Rokushu wrote:Another interesting question, is there such a thing as "heresy" or "blasphemy" in Buddhism? Can anybody really say this? It would be very unusual to hear this kind of speech from most (any) Buddhists I know from any tradition. But is there?
That's a question for Nichiren and maybe medieval Japanese Buddhists in general. According to him, there is, and he drew well defined lines between what was correct and incorrect according to Buddhist scripture and doctrine.
rory wrote:Wow SGI says the Lotus Sutra has lost its power.....I'm really shocked; then why do they chant Daimoku? This is really surprising to me. I know they were very Ikeda-ish & personally viewed them as rather neo-Buddhist but denying the Lotus Sutra is a big deal..
Myoho-Nameless wrote:I have heard the SGI in Japan is beginning to fracture as well. I wonder how this will affect the SGI abroad....If the LS has no power, what are they?
It's part of the doctrinal package they inherited from Shoshu which is part of the justification for positing Nichiren as the "true" Buddha and the high priest as an infallible vessel of the Dharma. It isn't an outright denial of the Lotus Sutra but it is a kind of doctrinal carte blanche that says the Lotus Sutra, as we know it, is merely an expedient and a relic of the Dharma of Shakyamuni, which is incomplete and no longer viable. The essence of the Lotus Sutra must supposedly be expounded again by Nichiren for the Latter Age and by the high priest throughout Mappo.
Nameless asked what happened to the SGI to bring them to their current state in the process of gradually becoming a personality cult. Basically, it's this and similar doctrinal devices being employed under a need for someone to take the place of the high priest in their inherited doctrinal scheme.
Rokushu wrote:If I said that the historical Buddha wasn't really the true Buddha, but my guru or teacher or the founder of my "sect" was in fact the eternal Buddha (or implied so) would I be crossing a line? Or is Buddhism "anything goes" and this would be perfectly acceptable?
Life is "anything goes," and we only imagine otherwise until "anything" happens. I think all that can be done is to build, like Nichiren, our criteria and arguments for what constitutes a correct and incorrect understanding of Dharma, and go from there. I, as en example, don't consider Pure Land to be a Buddhist tradition and have read that aspects of its origins go back to a time when Buddhism coexisted with Zoroastrianism. Pure Land emphasizes other-power like theist religions do and also reject most of the Buddhists canon. They are non-Buddhist. Still, I'm sure many people disagree with my assessment.