Nichiren Buddhism

This is a set of essays and translations that covers comprehensively all of Japanese philosophy.

The theme of article is a short investigation of the problem of virtue in compositions of Prince Shotoku (Shotoku Taishi) such as “Seventeen-Article Constitution” and “Shomangyo gisho” (“Commentary on the Sri-mala Sutra”). Prince Shotoku (574 - 622) is a well-known religious leader in a history of Ancient Japan whoplayed a paramount role in Japanese Buddhism. He supervised over the construction of the first Buddhist temples and, more over, was a first Buddhist in Japan who interpreted Buddhist philosophical texts. Shotoku Taishi (...) wrote three commentaries known as “Commentaries on the Three Sutras” (Sangyo gisho). This work contains interpretation of three Buddhist sutras: “Lotus Sutra” (“Saddharmapundarica sutra”, “Hokke gisho”), “Vimalakirti sutra” (“Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra”, “Yuimagyo gisho”) and “Sri-Mala” sutra (“Sri-Malashimhanda sutra”, “Shomangyo gisho”). One of the most interesting aspects of this work, on my opinion, is a category of “virtue” (“zen”). While “virtue” in the concept of Shotoku Taishi is a basis of the One Vehile. At the same time, it differs from the Buddhist sense of this word. Also, the influence of “virtue” is reflected in articles of “Seventeen-Article Constitution”. Category of “virtue”, on my opinion, shows the new sights in the personality of Prince Shotoku. It leads as to moral aspects of religious and cultural policy which still not explored well in Western (Russian) scholarship. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 23 (2003) 35-37 [Access article in PDF] Seeking Emancipation through Engagement:One Nichiren Buddhist's Approach to Practice Bill Aiken SGI-USA I was born and raised Roman Catholic, which meant attending Catholic schools, first in the local parish schools and later at a private academy in suburban Philadelphia. As a child I was serious about my religion. I served as an altar boy and had serious thoughts about becoming (...) a priest.That was until the mid-1960s, when my hormones took over, my voice changed, and I converted to hedonism. I hadn't so much turned against my Catholic upbringing as I was temporarily distracted from it.It was when I went away to college that the religious questions began to resurface. Friends and classmates wanted to know what I believed in, and I really didn't know. The old form of Catholicism, with its stern, patriarchal vision of God, didn't seem to fit anymore. But the mystery remained as a palpable presence, and it seemed to require an answer. Was I an atheist? That seemed so negative. How about an agnostic? Possibly. They seemed to believe in something, even if they didn't know what it was. That seemed about right for the moment.My first encounter with Buddhism came during that freshman year at Penn State University in the fall of 1968. While attending a rather psychedelic party, a friend asked me if I knew anything about Buddhism. Replying that I didn't, I asked what Buddhism had to say for itself. My friend said that it spoke of the oneness and interrelatedness of everything. All I can say is that at that particular moment this made sense to me and started me on what would at first be a pretty casual exploration of Buddhism.But it would be in the bedridden summer of 1970, while recovering from a lifestyle-inflicted illness, that I started to reflect on my life in earnest and began to read as though Buddhism had something to say directly to me. More books by Alan Watts led to D. T. Suzuki, which in turn led to collections of sutras and finally to Phillip Kapleau and the Three Pillars of Zen. This would be my guide for the next year as I struggled to bring focus to my mind and my life.Being the poor and struggling student that I was, I could not afford the cost of a [End Page 35] retreat or sesshin training. So I struggled as well as I could with a combination of self-instruction and whatever I could learn from those who did attend these sessions.I should say at this point that while I may have had a highly developed religious sense, I never wanted to become a religious virtuoso or a renunciate. From the depths of my adolescent angst and confusion, I longed for an awakening, but I had conditions. And chief among them was that I would not be pried apart from my life as I knew it. The quietude of the monastery and hours of prayer or meditation held absolutely no appeal for me. If I were going to attain enlightenment it would have to be in Times Square (before Disney took it over). And so, through my daily stumbling efforts at zazen, I began struggling to bring about this awakening.So this is where I was spiritually when on a late summer day in 1971, a pleasant though somewhat scattered young woman approached me on the streets of downtown Philadelphia, invited me to a Buddhist meeting, and introduced me to the chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The first meeting I attended was a rather large one on the campus of Columbia University in NewYork. Everyone seemed pleasant enough, but the meeting seemed more like a pep rally than a serious discussion about the profound teachings of the Buddha. When the main speaker finally took the stage, I found it nearly impossible to understand his broken English. So I'm afraid that I don't remember a single word he... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected DocumentsSteven HeineSourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents. Translated and edited by David A. Dilworth and Valdo H. Viglielmo, with Agustin Jacinto Zavala. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1998. Pp. xx + 420.Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents, translated and edited by David H. Dilworth and Valdo H. Viglielmo, with Agustin Jacinto Zavala, is a new translation of twentieth-century Japanese philosophers and (...) is the second book in a series on Resources in Asian Philosophy and Religion that had been devised and edited by the late Charles Wei-hsun Fu (the first book was Stuart D. B. Picken's Essentials of Shinto: An Analytical Guide to Principal Teachings [Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994]). Here, a team of translators who are all very well known for their expert work in the field provide a series of selections from seven philosophers, each of whom is associated with the Kyoto School approach to comparative philosophical analysis.The seven thinkers include: (1) Nishida Kitarō, the founder of the Kyoto School, which is based on a synthesis of Western thought, particularly German Idealism, and the Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy of emptiness or universal nothingness (Nishida remains by far the most important representative of the school, and he has had numerous works translated into English, often by Dilworth and/or Viglielmo); (2) Tanabe Hajime, Nishida's first and foremost disciple, who approached the notion of absolute nothingness from the standpoint of Pure Land Buddhist other-power and repentance; (3) Kuki Shūzō, who was known for his travels to Europe and his work on aesthetics and contingency; (4) Watsuji Tetsurō, who pioneered the field of cultural anthropological history in Japan; (5) Miki Kiyoshi, who criticized Nishida in light of Pascal and Kierkegaard as well as Hegelian dialectics; (6) Tosaka Jun, a sharp Marxist critic of Nishida, who during the 1930s attacked the apparent accommodations of his colleagues with the Imperialist authorities; and (7) Nishitani Keiji, who developed the Zen perspective implicit in Nishida's philosophy by emphasizing the religious-conversion experience that emerges from a contemplative awareness of the universality of absolute nothingness.The translators provide a substantial introductory essay discussing the biographical and conceptual issues in the development of the life and thought of each philosopher. This section is very useful, and generally goes into more depth and detail than other materials available in English. The translations themselves, which cover a wide variety of styles and methods of argumentation, are clear and readable, though at times a bit imprecise and inconsistent. A main issue involved in evaluating the book has to do with the selection of thinkers and passages translated. Unfortunately, there are no philosophers represented here who are not in the circle of the Kyoto School. There is no question of the dominance of Nishida and his followers (and critics) in the realm of Japanese philosophy, but other voices reflecting the positions of Marxism, phenomenology, logic, structuralism, and postmodernism could have had some representation. One problem is that the reader is given very little indication of current trends (since the writings of Nishitani, the last philosopher [End Page 311] on this list, are already several decades old). And there is certainly nothing in this volume to point to future concerns and tendencies in Japanese philosophy.On the other hand, given the book's content, a positive feature is that the translators have fulfilled an important goal of choosing selections that have not previously appeared in English but which are nevertheless representative and crucial for understanding the overall significance of each thinker's approach. Therefore, Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy will serve as a beneficial supplement or complement to existing sources. It is a handy compendium that puts readers in touch with the full variety of Kyoto School philosophers, including those who vary from and argue with Nishida.By the late 1990s, it had become impossible to discuss Nishida and the Kyoto School without dealing at least in part with the question of political implications: to what extent, if any, were these thinkers involved in supporting and promulgating the doctrine of the imperial order, which sought hegemony throughout Asia. The key figures, especially Nishida, Tanabe... (shrink)

This study focuses upon the origin, development and significance of the Nichiren Buddhist practice of fuju-fuse, whereby Nichiren clergy may not accept and laity may not offer alms to adherents of rival sects. The various Nichiren factions, emerging soon after the death of Nichiren , all observed this practice of alms-refusal as one of three approaches to proselytizing--the other two being shuron, or sectarian debates, and kangyo, or the practice of admonishing secular authorities to embrace the faith of the Lotus (...) Sutra. Confrontation with authorities led to persecution and the practice was banned in the 1660's, resulting in the formation of the Fuju-fuse sect underground. ;In section one of the present study, I examine the origin of fuju-fuse in early Buddhism, basing my findings on Theravada Vinaya texts, and in the Mahayana tradition, relying principally on the Brahmajala-sutra and the Lotus Sutra. In section two, I review the history of the Nichiren school from the perspective of the development of the fuju-fuse doctrine and practice; discuss how Nichiren and Nichio --the sectarian founder--justified their stands on fuju-fuse. In my discussion of Nichio, my major concern in this study, I rely heavily on his works--treatises, essays, and letters--heretofore unexamined by Western scholars. ;The study of the Fuju-fuse sect, with only a handful of monks serving less than five thousand households since 1876, when the Meiji government officially recognized the group, is crucial to our understanding of not only of the mainstream Nichiren Buddhist movement but also of numerous offshoots that comprise the majority of the so-called "new religions" in Japan today. (shrink)

Part of the Studies in Asian Thought and Religion series, this text provides an introduction to Nichiren's ideas.