On Repaying Debts of Gratitude

Chapter9(The Public Debate Conducted by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai)

Main Text

Some proposed that Chih-i should have his head smashed; others, that he should be driven out of the country. The ruler of the Ch’en dynasty, hearing of what was going on, summoned a number of Buddhist leaders from the north and south and had them appear in his presence along with Chih-i so that he could listen to the proceedings. There were such priests as Hui-jung, a disciple of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün, and Fa-sui, Hui-k’uang, and Hui-heng—over a hundred men, some in the ranks of administrator of priests and supervisor of priests. They struggled to outdo one another in speaking ill of Chih-i, raising their eyebrows and glaring angrily, or clapping their hands in an impatient rhythm.

The Dharma Teacher Chih-i, though he was seated in a humble position far below the others, showed no sign of emotion and made no slip of speech. Instead, with quiet dignity he took notes on each of the charges and assertions made by the other priests and succeeded in refuting them. Then he began to attack his opponents, saying: “According to the teachings of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün, the Flower Garland Sutra ranks first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Lotus Sutra third. In what sutra is the proof of this to be found? Please produce a passage that gives clear and certain proof of this!” Pressed in this way, the other priests all lowered their heads and turned pale, unable to say a word in reply.

He continued to press them, saying: “In the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, the Buddha says, ‘Then I preached the twelve divisions of the correct and equal sutras,²⁷ the teaching of great wisdom, and the Flower Garland teaching of the ocean-imprint meditation.’²⁸ Thus the Buddha himself mentions the Flower Garland Sutra by name and denies its worth, saying that, in these sutras preached before the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, ‘I have not yet revealed the truth.’ If in the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, which is inferior to the Lotus Sutra, the Flower Garland Sutra is attacked in this way, then what grounds could there be for asserting that the Flower Garland Sutra represents the highest achievement of the Buddha’s preaching life? Gentlemen, if you wish to show your loyalty to your teacher, then please produce some scriptural passage that will refute and override this passage I have cited from the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, and vindicate your teacher’s doctrines!

“And on what passage of scripture do you base your assertion that the Nirvana Sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra? In the fourteenth volume of the Nirvana Sutra, there is a discussion of the relative merit of the Nirvana Sutra in comparison to the sutras of the Flower Garland, Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom periods, but no mention whatsoever of its merit in comparison to the Lotus Sutra.

“Earlier in the same sutra, however, in the ninth volume, the relative merits of the Nirvana and Lotus sutras are made abundantly clear. The passage states, ‘When this [Nirvana] sutra was preached . . . the prediction had already been made in the Lotus Sutra that the eight thousand voice-hearers would attain Buddhahood, a prediction that was like a great harvest. Thus, the autumn harvest was over and the crop had been stored away for winter [when the Nirvana Sutra was expounded], and there was nothing left for it [but a few gleanings].’

“This passage makes clear that the other sutras were the work of spring and summer, while the Nirvana and Lotus sutras were like a ripening or fruition. But while the Lotus Sutra was like a great fruition in which the harvest is gathered in autumn and stored away for winter, the Nirvana Sutra was like the gleaning of the fallen grain that takes place at the end of autumn and the beginning of winter.

“In this passage, the Nirvana Sutra is in effect acknowledging that it is inferior to the Lotus Sutra. And the Lotus Sutra speaks about the sutras that have already been preached, are presently being preached, and are to be preached in the future. By this, the Buddha is indicating that the Lotus Sutra is not only superior to the sutras preached before it as well as those preached at the same time, but is also superior to those he will preach afterward.

“If Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, laid it down so clearly, what room could there be for doubt? Nevertheless, because he was concerned about what might happen after his passing, he determined to have Many Treasures Buddha of the World of Treasure Purity in the east act as a witness to the truth of his words. Therefore, Many Treasures Buddha sprang forth from beneath the earth and testified to the verity of the Lotus Sutra, saying, ‘The Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law . . . all that you have expounded is the truth!’²⁹ In addition, the Buddhas of the ten directions who were Shakyamuni’s emanations gathered around and put forth their long broad tongues until the tips reached to the Brahmā heaven, as did Shakyamuni’s, in witness to the truth of the teachings.

“After that, Many Treasures Buddha returned to the World of Treasure Purity, and the various Buddhas who were emanations of Shakyamuni returned to their respective lands in the ten directions. Then, when neither Many Treasures Buddha nor the emanations were present, Shakyamuni Buddha preached the Nirvana Sutra. If he had claimed that the Nirvana Sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra, would his disciples in fact have believed such a thing?”

This was the way Chih-i, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che, chided them. He was like the brilliant light of the sun and moon striking the eyes of the asuras,³⁰ or the sword of the emperor of Han³¹ pressing against the necks of his barons, and his opponents accordingly closed their eyes tightly and let their heads droop. In his appearance and manner, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai was like the lion king roaring at foxes and rabbits, or like a hawk or an eagle swooping down on doves and pheasants.

As a result, not only did the fact that the Lotus Sutra is superior to the Flower Garland and Nirvana sutras become known throughout the whole of China, but word of it also spread to the five regions of India. There the Indian treatises of both the Mahayana and Hinayana divisions of Buddhism were inferior to the Great Teacher Chih-che’s doctrine, and the people there praised him, wondering if Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, had appeared in the world once again, or whether Buddhism would now have a second beginning.

Notes

27. The twelve divisions of the correct and equal sutras refer to a generic term for all the Mahayana teachings. In general, these sutras refute attachment to Hinayana.

28. A kind of meditation expounded in the Flower Garland Sutra. In this meditation all phenomena of the three existences appear clearly in the mind, just as all things are clearly reflected on the surface of the ocean when the waves are quiet.

29. Lotus Sutra, chap. 11.

30. It is said that the asura king was blinded by the light of the sun and moon when he tried to do battle with the god Shakra.

31. The emperor of Han refers to Liu Pang (247–195 b.c.e.), the founder of the Former Han dynasty, who is said to have controlled the other lords by wielding his three-foot sword.

Lecture

In the On Repaying Debts of Gratitude (Hōon-shō), it is stated of Grand Master T’ien-t’ai that, “The ruler of the Ch’en dynasty, hearing of what was going on, summoned a number of Buddhist leaders from the north and south”, Concerning Grand Master Dengyō, it is recorded: “But as it happened, on the nineteenth day of the first month in the twenty-first year of the Enryaku era (802), Emperor Kammu paid a visit to the temple called Takao-dera, and he summoned fourteen eminent priests—namely, Zengi, Shōyū, Hōki, Chōnin, Kengyoku, Ampuku, Gonzō, Shuen, Jikō, Gen’yō, Saikō, Dōshō, Kōshō, and Kambin—to come to the temple and debate with Saichō.”(WND1, p.703) In this way, the sovereign himself clarified the true and false of Buddhism—something of the utmost importance.

The reason is explained in On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land (Risshō Ankoku-ron): “Now surely the peace of the world and the stability of the nation are sought by both ruler and subject and desired by all the inhabitants of the country. The nation achieves prosperity through the Buddhist Law, and the Law is proven worthy of reverence by the people who embrace it. If the nation is destroyed and the people are wiped out, then who will continue to pay reverence to the Buddhas? Who will continue to have faith in the Law? Therefore, one must first of all pray for the safety of the nation and then work to establish the Buddhist Law.” (WND1, p.18). It also states: “it seems to me that restraining those who slander the Law and respecting the followers of the correct way will assure stability within the nation and peace in the world at large.” (WND1,p.18).

When the correct Law is upheld, a country prospers; when erroneous teachings prevail, the nation is thrown into disorder and ultimately destroyed. Therefore, for the ruler of the age to determine what is true or false in the Dharma is the very heart of good governance.

In the first year of Bun’ō, Nichiren Daishonin admonished the shogunate with the Risshō Ankoku-ron, and in the fifth year of Bun’ei, he submitted eleven letters admonishing the nation. Yet in the eighth year of Bun’ei, a monk named Gyōbin challenged him, demanding a public debate on the Four Dictums. To this the Daishonin replied, in Reply to Gyōbin: “Regarding each of the questions you have raised, I believe that they would be difficult to settle in a private debate. For that reason, hadn’t you better present them to the government authorities and then, abiding by the instructions they give, pursue this matter to determine what is right and what is wrong?”(WND2, p.384).

Again, in the first year of Kenji, a monk named Gōnin similarly sought debate. The Daishonin answered in Reply to a Communication from Gōnin: “Trying, however, to determine what is correct and what is not correct in matters relating to Buddhist doctrine when one is living in the countryside is, regrettably, like wearing fine brocade garments and wandering about in the dark [where no one can see them], or like a fine pine growing in the depths of the valley where no woodcutter can judge its true worth. In addition, attempts such as this to arrive at agreement on points of doctrine are likely to become a cause for dispute. If you really wish to settle this matter, then I think that notification should be given to the imperial court and to the government in Kanto so that an official record may be drawn up and a clear decision as to the truth of the matter arrived at. In that case, the ruler will be delighted and persons of lesser status will have their doubts dispelled.” (WND2, p.608).

In summary: because private debate leads only to quarrels, the determination of true and false in Buddhism must be conducted in a public forum. Thus Gyōmin and Gōnin were instructed that, if they desired debate with Nichiren Daishonin, they must have the authorities establish an official venue for such a disputation.

Just as the Chen emperor did in T’ien-t’ai’s time, and as Emperor Kammu did in Dengyō’s era, the sovereign must summon both sides and judge for himself. Where this occurs, the correct Law spreads and peace prevails.

During Nichiren Daishonin’s own lifetime, there were moments when a public debate seemed possible. In Reply to Various People, he states: “If the slanderers of Shingon, Zen, and other erroneous teachings were summoned and their doctrines examined, then all people of Japan would become disciples and supporters of Nichiren. My monastic disciples would become teachers of the emperor and retired emperor, and my lay followers would stand among the highest ministers” (Gosho 1284:02).

He further declared that if only a public debate were held, “the prayers and wishes of Nichiren’s entire life would be instantly fulfilled” (Gosho 1284:01). In other words, the great dissemination of the Law would be guaranteed.

However, despite the Daishonin’s admonitions to the government, no public debate was granted; instead he suffered persecution and repeated attempts at exile and death.

After his passing as well, neither the shogunate nor the court accepted his teaching; rather, persecution continued. In the Shōwa era, during the Pacific War, the Soka Kyōiku Gakkai suffered severe oppression, with its president Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and twenty other leaders imprisoned—Makiguchi dying in prison. Thus the Daishonin’s prophecy of the two calamities—internal strife and foreign invasion—was fulfilled, the nation ultimately ruined and the people plunged into misery.

Under President Makiguchi, the Soka Gakkai grew to three thousand members but was nearly annihilated by wartime persecution. After the war, President Jōsei Toda alone rebuilt the organization in devastated Tokyo, ultimately achieving over 800,000 households of converts by his death in 1958. Since then, in accord with his spirit, the movement has expanded across the world and now embraces over 7.5 million households, steadily advancing kosen-rufu.

In former times, when political authority resided in the shogunate or imperial court, the Daishonin rightly addressed and admonished them, demanding public debate. But today we live in an age of democracy. The highest political authority lies in the national Diet, and the sovereign power belongs to the people who elect its members. Thus, to convert each citizen, one by one—to help each household demonstrate the actual proof of faith in its daily life—this is today’s form of admonishing the nation, and the only path to kosen-rufu.

Therefore, in today’s democratic society, kosen-rufu is not something achieved by decree of rulers or single acts of legislation. It must be realized through the collective will of the people—and the history of the Soka Gakkai clearly bears this out.

“Does the Buddha Shakyamuni Appear Twice in This World?”

“The various treatises, great and small, of India cannot surpass the doctrine of the Great Teacher Chisha (T’ien-t’ai). It is said that the Lord Shakyamuni appeared twice in this world—Buddhism was manifested two times.”

Wherever the correct Law is propagated, culture flourishes and society prospers. In India, this was proven by Kings Ajātashatru, Asoka, and Kaniṣka; likewise in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Burma, and elsewhere.

In China, where the provisional teachings of the Lotus Sutra were widely spread by Grand Master T’ien-t’ai, the magnificent culture of the Sui and Tang dynasties blossomed.

In the early Tang period, Chang’an was the center of politics and culture—a peaceful, radiant capital. Many foreign visitors came seeking its civilization, as well as traders from afar, making it an international metropolis—virtually the center of the world.

Japan also sent missions to Sui and Tang in order to absorb this culture. Many of the treasures of today’s Shōsōin are Tang-period works of art. Buddhism and almost every form of culture were transmitted to Japan.

Tang politics in the early period produced the grand era known as the Zhenguan Reign, later the Kaiyuan era of prosperity. The power of the Han people surged, and international culture extended widely—to Europe, Arabia, Persia, India, Southeast Asia, Japan, and Korea. Political organization and centralization progressed dramatically.

Socially, it was one of the most peaceful eras in Chinese history. Agriculture flourished; in the Yellow River region, triple and quadruple crop rotations with millet and wheat increased yields. Production of sugar, rice, tea, hemp, and other goods greatly expanded. Textile production, lacquerware, sericulture, metalworking, commerce, and transportation developed, and trade with Europe and Arabia flourished.

Art, crafts, and music also developed, influenced by many foreign cultures, largely under the inspiration of Buddhism. Literature flourished, with classical Chinese prose reaching maturity; poetry produced the great masters Li Bai and Du Fu, as well as Bai Juyi and Wang Wei.

However, this era of prosperity endured only while T’ien-t’ai’s correct doctrine prevailed and permeated society. Once the doctrines of the Hossō master Xuanzang and the Shingon master Śubhakarasiṃha (Zenmui) gained influence in the mid-Tang, the decline of the dynasty began.