Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== Faith Requires Objectivity ===
'''B:''' I understand that. But faith and scholarship are different things. Even if the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha is true, why should faith have to concern itself with it?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that too. As the saying goes, “Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it.”<ref>“Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it” renders the proverb iwashi no atama mo shinjin kara (鰯の頭も信心から), an ironic expression for the power of faith to invest even an insignificant object with religious value.</ref> But that is precisely where the crucial issue lies. It marks the dividing line between superstition and genuine faith. A scripture says that faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith increases wrong views; faith and understanding must be harmonized and become the basis of life.<ref>Seno’o cites a Tiantai formulation attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597): “Faith without understanding increases ignorance; understanding without faith increases wrong views” (信而不解、増長無明。解而不信、増長邪見). See Zhiyi, Weimojing Xuanshu (維摩經玄疏, J. Yuimakyō Gensho).</ref> A merely subjective faith that says “just believe,” while ignoring science, cannot be called genuine faith. Unless the content of faith possesses objectivity, it lacks social universality and cannot provide genuine satisfaction. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose there is an old woman devoted to Tenrikyō. She is completely absorbed in her faith. Then her only son, who has been educated in school, begins searching for a religion of his own. Naturally, he first examines the Tenrikyō faith practiced by his mother. But suppose it fails to satisfy him intellectually, and he turns instead to Christianity. Now you have one person in the household crying, “Save me!” and the other saying, “Amen!” What kind of atmosphere would that create in the family? Can they simply shrug and say that faith is subjective and leave each other alone? The more authority each of them invests in their own faith, and the more faithfully each adheres to it, the more each will inevitably look upon the other with a certain painful sense of dissatisfaction. But suppose, by contrast, that the mother’s faith were something that could also be accepted on scholarly grounds, and the son came to embrace the same Tenrikyō faith. Their perspectives and degree of commitment might still differ, but the whole household could at least share a common religious life, and wouldn’t that bring greater satisfaction?

'''B:''' That’s true. And not just in religion—it’s always pleasant when people see eye to eye.

'''A:''' Exactly. If the object of faith has a content that can withstand scholarly, moral, and aesthetic judgment, then even if people approach it from different perspectives, it can gather and embrace a greater number of spiritual brothers and sisters throughout the world. That is why faith too requires an objective and scientific element, especially in the modern age. Nichiren himself said, “The Buddha Dharma is reason.”<ref>“The Buddha Dharma is reason” (buppō wa dōri 仏法は道理なり). Nichiren, Shijō Kingo-dono Gohenji 四条金吾殿御返事 (“Reply to Shijō Kingo,” 1277).</ref>

<span id="Page 271"></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 271|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 271</div>

For a seeker who tries to ground faith in reason, it is no longer possible to ignore the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha and simply assert dogmatically that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone embodies the Buddha’s spirit.” Such a religion will become increasingly incapable of speaking to the present or the future.

'''B:''' I understand now that religion cannot survive as merely subjective belief. And I also understand that, in light of the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha, Nichiren doctrine exactly as it stood six hundred and fifty years ago cannot simply be applied to modern people. So if Master Nichiren were born today, do you really think he would still invoke the polemical spirit of the Four Dicta—“the other schools cannot lead to enlightenment,” “they are the root cause of falling into hell,” “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone is the Dharma of buddhahood”—and make chanting the ''daimoku'' his one and only method for saving the modern world?<ref>Nichiren’s Four Dicta (shika kakugen 四箇格言) are conventionally summarized as “Nenbutsu leads to the Avīci hell” (nenbutsu muken 念仏無間), “Zen is the work of the devil” (zen tenma 禅天魔), “Shingon destroys the nation” (shingon bōkoku 真言亡国), and “Ritsu is treasonous” (ritsu kokuzoku 律国賊). The four formulas encapsulate Nichiren’s polemical rejection of the principal rival Buddhist traditions of his day.</ref>

'''A:''' I don’t think so. In fact, I began this new movement only after asking myself over and over for a long time: “If Master Nichiren appeared in the world today, what would he do?” A man with a scholarly conscience as sharp as his would not close his eyes, six hundred and fifty years later, to the transformed culture and social conditions of the modern world—much less to everything that modern Buddhist scholarship has discovered—and simply repeat the old formulas: “The other schools cannot attain the Way; the ''Lotus Sutra'' is the path to buddhahood.” Nor would he insist upon the absolute supremacy of ''daimoku'' chanting.

'''B:''' Then what form do you think he would take?

'''A:''' Probably something very much like this new movement—when considered from the standpoint of Buddhism’s essential nature and the demands of the present age.