I offer the following, which is an edited version of something I wrote in 2002, while I was still a member of the SGI-USA. I thought it might be of interest.
===============================
Subj:thoughts on refutation
Date:9/8/2002
I have been doing some thinking about much of what has been written by those who have advocated the SS movement as being somehow an essential or intrinsically important part of our practice.
I offer the following, which is an edited version of something I wrote in 2002, while I was still a member of the SGI-USA. I thought it might be of interest.
===============================
Subj:thoughts on refutation
Date:9/8/2002
I have been doing some thinking about much of what has been written by those who have represented the SS movement as being somehow an essential or intrinsically important part of our practice. Many SS advocates now take the more expansive view of "Soka Spirit" as being something beyond the narrow focus originally given by the leadership and in the publications as being about the Nichiren Shoshu "priesthood issue," and point to it as an educational effort about the importance of the refutational element in the Buddhist canon.
The reason even these advocates' broader definition of the SS movement is problematic is because it specifies a portion of "Buddhism 101" and elevates it to what, in my opinion, is a position of unwarranted importance.
Certainly there are passages in the Lotus Sutra that speak clearly to the issue of refuting erroneous teachings. No need to list them here, as they have been (and, I'm sure, will be) quoted often and are known to most of us. But they are not ALL of the Lotus Sutra, nor are they even dominant, as I read it. I would say that Nichiren's identification of the "Expedient Means" and "Lifespan" chapters as the most important parts of the LS should be indicative of where our focus should be mainly concentrated.
In "Expedient Means" we find that much of the pre-LS teachings, while not necessarily false as in "erroneous," were not the whole picture, and that they were a means to the end of the revelations of the Lotus. "Honestly discarding" them we can approach the real deal, but even Nichiren did not ignore them, and researched them thoroughly and quoted them often in support of one point or another.
The "Lifespan" chapter tells us even more, in that the impression that Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha, had achieved his enlightenment for the first time under the tree at Bodh Gaya was in error, and he was really manifesting an eternal principle, unbelievably profound, from the infinite past. The Lifespan chapter ends with the famous pledge:
"Mai Ji Sa Ze Nin; I Ga Ryo Shujo; Toku Nyu Mujodo; Soku JoJu Busshin."
"At all times I think to myself:
How can I cause living beings
to gain entry into the unsurpassed way
and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"
(LS, Lifespan Chapter, Watson translation)
In this context, and in the context of Nichiren's writings about the need for refutation of erroneous teachings, we can agree that refutation has a place in Buddhist faith and practice. It is certainly part of causing "living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha," if said living beings are practicing erroroneous teachings.
But it is still a PART, and not the whole, or even the most important part. Nichiren talked about faith, practice and study, which include self-contemplation (kanjin), propagation, and studying to understand our bodhisattva mission, to be very brief (and perhaps a bit "shallow"?). As such, to have an organization that is broadly about the faith, practice and study of this Buddhism and then to have a sub-organization within it solely about the refutational aspect of it is to give that aspect undue importance. In order to correct this problem, I think that one of two things would need to happen:
Initiate appropriate sub-organizations for the rest of the "necessaries." You already have a Study Department (discussion of how that might better function is a separate issue for another time), so theoretically those interested in a focus on that aspect can join that. Maybe you should call it a study "movement" to give it equivalent status with the SS "movement." You can also initiate a propagation "movement," and persons interested in that can join it. There can be a "kanjin movement," for those who wish to focus on the elements of meditation and self-reflection. Maybe you could also have a "provisional bodhisattva movement" for those interested in societal outreach and charitable works. How about a "human revolution movement" as well?
OR...
You could eliminate the SS and the idea of separating this Buddhism into all of these elements, and simply have an organization dedicated to the faith, practice and study of Nichiren Buddhism. I believe that for one to practice according to the Buddha's intent, one needs to embrace the entire package, not zero in on specific parts of it as being more important than others.
Obviously, I prefer the second scenario.
Finally, in support of my assertion that the current SS emphasis on the importance of refutation is out of whack, I would ask folks to think about how important it was in Shakyamuni's time (as much as we can know, sifting through the legends and years of oral tradition), and why Nichiren, in spite of the persecution and erroneous teachings he faced, still emphasized "Expedient Means" and "Lifespan" as the core of the LS teachings. I would also ask folks to consider why, in a time (now) where there are essentially no restrictions or coercion or force involved in one's choice of religious pursuit, we should place the kind of emphasis on refuting erroneous teachings that Nichiren did, faced with extreme societal and government opposition and the threat of all manner of nastiness for those who did not conform to the erroneous teachings prevalent during his lifetime.
Specifically regarding Nichiren Shoshu, as I've said before, we've done plenty of refuting, and should move on. Refutation in general needs to be an understood part of our Buddhist faith and practice, but it does not warrant its own organization.
IMO, as always,
Andy Hanlen