Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== It is a Revival of Nichirenism ===
'''A:''' That’s right.

'''B:''' Even if you reject Nichirenism to that extent, doesn’t that amount to betraying Master Nichiren?

'''A:''' Not at all. Nichirenism, too, is one particular form that arose in response to the needs of its age. Looking at the history of the Master’s propagation of his teaching and the many writings he left behind, there is nothing objectionable about changing forms. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by reforming them in response to objective circumstances that one truly comes into contact with the spirit of Master Nichiren. The Master was in fact a man possessed of an extraordinarily enlightened and discerning…

<span id="Page 262"></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 262|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 262</div>

…intelligence. He was certainly no inflexible conservative who “stood by a tree stump waiting for a rabbit” or “glued the tuning pegs of a lute”—someone incapable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Mencius praised Confucius as “the sage who was timely,” but even more than this, our Master Nichiren was the exemplary sage who discerned the demands of the time. He said, “Everything depends upon the country and the time”; “Although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice must vary in countless ways according to people’s capacities and the circumstances of the age”; and “One should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country, it must necessarily be suitable for this country as well.”<ref>Seno’o assembles a series of classical and Nichirenist references around the importance of historical circumstance. The idioms “waiting by a stump” (守株) and “gluing the tuning pegs of a lute” (膠柱) denote foolish adherence to fixed conditions. “The sage who was timely” (聖之時者也) is Mencius’s famous characterization of Confucius (Mencius, “Wan Zhang II”). Nichiren’s statements that “everything depends upon the country and the time” (Senji-shō 撰時抄, 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, p. 1003); “although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice vary…” (Shōji Ichidaiji Ketsumyaku-shō  生死一大事血脈抄, 1272; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 523); and “one should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country…” (Kyōki Jikoku-shō 教機時国抄, 1262; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 242) allow Seno’o to present adaptation to modern social conditions not as a departure from Nichiren but as fidelity to his method.</ref> I could go on indefinitely. As these examples show, the religion of the Master was a religion of criticism. And if criticism is not equally rigorous in examining and settling accounts with oneself, can it really be called criticism? Perhaps this is also what Confucius meant when he said, “If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?”<ref>Confucius, Analects (Lunyu 論語), 4.1 (“Li Ren” 里仁): 「子曰、里仁爲美。擇不處仁、焉得知」 (“The Master said: ‘To dwell in benevolence is beautiful. If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?’”). The passage connects wisdom or discernment (zhi 知) with commitment to benevolence (ren 仁). Seno’o invokes it here to reinforce his claim that genuine criticism must also be directed toward oneself.</ref>