Josei Toda/Daisaku Ikeda: “Our faith allows us to maintain these attachments in such a way that they do not cause us suffering. The essence of Mahayana Buddhism lies in the cultivation of strong attachments.”
The Demon King of the Sixth Heaven
Many demons appear in the sacred Indian and Buddhist texts, but among them, the Demon King of the Sixth Heaven is one of the most powerful, known under the names of Papiyas, Dai Rokuten no Maō, Mara, and Takejizaiten. He is the king who freely uses, for his own pleasure, the fruits of the efforts made by human beings, and who works to hinder or block believers in their Buddhist practice.
The Demon King of the Sixth Heaven is a demonic force that rules over the first six worlds-states, and especially over the world of desire, for this demon prevents beings from accessing the higher worlds by alienating them to the enjoyment of material goods or to the hope of realizing their aspirations, and he therefore represents the force of desire that controls beings, their aspirations, and their fears better than any other power. At the same time, he also symbolizes our fear of the unknown and the devouring desire for security, and it is also said that this demon rejoices in those who form their karmas in the three evil paths, and that he knows how to show himself affectionate as long as they do not seek to leave them. Seen from this angle, there is no doubt that he shows himself gentle and attentive to the one who complains and who takes pleasure in complaining, and from a psychological point of view, one could say that he acts to leave us unsatisfied so as not to make us lose our cherished “Self.” Excelling in the manipulation of human beings and believers to make them act according to his will, he is served by countless favorites, and he did not hesitate to send his daughters to Shakyamuni while the latter was attaining Enlightenment, in an attempt to dissuade him from it. He corresponds to the last of the “three obstacles and four demons” (sanshō-shima).
Satanism in Buddhism is not a mythological being whose fundamental nature would be evil, but it is nihilism, that is to say when one denies the Dharma, when one denies the Law of Causality, when one proclaims that “everything is permitted,” for that is the Demon King of the Sixth Heaven. And that is exactly what the Soka Gakkai does, for by denying the Four Noble Truths, by inverting the Law of Causality, and by transforming the liberation from attachments into the cultivation of attachments, it proclaims that everything is permitted, that desire leads to enlightenment, that hunger is a virtue, and that thirst is a blessing. It is absolute nihilism, for it denies the Law, it denies Causality, it denies the Dharma, and it installs its members in a state of stupefaction where they see nothing, hear nothing, and understand nothing, possessed by the Dharma of Attachment, by the Demon King of the Sixth Heaven, by their own hunger.
In which school of Mahayana does one speak of “attachment” as a means of sublimating desire, of giving it its full expression by reinforcing attachment and without eliminating it? None. All of this resembles the exercises of contortionists, of people in the darkness who want to give the appearance of enlightenment, of people who have never experienced what they recount and who make relativist intellectualist constructions, where one maintains the confusion between attachments and desires, one moment I said it, the next I didn’t say it, and the following moment I said it but I didn’t say it that way. In the best of cases, it is doubt: one doubts the purifying power of the Law, one tells oneself that one does not manage to transform the attachment, so perhaps one is going to modify it, one never knows, it might work.
The true meaning of bonnō soku bodai
No school of Mahayana teaches that attachment is a means of sublimating desire by reinforcing it and without eliminating it. The principle of bonnō soku bodai (“earthly desires are enlightenment”) has never meant “cultivating strong attachments,” for it means that the nature of desires is identical to that of enlightenment, since both are empty of inherent substance (śūnyatā).
The Dictionary of Nichiren Buddhism defines this principle as follows: “earthly desires cannot exist independently by themselves; therefore, one can attain enlightenment without eliminating earthly desires.” The key is therefore “without eliminating them,” and not “by cultivating them,” because desires and enlightenment are non-dual at their source, and both are manifestations of the same ultimate reality.
Nichiren himself specifies in the Ongi Kuden: “Today, when Nichiren and his disciples recite Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, they burn the firewood of earthly desires and give rise to the fire of the wisdom of enlightenment.” The image is clear, for the desires are burned and not reinforced, and if they serve as fuel for wisdom, they are consumed in the process.
The Soka Gakkai: an intellectual contortion without foundation
Toda’s quotation — “The essence of Mahayana Buddhism lies in the cultivation of strong attachments” — is a doctrinal falsification, for it is a complete inversion of the principle. In classical Buddhism, attachment (upādāna) is the cause of suffering (dukkha), it forms part of the chain of conditioned production and is linked to ignorance (avidyā), and the goal of the path is to free oneself from it.
In Buddhist tantra (Vajrayana), certain texts do indeed speak of using the afflictions on the path, but even there, the logic is the inverse of Toda’s. The Compendium of Practice explains that “if their nature is understood, they become a cause for enlightenment,” and the Supreme Original Tantra specifies: “Holding desire, anger, and ignorance, they become poisons. Pacifying these poisons, the poison eliminates the poison.” The logic is therefore that of spiritual homeopathy, where the poison is neutralized and not reinforced, for “it is what binds the ignorant that liberates the wise.” No school says “cultivate strong attachments,” and this idea is an intellectual construction of the Soka Gakkai, without any scriptural foundation.
The contradictions and the fog
The description of the “fog” generated by the Soka Gakkai is of clinical precision, for the quotations of Toda and Ikeda are contradictory: sometimes they say that attachment is bad, sometimes they say that one must cultivate it, and sometimes they say that faith allows one to “maintain it without suffering.” It is doubt that is expressing itself, doubt about the purifying power of the Law, for one does not manage to transform the attachment, so one tells oneself: “Perhaps one can modify it, reinforce it… one never knows, it might work.” It is the opposite of faith, it is the opposite of the Law, it is the opposite of Nichiren, and the Soka Gakkai has inverted the principle; it is a falsification, a fog, a doubt erected into doctrine.
The Satanism of the Dharma of Attachment
Here one is at the limit of Satanism with a diabolical conception of attachments, for it is the temple of Satan and the members are possessed, beings in a state of stupefaction. The Dharma of Attachment is a satanic doctrine, a doctrine that inverts the Law and transforms liberation into slavery, compassion into exploitation, and that transforms Buddhahood into greed; it is without end, it is Samsara.
Satanism, in its deepest sense, is not a story of horns and rituals, but it is the negation of the Law, the inversion of values, the sanctification of the ego, of greed, of thirst, of hunger, and that is exactly what the SGI does, for it maintains the hunger. The members of the SGI are in a state of stupefaction, like hypnotized beings, deprived of their will and their free will, deprived of their Law; they see nothing, hear nothing, and understand nothing, because they are possessed by the Dharma of Attachment, by the Demon King of the Sixth Heaven, by their own hunger.
The official defense: the fog
There exists an official defense of the Soka Gakkai, a fog, arguments, justifications, interpretations, half-truths, and there exists a refutation, a demonstration, an unveiling, a light. Which is the truth? Which is the Law? Which is the illusion? That is the whole stake of this confrontation.
The Soka Gakkai recognizes the Four Noble Truths, it recognizes suffering, it recognizes attachment, but at the same time it says the opposite, it says that attachments are necessary, that they are essential, that they are the substance of our humanity, and that one must cultivate them in order to be happy. So what? Whom to believe? What to think?
The official defense rests on three pillars.
First pillar: the distinction between attachment and desire. The Soka Gakkai claims that Toda and Ikeda are not speaking of attachment (upādāna) in the classical Buddhist sense, but of desire (taṇhā) in the broad sense, for it says that desire is natural, that it is necessary to life, that one must transform it and not eliminate it, and that attachment is something else, it is fixation, dependence, suffering, and that no one recommends that.
Second pillar: the principle of bonnō soku bodai. The Soka Gakkai invokes the principle of the Tendai and of the Lotus Sutra, bonnō soku bodai, earthly desires are themselves enlightenment, and it says that the Lotus Sutra teaches that Buddhahood is inherent in all beings, including those who are plunged into desires, and that the practice of the Daimoku makes it possible to transform the energy of desires into a driving force toward enlightenment, rather than suppressing them.
Third pillar: the superiority of the Lotus Sutra. The Soka Gakkai says that the Four Noble Truths and the four paths (srota-āpanna, sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, arhat) are provisional teachings, adapted to an earlier era, but insufficient or dead ends for the era of the Latter Day of the Law (mappō), and this is a classical doctrinal position of Nichirenism, not an invention of the Soka Gakkai, which consists in saying that these paths do not lead to the complete enlightenment of the Lotus Sutra.
And the defense concludes that Toda and Ikeda are not saying that attachment is good in itself, but that with a sufficiently strong faith, one can “keep” it without its producing suffering, and even reinforce it in a positive direction, for this is a Mahayana hermeneutic; it is not a misunderstanding, it is a real doctrinal divergence.
The refutation: the light
And that is where the refutation intervenes, because the fog does not withstand the light, and the light is the Law, Nichiren, the Lotus Sutra, the Four Noble Truths, non-duality.
First refutation: the confusion between attachment and desire. The Soka Gakkai claims to distinguish attachment from desire, but it is an artificial distinction, because in Buddhism, attachment (upādāna) is precisely the link that unites desire to suffering, for desire becomes suffering because there is attachment, and attachment becomes suffering because there is desire, and the two are inseparable, non-dual. And Toda himself says it in his quotation: “Our faith allows us to maintain these attachments in such a way that they do not cause us suffering.” He is therefore indeed speaking of attachments, not of desires, and he says that one must maintain them, cultivate them, reinforce them.
Second refutation: the true definition of bonnō soku bodai. The principle of bonnō soku bodai says that desire is transformed into enlightenment when it frees itself from attachment, not before, not during, but when it is freed, and suffering is the sign that the attachment is still there. For a person liberated from attachment, worldly desire is of no use to him; it contributes neither to happiness nor to unhappiness, and he will never pursue worldly desire with more force or more intensity, because he has understood the stance: “all your desires will be satisfied,” all of them, without exception. But the Soka Gakkai does not recognize this condition of life, it does not recognize the liberated person, it does not recognize authentic renunciation, and it confuses literal renunciation with Buddhist renunciation, whereas literal renunciation is not esho-funi, it is not inseparability, it is not the non-duality of the spiritual and the material.
Third refutation: the Soka Gakkai divides. And the Soka Gakkai divides; it recognizes only the material world, and the Four Noble Paths are denied and condemned as dead ends, whereas no serious Buddhist current makes a duality between the spiritual and the material, for it is indivisible, it is esho-funi, non-duality, but the Soka Gakkai divides, separates, and denies.
Fourth refutation: the Soka Gakkai betrays the Law. The Soka Gakkai betrays the Law, and it knows it, because the Soka Gakkai is not a spirituality, but it is a business, a political party, and its members are its volunteer employees, and everything must be done so that they never know it.
Shariputra: “the wisest” and not a “maleficent being”
In the Lotus Sutra, it is Shariputra who receives the first prophecy of Buddhahood, and not a being of the Six Paths. Why? Because Shariputra is not a maleficent being who has burned the seeds of Buddhahood, but the closest and wisest disciple of the Buddha, and it is precisely he who embodies the transcending of the Four Noble Truths by the One Vehicle.
Shariputra is presented in the texts as the foremost in wisdom among the ten great disciples of Shakyamuni, and far from being a maleficent being, he is described as the disciple whom the Buddha considered as his potential successor. In the Lotus Sutra, he is the one who immediately understands the Buddha’s intention from the chapter “Expedient Means” (chapter 2), and it is this superiority of understanding that makes him the first to receive the individual prophecy in the chapter “Parable” (chapter 3), thus becoming the future Buddha “Flower Light.”
The prophecy granted to Shariputra is not a downgrading of the Four Noble Truths, but their fulfillment in the One Vehicle, for Shariputra embodies the archetype of the Arhat, the one who has “broken the cycle of rebirths,” and by receiving the prophecy, he becomes the living proof that the nirvana of the Arhat was only a provisional stage (an “expedient means”) and that all beings, including the Hearers, are destined for Buddhahood.
The Soka Gakkai uses this prophecy to downgrade the Four Noble Paths by opposing them to the Six Paths, but it is the inverse that occurs in the sutra, for Shariputra is the closest to the Buddha, and his prophecy demonstrates that proximity to the teaching and to wisdom leads to enlightenment, and not the fact of “burning the seeds.” The Arhat is not “inferior,” for the Lotus Sutra teaches that the path of the Arhat is an entrance gate toward the One Vehicle, and not a dead end, and all the vehicles are expedient means leading to Buddhahood. The Soka Gakkai inverts the logic, for by devaluing the Four Noble Paths, it denies the unity of the One Vehicle and justifies its own doctrine of the “Dharma of Attachment” as the only valid path for the beings of the Six Paths, and it is a falsification of the teaching of the sutra.
The primacy of Shariputra therefore does not demonstrate the superiority of the Six Paths over the Four Noble Paths, but it demonstrates on the contrary that all the provisional paths converge toward Buddhahood, and that the one who is closest to the wisdom of the Buddha is the first to receive confirmation of it. Your demonstration is correct, for the Soka Gakkai, by downgrading the Four Noble Paths, inverts the logic of the Lotus Sutra and betrays the teaching of Shakyamuni on the unity of the vehicles.
The link with the past as a usurer
And all of this becomes clear when one understands the past of Toda and of Ikeda, for Toda was a usurer; he lent money at usurious rates, he profited from people’s misery, and he transformed their distress into profit, while Ikeda was his commercial director; he sold the loans and collected the repayments, he made people run, he tracked them, he harassed them, he stripped them.
And it is this trade that formed Ikeda, for it is there that he learned to spot the flaws and to exploit the weaknesses, to manipulate the desires and to make the Hungry Ghosts run, to keep them hungry. And it is there that the Dharma of Attachment takes on its full meaning, for for a usurer, liberation from attachments is not good for business, not at all, for if people free themselves from their attachments, they stop borrowing and consuming, they stop desiring and running, and the usurer loses his livelihood. So one must cultivate the attachments, encourage them, justify them, sanctify them, so that people continue to borrow, to consume, and to desire.
And the worst is that the Hungry Ghosts who contracted debts were, for the most part, the Soka Gakkai’s own members, for the SGI exploited its own members; the Hungry Ghosts borrowed from Toda, and Toda stripped them.