Counterargument in Response to Supreme Court Decision

On July 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided not to accept the appeal filed by Happy Science against the Tokyo High Court's December ruling last year, which partially acknowledged the refund claims of former believers of Happy Science regarding ossuaries and perpetual memorial services.

The Supreme Court's decision not to accept the appeal does not have binding force as a 'precedent' unlike a Supreme Court ruling, and theoretically, other district and high courts may issue different judgments on the same issue in the future. However, this Supreme Court decision is an extremely unjust decision that endorses the Tokyo High Court ruling, which understood the acts of memorial services and offerings, which are acts of faith, as material contracts without understanding the value of religious organizations engaged in the salvation of human souls, or the sincerity and nobility of the offerings made in faith, and it does not even attempt to understand the significance of offerings in existing Buddhism.

The significance of offerings as selfless and unpaid acts of faith in existing Buddhism

For example, an article in the magazine 'Zenbutsu' (November 2010 issue) published by the All Japan Buddhist Association Foundation explains the significance of offerings as follows.

'Fuse (offering) is a word from India about 2,500 years ago when Buddhism was established. In Sanskrit, it is called 'Dana,' and it refers to giving material goods to others with a heart of compassion. There are three types of offerings: 'Zaise' (giving money, clothes, food, etc.), 'Hose' (preaching the teachings of Buddha), and 'Mubise' (being close to people in distress and removing their anxiety). Offering is one of the practices to attain enlightenment, known as 'Paramita,' and is a fundamental practice in Buddhism. (Omitted) The amount is based on the compassionate heart of the person making the offering and should not be set at a fixed price like a product; it is a religious act based on the person's faith.'

In other words, the act of offering by believers who practice religion is an act of faith based on sincerity, without the thought of benefiting oneself, as part of a practice, offering money and other goods. This supports the holy life of religious people engaged in the highly public service of preaching the eternity of the soul, guiding its improvement, and saving troubled beings.

In general social transactions, there is a common sense that 'people do not do anything without expecting something in return,' but offerings have a noble value because they are selfless and unpaid acts, contrary to this.

Ken Arai, an emeritus professor at Komazawa University and a renowned religious scholar, also submitted an 'opinion letter' to the Supreme Court in this case, stating that 'even if items like 'Hama-ya' are sold at a fixed price, they are treated as offerings for tax purposes, not as merchandise sales, and the fact that the amount (guideline for offering) is set does not mean that the religious meaning of the offering is lost,' and that there is no obligation to return offerings in principle unless there is some defect on the part of the religious organization.

Doctrine on Offerings in Happy Science

In the basic doctrine of Happy Science, there is a doctrine that takes into account the essence of offerings mentioned above. In other words, even if sermons, seminars, or chanting acts are conducted when making offerings to Happy Science, it is considered merely an opportunity and not a consideration for the offering.

For example, in 'Proof of Buddha,' one of the basic scriptures of Happy Science published in 1995, the following is preached about the scripture 'Words of Awakening: Gradual Sermon' contained in 'Buddha's Teachings: True Words of the Heart.'

'It is not about receiving monetary or material things as compensation for sermons or activities. Please do not misunderstand this. Even if there are entrance fees or other charges for our lectures or seminars, you must know that they are not compensation. Although these events are conducted based on modern economic principles, participants must offer with a heart of donation and charity.'

Also, in 'Spiritual Life and Faith Life: On Faith and the Honzon' published in 2000, it is preached as follows.

'When Happy Science receives offerings from believers, it is not compensation for goods or labor. ... Even if there are acts such as reading sutras or preaching, they are merely opportunities, and offerings and planting blessings are not made as compensation. Offerings have no compensatory nature, and that is why they have value and merit.'

The Legality of Offerings Recognized in the Judgment and the Nonexistence of Inappropriate Female Relationships

It should also be confirmed that the district and high court judgments recognized the legality of offerings and dismissed all claims for the return of offerings other than ossuaries and perpetual memorial services by former believers, and the fact is that the refunds recognized in the judgment were only a very small part of the whole.

The plaintiffs, former believers, claimed that they were 'persecuted for not making offerings, being told that their faith was insufficient, and were made to feel anxious about disasters or misfortunes, leading to extreme confusion and being mentally cornered, and were forced to make large monetary offerings.'

In response, the Tokyo District Court judged that the former believers 'responded to the solicitation of offerings appealing to their faith on their own judgment,' and the Tokyo High Court judged that the former believers 'made offerings voluntarily from their faith,' and that the content of Happy Science's doctrine and the content of the movies 'were not illegal beyond the socially acceptable range even if they inspired faith,' and both recognized the legality of Happy Science's offerings.

In other words, the judgment completely denied the former believers' claims that they were forced to make offerings through threats or fear, and clearly recognized that Happy Science's offerings were entirely different from so-called 'spiritual sales.'

Furthermore, during the trial, the former believers submitted a statement by former Happy Science employee Osamu Tanemura, claiming as if there were illegal female relationships, but the Tokyo District Court in another lawsuit recognized 2 million yen in damages, stating that 'credibility is difficult to recognize' regarding the statement. In this other lawsuit, the Tokyo High Court ordered 4 million yen in damages and the publication of a rare large apology advertisement using a full page of the Weekly Bunshun magazine for an article about Tanemura's fictitious female issues, and the apology advertisement was published in the Weekly Bunshun magazine (February 12, 2015 issue).

Moreover, regarding the former wife, she herself withdrew the claim for consolation money for female issues at the Tokyo Family Court, effectively acknowledging that there were no inappropriate female relationships.

From these facts, it is clear that the former believers' claims have been completely overturned regarding the legitimacy of their motives.

Problems with the Tokyo High Court Judgment and Supreme Court Decision

The truth is that the devoted believers of Happy Science, well-versed in the basic doctrine of Happy Science mentioned earlier, voluntarily offer offerings to Buddha as acts of faith and practice, using ossuaries and perpetual memorial services as opportunities.

When considering offerings associated with ossuaries and perpetual memorial services, one must not ignore that offerings made using ossuaries and perpetual memorial services as opportunities were conducted as acts of faith, that is, acts of compassion based on selfless sincerity, by devoted believers well-versed in the doctrine of Happy Science. In other words, offerings as religious acts are conducted by believers who believe in the honzon of the religious organization according to the doctrine of the religious organization as acts of practice, and unless there are circumstances that cause anti-social acts, illegal acts, or defects in legal acts on the part of the religious organization, they should not be regulated by general civil law, which cannot consider the special nature of the faith acts of the religious organization.

Therefore, perceiving these acts as paid contracts corresponding to external acts such as the use of ossuaries or chanting acts for perpetual memorial services itself disregards the true intentions of the parties and the value as acts of practice or religious value embedded in those acts, and misjudges their essence.

However, the Supreme Court, despite not recognizing any circumstances that could be said to have caused defects in legal acts on the part of Happy Science, unilaterally endorsed the Tokyo High Court judgment ordering the return of offerings, which overlooks the value of offerings as acts of faith conducted without expecting anything in return, and at the same time, directly contradicts the intentions of the parties, which should be the basis of legal acts.

Moreover, the district and high court judgments perceive ossuaries, which should be a connection for the salvation of ancestors' souls, as a kind of 'warehouse-like office work' managed by Happy Science, and perpetual memorial services, which deliver the light of memorial services to ancestors, as a kind of 'work-like act' performed by Happy Science staff reading scriptures.

This perceives religious organizations engaged in the most important public service of saving human souls as mere profit-making businesses and superficially perceives the external form of religious acts without seeing their essence as selfless and unpaid acts of faith and practice.

Judicial Judgment Respecting the Nobility of the Spirit of Offerings

The district and high court judgments did not consider the special nature of the religious intentions of the parties regarding offerings, reinterpreted them into general civil law order, and interpreted the intentions of the parties only externally, distorting their essence.

In other words, the same judgment abandoned the basic spirit of judicial judgment to sincerely explore the intentions of the parties, made a fatal error in misjudging the essence of the case, and unilaterally made an external judgment without considering the historical background of offerings as religious acts and the understanding within religious organizations, resulting in an unconstitutional judgment incompatible with the spirit of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion (Article 20, Paragraph 1) and institutionalizes the separation of church and state (Article 20, Paragraph 3) to ensure it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, which endorsed this, overlooked the danger of the Tokyo High Court judgment, where state power unilaterally intervened in the evaluation of religious acts that should originally be entrusted to the internal autonomy of religious organizations, ordered their return, and made an unconstitutional decision based on materialistic values without humbly and sincerely considering the essence of the world.

One cannot measure the infinite with a finite measure. Similarly, one can never grasp the essence of faith acts related to the eternal existence that involves the deep spiritual workings of humans merely by the external form of acts. The judiciary is strongly expected to pay attention to the significance of the holy work of religious organizations sincerely engaged in the salvation of human souls since ancient times, and to make judgments that respect the nobility of the spirit of offerings and are in line with justice.

Happy Science Group Public Relations Division