Source: http://markrogow.blogspot.com/2012/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:39:20+00:00

Document:
Presented to you in solidarity with our Dalit [untouchable] brothers and sisters in India.
The Lotus Sutra is the Way!
We in the Kempon Hokke, the spiritual descendants of old Jumonryu, have received a recent initiative by certain people who, on the pretext that there is an “illness” in Nichiren Buddhism, have called for an end to the method of propagation called shakubuku (lit., “Break and Subdue”) and the adoption of the method of shoju (lit., Subsuming and Acceptance”); the claim is made that the violent language used among various “Nichiren” groups especially on the Internet is ruining the reputation of Nichiren Buddhism and keeping them from making converts. They say that if they adopt an attitude of complete tolerance and the use of other types of teaching that they will be able to get more converts. They then cite a number of passages from some translation or other of Nichiren Shonin’s works trying to prove that Nichiren Shonin would have approved their abolition of his methods.
First, we should ask: is there, indeed, an illness in “Nichiren Buddhism” especially on the internet? Yes, there is and it is mainly the very work of the people who now desire to abandon Nichiren Shonin’s fundamental standpoint: many of these same people have participated in some of the most vicious, dishonest exchanges and smear campaigns ever seen on the internet; armed with misinformation, disinformation, half-truths, faulty translations, and erroneous, preconceived notions and personal obsessions, they have reacted to any factual refutations of their fantasy Buddhism with violent hostility masquerading as kind of religious version of “political correctness”; their leaders are allowed to “refute” any contrary opinion by cutting off debate on their own server or by launching ad hominem counterattacks against any one who differs from their arbitrary pronouncements on doctrine and practice.
The real reason behind this is that many of these people do not really believe in the fundamental conceptions of Nichiren Shonin’s religion, with which they are extremely uncomfortable. The origin of this situation lies in the fact that all of these people were trained by the Soka Gakkai to follow a version of “shakubuku” which consisted largely of intimidation, smear tactics and the standpoint of “win at any cost”. About ninety-five percent of those who come out of this milieu do one of two things: they either become more extreme than the Soka Gakkai in its worst phases or else they abandon the exclusive practice and genuine shakubuku of Nichiren Shonin (the fundamental nature of which they have never really comprehended in any case). But even when they take the latter course in formal terms they simply cannot avoid going back to their old tactics.
The Kempon Hokke in America itself fell victim to this kind of situation when for four long years it was run by people of the former type, given to extreme language and unethical tactics (even by the standards of the Soka Gakkai). But, fortunately, those people no longer have anything to do with us and their approach was never the real position of the Kempon Hokke.
What could be clearer than these statements? The Kempon Hokke Sect practices shakubuku through the rational method of argument employing the Three Proofs, Textual, Rational and Actual.
It is obvious then that we, as we are now constituted, have nothing to do with the “illness” which it is claimed is engulfing Nichiren Buddhism. We also state that we are not responsible for the actions or words of the former “leaders” of the Kempon Hokke, who emerged from the Soka Gakkai. Thus we can hardly be included in the present blanket accusation.
What has happened here is that the ‘shoju’ supporters have confused rudeness, smear tactics, unsupported assertions and personal insults (which they have long used) with the genuine, Sutra-based shakubuku that we espouse.
This initiative is, I believe, largely a smoke-screen put forward by people who have long since abandoned the fundamental ideas of Nichiren Shonin (if, indeed, they ever held them in the first place). There are two aspects of Buddhist practice: one’s own practice (jigyo) and converting others (keta); it is obvious that the proposed change is not merely a shift in “converting others” but rather the ratification of their own beliefs and practices which seem in many cases to be merely a form of syncretism to which various bits and pieces of Nichiren Shonin’s religion have been added. In other words, many of these people do not really uphold Nichiren Shonin’s “exclusive practice of the Hokke” (senji Hokke) as their own ideal and, indeed, some have even said in the past that there is “not one bit of evidence” to show that Nichiren Shonin believed in “exclusive practice” (an assertion that would surprise Japanese Buddhist historians.).
The problem then is that these people neither believe in Nichiren Shonin’s historic doctrines nor do they understand the fundamental doctrinal background of his words; as a result they simply substitute what all of them learned in the Soka Gakkai, personal abuse, for Sutra-based and rational argument. Even now as they put on the mask of reason and learned debate, we can see their thorough-going confusion in their seeming apologetic for Nichiren Shonin’s methods and their simultaneous call for abandoning his methods because, they claim, we live in a different era. Their nominal goal of getting rid of the abusive language and hatred might be laudable, if that were, in fact, what they were aiming for, but that is not their real goal.
And in a surviving fragment (STN, v. 3, 2477 frag. 1) Nichiren Shonin specifically says the teaching of widely spreading and diffusing in the fifth five hundred years will not be cut off into the entire future until Lord Ajita (Maitreya, the next Buddha) comes forth in the world.
Nowhere does the Sutra or Nichiren Shonin predict or state that there will be a change after so many years and the world shall revert to the better times of the Lord Buddha in ancient India when “Subsuming and Accepting” (shoju), i.e, a gradual preparation of capacities (ki) by means of provisional and expedient teachings. is to be put to the fore.
Why did not the Buddha, endowed with omniscient Buddha Eye, predict a return to the age of gradual teaching and shoju after just the first five hundred years of mappo? And if the Buddha’s “Golden Words” are wrong, then why did Nichiren Shonin believe in them implicitly? And if he was wrong why do these ‘shoju’ people claim him as their master?
Is he not warning against the very kind of argument being put forth by these ‘shoju’ people: in effect, they are saying that our time is not the mappo predicted by the Buddha and recognized by Nichiren Shonin as the time of shakubuku.
Tibetan Buddhism itself, a form of Esoteric Buddhism appropriate, at best, only to an earlier age, clearly led to the downfall of Tibet as a political entity at the hands of China (cf. The Mongol invasions in Nichiren Shonin’s writings); Tibetan Buddhism proper is only a shadow of what it used to be within living memory. (For those who still uphold an idealistic view of Tibetan Buddhism, I suggest you read Orville Schell’s Virtual Tibet, Donald S. Lopez’ Jr.’s Prisoners of Shangri-La, and Peter Bishop’s Dreams of Power and The Myth of Shangri-La.
Moreover, just recently were not the Taliban Muslims firing explosives at ancient statues of the Lord Buddha Shakyamuni in Bamiyan Province in Afghanistan? Consider that in the True and Counterfeit Dharma eras that same land was a flourishing center of Buddhism; now it is a land of non-Buddhists, who are so fanatically anti-Buddhist that cannot even abide the sight of the image of the Lord Buddha. How can the ‘shoju’ partisans say that it is a not the terrible age of Mappo!?
Has this moral and spiritual situation suddenly changed now? Do Zen and pseudo-Zen now do no spiritual evil?
What of the spiritual evil which comes from those “Nichiren Buddhists” who deny the clear teaching of the Sutra and of the Patriarch? In order to avoid the teaching of the Hokekyo, one group has declared it to be a “modern teaching” not by the Buddha and even say that Nichiren Shonin recognized this fact and did not rely on the Sutra. On the other hand, there are others who say the Hokekyo is not the absolutely Supreme Sutra but much like the other Mahayana Sutras. Still others have attacked the Master of Teachings Lord Shakya and deny the Eternal Buddha on the excuse “too much like Krishna” or “like Santa Claus”.
Moreover, is our age, for all its marvels, even an era of even material perfection: is there not the ever increasing threat of global warming and the persistent destruction of species after species and the very basis of life in this world? Is our food supply safe from the pollution of terrible diseases? Read the news: I do not think I need say more on this aspect.
Let us return to what is ultimately important: the state of the Buddha Dharma. How can one say that this is not still the period of which Nichiren Shonin states: “This time is fixed as the time when ‘they are firm in struggle and the Pure Dharma is hidden and sinks’, an occasion of the mixing and confusion of the Provisional with the Real.” (STN, v. 1, 735, citing the Daijikkyo 55 (“Embudai hon”) (T.13.363)) Is there not strife among Buddhists? Has strife ceased in the world? Are not weapons more terrible than ever? And is not the most terrible aspect of all this the falsification of the Dharma?
Let us now turn to the ‘shoju’ partisans argument from the Kaimoku sho that in mappo there is both shoju and shakubuku. Nichiren Shonin always recognized that there are these two methods but the real question is which is the one to use now; which one to put to the fore. By “now”, of course, is meant the era in which we live: mappo; once again we note that neither the Lord Buddha nor His Messenger Nichiren Shonin limited this to his lifetime in medieval Japan.
As we can see from these passages Nichiren Shonin regarded his age and the whole of the human world (Jambudvipa), not merely Japan, as blasphemous and evil in terms of their disbelief in the Hokekyo, the True Dharma, and their support for wrong teachings. Such beings, their countries and so on are the proper objects of shakubuku, rightly understood.
Nichiren Shonin explains the important difference between the method of conversion used by the Lord Buddha Shakyamuni in His historical Manifestation and that used by the Bodhisattva entrusted with the teaching for this evil age.
Comment: clearly Nichiren Shonin is basing himself on the Tendai interpretation of the Sutra and he notes that the people of this era in general are without the good seeds planted by the Buddha; they are people without good karmic roots; so even if one concedes that there might be people who have such good karmic roots, who formed a connecting condition (kechien) during the Lord Buddha Shakya’s earthly lifetime, now they are few and far between; thus the overwhelmingly predominant method of propagation in this age of the Latter Dharma is shakubuku: the unalloyed assertion of the Unique Vehicle of the Hokekyo.
This passage explains the difference between the age of the Manifest Buddha Shakyamuni (i.e., the historical Buddha, not be confused with the Eternal Shakyamuni of the sixteenth chapter) and the age of the Messenger of the Buddha, the Bodhisattva, who propagates the Dharma in the age long after the Extinction. The ages, the people (capacities) of those ages, and the means of propagating the orthodox Dharma to those respective people are as different as can be.
These two ages, types of people, and methods are clearly distinguished by the treatment of recalcitrant audiences by the manifest (historical) Buddha in the first instance and by the Bodhisattva Jofukyo in an age after the Extinction of a former manifest Buddha in the second. The Buddha treats his audiences with great care and preparation as may be seen in the Five Periods of the Buddha’s teaching career worked out by Tendai and restated by Nichiren Shonin (ichidai goji): after His Enlightenment the Buddha immediately tested those who might listen with the Sudden Teaching of the Kegongyo but, finding that a large part of the audience remained deaf and dumb before its message He began to prepare the capacities of his hearers with progressively more difficult teachings until they are ready to hear His declaration just before He preaches the Hokekyo proper that all of the previous teachings are not yet the real Truth. Yet even when he begins to abandon Expedience and preach the Truth of the Hokekyo there are some who are not ready; five thousand “surpassingly arrogant” listeners, thinking they have realized the Truth already, when in fact they have not, rise and depart from the assembly and the Buddha is silent and does not hinder them; He then declares the branches and leaves are no longer present but only the true core, the true, sincere ones. We see that the Buddha does NOT pursue them for they are of a capacity (ki) that would not believe and only blaspheme; to save them from a terrible karmic fate He lets them depart and says it is a good thing. (Hobenbon 2 (T.9.7a5-13) This method is based on their having already planted some good karmic roots: after suitable maturation (juku) he saves them later in the Great Parinirvana Sutra (Daihatsunehangyo) and is able to do so because he allowed them not to blaspheme the Supreme Truth. (STN, v. 1, 944-945) Even later in the Sutra when He prepares to reveal the Hommon, he removes gods and humans to other lands (T.9.33a13-14,23-24,b4-5). Even in the Buddha’s Lifetime (zaise) with a predominance of good karmic influences in the principal capacities there are those with some good but without faith in the Ultimate Truth: the Buddha either allows the Five Thousand to depart or even deliberately removes the gods and humans (STN, v. 1, 705).
Nichiren Shonin concludes very clearly that in general “in the Latter Age those without good [karmic roots] are many; those having good [karmic roots] are few.” This is a general characteristic of the Latter Age (matsudai), meaning the Latter Dharma (mappo). People of our age are blasphemers but there were almost none in the time of the Buddha and so for this age the method must be different: “The Buddha did not cure any blasphemers against the Dharma, because there were none when the Buddha was in the world. In the Latter Dharma (mappo) it is full of the Strong Enemies of the One Vehicle. The benefit of the Bodhisattva Fukyo refers to this.” (STN, v. 2, 1850) In this our age of the Latter Dharma the vast majority of people are blasphemers (unbelievers opposed to the truth) and must receive the seed of the good, the seed of Buddhahood and form ‘the rebellious condition (or, connection, gyakuen) by which they eventually attain Buddhahood much later.
Now in light of these words we ask: are those who so easily propose the abolition of the teaching methods of Nichiren Shonin, claiming to be as wise as Shariputra? Or perhaps they are claiming to be as wise as the Buddha Shakyamuni Himself? If Nichiren Shonin felt compelled to use the methods of the worldling (unenlightened) teacher, how is it these people (who cannot even completely agree on a consistent doctrine) claim that they are wiser and can use the methods suited to the Buddha’s Lifetime?
(T.9.50c29): and also they not accept the Four Unities of the Original State Which Opens the Recent and Reveals the Original.” (Hokke mongu 10B (T.34.141a24-25) This Original state (honji) is the Eternal Buddha, the being Whose existence is denigrated by the Fuji-ha and likened to “Santa Claus” etc. by certain caucasian representatives of other sects. It is worth noting then that, judging by the Tendai Daishi’s commentary employed by Nichiren Shonin, the people who are proposing the abolition of shakubuku are (in many instances, at least) more like the unbelieving opponents of Jofukyo than Jofukyo himself. Perhaps then little wonder that they effectively wish to destroy his type of teaching.
“Question: If, because the masses of beings would blaspheme, the Buddha at the very first did not preach the Hokekyo but after more than forty years preached the Hokekyo, why do you in the present era not preach the Provisional Sutras but without further ado preach the Hokekyo, cause people to blaspheme and fall to the Evil Ways of Rebirth?
“In the polluted era of the Latter Age it is would be difficult for there to be even one person in ten thousand to be of the matched capacity (to ki) and be likely to enter the First Abode. Furthermore, because the person who converts is not the Buddha, it would be a difficult thing for him to reflect on the capacities. Therefore the Buddha has left it that for the sake of rebellious conditions and obedient conditions (gyaku en jun en) one should first preach the Hokekyo. But there would also be cases even after the Extinction [of the Buddha] when to those who would likely become the congregation of the matched (to ki shu) capacities one would first preach the Provisional Sutras. Furthermore the person who puts pity (hi) first preach the Provisional Sutras first, like the Buddha Shakya. Those who put sympathy (ji) first should preach the Real Sutra first, like the Bodhisattva Fukyo.
Here again Nichiren Shonin explains that there are few people with karmic roots with regard to the Buddha Vehicle (not one in ten thousand) and people in this age are overwhelmingly likely to fall to the Evil Ways of Rebirth (beasts, hungry ghosts, hells), based on their past karma, so if they are going to tend that way in any case, why not have them fall and at the same time plant the seeds of future Buddhahood? Nichiren Shonin distinguishes between the punishment of “worldly sin” (seken no tsumi), the conventional sins of lying, stealing, murder and so on with regard to ordinary circumstances, sins which are punished in due course by the law of karma but which do not in and of themselves lead to anything greater and the transworldly sin (shusseken) of blasphemy against the Dharma (hobo). which is far more serious in its nature and consequences but at the same time contains the seed of future Buddhahood. Those who refuse to do shakubuku, that is “conversion by the rebellious (or opposition)” (gyaku ke) or “forced poisoning” (godoku), in this age of mappo with its preponderance of inferior capacities are actually not showing compassion but abandoning those who would receive the seed of Buddhahood (busshu) no other way. Even if there are a few people who will benefit from shoju, to adopt this as the general policy is to ignore the needs of many for the sake of one or two. Those who propose a complete reversion to shoju are wrongly assuming that those ready for the Hokekyo, with good karmic seeds ready to mature, are predominant.
According to the collection of Nichiren Shonin’s works in the Iwanani shoten Nihon shiso taijei (v. 14), p. 156, this passage of forming a connection to the True Dharma by blaspheming it, being punished, and then attaining Buddhahood in the future, is “forming the condition of the poison drum” (dokku kechien) and is the basis of Nichiren Shonin’s “shakubuku”.
This propagation is for the era of the Latter Dharma (mappo) or Latter Age (matsudai) which is not limited to Nichiren Shonin’s time as we demonstrated above.
Doubtless people who think they are clever will say that this proves Nichiren Shonin really meant to practice shoju. But clearly he is here using the shakubuku-shoju dichotomy in a different way: namely, the use of force in spreading the Dharma, not the fundamental technique. Obviously the shakubuku here refers to the Mongol king’s chastising of the ruler of Japan. As we shall see in his more or less definitive work on the subject Nichiren Shonin’s use of shakubuku clearly applied to his own propagation and his harsh but entirely logical criticism of other sects. It was closely intertwined with his view of the Hokekyo, its position in the Buddha’s preaching and exclusive practice.
The Provisional Teachings, good within their own sphere (tobun), are now not merely ineffective but also have become positive hindrances to the fundamental intention of the Buddha which is the spread of the Hokekyo and, in particular, its Essence, exclusively. (We should keep in the mind the quotation from Tendai (Hokke gengi 9A (T.33.792b)); it is important in understanding the nature of shakubuku; in the present case it is applied to the temporal circumstances of the Latter Dharma.
Nichiren Shonin, who repeatedly cited this text, saw it as the inspiration for his life’s work (STN, v. 1, 853; v. 2, 1738-1739) and felt that those who “do not fear the character ‘chi’ (set aside)” would live easy lives now but fall to the Unremitting Hell thereafter. (STN, v. 1, 487) together with their disciples (STN, v. 2, 1254-1255).
We can ascertain from these passages that Nichiren Shonin clearly saw his whole mission in figuratively military terms: a struggle to overcome the Provisional Teachings, which had outlived their usefulness and had become hindrances, and establish the Hokekyo alone as the single truth for our age.
This fundamental attitude of the Hokekyo is in contrast to the Nehangyo (Nirvana Sutra) which allows Provisional Teachings (T.33.792b18); this is because it is a supplementary re-exposition and re-effacement of the Buddha’s various teachings (tsuisetsu tsuimin).
Here the Lord Shakyamuni Himself propagated by “Breaking and Subduing” (shakubuku), when He finally preached the Hokekyo in the last eight years of his life, for the Hokekyo in and of itself casts away all the other teachings. The same applies to Tendai teachers of the Counterfeit Dharma era, Tendai Daishi and Dengyo Daishi, who were the Messengers of the Buddha (STN, v. 2, 1850-1851, 1661) as is Nichiren Shonin himself (STN, v. 2, 1875) All of these ultimately did Breaking and Subduing when they propagated the Hokekyo as the Supreme Truth against all other teachings.
This then is the meaning of the ‘Breaking and Subduing’ in the deeper sense: it is closely linked to the concept of the exclusive practice of the Hokekyo (senji Hokke) which, in turn, is based on the concept of the relative sublation (sodai myo kaie) in which the Hokekyo sublates (opens and merges) the various teachings into itself but always remains in a superior position and denies the other teachings; this position was ‘denial in terms of the sections (the five respective periods and types of sutras of the Buddha’s Lifetime: yakubu datsu shaku); this negative view was known in Tendai circles and was associated with the Onjoji (Miidera) Temple and can be traced back to Chisho Daishi and ultimately to Myoraku Daishi (Zhanran/Chan-jan) in T’ang China; Nichiren Shonin’s opponents took the opposite view associated with Hieizan, affirmation with regard to the teachings (yaku kyo yo shaku) that the Hokekyo merely affirmed the validity of all Buddhist teachings and this interpretation was later used by his critics to attack the whole Nichiren Shonin and his whole movement. It is not a question of a mere sectarian superiority or transcending other types of Buddhism as a some sort of boast: it goes to the very heart of the Sutra and its fundamental position in Buddhism.
If we compare Nichiren Shonin’s ideals with those of the so-called ‘shoju’ leaders we can see a clear contrast: the former merely “respectfully guards the Golden Words of the Buddha” and determines that the Buddha has fixed the true practice of the Sutra as the assertion of the One Buddha Vehicle and the punishment of Avici for unbelief; the latter are uncomfortable with many salient features of the Sutra and wish to change things to suit their own tastes and desire to recruit people who will naively follow them. (It is clear where they will follow the ‘shoju’ leaders TO!) Moreover, it is hardly surprising that one of them has already declared his abandonment of Nichiren Shonin and his “return to Shakyamuni”; how sad, for Nichiren Shonin has shown throughout his writings that he is merely following the Decrees of Lord Shakyamuni, as can be seen from of the passages cited above. In reality, of course, this person is not really trying to “return” to the teaching any more than he really wishes to establish the practice of shoju for he and his allies will violently attack anyone who disagrees with them. They are reminiscent of the pseudo-Asian martial arts show whose protagonists claimed to practice “selective non-violence”. (Even the armed forces practice “selective non-violence.) These people practice “selective shoju”: they will be very “accepting” as long as one consents to their ideas.
DOES KYOGYOSHO GOSHO REALLY URGE SHOJU?
“Now in the two thousand years of the True and Counterfeit [Dharmas] when they kept and relied upon the Lesser Vehicle and Provisional Great Vehicle, and practices putting one’s merit [effort] into them, in general there was benefit. Even so, although everyone who practiced those various sutras thought that they obtained the benefit by the various sutras upon which they relied, when we inquire on the meaning by the Hokekyo, they had not one bit of benefit. What is the reason why? It being when the Buddha was in the world they formed a connecting condition with the Hokekyo but it depended upon whether or not there was maturation or not in their capacities. Those whose capacities of the Perfect Teaching are pure and matured in the time [when the Buddha] was in the world attained Buddhahood. Those whose faculties and capacities were faint and inferior [or not yet mature] backslid to the True Dharma [era] and took their realization from the Jomyo [Vimalakirti], Shiyaku, Kan[muryoju]kyo, Ninno hannya kyo and so on, just as when [the Buddha] was in the world. And so in the True Dharma [era] was jointly possessed together of the three, teaching, practice and realization.
“In the Counterfeit Dharma [era] there was teaching and practice but no realization. Now on entering the Latter Dharma there are the teachings, but there is no practice or realization. There is not one person of those who formed the connecting condition when the Buddha was in the world. The two capacities of the Provisional and Real [Teachings] are all gone. At this time for the two [types] of people who are of the rebellious [sins] and blasphemy of the present era for the first time one takes Namu Myoho renge kyo of the ‘Chapter of the Measure of Life’, the Essence of the Hommon as the laying down of the seed (or, as the Buddha Seed). “‘This good, excellent medicine now I leave here. You should take and swallow it. Do not worry that you will not be cured’” refers to this.
“It is as when long ago in the Counterfeit Dharma [era] of the past Buddha Ionno when there was not one person who knew the Great Vehicle, the Bodhisattva Fukyo came forth and chanted the Twenty-four Characters which the Master of Teachings had preached. Those who heard those Twenty-four Characters not lacking one person also [later] encountered the Great Being (Mahasattva) Fukyo and obtained benefit. This then was because they made the previous hearing of the Dharma the laying down of the seed (geshu).
Comment: here again there is emphasis on the era of the Latter Dharma, described as polluted and evil (joku aku), and the point is made that there is some difference between the Counterfeit Dharma and the more evil Latter Dharma era. In the Latter Dharma the other sutras exist only as teachings having no practical benefits. Likewise the capacities for such teachings have completely disappeared. As Nichiren Shonin had stated earlier: there are “only evil countries, evil kings, evil ministers, evil commoners and they turn against the True Dharma and revere perverted dharmas and perverted teachers” (STN, v. 1, 735, cited above). Even conceding that there a few people who have planted the seed of Buddhahood, among the great number of blasphemers in the world they are “like a little water in the midst of a great fire” and “only result in evil karma.” (STN, v. 1, 778 ll. 1-4) So the only thing left is to lay down anew the seeds (geshu) of future Buddhahood by the Five Characters “Myoho renge kyo” (Nichiren Shonin ibun kogi zenshu, v. 12, 356-357) and this applies to both evil people who commit the Five Rebellious Sins and those who blaspheme; that is all that there is.
The Kyogyosho gosho then demonstrates the parallelism between Nichiren Shonin’s own case and that of the Bodhisattva Fukyo of the Counterfeit Dharma era of an ancient Buddha. Although the Saint’s narration is somewhat abbreviated but it is clear from the Sutra text itself: the surpassingly arrogant four congregations rejected the Bodhisattva Fukyo’s Twenty-four Character” salutation. (N.B. Nichiren Shonin describes this as having been preached (tokiokitamaishi) by the Master of Teachings; it is a legacy of a Buddha just as the Daimoku has been left by the Buddha Shakya to the Bodhisattva Jogyo, who appears as Nichiren Shonin.) Subsequently, however, after having fallen to Avici Hell for a thousand kalpas and after their sin has been completely atoned for they again meet Jofukyo and the teaching of Supreme Buddhahood. (T.9. 51a26-b1) (Nichiren Shonin zenshu kogi, v. 24, 213).
To preach this Sutra widely.
If we now return to the text of the Kyogyosho gosho, can we say that it is a shoju document?
“Unskilled, indeed” (tsutanai kana) he calls them. (STN, v. 2, 1481 l. 9), for in reality all attainment really comes from the seeds planted by the Hokekyo.
To suggest, as the ‘shoju’ partisans have done, that the abolition of such former precepts is merely the “opinion of some people” is effectively to dismiss the whole tenor of Nichiren Shonin’s teaching on the subject. It is to insult the Patriarch and his doctrine based on the Sutra.
The final section of the Kyogyosho gosho concludes that it is Ryokanbo’s behavior that is guilty of self praise while disparaging others (jisan kita) and notes his excuses for not debating Nichiren Shonin. Nichiren Shonin instructs his disciples to say “without change” (or, in some versions, “without doubt”) that the Ritsu Sect are rebels against the country (Risshu kokuzoku). He concludes with the passage (cited by the ‘shoju’ advocates) against improper demeanor in a public forum. (If this Kyogyosho gosho were a genuine work and dated to the year 1278 this instruction would be in accord with Nichiren Shonin’s expectation of an imminent debate with the other sects, expressed in the autograph Shonin gohenji (STN, v., 1279)).
In any case Nichiren Shonin instruction that, “because in a public forum one speaks reasonable doctrine, vulgar words and strong words and self-conceited demeanor are not to be seen by others’ eyes; they would be shameful (or base). Be ever more careful of body, speech, and mind and respectfully face the host, face the host”, does not mean--in context-- the abandonment of shakubuku. These are simply the same kind of instructions he had previously given to disciples summoned before the authority. For example, in the Monchu tokui sho (NSIJR, 1135d) (STN, v. 1, 439) addressed to Lord Toki when he was summoned with two others before the Kamakura Shogunate’s Court of Inquiry (monchujo) in 1269 (Bun’ei 6) Nichiren Shonin gives somewhat similar advice about proper demeanor and language in such a court even when provoked by enemies.
Here, in effect, he is saying: do not act in such a way so as to be found in contempt of court and thus wreck our case. It has nothing to do with the abolition or curtailment of shakubuku, which is clearly expressed through much of the rest of this very work. Nor, we may add, does genuine shakubuku have anything to do with personal attacks, misrepresentation or threats that have characterized those who are in or have emerged from the modern Fuji-ha/Soka Gakkai cult.
The leaders of this movement claim to follow shoju, arrogating to themselves the right to declare Nichiren Shonin’s methods invalid and his clear reasoning wrong; is this not criticizing others’ teaching let alone their own (nominal) master’s teaching? But even leaving that aside, since their ‘shoju’ proclamation, have they not continued their attacks, often ad hominem attacks, on those who do not agree with their policies? How is this shoju? And if it is shakubuku, why is it they denounce shakubuku?
Furthermore, they keep no shoju attitude even among themselves: one of them has openly renounced Nichiren Shonin and, in turn, been denounced by one of his erstwhile allies in vulgar terms. How is this shoju or even common courtesy?
We may say then that, contrary to the ‘shoju’ party’s assertions, the Kyogyosho gosho, does not authorize the abolition of shakubuku and, what is more, this ‘shoju’ party has little to do with genuine shoju.
(1) the criticisms levelled by the ‘shoju’ party have nothing to do with the Kempon Hokke which states its scriptural, actual, and rational shakubuku policy quite clearly in the ‘Fundamental Principles’; any past action by certain ex-Soka Gakkai members who cleverly insinuated themselves into leading positions in this group have nothing to do with us.
(2) the call for shoju methods, which these people cleverly confuse with mere politeness and ethical behavior (a politeness and ethics they freely ignore whenever it suits their purpose) is little more than a smokescreen for cementing their own current views (whatever they may be) in place; their actions speak louder than their innocent-sounding words: ‘shoju’ to them means that no one may differ from them but they are free to attack with vituperative expressions of any kind those who dare to question their muddled ideas.
(3) contrary to these people’s claims, the era of the latter Dharma (mappo) is not over and Nichiren Shonin’s religion will last till Lord Maitreya descends from Tushita Heaven to become the next manifest Buddha. There is no reason to conclude from the orthodox Buddhist standpoint that a new era, returning to the age of the Buddha, with its use of Provisional Teachings, has appeared. Likewise, it is clear that mappo is regarded by both the Sutras and Nichiren Shonin (and even their supposed hero Udana Nichiki for that matter) as an objective historical concept. To make the statement that mappo is all in your mind and can be safely ignored is a misinterpretation of Buddhist idealism (yuishin engi etc.); it is roughly equivalent to an ignoramus reading that all things are empty and without self-nature and then thinking he can run in front of a Mack truck unscathed because “it’s only an illusion”.
(4) The claims from various texts of Nichiren Shonin that mention shoju do not really back its use in this era in a major way; it might be used in certain cases but the overwhelming practice is to be ‘breaking and subduing’’ (shakubuku), asserting the inherent superiority and exclusive practice of the Hokekyo against all other Sutras, Teachings and their derivative sects; this is conversion by opposition or rebellion (gyakke), forced poisoning (godoku), forming the condition of the poison drum (dokku no en wo musubu); the people of this era are overwhelmingly evil. In contrast to people reborn in earlier eras, where Provisional Teachings might serve as the catalyst (condition: en) to awaken the seed of Buddhahood already planted by the preaching of the Hokekyo in earlier eons, the people of this era are ‘those who have never put down the seed of Buddhahood’ and those who ‘do not yet have good’; mostly doomed to fall to evil rebirths, they must be seeded with the Essence of the Hokekyo, ‘Namu Myoho renge kyo’ and if they blaspheme against this One Truth, they will likewise fall but now with a transcendent reason for the seed buried within them will lead eventually to Buddhahood.
(5) The concept of shakubuku is inherent in the Hokekyo’s assertion of absolute supremacy, ending all expedient teachings; from its very nature as the supreme teaching the Hokekyo ‘breaks and subdues’ all other teachings. In preaching the Hokekyo, the Tathagata Shakya does this ‘breaking and subduing’ of all He has preached previously “for more than forty years” in which he “had never yet revealed the Truth.” Thus shakubuku is closely interrelated with the Sutra itself and with exclusive practice.
(6) All we have now are worldling (unenlightened) teachers (bonshi) who cannot really ascertain the inner capacities of beings; such judgments were extremely difficult even for advanced, saintly or sagely disciples in the Buddha’s own time and led to spiritual disasters (as we saw above). Thus we, worldlings acting as the messengers of the Buddha in the Latter Age, have no choice to press ahead with the highest and final teaching.
The so-called ‘shoju’ leaders, in any case, only pretend to be based on majority rule, though they do, indeed, play to the crowd. When they “study” Buddhism, especially that of Nichiren Shonin, they are not looking for the Truth or salvation or anything of that sort. What they are doing is reminiscent of an anecdote about W.C. Fields. Fields was notoriously anti-religious all his life so when a friend visited him in the hospital during his final illness he was surprised to find the great comedian propped up in bed reading the Bible. Asked what he was doing, Fields replied in his trademark nasal voice, “Looking---- for loopholes.” That about sums up what these people are doing.
We must now pose this question: why do these people not just leave Nichiren Buddhism instead of trying to undermine from within? (Nichiren Shonin cites the Sutra teachings which predict that the Buddha Dharma will be destroyed from within by monks not by external persecution: STN, v. 2, 1050-1051) At least past apostates such as infamous Shincho (1596-1659), who left the Nichiren movement for the Shinzei Branch of Tendai and spent the remainder of his life writing scurrilous attacks on Nichiren Shonin while chanting the Nembutsu, had enough honesty to admit they did not really believe in the teachings of Nichiren Shonin and that they even resented everything he said; thus they departed for other forms of Buddhism. These ‘shoju’ people, however, want to have their cake and eat it too: having found priestly patrons who gladly receive their toadying and offerings and who, in return, back anything these people say, it would simply be too much of a sacrifice for them to give up their cushy positions and privileges.
Finally let me remind honest, sincere Kempon Hokke believers of this fact: we ultimately come from a group of spiritual forebears who were a minority, unfairly denounced even by the officials of their own sect. Holding fast and true to the original teachings of Nichiren Shonin, they suffered untold persecutions and difficulties. Are we now to hold their sacrifice at naught and cave in to those who would efface virtually all that Nichiren Shonin said and did based on the Sutras? Are we now to compromise, nay, sell out the martyrs’ noble principles so as to follow the whims of a few ambitious people? Are we to turn against the Patriarch Nichiren and the Sutras?
I know that if you are of the true Kempon Hokke faithful, you can give only one answer. But you, not I, must give it Consider well what I have presented to you and pray to the Eternal Lord Shakyamuni for guidance.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.