The Letter of Petition from Yorimoto

Chapter3(The Kuwagayatsu Debate (2): Revealing the Practice of the True Teacher)

The Honorable Ryūzō answered, “How could I doubt the worthies and learned men of antiquity? Ordinary priests such as myself believe them with profound reverence.” Then Sammi-kō retorted, saying: “These words do not impress me as those of a wise man. Everyone believes in those Buddhist teachers who were revered in their own time. But the Buddha enjoins us in the Nirvana Sutra as his final instruction, ‘Rely on the Law and not upon persons.’ The Buddha taught us to rely on the sutras if the Buddhist teachers should be in error. You say those teachers could not possibly be in error, but between the Buddha’s golden words and your personal opinion, I am committed to the former.”

The Honorable Ryūzō asked, “When you speak of the many errors of the Buddhist teachers, to which teachers do you refer?” Sammi-kō answered, “I refer to the doctrines of the Great Teacher Kōbō and the Honorable Hōnen, whom I mentioned before.” The Honorable Ryūzō exclaimed, “That is impossible! I would not dare discuss the Buddhist teachers of our nation. The people in this audience all follow them, and if angered, will surely create an uproar. That would be a fearsome thing.”

Then Sammi-kō said: “Because you asked me to specify which teachers were in error, I mentioned those whose teachings contradict the sutras and treatises.¹⁵ But now you suddenly have reservations and refuse to discuss the matter. I think that you merely perceive your own dilemma. In matters of doctrine, to fear others or stand in awe of society’s opinion and not expound the true meaning of the scriptural passages in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching is the height of foolishness. You do not appear to be a wise or honorable priest. As a teacher of the Law, how can you not speak out when evil doctrines spread throughout the land, when the people fall into the evil paths and the country stands on the brink of ruin? That is why the Lotus Sutra reads, ‘We care nothing for our bodies or lives,’¹⁶ and the Nirvana Sutra says, ‘. . . even though it costs him his life.’¹⁷ If you are a true sage, how can you begrudge your life in fear of the world or of other people?

“Even in non-Buddhist literature we find mention of a man named Kuan Lung-feng, who was beheaded, and of the worthy Pi Kan, who had his chest torn open. But because Kuan Lung-feng remonstrated with King Chieh of the Hsia dynasty and Pi Kan admonished King Chou of the Yin dynasty, their names have been handed down in history as those of worthies.

“The Buddhist scriptures tell us that Bodhisattva Never Disparaging was beaten with sticks and staves, the Venerable Āryasimha was beheaded, the priest Chu Tao-sheng was banished to a mountain in Su-chou, and the Tripitaka Master Fa-tao was branded on the face and exiled to the area south of the Yangtze River. Yet was it not because they propagated the correct teaching that they gained the name of sages?”

Then the Honorable Ryūzō replied, “Such people cannot possibly appear in the latter age. We are the sort who fear society and dread the opinions of others. Even though you speak so boldly, I doubt that you actually live up to your words.”

Sammi-kō retorted: “How can you possibly know another’s mind? Let me tell you that I am a disciple of the Sage Nichiren, who is now widely known throughout the country. Although the sage, my teacher, is a priest in the latter age, unlike the eminent priests of our day, he neither seeks invitations nor flatters people, nor has he earned the slightest bad reputation in secular matters.

“He simply declares, in light of the sutras, that because the evil teachings of such schools as the True Word, Zen, and Pure Land as well as their slanderous priests fill this country, and everyone from the ruler on down to the general populace has taken faith in them, the people have all become archenemies of the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha. In this life they will be forsaken by the gods of heaven and earth, and suffer invasion by a foreign country, and in the next life they will fall into the great citadel of the Avīchi hell.

“He has said that if he declares such a thing he will incur great enmity, but that if he does not he cannot escape the Buddha’s condemnation. The Nirvana Sutra says, ‘If even a good monk sees someone destroying the teaching and disregards him, failing to reproach him, to oust him, or to punish him for his offense, then you should realize that that monk is betraying the Buddha’s teaching.’ Realizing that, if in fear of the world’s opinion he did not speak out, he would fall into the evil paths, my teacher has risked his life for more than two decades, from the Kenchō era¹⁸ through this third year of the Kenji era (1277), without slackening in the least. Therefore, he has undergone countless persecutions at the hands of individuals, and twice he has even incurred the ruler’s wrath.¹⁹ I myself was one of those who accompanied him when the wrath of the authorities fell upon him on the twelfth day of the ninth month in the eighth year of the Bun’ei era (1271),²⁰ and I was considered equally guilty and came close to being beheaded myself. Despite all this, do you still say that I hold my own life dear?”

Notes

15. “Treatises” here indicates the works of great bodhisattvas such as Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu.

16. Lotus Sutra, chap. 13.

17. The entire passage appears on page 810.

18. Nichiren Daishonin first proclaimed the teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo in the fifth year of Kenchō (1253).

19. This refers to the Izu Exile in 1261, and to the Tatsunokuchi Persecution in 1271 and the Sado Exile that immediately followed it.

20. This refers to the Tatsunokuchi Persecution.

Lecture

This chapter depicts the fierce exchange of questions and answers between Sammi-bo and Ryuzo-bo during the Kuwagayatsu Debate.

In the previous chapter, Sammi-bo asked how one should navigate the confusion within the religious world to find the correct faith. He also addressed the tragic fates of the founders of the Nembutsu sect, cross-referencing their plight with the Sokan-kyo (their foundational sutra) and the text of the Lotus Sutra. He then pressed Ryuzo-bo on whether the disciples and lay followers of the Nembutsu sect would inevitably suffer the same fate.

As previously mentioned, Ryuzo-bo was a monk highly revered by people of all social strata in Kamakura, to the point of being venerated as the reincarnation of Shakyamuni Buddha. Furthermore, his reputation in debate was unparalleled, with rumors claiming no one could match him. Therefore, the entire audience listened with bated breath, eager to see what kind of answer he would provide to Sammi-bo’s question. Naturally, Sammi-bo himself expected a sharp, formidable reply from a monk of such high renown.

In reality, however, contrary to everyone’s expectations, Ryuzo-bo’s response was utterly superficial and hollow. He possessed no understanding of which religion was the true and appropriate one for the Latter Day of the Law, nor did he have the knowledge or textual authority to address the ultimate fate of Nembutsu believers. Consequently, he failed to provide a convincing answer not only to Sammi-bo but to the entire audience. His response inevitably resorted to commonplace, platitudinous remarks backed merely by his institutional authority: “How could we ever doubt the wise sages of antiquity? Ryuzo and others humbly look up to them and believe in them.”

Thus, Sammi-bo was compelled to point out Ryuzo-bo’s error in relying on human teachers (jinshi) like Kobo and Honen to make judgments on Buddhism. He had to begin by teaching the proper standard: that one must discern the true, time-appropriate Buddhist Law based strictly on the golden words of the Buddha.

Yet, Ryuzo-bo was not a conscientious monk who would immediately repent upon being corrected regarding the true standard of searching for the true Law. Instead, he coolly pandered to the masses out of fear, stating that he wished to withhold his answers regarding the country’s master teachers. In short, Ryuzo-bo relied on his position of authority for self-preservation, readily catering to public sentiment and relegating the Buddhist Law to a secondary concern.

Consequently, Sammi-bo ended up challenging Ryuzo-bo on what the fundamental attitude of a religious practitioner toward propagation ought to be. He emphasized that a true practitioner of Buddhism must be a courageous person who propagates the Law even at the risk of their own life ( shishin guhou), without fearing society or others. He further cited sutra passages and precedents of those who practiced this life-risking propagation to confront Ryuzo-bo’s stance.

Even so, Ryuzo-bo did not awaken in the slightest from his delusions. Instead, he brazenly asserted that those who propagate the Law at the risk of their lives could not possibly exist in the Latter Day of the Law.

Seeing no other choice, Sammi-bo finally revealed his own identity. He described the continuous, life-risking propagation that his mentor, Nichiren Daishonin, had carried out for over twenty years since the founding of his teachings. He related how, during the Tatsunokuchi Persecution, he himself was among those accompanying the Daishonin, nearly being beheaded under the same charges. By sharing this, Sammi-bo turned the tables on Ryuzo-bo, proving that he was indeed one of those living practitioners who propagated the Law at the risk of his life.

Rely on the Law, Not on the Person

This is a passage from the Nirvana Sutra. It is one of the “Four Reliances” (hō no shie), which are the principles that a guide or leader who benefits living beings after the Buddha’s passing must absolutely adhere to. The meaning of this passage is that one must not evaluate or judge the correctness of the teachings based on the words of erroneous master teachers, but must instead make the Buddha’s teachings the sole ultimate reliance.

Sammi-bo cited this passage not only to correct Ryuzo-bo’s error but to establish an indispensable criterion—the baseline condition for continuing the debate—and to confirm that their discussion must unfold with the Buddha’s own words as the absolute authority.

Ryuzo-bo’s response—epitomized by his statement, “How could we ever doubt the wise sages of antiquity?”—exposed his dismissive attitude toward the Law and his absolute reliance on human figures. This was a superficial display of authority designed to intimidate. It is a tragic irony that a religious practitioner, who ought to speak strictly from the standpoint of the Law, instead revealed the fragile authoritarianism and self-preservation that humans so easily fall into when they lose sight of the Law.

Why, then, did Ryuzo-bo forget the Law and emphasize human figures in his reply? Needless to say, it was because he did not comprehend the distinct roles and positions of “the person” and “the Law.” At the same time, we can see his arrogant attitude in trying to justify his position in front of a packed audience by using the majestic authority of historical figures as a shield. In other words, his arrogance—a representative trait of human negativity—surfaced, leading him to put people at the forefront while disregarding the Law. This mindset is precisely the breeding ground for authoritarianism and self-preservation.

Furthermore, the stance of minimizing the Law and absolute-izing individuals easily gives rise to a weak tendency to compromise whenever convenient. A classic example of this was when Sammi-bo pointed out that the erroneous master teachers he referred to were none other than Kobo Daishi and Honen Shonin; Ryuzo-bo immediately backed down, stating he wished to refrain from further discussion on the matter.

At the time, when explaining or debating Buddhist doctrines, most people relied heavily on the words of master teachers and commentators. The Daishonin, however, insisted that judgments must first be made based on the original source—the sutras—and fought against the various sects on this ground. His disciple, Sammi-bo, maintained this very principle when entering the debate with Ryuzo-bo.

While the phrase “Rely on the Law, not on the person” has been applied here to Ryuzo-bo, this passage serves as a rigorous guidance and warning when applied to true practitioners of Buddhism. This is because the mistake Ryuzo-bo made is a universal formula that applies to people in general who are ignorant of the Law. Most people who do not know Buddhism rarely understand or judge it by delving directly into the Law itself; instead, they judge Buddhism through the concrete, daily behavior of the people who practice it. Therefore, those who truly practice Buddhism must engrave this deeply into their hearts and conduct activities worthy of a true embodiment of the Law.

On the True Mission of a Practitioner

“In matters of doctrine, to fear others or stand in awe of society’s opinion and not expound the true meaning of the scriptural passages in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching is the height of foolishness. You do not appear to be a wise or honorable priest. As a teacher of the Law, how can you not speak out when evil doctrines spread throughout the land, when the people fall into the evil paths and the country stands on the brink of ruin?“

This passage admonishes Ryuzo-bo by illustrating the true way a priest should be.

As mentioned earlier, Ryuzo-bo not only failed to give any satisfactory answer to Sammi-bo’s doubts concerning the Buddhist teachings, but as soon as Sammi-bo pointed out his reliance on erroneous master teachers, he attempted to evade the debate entirely out of self-preservation and fear of the audience. No matter how skillfully one dresses up their words or how high a reputation they enjoy in society, a person’s true nature is exposed when they are backed into a corner. Ultimately, this exposed Ryuzo-bo’s superficiality and ignorance toward religion itself, as well as his utter lack of qualification as a practitioner.

This is because religion, by its very nature, does not exist merely to offer emotional solace or preach morality; its primary purpose is to expound the Law, which serves as the fundamental standard for human beings living in this harsh reality. The life of religion lies in the human revolution achieved through this Law. Therefore, rather than standing idly by when witnessing the suffering of the masses or a society filled with anxiety and chaos, a religious practitioner’s mission and purpose lie in genuinely committing themselves to resolving these human sufferings.

Thus, the Daishonin declares that Ryuzo-bo’s behavior—forgetting the primary mission and purpose of a religious practitioner and desperately clinging to self-preservation—is truly the height of folly, and that he cannot be deemed a wise person or a holy priest.

What, then, specifically constitutes a “wise person”—a true priest? In short, it is a leader of Buddhism who possesses both wisdom and courage (chiyuu kenbi).

According to the passage, “When you see evil teachings spreading throughout the world, leading people into the evil paths and threatening to ruin the nation, how can a true priest fail to remonstrate against it?” a true leader must have the wisdom to recognize that the spread of evil laws is the root cause of human unhappiness, combined with the practical courage to actively remonstrate (kangyo) against the source of that unhappiness rather than merely possessing passive knowledge. In other words, a true priest and a wise person do not just know things conceptually or verbally; they elevate their knowledge into concrete, active movements. The ultimate teacher who embodied this was Nichiren Daishonin, as detailed extensively in the latter half of this chapter.