Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== The Essence of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' I can see your point, at least to some extent.

'''A:''' Buddhism itself is fundamentally like this. Indeed, the Buddha is even described as “one whose bonds have been untied.” One of Buddhism’s distinctive features is precisely its refusal to cling to any fixed form. And that, too, is liberation.

To put it somewhat more technically, Buddhism denies “self” and “what belongs to the self”—that is, the individual ego and private property—and teaches “no-self” and “non-possession.” Even the last of the famous Three Dharma Seals, known as Buddhism’s three fundamental principles—“all conditioned things are impermanent,” “all dharmas are without self,” and “nirvana is tranquility”—ultimately comes down to the single word “emptiness.”<ref>The Three Dharma Seals (sanbōin 三法印) are impermanence (shogyō mujō), no-self (shohō muga), and the tranquility of nirvana (nehan jakujō). Seno’o interprets all three here in terms of emptiness (kū).</ref> It means not clinging to either A or B and therefore, depending upon circumstances, being capable of being either A or B: a teaching of unrestricted adaptability. In the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'', this is taught as “all dharmas are empty”; in the “Skillful Means” chapter it is called the “true aspect of all dharmas,” explained through the so-called Ten Suchnesses—“such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity,” and so forth—in order to demonstrate the capacity of things to change according to causes and conditions. Thus it is also taught that “dharmas have no fixed nature; the Buddha-seed arises through conditions.”<ref>The Ten Suchnesses (jūnyoze 十如是) appear in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the Lotus Sutra and describe ten aspects of the reality of phenomena, beginning with “such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity.”</ref>

Again, the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', which serves as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'', says: “Such non-form is not form; being without form, it is called the true aspect. Having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is clear and certain and not in vain, and among sentient beings they are truly able to remove suffering.”<ref>Muryōgi Kyō 無量義経 (Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings), Chapter 2, “Preaching the Dharma” (Seppō-bon 説法品第二); T 9, no. 276. The passage connects realization of the “true aspect” (jissō 実相), characterized by formlessness (musō 無相), directly with compassion: having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is “clear and certain and not in vain” and are thereby “truly able to remove suffering” (真能拔苦). The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is traditionally regarded in East Asia as the introductory scripture (kaikyō 開経) to the Lotus Sutra. Seno’o uses the passage to argue that nonattachment to fixed forms enables practical compassionate action rather than withdrawal from the world.</ref> According to the meaning of this passage, in short, one takes no fixed standpoint—a standpoint that even negates “no standpoint” as a fixed standpoint—and ultimately stands in a position that clings to nothing…

<span id="Page 263"></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 263|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 263</div>

…whatsoever. It is precisely in an attitude of freely adapting oneself according to time, place, and circumstance that thoroughgoing compassion manifests itself and the masses can truly be saved. Nichirenism is no exception to this Buddhist philosophical principle. Depending upon time, place, and circumstances, there should therefore be no objection to sublating it as well.<ref>“Sublate” renders yōki 揚棄, a modern philosophical term used to translate the Hegelian Aufheben or Aufhebung: the dialectical overcoming of a form while preserving what remains valid within it.</ref> The real question is whether there are sufficient grounds for reform in light of the culture of a particular age. When there are, isn’t it only by boldly carrying out such reform that we remain faithful to Buddhism’s true character and penetrate to the spirit of Master Nichiren?

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I can see that even the forms adopted by Master Nichiren may be reformed as the times change.