Does Excellence in Religious Study Threaten the Priesthood?


     Is it possible that Nichiren Daishonin wrote the Gosho 
in such a way, with hidden meaning and esoteric concepts, so 
that true understanding could only gained by a priest? Did he 
decide early on that lay persons lacked the fundamental ability 
to interpret his teachings, and thus they would need close and 
perpetual supervision by priests, particularly in the area of 
study? Well, as unlikely as this scenario may be, the fact is that 
the current leadership of Nichiren Shoshu has behaved as if 
they were threatened by the burgeoning laity which has begun 
to think for itself. In this essay I will offer evidence that the 
priesthood did in fact feel threatened by the onset of lay 
expertise in the area of ecclesiastical studies; moreover I will 
touch on the dilemma which the Hokkeko faces as they follow 
Nikken and his hierarchy blindly, ignoring their own natural 
abilities to think for themselves.
	If one looks at some of the documents published by 
Nichiren Shoshu Temple, it is clear that, as early as 1991, the 
issue of lay interpretation of the Gosho was a major problem 
for the priesthood. For instance, in “Notification of the 
Excommunication of the Soka Gakkai from Nichiren Shoshu,” 
(Dai Nichiren Special Edition, Part 3) The main objection 
seems to revolve around the fact the  Soka Gakkai was 
interpreting the Gosho for itself; of course, the document tries 
to assert that the Soka Gakkai was making major doctrinal 
blunders, but a closer examination reveals an underlying 
resentment toward ANY kind of interpretation on the part of 
the laity:

II.  The Soka Gakkai’s Disobedience of Doctrine

A.  Concerning the Three Treasures of this sect, and 
with specific reference to the depth of the 
significance of the Treasures of the Buddha and the 
Law, that is, that the Person and the Law of the 
Object of Worship (Gohonzon) are one, in many of 
Mr. Daisaku Ikeda’s statements, such as:
‘The Dai-Gohonzon is the very inscription of the 
basic law of the universe,’
	he repeatedly explains a false doctrine which lays 
	disproportionate emphasis on the law, and diverges 
	from the personal inner enlightenment of the True 
	Buddha, the Daishonin (p. 2-3).

Here Nikken takes issue with the insistence by the SGI that we 
must follow the Law, and not persons. He asserts that this is a 
“false doctrine,” when in fact it is clearly stated in the Gosho, 
such as in this passage from “Repaying Debts of Gratitude”:

	“In a scripture called the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha 
	says, "Rely on the Law and not upon persons." 
	Relying on the Law here means relying on the 
	various sutras. Not relying upon persons means not 
	relying on persons other than the Buddha, such as 
	Bodhisattvas Fugen and Monjushiri or the various 
	Buddhist teachers I have enumerated 	earlier” 
	(Major Writings, Vol. 4, p. 175-76)  

	This theme of denying a layman’s right to interpret the 
Gosho is not limited to the example above. Further on in the 
same edition of Dai Nichiren, we find the document, 
“Remonstrance to the Soka Gakkai to Disband,” which 
castigates the SGI for learning from the Abutsubo Gosho about 
the equality of all believers—both priests and laity: 
	
	The problem is that beginning with a letter to the Bureau 
	of Religious Affairs from the Soka Gakkai, dated January 1, 
	1991, the Soka Gakkai has been actively advocating the theory 
	of the equality of the priesthood and the laity, which departs 
	from the original significance of this sect. The Gakkai has 
	especially distorted the "Abutsubo Gosho" and others which 
	instruct us about the attainment of faith, and has perverted 
	the true meaning of the first section of Nichiu Shonin's 
	"Writing on the Observances of This Sect",  by saying 
	things like:

	‘we believe that concerning the relation between 
	priests and lay members, from the point of view of 
	faith, by far the single most significant point is the 
	fact that the priesthood and the laity are equals. 
	Above and beyond that, is it not true that the 
	harmonious unity between the priests and lay 
	members is based on their deep mutual respect in the 
	performance of their respective duties and roles?’ ”
	("Reply to 'Inquiry,' " January 1, 1991)

Here, we may see that the priesthood not only holds the idea of 
equality between clergy and laity in complete contempt, but 
consequently denies the very right of the laity to discuss the 
matter. 
     What could be more antithetical to the spirit of Nichiren 
Daishonin? He was the votary of the Lotus Sutra, and the 
principal message of the Lotus Sutra is that all mankind has the 
potential for attaining Buddhahood. How could it be possible 
that Nichiren Daishonin deplored the idea of equality between 
the laity and the priesthood? How could it be possible that he 
would not applaud excellence in study among the laity? And it 
goes without saying that if one becomes excellent at study, he 
or she cannot help forming opinions on the things that are 
studied!
	Nikken and the Hokkeko, from the bottom of my heart I 
offer this plea: do not be jealous because the Soka Gakkai has 
excelled at study. It is only part of a natural evolution which 
the True Buddha, Nichiren Daishonin, intended.

Richard Hower