Nichiren, Soka Gakkai and Komeito - Religion and Politics in Contemporary Japan - page 38

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

'

is writings is how to understand his political attitude, an atti-
tude 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 Sat - (see also Sat - 1999) have shown that previous representa-
tions 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 Tenn - (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

-

g-
ures in society. As we shall see, this is central to how Soka Gakkai interpreted
the controversial idea of the of the Buddhist Law with the secular law

( - butsumy - g - ): 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

' fusion '

first believed that it would be dif-

ficult 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 e

ect as expounded in the Lotus Sutra. This is
apparent in the way Nichiren at di erent points in his life addresses changing

political authorities (Sat - 1999). A closer look at the locus of authority as

being the Lotus Sutra e ectively 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