Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== Forms Change ===
'''A:''' Exactly. Take an egg, for example. As long as the white and yolk remain as they are, the shell is an indispensable outer form. But once the egg has been nurtured by the mother bird and a chick begins to develop inside, that shell becomes an unnecessary opposing force. And unless it is broken, new life cannot emerge.

'''B:''' That sounds like Marx’s materialist dialectic.

'''A:''' Truth doesn’t become two different things depending on who says it. “Time” really is a mysterious force. It bears down upon us with a necessity that cannot be altered by the ideas of one or two individuals. That is why Master Nichiren began his ''Selection of the Time'' (''Senji-shō'') by writing, “In studying the Buddha Dharma, one must first of all learn the time.” He went on to say, “The cuckoo awaits spring and the cock awaits the dawn. Even animals are like this; how much more so a Dharma teacher practicing the Buddha Dharma!” Elsewhere, speaking in relation to the capacities of those being taught, he judged that “the wise person is one who accords with the time.” By invoking the examples of the cuckoo awaiting spring and the cock awaiting dawn, he made perfectly clear that the Dharma must never be taught apart from its “time.” Isn’t that an extraordinarily thoroughgoing insight?<ref>Nichiren (1222–1282), Senji-shō 撰時抄 (“Selection of the Time”), composed in 1275. The treatise emphasizes the necessity of discerning the historical “time” (toki) in determining the appropriate form in which the Buddhist Dharma should be propagated. Seno’o draws upon this principle repeatedly to justify the transformation of inherited Buddhist forms in response to modern conditions.</ref> Here ‘capacity’ means the particular character of the individual. The passage therefore rejects an individualistic movement of salvation based on the model of ‘prescribing medicine according to the illness,’ which takes the particular characteristics of individual persons as its object. Instead, it lays down the firm principle that we must move beyond the individual, take as our object the objective conditions of society as a whole, and make our primary concern a method of social salvation suited to the age.

'''B:''' That sounds very much like what the social sciences tell us.

'''A:''' There is another striking parallel. Among Master Nichiren’s writings is this passage, which explains the possibility of mass struggle in the present age. It is from the Shōgu mondō-shō:

The present age is a defiled age, and human feelings have become warped and distorted. Because provisional teachings and slanders of the Dharma abound, it is difficult for the True Dharma to spread. At such a time, practices such as reciting and copying the scriptures, as well as contemplation, reflection, and spiritual cultivation, are of no use. One must simply practice shakubuku<ref>Shakubuku 折伏, literally “to break and subdue,” refers to the forceful refutation of erroneous views and is conventionally contrasted with shōju 摂受, the more accommodating method of leading others toward the Dharma without directly refuting their views. The distinction became particularly important in Nichiren Buddhism, where shakubuku was understood as especially appropriate to circumstances in which erroneous teachings obstructed the Dharma.</ref>: if one has the power, use that power and authority to crush slander of the Dharma, and use Buddhist doctrine to attack erroneous…

<span id="Page 264"></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 264|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 264</div>

…teachings. Yet one must properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected and never cling exclusively to a single course.”<ref>Shōgu Mondō-shō 聖愚問答抄 (“Questions and Answers between a Sage and a Fool”); see Shōwa Teihon Nichiren Shōnin Ibun, vol. 1, pp. 363–64 (Gosho Zenshū, p. 143). The treatise argues that the appropriate method of propagation depends upon historical circumstances. Seno’o appropriates the passage to argue that the conditions of the present age demand open struggle rather than quietist self-cultivation.</ref>

What an uncompromising declaration! People who, when they hear the word Buddhism, immediately think of practicing seated meditation, or who tend to associate Buddhism with nonresistance, may well imagine a passage like this to be some kind of reverse propaganda by the Devil. But once we look squarely at actual society, we can see just how much what today passes for “self-cultivation” actually performs an opiate-like function,<ref>“Opiate-like function” (ahenteki yakuwari 阿片的役割) unmistakably evokes Marx’s characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Seno’o applies the criticism here specifically to contemporary Buddhist practices of “self-cultivation” (shūyō).</ref> castrating promising young people. In an age such as this, it seems to me that there is simply no way to build heaven on earth except through an open and forthright struggle. Yet struggle for struggle’s sake would be equally troublesome. This is why the phrase, “properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected,” strikes me as an extraordinarily well-considered teaching.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, it makes me think that the Buddhism we have known until now has been almost completely off the mark.

'''A:''' To speak frankly, much of it has indeed been completely off the mark. That is a consequence of religion’s having repeated the same formalistic sermons day after day, year after year—either unconscious of the character of the age or, even when conscious of it, tragically reduced to the role of a religion in service to established power. Society is moving increasingly toward equality of opportunity without distinctions in human worth between someone dressed in work clothes and someone dressed in a morning coat. Yet within the Buddhist institutions, which ought to be leading the way, they still make an endless fuss over the colors of clerical robes and distinctions in ecclesiastical rank. Social policy advances day by day in society at large—but what on earth are the Buddhist institutions doing?

'''B:''' On that point, I agree. I understand now that forms have to be reformed in accordance with the age. In the end, then, yours is a movement to revive Buddhism within the present age by giving it forms appropriate to that age.