Religion and Politics in Contemporary Japan

Soka Gakkai Youth and Komeito

Anne Mette Fisker-Nielsen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415694247
• eBook ISBN: 9781136298905
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Presenting a study of politics at grassroots level among young Japanese, this book examines the alliance between the religious movement Soka Gakkai (the 'Value-creation Society') and Komeito (the 'Clean Government Party'), which shared power with the Liberal Democratic Party from 1999 to 2009. Drawing on primary research carried out among Komeito supporters, the book focuses on the lives of supporters and voters in order to better understand the processes of democracy. It goes on to discuss what the political behaviour of young Komeito supporters tell us about the role of religious organizations, such as Soka Gakkai, in Japanese politics. Unlike most other books on politics in Japan which tend to concentrate on political elites, this book provides extremely valuable insights into political culture at the grassroots level.

1 Nichiren, Soka Gakkai and Komeito

A question of political attitude

This chapter introduces Soka Gakkai and Komeito. Soka Gakkai derives its philosophical basis from the Buddhism of the thirteenth-century monk, Nichiren (1222–82). Nichiren, together with Hōnen, Shinran, and Dōgen, is regarded as one of the representatives of Kamakura ‘new Buddhism’. In Japan’s modern period, there have been many interpretations of this thirteenth-century Buddhist monk and claims to be following his religious, political and even nationalist agenda. Soka Gakkai is one of a number of religious movements that came into existence in the early part of the twentieth century and which offers its own reading of Nichiren. To better understand and discuss Soka Gakkai and the political party that grew out of it in the early 1960s, I first look at Nichiren, drawing on more recent studies of this well-known Japanese historical figure, although this is by no means a comprehensive account of his many writings or philosophical concepts. I then explore Soka Gakkai’s reading of Nichiren, before discussing Komeito with a particular focus on the last 10 years of the party as a coalition partner to the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party over which this book spans.

Nichiren – the votary of the Lotus Sutra

Nichiren has been seen as a controversial figure both in his lifetime and afterwards. His philosophy and vehement call for the exclusive practice of the Lotus Sutra have given rise to numerous interpretations. Nichiren had a unique understanding of his own reality in light of his reading of the Lotus Sutra, and interpreted the many stormy events in his life as proof of his role as the votary of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren’s understanding of reality is firstly based on the principle of ichinen sanzen. This concept developed from the Lotus Sutra¹ by Tientai (538–97), also known as Chih-I, describes the possibility of experiencing any of 3,000 realms (sanzen) in one thought moment (ichinen). One’s mind in a single moment of thought encompasses all elements in the world, and could potentially manifest any perspective including that of the Buddha. One’s experience of and action upon the world is consistent with one’s perspective of it spanning the interconnectedness of the individual, one’s environment and the world at large. Rather than one objective reality, reality differs according to one’s perceptions of it. Nichiren discusses these ideas in such writings as the Kanjin no honzon shō (Object of devotion for observing the mind). The focus on changing one’s conceptions and thereby experiences of life is key to self-transformation and to acting differently in the world, but it is also key to transformation of society. This runs like a red line through all his later teachings.

Contextualising this idea, Stone (1999a) argues that Nichiren, with his close ties to the Tendai tradition, has been central to the debates surrounding hongaku thought or the idea in medieval Japan that an individual was a ‘Buddha’ from the outset, independent of one’s life state, and with no further need for inner transformation. While this may at first sight seem similar to Nichiren, he could be said to actually reject hongaku thought (Asai 1945), a position that was later modified by Tamura (1965). Yet for Nichiren, enlightenment clearly meant awakening to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra (discussed in Stone 1999b; cf. Sueki 1999). Asai (1999) shows that while in principle this world is seen as the Buddha land, in reality it is not manifesting the Buddha aspects but those of strife and disaster. Most radical about Nichiren was that he wanted to actualise the Buddha land, distinctly different from hongaku thought. Having faith in and spreading the teachings of the Lotus Sutra also were clearly different from either enlightenment as more theoretical or the practice for monks or priests.

What is the message of the Lotus Sutra, then, and why does Nichiren see it as superior to any other teaching? First, it teaches universal Buddhahood, and with that the absolute value and limitless potential of human life in its most true form, that of noble action of the Buddha path. This carries the message of social action and teaching others about such a life, something that essentially is a political act. Nichiren often seemingly lambasted other schools of Buddhism, especially the Nembutsu, a term that refers particularly to the Pure Land School founded in the twelfth century by Hōnen. Chanting to the name of Amida Buddha² Nichiren regarded as deluding oneself; ‘heaven’ did not exist in another realm apart from in the process of transforming one’s own mind. This view is not different from the position of Tientai, or later Saichō (767–822), who brought the teachings of the Lotus Sutra to Japan and established the Tendai school of Buddhism. What made Nichiren controversial was his insistence on the superiority of the Lotus Sutra, which meant actively rebuking beliefs (shakubuku) contrary to those upheld by the Lotus Sutra (such as the Nembutsu).

While the principle of ichinen sanzen has not been seen as part of hongaku thought in and of itself, the idea that each individual is a Buddha just as they are had developed in Kegon, esoteric (mikkyō), and Zen traditions. This meant that ichinen sanzen was elaborated on in terms of such dominant discourses (Asai 1999; cf. Stone 1999a). When it came to Nichiren, he drew a distinction between traditional ideas of ichinen sanzen and his own doctrines. Nichiren concretely equated the seed of Buddhahood with the five Chinese characters that had come to represent the title of the Lotus Sutra – Myōhō-renge-kyō. This is the Japanese reading of the Chinese title Miao-fa-lien-hua-ching (today’s pronunciation), or the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law (or Dharma).³ Nichiren advocated the chanting of the title of the Lotus Sutra as the way to manifest Buddhahood. Nichiren maintained that to uphold the Lotus Sutra – to read, recite, live with faith in its teachings, expound it, and teach it to others – was not only the way to a supreme way of life but also the way to transform society.⁴

Dolce (1999) has argued that the Buddhist practice of Nichiren was not simply the embodiment of the Lotus Sutra as mediated by Tendai doctrine, but a development that can be better understood within the context of prevailing esoteric rituals of the Lotus Sutra. She sees Nichiren as having preserved, rather than invented, two important elements of esoteric praxis, namely the mandala (the honzon) and the mantra (Namu-myōho-renge-kyō) for which his Buddhist practice is known. The honzon is a visualisation in diagrammatic form of the ‘absolute’, a visualisation that has certain antecedents in other esoteric iconographic representations prior to Nichiren. By tracing the traditions of objects as representation of the absolute and of the Lotus Sutra, it is possible to see Nichiren as adding a calligraphic scroll to these iconographic physical images of the absolute. Dolce discusses Nichiren’s attitude towards esoteric Buddhism by placing his extension of the Lotus Sutra and Tendai doctrine and tradition not necessarily as a break with ‘old’ Buddhism, but rather as emerging out of a particular doctrinal development of which antecedents can be found in the past. She shows how the ritual dimension of esoteric Buddhism at the time of Nichiren provided him with specific models for what would develop into his own honzon.

Honzon means object of devotion, and often the honorific prefix go precedes the word making it gohonzon, which indicates further respect. In the Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind (1273), Nichiren describes this mandala as:

Myōho-renge-kyō appears in the centre of the [treasure] tower with the Buddhas Shakyamuni (also written Sākyamuni) and Many Treasures (Tahō) seated to the right and left, and flanking them, the four bodhisattvas, followers of Shakyamuni, led by Superior Practices. Manjushrī, Maitreya, and the other bodhisattvas, who are followers of the four bodhisattvas, are seated below.

(Writings of Nichiren Daishonin (WND)-1, 366)

Nichiren depicts calligraphically the treasure tower described in the Lotus Sutra, which he takes as representing the absolute, or reality when manifested through enlightenment to the Law defined as Namu-myōho-renge-kyō. In The Real Aspect of the Gohonzon (1277), Nichiren says that all living beings of the Ten Worlds ‘display the dignified attributes that they inherently possess’ (WND-2, 832), something they can manifest when the Law is at the centre of their life as depicted on Nichiren’s honzon. In this way, and different to previous iconographic honzons, Nichiren places Namu-myōho-renge-kyō as representing the Dharma, while placing various venerable figures, some of whom represent the Ten Worlds (from Buddhahood to Hell) on either side (cf. Dolce 1999).

In his Reply to Kyō’ō (1273), Nichiren shows how he sees the object of devotion as an embodiment of himself (cf. Habito 1999a). He writes, ‘I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life in sumi ink, so believe in the Gohonzon with your whole heart. The Buddha’s will is the Lotus Sutra, but the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Nam[u]-myōho-renge-kyō’ (WND-1, 412). This passage indicates that he saw himself as a person who personified the Dharma in the physical object of his honzon. Yet, rather than a relic seen as possessing supernatural powers, he stresses the power of his honzon is found in faith alone. For Nichiren the honzon was a graphic representation of how he viewed reality from the perspective of Buddhahood as depicted in the Lotus Sutra.

There is only partial agreement among the various Nichiren sects as to the exact practice and role of Nichiren in the Buddhist lineage. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss these various positions. For the relevance of this book, I limit the discussion to the version put forward by Soka Gakkai as followers of Nikkō and the Nichiren Shōshū branch. The various Nichiren schools differ considerably; only the followers of Nikkō took Nichiren Buddhist practice to mean solely the chanting of the daimoku (Namu-myōho-renge-kyō) with faith in Nichiren’s honzon. Soka Gakkai regards devotion or chanting to other objects such as the statue of Shakyamuni, as can be seen in Nichiren Shu, for instance, as contravening the teaching of Nichiren. There are no agreed conclusions in this regard. As we shall see in the next section, Nichiren Shōshū claimed further legitimacy with a particular honzon in their possession, the dai-gohonzon (dai meaning supreme), which they regard as the ultimate object of worship produced by Nichiren.

Nichiren’s Buddhism has often been seen as part of the ‘new’ Buddhism of the Kamakura Era (1185–1333), new movements that could be juxtaposed to the ‘old’, corrupt Buddhist establishment. Kuroda Toshio’s (1926–93) seminal work shows that such dichotomies, however, may have given overdue credence to the power of the ‘new’. He shows that the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period were a small heterodoxy against the dominant religio-political establishment, which he termed the kenmitsu taisei, or the exoteric-esoteric system that characterised Buddhist institutions (Kuroda 1996; Dobbins 1996; cf. Stone 1999a: 60–61). In this way, Kuroda redefines and relocates the Kamakura Buddhist sects to a more peripheral position, which may have posed less of a threat to the ‘old’ Buddhism of the kenmitsu system than at first presumed. Kuroda inspired models (Sasaki 1988, 1997; Satō 1998; discussed in Stone 1999b) nevertheless show how Nichiren was the paradigmatic figure of resistance to the religiopolitical establishment (see also Stone 1999b: 392). While there have been various critiques of Satō’s position for representing this new movement as overly egalitarian, progressive, and liberating juxtaposed against an oppressive Buddhist establishment (cf. Stone 1999a), he nevertheless draws attention to the more neglected ideological side of Nichiren’s teaching. As pointed out by Sueki (1999), one of the ambiguities about Nichiren’s writings is how to understand his political attitude, an attitude that was interpreted as nationalistic in the early twentieth century. In the next section I discuss the ideological side to Nichiren that is paramount to explore how Soka Gakkai interprets its relationship to political authority in a Japanese context.

Sasaki and Satō (see also Satō 1999) have shown that previous representations of Nichiren as a fervent supporter of the emperor and nationalism that arose in the Meiji Era are misconstrued. Rather, Nichiren could be seen as one out of very few who openly questioned the absolute authority of the divinely descended Tennō (see Habito 1999b). This does not mean either that he was automatically anti-establishment, an attitude of a modern-day political divide, but it was anti-establishment as far as Nichiren regarded the Lotus Sutra as the locus of authority (Stone 1999b: 394; Stone 1999a). In other words, if a government were to uphold the beliefs promulgated in the Lotus Sutra, so Nichiren would be regarding such governance as proper. Nichiren was not basing his analysis of politics on upholding or disputing particular political or economic systems, but rather, I would say more subversively, on upholding the conceptualisations expounded in the Lotus Sutra. Stone (1999b: 394–95) argues that the anti-establishment stance was launched from the margins of structures of religious and political power, and was an attempt to invert the upholders of the Lotus Sutra philosophy to their just position as leading figures in society. As we shall see, this is central to how Soka Gakkai interpreted the controversial idea of the ‘fusion’ of the Buddhist Law with the secular law (ōbutsumyōgō): their reasoning for entering politics. In other words, their emphasis is on the nature of political leadership.

A votary of the Lotus Sutra included thus for Nichiren denouncing those who go against the Buddhist Law,⁵ independent of the position they held in society. Taking the locus of authority to be the Lotus Sutra is a position that would be potentially subversive and clearly is a political position. Yet, as Nichiren lived in a feudal social system, Nichiren at first believed that it would be difficult for people to practise the belief of the Lotus Sutra without those in power converting to his teachings. At the same time, and this is the point of contention with later twentieth-century nationalists, for Nichiren there was no absolute ruler of authority in and of himself (such as the emperor), but only the Buddhist Law of cause and effect as expounded in the Lotus Sutra. This is apparent in the way Nichiren at different points in his life addresses changing political authorities (Satō 1999). A closer look at the locus of authority as being the Lotus Sutra effectively undermines the nationalist, reactionary interpretations of Nichiren that emerged in the modern period leading up to World War II, which shaped the modern and most common perception of Nichiren until more recently. As Deal (1999) argues, Nichiren can only be fully understood in his historical context, but it is now also clear that Nichiren saw the emperor and the shogun government as historical phenomena rather than ends in themselves.

Nichiren had what Habito (1999a: 299) describes as grounded or bodily awareness of seeing himself as living the Lotus Sutra’s predictions of persecution for the sake of the Dharma. This was nothing short of a mystical sense of ‘cosmic plenitude’, something that accompanied his every thought, word and action (Habito 1999a). Nichiren scholars refer to this as ji no ichinen sanzen, or concretised, particularised cosmic plenitude, as opposed to ri no ichinen sanzen, or conceptual, universal plenitude. The first succinctly depicts Nichiren’s attitude towards living how he interpreted the intention or spirit of the Lotus Sutra as something he embodied in his own life. This is compared to a meditative form for enlightenment represented by a conceptual understanding attributed to the Chinese Buddhist scholar Tientai. Habito argues that Nichiren’s mystical awareness of his own role in a given historical time confirmed the truth of this teaching, a confirmation manifested in the persecutions and tribulations he faced. As indicated, there seems to have been less of a definite divide between ‘old Buddhism’ and ‘new Buddhism’ (Stone 1999a, 1999b) than presumed. The difference seems to have arisen more because Nichiren returned to the traditional Tientai/Tendai position, but with the political emphasis on actualising this rather revolutionary line of thinking.

First, Tientai and Nichiren shared the position that the Lotus Sutra reigns supreme because of its promise of universal Buddhahood. Nichiren also shared with his Tendai contemporaries the view that the honmon, or the ‘origin teaching’/essential chapters (the last 14 chapters of the Lotus Sutra) are superior to the shakumon, or ‘trace teachings’/provisional chapters. In the shakumon, Shakyamuni is portrayed to have attained enlightenment in his lifetime, whereas in the honmon he is portrayed in the Lifespan of the Tathā gata (16th chapter) as having achieved enlightenment in the inconceivably remote past (Jpn. gohyaku jintengō). For a variety of reasons (see Asai 1975), the two divisions of the Lotus Sutra came to be ranked as inferior and superior as indicated by the terminology of provisional and essential teaching. At the time Nichiren arrived on the scene, the latter 14 chapters had been appropriated by the ‘exoteric’ branch of Tendai scholarship as the basis for hongaku doctrine (see Stone 1999b: 403). Nichiren saw himself as following the line of Tendai leaders,⁶ but with the mission to reveal how to practise in his age. Fundamental disagreement over this question among Nichiren’s closest disciples erupted soon after his death, concerning what Nichiren had meant should be the primary Buddhist practice and beliefs, the Nichiren Shōshū’s position of which I discuss below in relation to Soka Gakkai.

There have been other sources of tension, particularly as to Nichiren’s best-known writing, the Risshō Ankoku Ron (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land). It has warranted a host of interpretations, most contentious precisely because of disagreement over his attitude towards political leadership. The nuances of these interpretations are important to understand to distinguish later twentieth-century interpretations of Nichiren. Presented to the military leaders in Kamakura in 1260, this treatise encapsulates a dialogue between an erudite Buddhist host (the Master or shujin) and an unnamed traveller (the Visitor or kyaku). The Visitor represents the established view of the time, while the Master represents the standpoint of Nichiren. More specifically, the Visitor probably meant to symbolise the retired regent Hōjō Tokiyori, to whom this work was sent. Although Tokiyori had officia...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• A note to the reader
• Introduction: Youth, religion and politics in Japan
• 1 Nichiren, Soka Gakkai and Komeito: A question of political attitude
• 2 Aspiration for the good society: In support of a political party
• 3 A case of interpretation?: Komeito supporters as political pawns, right-wing collaborators, or political actors
• 4 Women, social change and realising political ideals
• 5 July 2009 to July 2010: The beginning of a new way of politics in Japan?
• 6 Religion, Soka Gakkai Buddhists and political participation
• Appendix: Soka Gakkai governance
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index