Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== On the Scriptural Basis of the New Movement ===
'''B:''' I understand. Earlier you said ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''. Would ''Namu Shakamuni Butsu'' not be sufficient?

'''A:''' According to correct Sanskrit usage, when ''namu''—“homage”—is used, the ending ''-āya'' must be added to indicate the dative case. Only then does it properly mean “homage to Śākyamuni Buddha” or “I take refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha.” With Namu Shakamuni Butsu, by contrast, “Śākyamuni Buddha” remains in the nominative, so the grammatical relationship between namu and “Śākyamuni Buddha” does not work properly. Or so I am told. Since we are launching a new movement aimed at Buddhist unity, we have taken the opportunity to correct the expression as well.<ref>Seno’o prefers Namu Shakamuni Budaya 南無釈迦牟尼仏陀耶 to the conventional Namu Shakamuni Butsu 南無釈迦牟尼仏, explaining the former as grammatically preferable on the basis of Sanskrit namas (“homage”) and the dative buddhāya. The phonetic form Budaya is retained here as Seno’o gives it rather than Sanskritized. The formula became characteristic of the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref>

'''B:''' I understand that too. But what about your authoritative scripture? You can hardly choose one scripture now—the ''Lotus Sutra'', the ''Amida Sutra'', or some other text—and carrying around the entire enormous Buddhist canon is obviously impossible.

'''A:''' You’re right. If we take the position that, despite differences of importance and emphasis, the entire Buddhist canon arises from the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, then it is impossible—especially after abandoning our former sectarian standpoint—to choose a single scripture as uniquely authoritative. So, for practical purposes, we have decided for the time being to adopt the ''Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures'' compiled by Kizu Muan and others.<ref>Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1876–1943) was a lay Buddhist reformer associated with efforts to make Buddhist scripture accessible beyond sectarian boundaries. His Shin’yaku Bukkyō Seiten (新訳仏教聖典 Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures), published in 1925, presented selections from major Buddhist scriptures in accessible modern Japanese and was intended to provide ordinary Japanese Buddhists with a common scriptural anthology</ref> It is a handy modern translation containing selections from the essential teachings of the entire canon.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t Kizu and the other compilers inevitably impose their own personalities upon such an anthology?

'''A:''' That cannot entirely be avoided. I would prefer something more thoroughly revised. If possible, I would like the members of our own movement eventually to compile and publish such a translation ourselves.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t that plant the seeds for yet another inevitable division?

'''A:''' I can’t deny that possibility. Since believers differ in their inclinations, if we make scriptures themselves the basis, division will naturally arise again. Indeed, the scriptures themselves recognize the necessity of diversified teaching. We find statements such as “innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma” and “because desires and dispositions differ, various teachings are preached.” A scripture could even be called the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings precisely because it recognizes the necessity of the Dharma being expressed in different forms. So if we make scripture the basis, division will certainly recur. Instead of defining the Buddha through the scriptures,…

<span id="Page 277"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 277|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 277</div>

…we should take the person of the Buddha as our starting point and reduce the essential meaning of the entire canon to the realization of love and equality. Wouldn’t Buddhism then be able to unite without strain? The essential point is to recognize that Amida Buddha, Mahāvairocana Buddha, and the other figures who came to be believed in as actually existing beings through faith in the scriptures are all representations of the person of Śākyamuni. I therefore propose that all Buddhists unite in Namu Shakamuni Budaya. It is like Christianity: however many denominations there may be, they are united in their object of faith—the one God—to whom they say “Amen.”

'''B:''' Wasn’t that ultimately the real intention behind Master Nichiren’s religious revolution as well?

'''A:''' Exactly. We should now subject it to modern criticism—including the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—and thereby purify it, while at the same time stripping away the old shell of ''daimoku'' chanting, corroded by all manner of popular beliefs and superstitions. In that way we can make the central principle of Buddhist unification unmistakably clear and, beyond that, establish the spiritual basis for a worldwide human fellowship. And this cry of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'' necessarily leads us to scrutinize the economic system that forms the basic condition of actual life. Since the present capitalist economic system violates the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, we have no choice but, in the name of that love and equality, to join the movement to transform it.

'''B:''' That seems to be one of the three central aims of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. But before you explain that, what does your movement intend to do about funerals? You certainly aren’t going to ask the priests to perform them.