The Letter of Petition from Yorimoto

Chapter9(Remonstrance from the Perspective of Buddhist Teachings)

I can only lament when I see my lord, to whom I am so profoundly indebted, being deceived by those who embrace evil teachings and in danger of falling into the evil paths. Because King Ajātashatru took Devadatta and the six non-Buddhist teachers as his mentors and opposed Shakyamuni Buddha, all the people of the kingdom of Magadha became enemies of Buddhism, and the 580,000 clansmen of the king also opposed the Buddha’s disciples. Among them, only Minister Jīvaka was the Buddha’s disciple. The great king disapproved of his minister’s devotion to the Buddha just as my lord disapproves of me, Yorimoto. But in the end he discarded the erroneous doctrines of the other six ministers and took faith in the correct teaching that Jīvaka espoused. Perhaps, in the same way, I will save you in the end.

When I speak this way, you may wonder how I dare to compare you to Ajātashatru, who committed the five cardinal sins. But it is clear in the light of the sutra that your offense is a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand times graver than his, though I hesitate to say such a thing.

The Lotus Sutra states, “Now this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are all my children.”³⁵ If this scriptural statement is correct, Shakyamuni Buddha is the father and mother, teacher and sovereign to all living beings in Japan. Amida Buddha does not possess these three virtues. However, you ignore the Buddha of the three virtues and invoke the name of another Buddha [Amida] day and night, morning and evening, sixty thousand or eighty thousand times a day. Is this not an unfilial deed? It was the Thus Come One Shakyamuni himself who originally taught that Amida had vowed to save all people; but in the end he regretted it and said, “I am the only person [who can rescue and protect others].” After that, he never again taught that there are two or three Buddhas who can save the people. No one has two fathers or two mothers. What sutra says that Amida is the father of this country? What treatise indicates him as its mother?

The teachings of Nembutsu, such as the Meditation Sutra, were expounded provisionally in preparation for the Lotus Sutra. They are like the scaffolding used when building a pagoda. Some think that, because the Nembutsu teachings and the Lotus Sutra are both a part of Buddhism, they differ only in that one was expounded earlier and one later; but these people are laboring under a profound misconception. They are like someone foolish enough to prize the scaffolding even after the pagoda has been completed, or like someone who says that the stars are brighter than the sun. Concerning such persons, the sutra states, “Though I teach and instruct them, they do not believe or accept my teachings . . . When his life comes to an end he will enter the Avīchi hell.”³⁶

All the inhabitants of Japan at present are people who reject Shakyamuni Buddha while invoking the name of Amida Buddha, who discard the Lotus Sutra and believe in the Meditation and other sutras. Or they are lay men and women who make offerings to these slanderers, or the renowned priests and even the ruler of the country who revere as wise men those who in fact commit the five or seven cardinal sins³⁷ or the eight offenses. Of such people, the sutra states that they “will keep repeating this cycle [of rebirth in the Avīchi hell] for a countless number of kalpas.”³⁸

Being aware to some small degree of these errors, I have ventured to bring them to your attention. Among those in service, despite their differences in rank, there is none who does not honor his lord, each according to his station. If, knowing that my lord will fare badly in both this life and the next, I were to remain silent in fear of my fellow samurai or of the world at large, then would I not be guilty of complicity in your offense?

Notes

35. Lotus Sutra, chap. 3. This passage indicates the virtues of sovereign and parent. A passage at the end of this paragraph, “I am the only person who can rescue and protect others,” indicates the virtue of teacher.

36. Ibid.

37. According to The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight,” the seven cardinal sins are the five cardinal sins (see Glossary) plus the offenses of killing a monk of high virtue and killing a teacher.

38. Lotus Sutra, chap. 3.

Lecture

This chapter, citing the example of Minister Jiva, who admonished and saved King Ajatashatru, compares their relationship to that of Lord Ema and Shijo Kingo, and admonishes Lord Ema to abandon his adherence to the Nembutsu faith (the belief in Amida Buddha), which constitutes a grave slander of the Correct Law. Furthermore, it states that the retainers who fail to admonish their lord—even as he is about to fall into suffering across both the present and future existences—are themselves guilty of the same offense (the complicity in slander).

“Because I speak in this manner, you may think I am comparing Lord Ema to King Ajatashatru, who committed the five cardinal sins. Although it is fearful to say, his offense must be a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million times graver than that of the king.”

Lord Ema might become infuriated, wondering if his retainer is comparing him to the notoriously wicked King Ajatashatru. However, the Daishonin definitively concludes based on the sutras that Lord Ema’s offense is, in truth, millions of times graver. Why, then, did the Daishonin state that his sin is even deeper than that of King Ajatashatru? The sin committed by King Ajatashatru was the five cardinal sins. In contrast, Lord Ema is committing the sin of slandering the Correct Law (slander of the Law) by believing in Amida Buddha. While those who commit the five cardinal sins remain in the Avichi hell for the duration of one kalpa, the sutras clearly state that the punishment for slandering the Correct Law lasts for “countless kalpas.” Herein lies the strictness of Buddhism and the dreadfulness of slandering the Law. It can be said that the Daishonin dared to strictly reprove Lord Ema’s error in order to inform him, who was ignorant of Buddhism, of its true reality.

On the Three Virtues of Sovereign, Teacher, and Parent

 The passage reads, “Now this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are all my children.” According to this text, the Buddha Shakyamuni, the lord of teachings, is the parent, the teacher, and the sovereign of all living beings in the nation of Japan.

A Buddha is invariably endowed with the three virtues (sovereign, teacher, and parent). First, regarding the three virtues of the Buddha of the theoretical teaching (Shakumon), Chapter Three of the Lotus Sutra (“Simile and Parable”) states: “Now this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are all my children. But now this place is rife with many burning afflictions, and I alone am capable of saving and protecting them.” “All my domain” manifests the virtue of the sovereign; “all my children” manifests the virtue of the parent; and “I alone am capable of saving and protecting them” manifests the virtue of the teacher. Together, they represent the three virtues of the Buddha. Next, regarding the three virtues of the Buddha of the essential teaching (Honmon), they are found in the “Life Span” (Juryo) chapter: the phrase “I make this land peaceful and secure” corresponds to the virtue of the sovereign, “I am constantly preaching the Law to instruct and convert them” corresponds to the virtue of the teacher, and “I am the father of this world” corresponds to the virtue of the parent.

Turning to the present day of the Latter Day of the Law, who corresponds to the Buddha endowed with these three virtues? The true Buddha who answers this question is neither the Amida Buddha who resides in the Western Pure Land, nor the historical Shakyamuni Buddha who was born in India. It is Nichiren Daishonin, an ordinary mortal of the Latter Day of the Law, who is the true Buddha.

By the way, what kind of functions and workings do the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent refer to? As already indicated in the lecture on The Opening of the Eyes (Part One), the virtue of the sovereign is the power and function to protect one’s dependents; the virtue of the teacher is the power to guide them; and the virtue of the parent is the function to love and care for them.

The three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent are neither a revival of an ancient style nor remnants of feudal ethics. They are essential functions indispensable for human beings to receive life in this world, form a society, and lead their lives. Without the power to protect one’s dependents, one cannot build, protect, or nurture the living space in which they reside; indeed, even survival itself would be threatened. Furthermore, if the power to guide one’s dependents—which everyone possesses to a greater or lesser degree—were entirely absent, society would be in danger of running toward evil rather than good, and toward unhappiness rather than happiness. A society built only by individuals living in isolation, a mob of people, would fall into a state of anarchy and fail to even function as a society. Moreover, if the function to love and care for dependents were lost, storms of mercilessness and coldheartedness would visit human society, creating a tragic and cruel world of hell.

The “sovereign” in the virtue of the sovereign corresponds to society itself today. Therefore, the virtue of the sovereign is not the act of receiving benefits from society, but the function of trying to bestow benefits upon society—the working of a person standing on a broad perspective. The actions of a person who always places the happiness of the people as the first priority are the very working of the virtue of the sovereign.

A person with the virtue of the teacher acts like a lighthouse, providing hope and a clear light for the path ahead to those sailing vaguely through the voyage of life. This does not necessarily point to those holding professions such as politicians or educators, nor does it refer to philosophers or ideologues. Even if unnamed or uncrowned, a person who resolutely and confidently guides others along the path of true life is the one endowed with the virtue of the teacher. A mentor in life, a leader who opens human eyes to the truth, is called a person of the virtue of the teacher.

The virtue of the parent is expressed as the attribute of a strict father or a compassionate mother, but furthermore, it refers to a person who saves others from unhappiness and feels all sufferings as their own. A person who does not consider others and thinks only of their own self-interest can never be said to possess the virtue of the parent. A person who functions to cherish and nurture both themselves and others so that they can lead a humanly rich life is the one endowed with the virtue of the parent.

Nichiren Daishonin is the person who perfectly embodies all of these three virtues just as they are. Therefore, there is no doubt that in the bodies of those who accept and uphold the Gohonzon manifested by the Daishonin, and exert themselves in faith and practice, the blood of the same three virtues as the Daishonin pulses and leaps with vitality. Those who embody and practice actions filled with the three virtues in their own lives and in society are the true practitioners of the faith of the Mystical Law.

A Grave Misconception: Refuting Erroneous Views of Buddhism

“Yet those who think that because it is Buddhism, any teaching will lead to the same end, are completely in error.”

This passage refutes the undiscriminating view of Buddhism that all doctrines can lead to enlightenment regardless of which sutra is followed, based solely on the idea that they share the same origin and conclusion, ignoring the differences between what was preached earlier or later. This way of thinking has been traditionally practiced since ancient times and continues to form the bedrock of the Japanese view of Buddhism even today. However, this seems to be spoken merely as an excuse for abandoning judgment, without any actual investigation or comparison of the contents of Buddhist scriptures or the doctrines of each school. If one were to strictly investigate and compare those contents, it would be vividly clear how irresponsible such a statement truly is.