The Selection of the Time

Nichiren, disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha

Chapter22(Rebuking the Tripitaka masters Shan-wu-wei of the True Word school)  

The True Word school is a far greater source of trouble than the other two schools I have discussed above, a major form of error, and I would therefore like to discuss it in outline here.

In the reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung of the T’ang dynasty, the Tripitaka masters Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih, and Pu-k’ung brought the Mahāvairochana, Diamond Crown, and Susiddhikara sutras from India and introduced them to China. The teachings of these three sutras are very clearly set forth. If we look for the basic principle, we find that it consists in unifying the two vehicles of voice-hearers and cause-awakened ones in the one vehicle of bodhisattvas and repudiating the two vehicles to reveal the one vehicle. As far as practices go, the school employs mudras and mantras.

Such a doctrine cannot compare even with the one vehicle of Buddhahood that is taught in contrast to the three vehicles [of voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and bodhisattvas] in the Flower Garland and Wisdom sutras, nor is it even as profound as the specific teaching or the perfect teaching that preceded the Lotus Sutra, as clarified by the T’ien-t’ai school. In its basic meaning at least, it corresponds merely to the two lower types of teachings: the Tripitaka teaching and the connecting teaching.

The Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei no doubt realized that, if he were to expound the teachings set forth in these sutras [he brought from India], he would be ridiculed by the men of the Flower Garland and Dharma Characteristics schools and laughed at by those of the T’ien-t’ai school. And yet, since he had gone to all the trouble of bringing these works from India, probably he did not feel inclined simply to remain silent on the matter.

At this time there was a priest of the T’ien-t’ai school called the Meditation Master I-hsing, a perverse man. Shan-wu-wei went to him and questioned him on the Buddhist doctrines taught in China. Āchārya I-hsing, deceived as to his motives, not only revealed to Shan-wu-wei the main principles of the Three Treatises, Dharma Characteristics, and Flower Garland doctrines, but even explained the teachings of the T’ien-t’ai school to him.

Shan-wu-wei realized that the T’ien-t’ai teachings were even finer than he had supposed when he had heard of them in India, and that the doctrines of the three sutras he had brought could never compete with them. But he set about to deceive I-hsing, saying: “My good priest, you are one of the cleverest men of China, and the T’ien-t’ai school has a truly profound and wonderful teaching. But the True Word school whose teachings I have brought to China excels it in the fact that it employs mudras and mantras.”

I-hsing appeared to find this reasonable, and the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei then said to him: “Just as the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai wrote commentaries on the Lotus Sutra, so I would like to compose a commentary on the Mahāvairochana Sutra in order to propagate the True Word teachings. Could you write it down for me?” I-hsing replied, “That would be easy enough.”

“But in what way should I write?” I-hsing asked, saying: “The T’ien-t’ai school is unassailable, and though each of the other schools of Buddhism has competed in trying to refute its doctrines, none has gained the slightest success because of a single point. That point is the fact that in the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, an introductory teaching to the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha declares that in the various sutras that he has preached during the previous forty and more years he has not yet revealed the truth, thus invalidating the doctrines based upon those various sutras. And in the ‘Teacher of the Law’ and ‘Supernatural Powers’ chapters of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha states that no sutras that will be preached in later times can ever equal the Lotus Sutra. In the passage of the ‘Teacher of the Law’ chapter concerning the comparison of the Lotus Sutra and others preached at the same time, he also makes clear the superiority of the Lotus Sutra. To which of these three categories—the sutras preached before the Lotus Sutra, those preached contemporaneously with it, or those preached later—should the Mahāvairochana Sutra be assigned?”

At that point, the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei hit upon an exceedingly cunning idea. “The Mahāvairochana Sutra,” he explained to I-hsing, “begins with a chapter called the ‘Stage of the Mind.’ Just as in the case of the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, which refutes all the sutras that had been preached in the previous forty and more years, this ‘Stage of the Mind’ chapter invalidates all other sutras. The remaining chapters of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, from the ‘Entering the Mandala’ chapter through the end, became known in China in two versions, the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra, though in India they constituted a single sutra. Shakyamuni Buddha, addressing Shāriputra and Maitreya, preached the Mahāvairochana Sutra, which he called the Lotus Sutra, but he omitted the explanations of the mudras and mantras and expounded only the doctrines. This is the work that the Tripitaka Master Kumārajīva introduced to China and that the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai employed. At the same time, however, the Thus Come One Mahāvairochana, addressing Vajrasattva, preached the Lotus Sutra, which he called the Mahāvairochana Sutra. This is the work now called the Mahāvairochana Sutra, a work that I often saw when I was in India. Therefore, I want you to explain that the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are to be savored as works that are essentially the same in flavor, like water and milk. If you do so, then the Mahāvairochana Sutra can stand superior to all the other sutras preached in the past, present, and future in the same way that the Lotus Sutra does.

“As to the mudras and mantras, if they are used to adorn the doctrine of the mind, which is expressed in the term a single moment of life comprising three thousand realms, this will constitute a secret teaching in which the three mysteries are provided. And with this doctrine containing the three mysteries, the True Word will prove superior to the T’ien-t’ai school, which speaks only of the mystery of the mind. The True Word school is like a general of the first rank who dons armor, slings his bow and arrows over his shoulder, and fastens a sword at his waist. But the T’ien-t’ai school, with nothing but the mystery of the mind, is like a general of the first rank who is stark naked.”

Āchārya I-hsing wrote all this down just as Shan-wu-wei dictated it.

Throughout the 360 states of China, there was no one who knew about this ruse. At first there were some disputes over the relative merits of the T’ien-t’ai and True Word teachings. But Shan-wu-wei was the kind of person who was able to command a great deal of respect, whereas the men of the T’ien-t’ai school were regarded lightly. Moreover, at this time there were no men of wisdom such as the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai had been. Thus day by day the T’ien-t’ai school lost more ground to the True Word school, and finally all debate ceased.

As more and more years have gone by, these fraudulent beginnings of the True Word school have become completely obscured and forgotten. When the Great Teacher Dengyō of Japan went to China and returned with the teachings of the T’ien-t’ai school, he also brought back the True Word teachings. The T’ien-t’ai doctrine he recommended to the emperor of Japan, but the True Word teachings he turned over to the eminent priests of the six schools to study. Dengyō had already established the superiority of the T’ien-t’ai teachings over those of the six schools before he went to China. After he came back from China, he attempted to establish an ordination platform for conferring the precepts of perfect and immediate enlightenment, but this involved him in a great deal of controversy.¹⁰⁸ He had many enemies and probably felt that establishing the ordination platform would be difficult enough to accomplish even if he devoted all his efforts to it. Or perhaps he felt that the refutation of the True Word teachings should be left until the Latter Day of the Law. In any event, he did not discuss the True Word teachings in the presence of the emperor, or make any clear pronouncement on the matter to his disciples. However, he did leave a one-volume secret work entitled A Clarification of the Schools Based on T’ien-t’ai’s Doctrine, in which he describes how various priests of the seven schools were won over to T’ien-t’ai’s teachings. In the preface to that work, he mentions the fraudulence of the True Word teachings.

Notes

108. In 819 Dengyō expressed to the emperor his desire that a Mahayana ordination platform be built on Mount Hiei. His request provoked intense opposition from the priests of the six schools in Nara.