accomplished solely through one's own effort, using as one's object of meditation the truth inherent in one's own life.  In Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, observing one's mind means to manifest one's Buddha nature, which is accomplished through the power of the Gohonzon.  Therefore, ordinary people can readily practice it."   (paragraph break omitted).

The interpretations now advocated by you appear more analogous to those of T'ien-t'ai than those of the Daishonin.  Moreover, because of the difficulty in practicing T'ien-t'ai's teachings, they later became corrupted in the Japanese Tendai school.  As discussed in the Seikyo Times of June 1985 at p. 60:

	"Soku as a concept was theoretically explained to its fullest extent by the T'ien-t'ai school as the soku of two different things being simultaneously one entity.  However, in terms of its practical application, it was badly corrupted by the Japanese Tendai sect as the doctrine of original enlightenment (hongaku shiso).  This sect tended to affirm earthly desires just as they are, and, falling into the opposite extreme from the Hinayanists, went so far as to assert that earthly desires are no different from enlightenment and that a common mortal is no different from a Buddha.  Because of an excessively simplistic understanding of soku, emphasis was placed on the identity of the two, and it was felt that, because a common mortal already is a Buddha just as he is, there is no need for Buddhist practice."

The SGI also appears to exhibit a comparably simplistic understanding of soku in proclaiming that "we are true Buddhas" who "already possess everything necessary for our own enlightenment".  As a result, it has regressed to the level of a provisional teaching.

In my letter of March 21, 1994, I posed the following hypothetical:

	"Moreover, if merely chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to an object serves to call forth its Buddha nature, why is it necessary that such an object take the form of a Gohonzon?  Could one equally as well "call forth the Buddha nature" of a Playboy centerfold?"

Your response to this is:

	"	You assertion [sic] that one cannot draw forth the Buddha nature from a piece of paper, a Playboy centerfold, is incorrect when compared to the Gosho.  Everything in this universe possesses the Ten Worlds - the life of Buddha as an inherent potential.  Of course, we can bring that Buddha nature forth in response to our life condition."

I, of course, did not state or imply that a Playboy centerfold lacks "the life of Buddha as an inherent potential."   My question rather was whether, given your view that it is solely the believer's faith that endows an object as an object of worship, one could use a Playboy centerfold as an object of worship?  It is precisely because a Playboy centerfold does possess "the life of Buddha as an inherent potential" that such inquiry becomes pertinent.  If it is solely the faith of the believer that endows the Daishonin and the Gohonzon with the three virtues, why couldn't such a feat also be pulled off with a Playboy centerfold?  You obviously chose not to answer that question.

The point is, of course, that if we already possess every thing necessary for our enlightenment and in fact endow the object of worship with the three virtues, then the object of worship becomes unnecessary.  It is at most a mere convenience, in that it is easier to chant to a Gohonzon than to a blank wall.  This, of course, was the SGI's view when it was not yet issuing its own honzons.  It also differs little from the view of the heretical Minobu sect  (Nichiren Shu), which teaches that:

	"Preferably the Gohonzon is a copy of Nichiren's Great Mandala [a Gohonzon inscribed on Sado Island, not the Dai-Gohonzon], but if the believer has none, he may use a copy of the Sacred Title, a small statute of the Buddha, or another object on which he can focus his attention." [See note 2]

In one sense you are correct that the Gohonzon does not endow us with anything we do not already possess, but not in the sense you suggest.  We do possess the inherent potential to achieve Buddhahood.  We do not possess the actual ability to do so on our own.  The Gohonzon is the enlightened life of Nichiren Daishonin, the Original Buddha who did achieve enlightenment on his own.  This is true irrespective of one's faith or belief, as evidenced by the fact that those who slander the Gohonzon incur punishment.  It is only through the fusion of our lives with that of the True Buddha embodied by the Gohonzon that we can manifest our inherent potential to achieve Buddhahood.  Faith and practice constitute the methodology we must employ to achieve this goal; however, it is the enlightened life of the True Buddha that enables us to actualize the potential Buddhahood which otherwise exists within us as a purely theoretical potential.  The traditional analogy is to the persimmon, which is a tart fruit that becomes sweet when placed in the sun.  Obviously, the potential for sweetness is implicit in the fruit even when it is tart; however, it is the sun that actualizes that potential.  The sun does not "endow" the fruit with the potential for sweetness, nor obviously does the fruit "endow" the sun with its power.  The relationship between the believer and the Gohonzon is roughly analogous.  This constitutes what we have always been taught as being Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism.  Anything else constitutes new doctrine that is not that of the Daishonin.

The absurdity of the SGI's view is evident in its new practice of replacing Gohonzons transcribed by Nikken Shonin with counterfeit honzons.  This is not justified by any claim that Nikken Shonin Gohonzons are not proper Gohonzons, but merely by the possibility that some members harbor antipathy to Nikken Shonin.  This is ridiculous in addition to being slanderous.  I am told that the Nikken Shonin Kosen-rufu Gohonzon formerly enshrined in the Ikeda auditorium in Los Angeles has been replaced.  Although I'm sure that a public posture will be maintained that Gohonzon replacement is voluntary (obviously, there is no way it could be forced), the switch in Los Angeles should send a clear signal as to what the members should do to avoid being "out of rhythm".   It will be interesting to see how many SGI members will recognize that being an "in rhythm" SGI member entails giving up the Gohonzon and how many in fact have lingering doubts as to the validity of the counterfeit honzons that will outweigh organizational loyalties.

Sincerely



Roy W. Boyce

Note 1:  Of course, I have previously questioned this assertion -- and still do -- since it is evident to me that the Gakkai in fact places equal if not greater significance on the interpretations of Mr. Ikeda.

Note 2:  Montgomery, "Fire in the Lotus" (Mandala 1991) at p. 268.


[Note:  The foregoing letter was prepared solely by the author and reflects only his views and not necessarily those of other individuals or organizations.  The letter is set forth exactly as sent except that the caption (including a neat crane graphic that comes with WP60 for Windows) and the salutation have been omitted to avoid personalities and it has been reformatted to ASCII text.  As part of this, what were footnotes have been changed to endnotes.  Also, italics and underlining in the original have gotten deleted.  This is the most recent in a series of letters and I hope to upload the earlier letters as time permits.]