The Hero of the World

Table of contents

Background
Chapter1(The Distinction Between Buddhism and Secular Authority)
Chapter2(The Introduction of Buddhism to Japan)
Chapter3(The Conflict Between the Pro-Buddhist and Anti-Buddhist Factions)
Chapter4(Showing the Victory of the Pro-Buddhist Faction)
Chapter5(The Introduction of Buddhism to China)
Chapter6(Buddhism Expounds the Strictness of Reward and Punishment)
Chapter7(Buddhism Demonstrates That Reason Will Inevitably Triumph)
1. Main Text
2. Lecture
Chapter8(Urging Personal Caution)

Background

Around the third year of Kenji (1277), when this letter was written, Shijō Kingo was in great personal danger, having incurred the wrath of his lord Ema. Lord Ema’s antagonism toward Shijō Kingo dated back to the Kuwagayatsu Debate, which took place in the sixth month, 1277. Taking advantage of their discord, Kingo’s colleagues were watching for a chance to do away with him. In response to Kingo’s report on the plight in which he was placed, Nichiren Daishonin wrote a petition to Lord Ema on Kingo’s behalf, explaining what had happened at the Kuwagayatsu Debate and the relative superiority of the Buddhist teachings.

In the present letter, the Daishonin clarifies the difference between Buddhism and government. Reward and punishment are means that a government employs to pursue its goals, while there is no such conscious manipulation in the world of Buddhism. Buddhism, based on an absolute Law, means victory or defeat—in other words, happiness or unhappiness—depending on whether one supports it or opposes it. In the last part of the letter, the Daishonin strongly advises Kingo to take great care to avoid being attacked by his enemies.

Chapter1(The Distinction Between Buddhism and Secular Authority)

Main Text

HAVING glanced through your letter, I feel as relieved as if the day had finally broken after a long night, or as if I had returned home after a long journey.

Buddhism primarily concerns itself with victory or defeat, while secular authority is based on the principle of reward and punishment. For this reason, a Buddha is looked up to as the Hero of the World,¹ while a king is called the one who rules at his will. India is called the Land of the Moon,² and our country, the Land of the Sun. Of the eighty thousand countries in the land of Jambudvīpa, India is one of the largest, and Japan, one of the smallest. When it comes to the auspiciousness of their names, however, India ranks second and Japan first. Buddhism began in the Land of the Moon; it will reside in the Land of the Sun. It is in the natural course of events that the moon appears in the west³ and travels eastward while the sun proceeds from east to west. This truth is as inalterable as the fact that a magnet attracts iron, or that the ivory plant⁴ is nourished by the sound of thunder. Who could possibly deny it?

Notes

1. The Hero of the World is another name for the Buddha, so called because he valiantly confronts all sufferings and leads all people to enlightenment. The “Parable of the Phantom City” chapter of the Lotus Sutra reads, “World hero without peer, you who adorn yourself with a hundred blessings, you have attained unsurpassed wisdom.”

2. Land of the Moon: (Chin Yüeh-chih) A name for India used in China and Japan. In the late third century b.c.e., there was a tribe called Yüeh-chih who ruled a part of India. Since Buddhism was brought from India to China via this territory, the Chinese seem to have regarded the land of the Yüeh-chih (moon tribe) as India itself.

3. “The moon appears in the west” refers to the fact that the new moon is first seen in the west just after sunset. Of course, the moon rises in the east and sets in the west each day just as the sun and stars do, but because its orbital motion is from west to east, it appears to move incrementally in retrograde, from west to east, each day.

4. A kind of plantain. The ivory plant is so called because its petals are large and ivory in color. In the Nirvana Sutra, it is said to grow with the sound of thunder.

Lecture

Nichiren Daishonin encourages Shijo Kingo, who was in dire straits, by demonstrating the difference between Buddhism and secular authority (the law of the king), and how Buddhism is certain to win, using historical facts. The historical facts cited here are two examples: when Buddhism was introduced to Japan, and when it was introduced to China. In both cases, there was a fierce rejection by the indigenous religions tied to secular authority—that is, political power—against Buddhism, which was an external and newly arrived religion. Ultimately, however, Buddhism triumphed through the inherent power of the Law itself.

The persecution Shijo Kingo now faces from his lord, Ema, and the people of Kamakura, because he has embraced Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism ahead of others, is exactly the same as when Buddhism was first introduced and about to spread in Japan and China. No matter how severe the hardships may be, Buddhism is certain to triumph over secular authority, and the time will come when his current suffering turns into the glory of a pioneer. Within this encouragement, offered with his whole soul, we can perceive the Daishonin’s deep affection for his beloved disciple and his immense conviction in the kosen-rufu of the great Buddhism that saves the people into the eternal future of ten thousand years.

“Buddhism primarily concerns itself with victory or defeat, while secular authority is based on the principle of reward and punishment. For this reason, a Buddha is looked up to as the Hero of the World, while a king is called the one who rules at his will.“

The phrase “Buddhism primarily concerns itself with victory or defeat” must be understood in contrast with “secular authority concerns itself with reward and punishment.” “Victory or defeat” means determining which is superior and which is inferior, and which can better serve human happiness and dignity, based not on authority, but on the power of the Law itself and the person who upholds it. On the other hand, “reward and punishment” means rewarding those with merit and punishing those with guilt through authority and social power.

Therefore, “Buddhism concerns itself with victory or defeat” means that Buddhism values the fundamental power of human life and seeks to strengthen it. The subject of this process is the individual human being. In contrast, secular authority is a reflection of social power supported by social authority and the loyalty of the people who submit to that authority. Whether its leader is an individual like a king or dictator, or a collective group like a cabinet, its subject is ultimately a collective power rather than an individual human being. In this way, by presenting the principle of Buddhism as victory or defeat in contrast to the reward and punishment of secular authority, we can read the spirit of Buddhism that focuses on the human being and centers on human potential.

Furthermore, though it may seem like a subtle detail, attention must also be paid to the choice of words: Buddhism makes victory or defeat its “priority” (saki), while secular authority makes reward and punishment its “basis” (hon). “Priority” (saki) here does not simply mean “before” in terms of order. It stands in contrast to the “basis” (hon); it corresponds to the treetops or the tips of leaves of plants, while the root is the “basis.” Therefore, making victory or defeat the priority does not mean that one should prioritize winning over everything else, but rather that it ultimately manifests as a matter of victory or defeat as a result.

What is vital in the practice of Buddhism is to protect the justice of the Law and to practice it with all one’s soul. One must never fixate on winning or employ schemes that distort justice in the slightest degree. This battle of sincerity will be proven to result in ultimate victory when viewed from a long-term perspective.

That secular authority makes reward and punishment its “basis” means that by rewarding those who truly have merit and punishing those who are truly guilty, it serves to maintain order and becomes a norm that governs the people’s behavior. In other words, reward and punishment are standards and cannot encompass the outcomes of all people’s actions. No matter how meticulously a king’s power reaches over the people, it is impossible to encompass every action of every person. Among those who are not rewarded, there may be those with greater merit than those who were. There may also be those who commit far greater crimes than those who are punished, yet escape punishment. This can be said to be the limitation of secular authority, which governs overall control. In any case, herein lies the fundamental difference between secular authority and Buddhism.

“It is in the natural course of events that the moon appears in the west and travels eastward while the sun proceeds from east to west.“

From an astronomical perspective, the moon’s diurnal motion causes it to rise in the east and set in the west of the Earth. However, the moon as seen with the naked eye changes in various ways depending on whether it is a new moon, first quarter, full moon, or last quarter. The moon advances along its orbit (the white path) at an average of 13.2 degrees per day, which causes the times of moonrise and moonset to be delayed by an average of about 51 minutes each day.

In other words, around the time of a new moon, the moon rises and sets at roughly the same time as the sun. Gradually falling behind, around the first quarter, it rises from the east at noon, reaches the southern sky in the evening, and sets at midnight. Around the full moon, it becomes opposite to the sun, rising in the east in the evening and setting at dawn. The last quarter moon rises at midnight and sets at noon.

By the way, the light of the moon, which is weaker than the sun, is difficult for our eyes to perceive during the hours when the sun is out, regardless of when it rises in the east and sets in the west. Therefore, because we regard the evening hour when the sun sets and the moon begins to appear as moonrise, the position where the moon begins to shine shifts from west to east from the new moon to the full moon.

Around the new moon, its position is in the west at sunset because it aligns with the sun. Since the time the moon sets in the west is delayed by 51 minutes each day, the next day at sunset, the moon’s position shifts slightly south from the west. That is, the time the moon sets in the west is delayed. Day by day, it shifts southward in this manner, reaching due south around the first quarter. Furthermore, it gradually moves eastward, so that around the full moon, the moon’s position at sunset is in the east. Moreover, since the moon does not emit light on its own but shines by reflecting the sun’s light, it appears to rise from the west and illuminate the east.

On the other hand, it goes without saying that the sun rises in the eastern sky every morning, shines in the southern sky during the day, and sets in the western sky in the evening.

Similar to these movements of the moon and the sun, Shakyamuni’s Buddhism originated in India—the land of the moon, located to the west—and was transmitted further and further east. It spread to China, was transmitted to the Korean Peninsula, and eventually crossed over to Japan. Now, the Daishonin expresses his immense conviction that it is a principle of nature that his Buddhism, originating from Japan in the east, will spread like the sun to the western lands of China and India, illuminating the entire world.

Chapter2(The Introduction of Buddhism to Japan)

Main Text

Let us examine how Buddhism came to Japan. Our country was first under the seven reigns of the heavenly deities and then under the five reigns of the earthly deities. Their reigns were followed by the age of human sovereigns, the first being Emperor Jimmu. The thirtieth emperor was Kimmei, who reigned for thirty-two years. In those days there was a state called Paekche⁵ to the west of this country. It was under the suzerainty of the Japanese emperor and was governed by a king named Syŏngmyŏng. When the king made his annual tribute to Japan on the thirteenth day, with the cyclical sign kanoto-tori, of the tenth month in the thirteenth year of Emperor Kimmei’s reign (552), the year with the cyclical sign mizunoe-saru, he sent along with it a gilded bronze image of Shakyamuni Buddha, a number of Buddhist scriptures, and also priests and nuns. Overjoyed, the emperor sought counsel from his ministers as to whether or not the nation should worship the Buddha of the western countries.

The Great Minister Iname⁶ of the Soga clan said, “All the countries of the west worship this Buddha. Why should Japan alone deny him?” However, the Chief Minister Okoshi of the Mononobe clan, Nakatomi no Kamako,⁷ and others advised the emperor, saying: “The sovereign who rules over our nation has traditionally performed rites throughout the four seasons of the year in honor of heaven and earth, the gods of the land and of grain, and numerous other deities. If we alter this custom in favor of the god of the west, our native deities will be angered.” Unable to decide, the emperor decreed that the Great Minister Soga alone should worship the Buddha by way of trial, and that no one else should do so. Soga was exceedingly glad to receive this decree. He took the image of Shakyamuni Buddha to his residence at a place called Ohada⁸ and enshrined it there, to the surprise and outrage of the Chief Minister Mononobe.

Notes

5. Paekche was one of three kingdoms on the Korean Peninsula. It flourished from the mid-fourth through the mid-seventh century. Though the Daishonin indicates that Paekche was in a subordinate relationship to Japan, scholars today, with access to a greater variety of historical documents than were available in the Daishonin’s time, believe that the relationship was actually one of cooperation and exchange. Paekche is perhaps best known for introducing Buddhism to Japan, but it was also responsible for providing much of the support that allowed Japan to successfully adopt continental civilization.

6. The Great Minister Iname is Soga no Iname (d. 570), a court official who engaged in a struggle for power with the Chief Minister Mononobe no Okoshi, leader of the conservative faction at court. Iname’s daughters became consorts of Emperor Kimmei, and one of them gave birth to Emperor Yōmei, father of Prince Shōtoku.

7. Nakatomi no Kamako is thought to have been a leading figure of the Nakatomi clan. Details about him are unknown. (Different from his namesake mentioned in n. 22.)

8. A place in Asuka Village, Nara. Ohada is a provincial pronunciation of Oharida, the official name.

Lecture

Historical Context of the Introduction of Buddhism to Japan

This section describes how Buddhism was introduced and accepted in our country. Regarding the historical descriptions, the Daishonin relied on the Nihon Shoki (The Chronicles of Japan), which was generally believed to be the sole historical source in the society of his time. Therefore, from the perspective of modern historical scholarship, there may be distortions arising from the fact that it is an officially compiled record. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that numerous difficulties existed for Buddhism to become established against the backdrop of the ancient faith in native gods.

The purpose of noting this here is to show the hardships Buddhism faced and how it overcame them to achieve victory; therefore, one should not fixate on the factual accuracy of other side issues.

The Debate Over the Official Introduction (Kōden)

Just for reference, to say a word about the long-standing debate concerning the official introduction of Buddhism, the date of the arrival of the Buddhist Law in this treatise is given as “the thirteenth day, kanoto-tori, of the tenth month, mizunoe-saru, in the thirteenth year of Emperor Kinmei.” This is based on the entry for the thirteenth year of Emperor Kinmei in the Nihon Shoki, which states: “In the winter, the tenth month, King Seongmyeong of Baekje (also known as King Seong)… dispatched Dalsol Gwise and others to present a bronze statue of Shakyamuni Buddha cast in gold, several banners and umbrellas, and a number of sutra scrolls and commentaries.”

In other words, while the Nihon Shoki places the official introduction in the 13th year of Emperor Kinmei (552), there is a powerful alternative theory today. This is the “year of tsuchinoe-uma (538)” theory found in sources compiling historical materials related to Prince Shōtoku, such as the Jōgū Shōtoku Hōō Teisetsu (The Biography of Prince Shotoku) and the Gangō-ji Garan Engi Narabi ni Ruki Shizai Chō (The Origins and Assets of Gango-ji Temple).

The Jōgū Shōtoku Hōō Teisetsu states: “On the twelfth day of the tenth month in the year of tsuchinoe-uma during the reign of Emperor Shikishima [Kinmei], King Myō [Seongmyeong] of Baekje first transmitted Buddhist statues, sutras, and monks.” The Gangō-ji Garan Engi states: “It began during the reign of Emperor Ame-kuni-oshi-haruki-hiro-niwa [Kinmei], who ruled from the Shikishima Palace. When the Great Minister Soga no Iname no Sukune was serving him, in the 7th year of his reign, the year of tsuchinoe-uma, in the 12th month, they arrived. During the reign of King Seongmyeong of Baekje, they transmitted a statue of the Prince, a set of lustral vessels, and a box of scrolls concerning the origins of the Buddha’s teachings.” These sources place the transmission in the 7th year of Emperor Kinmei (538).

Both of these historical records were produced during the Nara period. The Jōgū Shōtoku Hōō Teisetsu is considered an exceptionally valuable source as it conveys legends distinct from the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki, giving its theory significant weight. Furthermore, the Gangō-ji Garan Engi served as a source material when major temples were ordered to compile their origins and asset registers in the 19th year of Tenpyō (747), recording ancient traditions of the Nara period. In particular, the kana characters used in it reflect the archaic pronunciations of the Zhou dynasty, which were the ancient pronunciations of kana commonly used back then. Because it aligns with the Jōgū Shōtoku Hōō Teisetsu, it is regarded as a precious tradition.

However, when looking for this tsuchinoe-uma year in the Nihon Shoki, it falls under the 3rd year of Emperor Senka (538), which would mean it was not during the reign of Emperor Kinmei. Historians have attempted various explanations to resolve this contradiction. Among them, the most prominent is the theory of the split into two parallel courts due to an internal conflict instigated by the powerful clans who held actual power in the Yamato Court at the time.

The basis for this is the description of Emperor Kinmei’s reign in the Jōgū Shōtoku Hōō Teisetsu. Calculating from there, the passing of Emperor Keitai falls in a year of shingai, and the first year of Emperor Kinmei’s reign (532) also corresponds to a year of shingai. Consequently, the reign of Kinmei would directly succeed the reign of Keitai, making the tsuchinoe-uma year of the official introduction of Buddhism the 7th year of Kinmei’s reign (538).

However, there was a faction that refused to recognize Emperor Kinmei’s accession, leading to the enthronement of Emperors Ankan and Senka. This view suggests that the two courts split and fought each other, eventually consolidating after the death of Emperor Senka. In addition, a widely accepted theory suggests that duplicate records in the entry for Emperor Keitai’s reign in the Nihon Shoki caused errors in the chronology.

Some scholars even refer to this period as the “Shingai Political Change” or the “period of internal strife.” Given the complex circumstances of the era, it is only natural that differences in perspective would arise when these events were recorded in later generations. It is highly probable that the Daishonin adopted the 13th year of Emperor Kinmei (552) theory in this treatise because it was the established theory at the time, based on the Nihon Shoki.

The Record of Private Transmission (Shiden)

By the way, although this is referred to as the arrival of the Buddhist Law, it strictly denotes the official introduction (public transmission). It is entirely natural to assume that Buddhism had already entered the country prior to that through immigrants (naturalized citizens).

Some scholars suggest that by the middle of the sixth century, Buddhist faith was already practiced among the chieftains of northern Kyushu and the Seto Inland Sea region through immigrants. Since the introduction of continental culture by immigrants had been occurring in various regions since around the 4th century, and there were frequent military expeditions to the Korean Peninsula from the era of Empress Jingū, it is highly conceivable that the general public had significant opportunities to come into contact with Buddhism. Given the close interactions between Japan, China, and Korea at the time, some historians argue that it is more aligned with common sense to assume that Buddhism had spread prior to its official introduction.

The earliest text documenting the unofficial transmission—so-called private transmission (shiden)—prior to the official introduction of Buddhism, which is invariably introduced, is a passage from the Fusō Ryakki (A Brief History of Japan). This was compiled chronologically from national and ancient histories, as well as biographies and temple origins, by the monk Ajari Kōen (d. 1169) of Enryaku-ji Temple.

In this national historical text, the section recording the private transmission of Buddhism is based on the Hokke Genki (Miracles of the Lotus Sutra), written by a person named Yakukō, also of Hieizan Enryaku-ji Temple, around the time of Emperor Suzaku (reigned 930–946) in the Heian period. Today, the Hokke Genki no longer exists. However, regarding the private transmission of Buddhism, this Hokke Genki also cited the records of Zenshin, a monk of Enryaku-ji Temple.

Therefore, the passage in the Fusō Ryakki states: “The Hokke Genki by Master Yakukō of Hiyoshi-zan states, citing the records of the monk Zenshin of Enryaku-ji: ‘In the 16th year, mizunoe-tora, of the accession of the 27th Emperor Keitai, Shiba Tatto, a man from Great Tang China and the chief of Kurabe village, arrived in the spring, the second month of this year. He then built a thatched hut in Sakatahara, Takaichi District, Yamato Province. He enshrined an object of devotion there, taking refuge and bowing in worship. The entire world said, “This is the god of Great Tang.” This event appears in the temple origins (engi). A recluse reading this text notes that Chinese people brought Buddhist statues before Emperor Kinmei, yet it did not spread widely.'”

The phrase “appears in the temple origins” in this passage refers to the origins of Sakata-dera Temple, which seems to have been a highly prosperous temple in the mid-seventh century, along with temples like Asuka-dera and Toyura-dera. Consequently, the Hokke Genki, which is quoted in the Fusō Ryakki, cited the text of Zenshin, and this Zenshin in turn cited the origins of Sakata-dera Temple.

Furthermore, because the original texts of these cited passages no longer exist, and the exact dates recorded are not entirely clear, various debates have surrounded these quotations.

One point of debate is that while the text specifies the 16th year of Emperor Keitai, mizunoe-tora (522), placing the official transmission under the 13th year of Emperor Kinmei (552) or even the 7th year of Emperor Kinmei, tsuchinoe-uma (538), would mean it no longer falls within the era of Emperor Keitai. There are also theories suggesting that Shiba Tatto was not an immigrant, or that the entry in the Fusō Ryakki is an error caused by a miscalculation of one complete sexagenary cycle (60 years), actually referring to the 11th year of Emperor Bidatsu. On the other hand, some place high credibility on this account, arguing that the origins of Sakata-dera Temple are highly reliable, noting that Shiba Tatto was a craftsman invited from China, and his descendants later entered the priesthood or became makers of Buddhist statues.

In any case, despite slight discrepancies in chronology or the existence of these documents, it is an almost indisputable fact that the Buddhist Law had crossed over to our country by the mid-sixth century through numerous immigrants and common citizens, separate from the political and diplomatic matters of the state that defined the official introduction.

Chapter3(The Conflict Between the Pro-Buddhist and Anti-Buddhist Factions)

Main Text

At that time, a terrible epidemic broke out in Japan and killed a majority of the populace. Since it seemed as though the entire nation would perish, the Chief Minister Mononobe took this opportunity to declare to the emperor that the Buddha image should be destroyed. The emperor concurred and commanded that Buddhism, a foreign religion, be discarded immediately. The Chief Minister Mononobe, acting on the emperor’s behalf, confiscated the statue, heated it in a charcoal fire, and smashed it with a hammer. He razed the Buddha image hall and flogged the priests and nuns. Then, although the sky was cloudless, a gale blew and rain fell. The imperial palace was consumed in a fire that descended from heaven.⁹ All three men—the emperor, Mononobe, and Soga—fell ill in the epidemic. Each suffered excruciating agony, as though he were being mangled or burned alive. Mononobe finally died, while the emperor and Soga barely recovered. From that time, nineteen years passed without anyone taking faith in Buddhism.

The thirty-first emperor, Bidatsu, was the second son of Kimmei. He reigned for fourteen years, aided by the ministers of the left and right. One of them was a son of the Chief Minister Mononobe no Okoshi, Yuge no Moriya,¹⁰ who had succeeded to his father’s position. The other was a son of the Great Minister Soga no Iname, Soga no Umako [who also assumed his father’s position]. It was during Emperor Bidatsu’s reign that Prince Shōtoku was born. He was a son of Emperor Yōmei and a nephew of Bidatsu. One day in the second month of the year when the prince was two years old, he faced the east, extended his third finger, and chanted “Hail, Buddha,” whereupon the Buddha’s ashes materialized in his palm. This was the first time that anyone in Japan had invoked the name of Shakyamuni Buddha.

When the prince was only eight years old, he proclaimed, “Those who, in the latter age, worship the image of the sage of the west, Shakyamuni Buddha, will forestall calamities and receive benefits. Those who despise it will invite disasters and have their lives shortened.” Hearing this, the Chief Minister Mononobe no Moriya and others said in anger, “The Sogas have been worshiping the god of a foreign land in violation of the imperial decree.” Epidemics still raged incessantly, nearly wiping out the entire populace. Mononobe no Moriya reported this to the emperor. The emperor issued a decree, which stated, “Soga no Umako has been upholding Buddhism. Practice of this religion must cease.”

In compliance with the imperial command, Moriya, together with Nakatomi no Katsumi,¹¹ marched upon the temple. There they demolished the hall and pagoda, burned and destroyed the Buddha image, and set fire to the temple. They stripped the priests and nuns of their surplices and punished them with whips. After this incident, the emperor as well as Moriya and Umako fell ill in an epidemic. All three said that they felt as though they were being burned alive or hacked to pieces. Moreover, boils called smallpox appeared all over their bodies. Umako, lamenting in anguish, said, “Still, we should worship the three treasures.” The emperor commanded that Umako alone should do so, and that no one else must follow suit. Overjoyed, Umako had a monastery built and there worshiped the three treasures.

The emperor [Bidatsu] finally died on the fifteenth day of the eighth month in the year when Prince Shōtoku was fourteen.

Notes

9. The imperial palace was struck by lightning.

10. Yuge no Moriya is Mononobe no Moriya (d. 587), a court official who continued the opposition to Buddhism. He was also called Mononobe no Yuge no Moriya because his mother’s clan was Yuge.

11. Nakatomi no Katsumi (d. 587) was a military leader of the Yamato period and an opponent of Buddhism. He was killed by Tomi no Ichihi, a retainer of Prince Shōtoku.

Lecture

The Power Struggle and the True Stance of Prince Shōtoku

This section describes the conflict that took place between the Mononobe clan and the Soga clan over the acceptance or rejection of Buddhism. Prince Shōtoku, who plays the most vital role in this issue, was still young at this stage and will become the main protagonist for the first time in the next section.

Regarding the sequence of events during this period and the positions of these three entities—Soga, Mononobe, and Prince Shōtoku—there are certain points that must be clarified. Of course, the three emperors, Kinmei, Bidatsu, and Yōmei, were also involved, but to put it bluntly, these emperors lacked fixed convictions and moved whichever way the situation drifted; thus, there is little need to consider them here for the time being.

The Nature of the Conflict: Soga vs. Mononobe

Looking at the aforementioned three entities, a preliminary distinction can be made by defining the Mononobe clan as the anti-Buddhist faction and the Soga clan as the pro-Buddhist faction. However, is this interpretation entirely correct?

As demonstrated by objective historical analysis today, the conflict between these two forces did not originate from the issue of accepting Buddhism. Rather, they were originally rival factions that divided the political world of that time, and the Buddhist issue was merely entangled as a tool in their power struggle.

Therefore, the Soga clan’s reverence for Buddhism was not reverence in the true sense. They likely stood on the pro-Buddhist side to forge ties with Korea—which was a culturally advanced nation at the time—and sought to secure their decisive superiority through the importation of continental culture. The Daishonin implicitly indicates this true nature of the Soga clan within this treatise. One such instance is found in the previous chapter, where Soga no Iname responded to Emperor Kinmei’s inquiry:

“All the nations of the western lands pay reverence to it. Why should our Toyo-aki-yamato [Japan] alone turn its back on it?”

This answer indicates nothing more than a reverence for foreign imports and a spirit of blind conformity, showing not a shred of genuine understanding regarding the greatness of the Buddhist Law.

Furthermore, the Daishonin points out that after Buddhism was accepted, the Soga clan became arrogant and brought about their own ruin. This can also be seen as evidence supporting the fact that the Soga clan used Buddhism merely as a tool to expand their own authority. This answers the questions raised in this section:

Why did an epidemic spread even though the Soga clan was permitted to practice Buddhism on a trial basis?
Why, as a result, were Buddhist statues destroyed in a counter-offensive by the Mononobe faction?
Why did the Soga clan fall ill just like the Mononobe clan and the Emperor?

The Superior Perspective of Prince Shōtoku

In contrast to these two forces, Prince Shōtoku’s stance was based on a far superior level of thinking. That is to say, even at the young age of eight, he had already attained a deep realization of the greatness of the Buddhist Law, recognizing that “if one reveres the Buddhist Law of Shakyamuni, one will obtain happiness, but if one despises it, one will invite disaster.”

His position of respecting the Buddhist Law was not for the sake of his own power, but solely for the happiness of the Japanese people and the prosperity of the nation. While the Prince temporarily allied with the Soga clan for the flourishing of Buddhism, we must understand that his purpose and spirit were vastly different from those of both Soga and Mononobe.

Chapter4(Showing the Victory of the Pro-Buddhist Faction)

Main Text

Yōmei became thirty-second emperor and reigned for two years. He was a son of Kimmei and the father of Shōtoku. In the fourth month of the second year of his reign (587), cyclical sign hinoto-hitsuji, he fell ill in an epidemic. Thereupon he expressed a desire to embrace the three treasures. Soga no Umako insisted that the imperial wish be honored, and finally brought a priest called Toyokuni¹² into the imperial palace. Mononobe no Moriya and others flew into a rage, and in their fury, swore to invoke a curse upon the emperor. At length the emperor passed away.

In the fifth month of that year, Moriya and his clan entrenched themselves at his residence in Shibukawa and assembled a large number of troops there. Prince Shōtoku and Umako advanced on the enemy’s position and fought. The fifth, sixth, and seventh months saw a total of four encounters. The prince lost the first three. Before the fourth battle took place, he offered a prayer and vowed that he would build a stupa for the preservation of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni’s ashes and also construct Shitennō-ji, temple of the four heavenly kings. Umako similarly pledged that he would erect a temple and enshrine the image of Shakyamuni Buddha that had been sent from Paekche.

When the fighting began, Moriya shouted at the prince, “It is not I but the god of my ancestors, the great deity¹³ enshrined at Futsu, who shoots this arrow.” The arrow flew far and struck the prince’s armor. The prince responded by calling out, “It is not I but the four heavenly kings who shoot this arrow.” Then he had a courtier named Tomi no Ichihi let fly the arrow. It traveled a great distance and struck Moriya in the chest. Hata no Kawakatsu¹⁴ rushed to the spot and severed Moriya’s head from his body. This incident took place during the interval between Yōmei’s passing and Sushun’s ascension to the throne.

After Sushun became thirty-third emperor, Prince Shōtoku built Shitennō-ji temple, in which he placed the Thus Come One Shakyamuni’s ashes. Umako erected a temple called Gangō-ji, where he worshiped the image of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, which had been sent from Paekche. Here it must be pointed out in passing that the most appalling fraud in the world today is that of the statue of the Thus Come One Amida, allegedly the original object of devotion of Zenkō-ji temple.¹⁵ It was because of their enmity toward Shakyamuni Buddha that the three emperors as well as the members of the Mononobe clan perished. Prince Shōtoku had an image of Shakyamuni Buddha cast and enshrined it in Gangō-ji. This is the object of devotion now enshrined in Tachibana-dera¹⁶ temple. It was the first statue of Shakyamuni Buddha ever to be made in Japan.

Notes

12. Toyokuni (n.d.) was a naturalized priest from the Korean kingdom of Paekche.

13. The great deity refers here to Futsu no Mitama no Ōkami, the deity of Isonokami Shrine at Futsu, Nara, who was revered by the Mononobe family as their clan deity.

14. Hata no Kawakatsu (n.d.) was a courtier who won the trust of Prince Shōtoku. It is said that, after the prince’s death, he built Hachioka-dera (also called Kōryū-ji) temple in honor of his memory.

15. Zenkō-ji is a temple affiliated with the Tendai and Pure Land schools in what is now Nagano Prefecture. According to the documents of this temple, the statue originally enshrined there was the one sent by King Syŏngmyŏng to Emperor Kimmei. The documents claim that this statue was transported to Nagano by Honda Zenkō, and enshrined in 642 at a temple which was to become Zenkō-ji. However, The Chronicles of Japan says that the image sent by the king was one of Shakyamuni. It is conceivable that, with the rise of the Pure Land school, the original image was replaced by a statue of Amida Buddha.

16. A temple in Asuka in Nara, said to have been built by Prince Shōtoku. It is now affiliated with the Tendai school.

Lecture

The Shift of the Imperial Court Toward Buddhism

Up to this point, the emperors had been noncommittal toward both accepting and rejecting Buddhism, vacillating either way amidst the conflict between the Soga and Mononobe clans. In fact, even when they did grant permission, it was at most to allow the Soga clan to practice the Buddhist Law on an individual basis, meaning their stance was rather anti-Buddhist. However, when Emperor Yōmei personally embraced the Buddhist Law due to his own illness, and subsequently, as Prince Shōtoku grew older and gained power, the mainstream of the imperial court tilted toward being pro-Buddhist.

As previously mentioned, Prince Shōtoku’s pro-Buddhist stance, rooted in his faith in Buddhism, was fundamentally different from the Soka clan’s pro-Buddhist stance, which was based on political opportunism. Nevertheless, to counter the anti-Buddhist Mononobe clan, the Prince allied with the Soga clan, and as a result of this alliance, the pro-Buddhist faction was finally able to achieve victory.

This also suggests that the so-called anti-Buddhist faction possessed a formidable amount of influence. Presumably, among the imperial family as well as the long-established noble families and powerful clans, there was as yet no way of knowing what kind of teaching Buddhism actually was, and faith in the ancient native gods must have been deeply entrenched. It is easy to imagine that out of awe and fear of these ancient gods, they felt a fierce internal resistance to accepting a new, foreign religion.

Buddhism’s Inclusivity of Native Gods

By the way, what must be clarified regarding the acceptance of Buddhism is that adopting Buddhism by no means meant the abolition of enshrining the ancient native gods. Buddhism itself was not an exclusive teaching, and it possessed the latitude to encompass ancient gods within its own system.

Just as in the case of India, where national deities such as Brahma and Shakra were positioned as protective deities of Buddhism, Japan’s gods of heaven and earth (tenjin chigi) were also accepted as protective deities. The simple, innate sentiment of revering the gods was thus carried over seamlessly even when practicing Buddhism.

The Human Nature of the Early Emperors

Furthermore, the fact that the emperor himself practiced Buddhism, and looking further back, that he was forced to make a decision regarding the issue of accepting Buddhism, demonstrates that the emperor at the time was by no means a deified existence.

The deification of the emperor himself was rather a development of later generations; if the emperor had been a living god (arahitogami) at that time, the question of whether or not the emperor should believe in a foreign religion would not have even become an issue. It can be said that the emperors of that era were far more human existences.

Chapter5(The Introduction of Buddhism to China)

Main Text

In China in the seventh year of Yung-p’ing (c.e. 64), the second emperor of the Later Han dynasty, Emperor Ming, dreamed of a man of gold.¹⁷ He thereupon dispatched eighteen emissaries, including the scholars Ts’ai Yin and Wang Tsun, to India to seek Buddhism. As a result, in the tenth year of Yung-p’ing, cyclical sign hinoto-u, two sages of central India, Kāshyapa Mātanga and Chu Fa-lan, were brought to China and accorded the highest esteem. Thousands of adherents of Confucianism and Taoism, schools that had up until then presided over all imperial rites, resented this and lodged a complaint with the emperor. The emperor decreed that an open debate be held on the fifteenth day of the first month in the fourteenth year of Yung-p’ing. Overjoyed, the Taoists erected an altar for a hundred Chinese deities as their objects of devotion. The two sages from India had as their objects of devotion the Buddha’s ashes, a painting of Shakyamuni Buddha, and five sutras.¹⁸

As was customary in their rituals performed before the emperor, the Taoists brought in the scriptures of their school, as well as the Three Records, the Five Canons, and the writings of the two sages¹⁹ and the Three Kings, piled some of them with firewood, and set them ablaze. In similar rites in the past these books had always withstood the flames, but this time they were reduced to ashes. Others, which were placed in water, had previously floated on the surface, but now sank to the bottom. The Taoists called out for demons to appear, but to no avail. Unbearably humiliated, Ch’u Shan-hsin, Fei Shu-ts’ai, and others died of shame. When the two Indian sages preached Buddhism, the Buddha’s ashes ascended to heaven and there radiated a light so brilliant that it eclipsed the sun. The Buddha in the painting emitted a light from between his eyebrows. More than six hundred Taoists, including Lü Hui-t’ung,²⁰ finally capitulated and entered the Buddhist priesthood. Within thirty days of this confrontation they built ten temples of Buddhism.

Notes

17. This refers to the tradition that Emperor Ming (28–75) dreamed of a golden man levitating above the garden. He awakened and asked his ministers about the dream. One of them said that he had once heard of the birth of a sage in the western region during the reign of King Chao of the Chou dynasty and that this sage had been called the Buddha. The emperor sent eighteen envoys to the western region in order to obtain the Buddha’s teachings. And at the request of these envoys, two Indian Buddhist monks came to China in c.e. 67 with Buddhist scriptures and images on the backs of white horses.

18. Sutras translated into Chinese by Chu Fa-lan and Kāshyapa Mātanga, including the Sutra of Forty-two Sections.

19. Two of the Five Emperors, T’ang Yao and Yü Shun.

20. Lü Hui-t’ung was a Taoist in the Later Han dynasty. According to The Record of the Lineage of the Buddha and the Patriarchs, he and other Taoists converted to Buddhism when they were defeated in debate in the presence of Emperor Ming in 71.

Lecture

Introduction: The Transmission of Buddhism to China

This chapter describes the origin of how Buddhism was introduced to the land of Han—namely, China—and how the Buddhist Law spread within China, a country deeply rooted in Confucianism and Taoism.

First, let us examine the introduction of Buddhism to China.

On the Introduction of Buddhism to China

There are several theories in various literatures regarding the year Buddhism was first transmitted to China.

In ancient accounts, it is said that Buddhism was introduced as early as the Zhou dynasty, specifically during the reign of King Mu, the fifth ruler of the Western Zhou (around 1000 BCE), and that the king erected temples and made Buddhist statues. Another theory suggests that when King Ashoka established Buddhist stupas in the 26th year of the Eastern Zhou (745 BCE), he also built stupas in China.

Furthermore, there is a theory that a Buddhist monk (shaman) from the Western Regions introduced Buddhism in the fourth year of the First Emperor of Qin (243 BCE). Another account states that when Emperor Wu of the Former Han defeated the Xiongnu in the second year of Yuanshu (121 BCE), the Xiongnu king presented a “golden man” (a Buddhist statue) that he had been worshipping to Emperor Wu, who then prayed to it morning and evening; some regard this as the transmission of Buddhism. There is also a theory that about forty years after Emperor Wu, during the reign of Emperor Cheng, Buddhist scriptures were discovered within the imperial court. Yet another account states that in the first year of Yuanshou of Emperor Ai (2 BCE), scriptures were orally transmitted by an envoy of the King of the Great Yuezhi.

The account described in this treatise is the theory that in the tenth year of the Yongping era (67 CE), Emperor Ming dreamed of a “golden man” and dispatched Cai Yin and seventeen others (making a party of eighteen) to the Western Regions. They returned with scriptures, accompanied by two monks, Kasyapa Matanga and Dharmaratna. Emperor Ming was greatly delighted, established the White Horse Temple in Luoyang for the two monks to reside, and had them translate the scriptures.

Regarding these various transmission theories spanning several centuries, extensive studies have been conducted since ancient times concerning the authenticity of the documents and the historical background of each era. Today, the theory concerning the first year of Yuanshou under Emperor Ai of the Former Han is considered to have the most robust supporting evidence.

Why Do These Discrepancies Exist? (Two Main Reasons)

There are two primary reasons why theories concerning the transmission of Buddhism to China span several centuries:

1. Geographic Isolation and the Opening of the Silk Road

The ancient cultures of the East were represented primarily by Indian culture and Chinese culture. These two cultures were long isolated from each other with virtually no exchange, separated by massive mountain ranges, high plateaus, deserts, and oceans that rejected human passage and offered no routes of travel for ancient peoples.

However, even during this period, it is recognized that extremely subtle exchanges of Eastern and Western culture had been occurring since very ancient times, likely without the knowledge of the rulers on either side.

In India, King Ashoka of the Maurya dynasty emerged in the third century BCE. Through his patronage of Buddhism, not only did the entire population of India take refuge in the teachings, but Buddhism also propagated beyond the borders from northwestern India to Greek colonial states.

While the countries of the Western Regions flourished as centers of Buddhism, by the late second century BCE, China—having settled long-standing internal conflicts—began to expand rapidly outward. At this point, the trans-Central Asian East-West trade routes dramatically entered the stage of history. Specifically, Emperor Wu of the Former Han dispatched an envoy to ally with the Yuezhi nation far to the west in order to defeat the Xiongnu. Starting with this expedition of Zhang Qian, political and trade negotiations between China and the Western Regions became frequent, marking the beginning of the history of cultural exchange between East and West.

Therefore, it is highly likely that Buddhism gradually permeated China through these routes from the very opening of this East-West exchange. In fact, Emperor Wu’s attempt to form a pincer movement against the Xiongnu by allying with the western nation of Yuezhi implies that the existence of Yuezhi was already known, suggesting that some form of negotiation had occurred previously and that Buddhism might have been transmitted even earlier. The intermediaries of such cultural exchanges were likely merchants—namely, caravans—but China has no remaining records of the propagation of Buddhism by caravans. This is why determining the exact year is so difficult, which is the first reason.

2. Conflict Between Buddhism and Taoism

The second reason is that conflicts between the newly introduced Buddhism and the indigenous belief system of Taoism led to a confusion of historical records. As both forces grew in power, debates over their superiority unfolded. To establish superiority based on the antiquity of their transmission, the Buddhist side produced theories claiming that its entry into China traced back past the Han dynasty to the Qin dynasty, and even further back to the Zhou dynasty.

Verifying the Credibility of Each Theory

When examining the credibility of these various theories:

The Zhou Dynasty Theory: This theory is almost entirely dismissed today, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
The Qin Dynasty Theory (4th year of the First Emperor): The source of this account is a text called Zhuzixing Jinglu, whose very existence is highly doubtful; therefore, the historical facts cannot be verified.
Emperor Wu of the Former Han Theory (Worship of the Golden Man): While it is a historical fact that the golden man worshipped by the Xiongnu king was presented to Emperor Wu, there is no evidence to prove that this golden man was a Buddhist statue. It is more likely to have been an indigenous tribal deity of the Xiongnu.
Emperor Cheng Theory: The story of Buddhist scriptures being found in the court during his reign is also considered highly unreliable.
Emperor Ming Theory (10th year of Yongping, 67 CE): Although this was once the generally accepted view—and is the one cited in this treatise—recent scholarly research suggests that it does not depict historical fact but is rather a legend of transmission. For example, regarding the existing Sutra of Forty-two Sections (traditionally said to be co-translated by Kasyapa Matanga and Dharmaratna), there are many disputes over its translators and date, with some suggesting it was an excerpt compiled after the Eastern Jin dynasty, or that the original was a compilation of Buddhist essentials and biographies translated by early foreign missionaries and recorded by interested Chinese. Scholars also dispute the existence and dates of the two monks, Kasyapa Matanga and Dharmaratna, suggesting their story is an origin myth created to publicize the White Horse Temple. At any rate, given the historical fact that official friendly relations and exchanges between the Han court of Emperor Ming and the nations of the Western Regions were severed at that time, it is clear that Emperor Ming’s dream and subsequent quest for the Law is not a historical fact.

However, by the Eastern Jin dynasty (318–385 CE)—when Buddhism first began to flourish in China—both the northern and southern Buddhist communities officially accepted Emperor Ming’s quest for the Law as the historical fact of Buddhism’s initial transmission. Subsequently, during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period (386–580 CE), it was widely accepted by all as historical fact.

Considering how this legend came to be, it is plausible that traveling monks from the Western Regions had already arrived by Emperor Ming’s time, and that Buddhism had already spread quite widely in ancient Chinese society even earlier. This connects to the theory of the first year of Yuanshou under Emperor Ai of the Former Han (2 BCE), which is currently considered the most plausible theory in academic circles.

This theory is recorded in a passage from the Weilue (Brief History of Wei), which states that in the first year of Yuanshou, at the end of the Former Han, Jing Lu, a disciple of the Imperial Academy, was orally taught the Futu (Buddhist) sutra by Yi Cun, an envoy of the King of the Great Yuezhi. The Weilue is preserved within the section on the Western Regions (Xirongzhuan) in the Book of Wei of Chen Shou’s Records of the Three Kingdoms, recorded by Yu Huan, a man of Wei. Its credibility as historical source material is highly regarded, making it the oldest and most respected document regarding the transmission of Buddhism.

Conclusion

As detailed above, the transmission of Chinese Buddhism is currently recognized to have begun during the reign of Emperor Ai of the Former Han in 2 BCE. However, this is strictly based on written records, and does not mean that Buddhism was introduced for the very first time at this exact moment.

It is difficult to discuss the transmission of culture by drawing sharp lines regarding dates and routes. Cultural transmission occurs naturally, and by the time it appears in written records, a significant amount of time has usually already passed.

Additionally, the reason the Daishonin adopted the theory of Emperor Ming’s quest for the Law is that it was the most dominant and established theory regarding the transmission of Buddhism in China at the time.

Chapter6(Buddhism Expounds the Strictness of Reward and Punishment)

Main Text

Thus Shakyamuni Buddha is perfectly just in administering reward and punishment. As I mentioned earlier, because the three emperors and the two subjects²¹ became enemies of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni, they lost their lives and fell into the evil paths in their next existence.

Our own age is not unlike theirs. The Taoists Ch’u and Fei of China, and Moriya in Japan, by relying on the major and minor deities of their respective countries, became enemies of Shakyamuni Buddha. But since these gods themselves follow the Buddha, those practitioners were all brought to ruin. These present times are exactly like theirs. The image I mentioned earlier that came from Paekche is that of Shakyamuni Buddha. Nevertheless, priests of the other schools have deceived the Japanese people by calling it Amida Buddha. In other words, they have replaced Shakyamuni with another Buddha. There is a difference between the Taoists and Moriya on the one hand and our contemporary priests on the other in that the former preferred gods to a Buddha while the latter have replaced one Buddha with another. However, they are alike in that they all abandoned Shakyamuni Buddha. There is no doubt, therefore, that our country will be ruined. This is a teaching that has never yet been revealed. Keep it strictly to yourself.

If there are any among my followers who are weak in faith and go against what I, Nichiren, say, they will meet the same fate as did the Soga family. I will tell you the reason. It was due to the efforts of father and son, Soga no Iname and Umako, that Buddhism came to be established in Japan. They could have held the same position as Brahmā and Shakra at the time of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni’s appearance in this world. Because they had brought Mononobe no Okoshi and his son Moriya to ruin, they became the only influential clan in the country. They rose in rank and controlled the nation, and their family enjoyed high prosperity. But Umako grew so arrogant that he had Emperor Sushun assassinated and many princes killed. Moreover, his grandson, Iruka,²² had his retainers put twenty-three of Prince Shōtoku’s children to death. Thereupon Empress Kōgyoku, following the advice of Nakatomi no Kamako, had a statue cast of Shakyamuni Buddha and prayed to it fervently. As a result, Iruka, his father, and the entire Soga family all perished at once.

Draw your own conclusions from what I said above. Those among my followers who fail to carry through their faith to the end will incur punishment even more severe. Even so, they should not harbor a grudge against me. Remember what fate Shō-bō, Noto-bō,²³ and others met.

Notes

21. The three emperors are Kimmei, Bidatsu, and Yōmei. The two subjects are Mononobe no Moriya and Nakatomi no Katsumi.

22. Soga no Iruka (d. 645), a court official of the Yamato period. In the age of Empress Kōgyoku (r. 642–645), he seized the reins of government and perpetrated various atrocities. In 643 he forced Prince Yamashiro no Ōe, a son of Prince Shōtoku, to commit suicide and thereafter was able to manage affairs of state as he pleased. However, he was finally killed by Naka no Ōe, who was to become Emperor Tenji, and Nakatomi no Kamako (Fujiwara no Kamatari), whereupon his father, Emishi, set fire to his own house and burned to death.

23. Shō-bō and Noto-bō were disciples of Nichiren Daishonin who later abandoned their faith. Sho-bō is said to have begun doubting the Daishonin around the time of the Izu Exile in 1261, and finally turned against him. Noto-bō is said to have lost his faith around 1271.

Lecture

From the historical conflicts between the Buddhist Law, secular authority (sovereign law), and indigenous beliefs during the introduction of Buddhism to China and Japan, we are taught that those who oppose the Buddhist Law will inevitably bring about their own ruin.
Because the Buddhist Law expounds the ultimate law of life itself, it possesses far greater power than secular law or folk beliefs—which are merely products of social systems—and none can ever escape its influence.

“Shakyamuni Buddha is perfectly just in administering reward and punishment.“

Although this statement may appear to contradict the opening passage, “Buddhism concerns itself with victory or defeat, while secular authority concerns itself with reward and punishment,” the outcomes of victory and defeat actually manifest in the reality of our daily lives and society. In this context, the concept of “reward and punishment” is likely attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha from the standpoint that the Buddha is a leader and king of the spiritual realm.

For this reward and punishment to be “strict” (just) means that those who deserve rewards are unfailingly rewarded, and those who deserve punishment are unfailingly punished. Unlike the reward and punishment administered under secular law—which often serves as a model or a public deterrent—this spiritual reward and punishment is an inescapable consequence that people receive based on their own inner state of mind and actions. Therefore, while “Shakyamuni Buddha” is mentioned here as a personified Buddha, this statement is ultimately praising the absolute power of the “Law” (Dharma) itself.

“If there are any among my followers who are weak in faith and go against what I, Nichiren, say, they will meet the same fate as did the Soga family.“

The Soga clan was the leading pro-Buddhist faction, consistently supporting Buddhism and playing a monumental role in its acceptance in Japan. However, as mentioned earlier, their true motive was not faith, but solely their own desire for political power. Though they were ostensibly part of the Buddhist “community” (followers), their faith was weak, and they exhibited an overbearing pride (arrogance) that was completely contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. Their arrogance manifested in their extreme actions, such as the assassination of Emperor Sushun, his princes, and the descendants of Prince Shotoku.

In the minds of the Soga clan, there was undoubtedly a deep-seated pride: not only had they destroyed their long-standing rivals, the Mononobe clan, to consolidate absolute power, but they also believed that they themselves had facilitated the introduction and prosperity of Buddhism in Japan. This arrogance toward Buddhism likely transformed into a reckless and fearless lust for power, culminating in the tyranny of killing even emperors and imperial family members who did not bend to their will. At its root, we must realize that their conceit toward the Buddhist Law was the ultimate cause of their ruin.

No matter what one’s social standing or reputation may be, and no matter how great their past contributions to Buddhism, from the perspective of the cosmic Buddhist Law, the prosperity of Buddhism in a single nation—or even its propagation across the entire planet—is as minor as a single grain of mustard seed. Therefore, no human being can ever claim superiority over the Buddhist Law.

“Those among my followers who fail to carry through their faith to the end will incur punishment even more severe.“

This warning is of a different nature than the previous example of the Soga clan. While the Soga represents those who were followers only in name, possessing weak faith and opposing the Daishonin, this warning refers to those who once believed but later backslid (abandoned their faith).

The most vital aspect of faith is to maintain it throughout one’s life, carrying it through to the very end. Even if one believes for a time and accumulates some degree of benefit, if they ultimately backslide, they will “meet with misfortune instead.” The word “instead” (or “contrariwise”) implies that such individuals will undergo even deeper and more terrible suffering than those who never believed and actively opposed the Law from the beginning (like the Mononobe clan), or those who were nominal followers but lacked genuine faith (like the Soga clan).

Chapter7(Buddhism Demonstrates That Reason Will Inevitably Triumph)

Main Text

Be extremely cautious, and for the time being never submit yourself to writing a pledge, whatever it may concern. No matter how furiously a fire may rage, it burns out after a while. On the other hand, water may appear to move slowly, but its flow does not easily vanish. Since you are hot-tempered and behave like a blazing fire, you will certainly be deceived by others. If your lord coaxes you with soft words, I am sure you will be won over, just as a fire is extinguished by water. Untempered iron quickly melts in a blazing fire, like ice put in hot water. But a sword, even when exposed to a great fire, withstands the heat for a while, because it has been well forged. In admonishing you in this way, I am trying to forge your faith.

Buddhism is reason. Reason will win over your lord. No matter how dearly you may love your wife and wish never to part from her, when you die, it will be to no avail. No matter how dearly you may cherish your estate, when you die, it will only fall into the hands of others. You have been prosperous enough for all these years. You must not give your estate a second thought.

Lecture

Section 1:Compassionate Guidance Tailored to Shijo Kingo’s Character

Up to this point, through the history of the transmission of Buddhism to China and Japan, the Daishonin has demonstrated that Buddhism will inevitably triumph over secular authority (sovereign law). In this section, however, based on Shijo Kingo’s personal character, he teaches what kind of attitude Kingo should adopt in facing the problems currently before him.

As shown in the passage, “Since you are hot-tempered,” Shijo Kingo seems to have been a straightforward, impulsive person who immediately spoke his mind. For this reason, there was a great risk of his opponents taking advantage of his vulnerability. Furthermore, as indicated by the words, “When your lord speaks to you gently…” he was undoubtedly softhearted and easily swayed by sympathy when approached with a soft touch.

This appears to have been the Daishonin’s greatest concern. Addressing these tendencies, he uses the analogy of fire and water to give kind and thorough guidance to Kingo, who was prone to heating up and cooling down quickly, much like fire. This section vividly reveals the Daishonin’s compassionate posture toward a disciple fighting desperately in the midst of adversity. Rather than offering one-sided guidance based on mere Buddhist principles, he thoroughly understood the deepest corners of his disciple’s heart, put himself in Kingo’s shoes, and thought and walked forward together with him.

Section 2:Forging Undefeated Faith and Inner Strength to Overcome Life’s Trials

“Untempered iron quickly melts in a blazing fire, like ice put in hot water. But a sword, even when exposed to a great fire, withstands the heat for a while, because it has been well forged. In admonishing you in this way, I am trying to forge your faith.“

Those who are truly tempered (forged) display their strength when they confront hardships. Those who are untempered, on the other hand, are defeated when adversity strikes. What, then, does it mean to “temper” oneself? From a broad perspective, physical health and strength are certainly important. However, this is only an auxiliary condition; the primary element is spiritual strength and resilience.

Spiritual resilience is a spirit of independence. This is because, as was the case with Shijo Kingo, when one is faced with a trial that tests whether they can maintain their faith, they have nothing to rely on but themselves. All that others can offer is encouragement. This is true within society, and even more fundamentally, it is true in life. Standing on the foundation of self-reliance and maintaining one’s convictions without bending them—this is the ultimate test of life. Therefore, to “temper” oneself means, first and foremost, to cast aside dependency on others, to stand on one’s own initiative and responsibility, and to cultivate a strong will and conviction capable of overcoming any hardship.

Additionally, knowing one’s own weaknesses and characteristics, anticipating potential occurrences in advance, and mentally preparing how to act when the time comes are also indispensable factors for victory. The Daishonin points out Shijo Kingo’s character traits here and then indicates how to handle the situation precisely to “temper” him in this true sense.

Section 3:Reason Over Authority: Upholding Human Dignity Against Tyranny and Power

“Buddhism is reason. Reason will win over your lord.“

“Reason” refers to human reason and the correct way to live as a human being. Buddhism teaches this human reason and investigates the philosophy of life that underlies it. Therefore, we must realize that any way of thinking that deviates from human reason can never be said to accord with Buddhism.

Since ancient times, it is no exaggeration to say that the corruption of religion has been brought about by the tyranny of religious leaders who, hiding behind religious authority, ignored all reason. Illuded into believing that they possessed special religious authority, they thought they were permitted to force through their own desires, whims, and even delusions, thereby oppressing, trampling upon, and sacrificing other people.

Trampling upon the human dignity of others is a classic example of injustice (unreason). In the case of religion, such injustice has often passed unchallenged, shielded by a veil of mysticism. This is what triggered various religious reformations and, broadly speaking, was the fundamental cause of the people’s alienation from religion. Buddhism, under all circumstances, values reason and rejects injustice.

Furthermore, “your lord” represents “authority” or “secular power.” Power inherently possesses a mechanism to dominate human beings and reduce them to mere means to an end. No matter how mighty that power may be, when it ignores human reason, it must ultimately suffer defeat before reason. This is because power and politics, after all, have humanity as their matrix and are merely one sphere of the expression of human life.

Section 4:Resoluteness in the Face of Death and the Practical Application of Faith

“No matter how dearly you may love your wife and wish never to part from her, when you die, it will be to no avail.“

This is a strict passage urging Shijo Kingo to resolutely overcome his attachment to his wife and his obsession with his estate—meaning his wealth—when standing at a crucial crossroads that tests whether he can maintain his faith.

All of these are limited to this lifetime alone and are of no benefit after death. When we face death, we are entirely alone, and only the convictions we hold deep within ourselves can support us with courage and strength.

However, in demonstrating the proof of Buddhism in society and in this life, we cannot ignore the creation of a happy family life—often referred to as a harmonious family—and the necessary material foundation. There is a natural distinction between the situation where one’s own faith is put to the test and the situation where one is demonstrating the power of Buddhism to society. When one must prove the validity of Buddhism in daily life as a member of society, neglecting one’s family and wealth would mean conceptualizing faith and living in a world of illusion.

Chapter8(Urging Personal Caution)

Main Text

As I have said before, be millions of times more careful than ever.

Since childhood, I, Nichiren, have never prayed for the secular things of this life but have single-mindedly sought to become a Buddha. Of late, however, I have been ceaselessly praying for your sake to the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni Buddha, and the god of the sun, for I am convinced that you are a person who can inherit the soul of the Lotus Sutra. Be extremely careful not to come into conflict with others. Do not meet anyone at any place other than your own house. None of the night watchmen²⁴ are sufficiently dependable, but considering that they had their residences confiscated because of their faith in the Lotus Sutra, you should, under ordinary circumstances, maintain friendly relations with them. Then they will exercise extra caution on their nightly rounds and provide you with protection. Even should the people on your side make a slight error, pretend not to see or hear it.

Even if your lord should ask to hear the teachings of Buddhism, do not heedlessly rejoice and rush off to see him. Answer mildly that you are not sure that you can comply, and that you will consult with some of my disciples. If you betray great joy in your countenance and allow yourself to be drawn in by his desire to hear the teachings, you will bring everything to ruin as surely as fire consumes whatever will burn, or as rain falls from heaven.

If the opportunity arises, submit to your lord the petition²⁵ I have written on your behalf. Since it contains matters of great import, it will certainly create a stir.

Respectfully,

Nichiren

To Shijō Kingo

Notes

24. The night watchmen are thought to have been Shijō Kingo’s escorts, who lived in his residence. Their estates were confiscated because of their belief in the Daishonin’s teachings.

25. The petition refers here to The Letter of Petition from Yorimoto written by the Daishonin on the twenty-fifth day of the sixth month, 1277, to Lord Ema on behalf of Shijō Kingo, explaining the falsity of the charges that had been made against him. This petition was kept by Kingo and in the end not submitted to the lord.

Lecture

Section 1: Strict Admonitions of Caution to Shijo Kingo

Shijo Kingo is repeatedly admonished to be cautious regarding his concrete actions. As stated at the beginning, “As I have told you before, you must be a hundred million times more cautious than ever,” what is expressed here is identical in content to the warning written at the end of the letter from July of the same year. However, the Daishonin likely sensed an ever-increasing tension in the surrounding circumstances, which is why he emphasized, “you must be a hundred million times more cautious than ever.”

Section 2: The Compassion to Pray for One’s Buddhahood and a Disciple’s Safety

“Since childhood, I, Nichiren, have never prayed for the secular things of this life but have single-mindedly sought to become a Buddha. Of late, however, I have been ceaselessly praying for your sake to the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni Buddha, and the god of the sun, for I am convinced that you are a person who can inherit the soul of the Lotus Sutra.“

Nichiren Daishonin states that since his childhood, he has never prayed for worldly happiness in this life; rather, he has prayed solely for the eternal purpose of attaining Buddhahood. However, at this very moment, he is praying for the safety and peace in this life of Shijo Kingo, who finds himself in a dire predicament.

Section 3: The Fundamental Attitude of Faith: Buddhahood as Self-Perfection

Here, the most fundamental attitude of faith is demonstrated. For oneself, the purpose of faith is to become a Buddha. Attaining Buddhahood means the ultimate perfection of oneself as a human being. This is a higher-dimensional goal that transcends the mere questions of happiness or unhappiness. To achieve this, one must willingly take on hardships and overcome them. One must rigorously forge oneself without falling into ease and comfort. This is the essence of faith for an individual.

Section 4: The Bodhisattva Way: “Self-Perfection” and “the Happiness of Others”

However, this does not mean that self-perfection can be achieved by secluding oneself within. Rather, true perfection is brought about through an open, active engagement wherein one forgets oneself to devote their lives to the happiness of others. In other words, this is the “bodhisattva way.”

As Immanuel Kant stated, “What are the ends which are also duties? They are: one’s own perfection and the happiness of others,” what one should pursue for oneself is “perfection,” while what one should seek for others is “happiness.” If this is reversed, seeking “happiness” for oneself leads to egoism, and demanding “perfection” from others will result in nothing but an infringement upon them.

Section 5: Buddhism as “Reason” and Its Alignment with Western Wisdom

The fact that Buddhism expounds the bodhisattva way—and, as its ultimate culmination, the attainment of Buddhahood—for Buddhist practice aligns perfectly with Kant’s philosophy. Indeed, it can be said that Buddhism provides a realistic foundation to what Kant proposed. The Daishonin’s life was a grand demonstration, lived with his very being, of both this Buddhist principle and the ideals envisioned by Western wisdom.