The Letter of Petition from Yorimoto

Chapter8(Remonstrating with One’s Lord)

In the same letter you also state, “To defer to one’s lord or parents, whether they are right or wrong, is exemplary conduct according with the will of Buddhas and gods and also with social propriety.” As this matter is of the utmost importance, I will refrain from expressing my own opinion and instead cite authoritative works [of sages and worthies]. The Classic of Filial Piety states, “[In a case of moral wrong,] a son must admonish his father, and a minister must admonish his lord.” Cheng Hsüan³⁰ says, “If a lord or a father behaves unjustly and his minister or son fails to remonstrate with him, then the state or the family will come to ruin.” The New Narrations³¹ states, “If one fails to remonstrate against one’s ruler’s tyranny, one is not a loyal minister. If one fails to speak out for fear of death, one is not a man of courage.”

The Great Teacher Dengyō states, “In general, where unrighteousness is concerned, a son must admonish his father, and a minister must admonish his lord. Truly one should know this: As is the case with lord and minister, or with father and son, so it is with teacher and disciple. A disciple must speak out when his teacher goes astray.”³² The Lotus Sutra states, “We care nothing for our bodies or lives but are anxious only for the unsurpassed way.” The Nirvana Sutra reads, “For example, it is like a royal envoy skilled in discussion and clever with expedient means who, when sent on a mission to another land, would rather, even though it costs him his life, in the end conceal none of the words of his ruler. Wise persons too do this.” The Great Teacher Chang-an says, “‘[A royal envoy . . . would rather], even though it costs him his life, in the end conceal none of the words of his ruler’ means that one’s body is insignificant while the Law is supreme. One should give one’s life in order to propagate the Law.”³³ He also states, “One who destroys or brings confusion to the Buddha’s teachings is betraying them. If one befriends another person but lacks the mercy to correct him, one is in fact his enemy. But one who reprimands and corrects an offender . . . rids the offender of evil is acting as his parent.”³⁴ My fellow samurai may think that I, Yorimoto, am lacking in propriety toward you, but in all other worldly affairs, I will resolutely heed the words of my lord and my parents.

Notes

30. Cheng Hsüan (127–200) was a scholar of the Later Han dynasty, who wrote commentaries on The Classic of Filial Piety, Analects, and other texts.

31. A collection of the anecdotes that appeared from the Spring and Autumn period through the Former Han dynasty. Written by Liu Hsiang (77–6 b.c.e.), it consists of ten fascicles.

32. An Essay on the Protection of the Nation.

33. The Annotations on the Nirvana Sutra.

34. Ibid.

Lecture

Introduction and the Duty of Remonstration

This chapter discusses the fundamental spirit of loyalty and filial piety. According to the official letter (kudashijō), the way of a subject or child is to obey their lord or parent in all matters. In response to this, the Daishonin states that while obeying one’s lord or parent is a natural obligation, if they fall into error, it is the true duty of a subject or child to remonstrate with them. On the contrary, he explains—citing passages from the Classic of Filial Piety and other texts—that failing to remonstrate will lead to the ruin of the family and the decline of the nation, and therefore one must rectify the errors of their lord or parent.

The Confucian morality that expounds the path of relations between lord and subject, or parent and child, is often prone to be viewed as a feudalistic and rigid ideology. However, if we look at its original spirit, we can see that it is extremely liberal and even modern in nature.

Separation of Secular Matters and Buddhism

At present, Shijo Kingo is not making an issue of his lord or parent committing a secular error; rather, he is rectifying an error concerning Buddhism—an error concerning life itself. This can be understood from the final line of this chapter, which states: “In secular matters, you should follow the orders of your parents and your sovereign without question.”

This implies the unspoken meaning that while one must absolutely obey their commands in worldly affairs, when it comes to Buddhism, one cannot comply even with the sovereign’s orders. To refuse compliance in matters of Buddhism means nothing less than maintaining personal freedom regarding the realm of the human spirit, such as thought and religious belief.

Timeless Ethics: Two Key Insights

In any case, this chapter contains numerous insights into inherent human ethics that transcend eras, societies, and social systems.

First, one must not blindly follow their lord or parent, but rather support and protect them while being compliant. To achieve this, if the lord or parent commits an injustice, one must remonstrate with them; this is the true meaning of protecting one’s lord or parent.

Second, one must stand with the resolve to maintain social justice, hold fast to one’s convictions, and protect the Mystic Law, even at the cost of sacrificing one’s precious life. This may seem contrary to Buddhism, which is supposed to value life above all else, but in reality, there is no contradiction. This is because the Mystic Law is the fundamental power that renders life most supreme and dignified. If one were to protect their own body by sacrificing the Mystic Law, their physical body might be preserved, but the Mystic Law that adorns their life from within would be lost. Only the physical frame would remain, stripped of the reality that makes the self truly dignified.

Conversely, by fully protecting the Mystic Law, one’s precious life will consequently shine brilliantly through the power of Buddhism, allowing life to achieve its ultimate dignity. Therefore, it is taught that maintaining the precious spirit of Buddhism—even if it means staking one’s irreplaceable life—is the true guidepost for humanity.