Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation

2023.11.16

Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation

Background

Determining the Similarities and Differences between the Lotus Sutra and the Teaching of Concentration and Insight

Written by Nichiren

AMONG those who study and practice the teachings of the Tendai school at present, there are many who appear to place the greatest emphasis upon the practices associated with the observation of the mind and to cast aside the doctrines set forth in the theoretical teaching and essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra.

Now we may ask whether these so-called “practices associated with the observation of the mind” are based upon the teaching of meditation set forth by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai in his Great Concentration and Insight, which reveals “the teaching that T’ien-t’ai Chih-che himself practiced in the depths of his being,”1 namely, the principles of threefold contemplation in a single mind and three thousand realms in a single moment of life. Or are they based upon the teaching of Zen contemplation set forth by Bodhidharma that is being spread abroad in the world today?

If they are based on the teaching of Bodhidharma’s Zen meditation, then [there are two kinds, doctrinal Zen and patriarchal Zen2]. Doctrinal Zen is a kind of provisional meditation founded on expedients taught by the Buddha, when he had “not yet revealed the truth,”3 a type of meditation cast aside when the wonderful meditation based on the Lotus Sutra is set forth, as the sutra says, “honestly discarding expedient means.”4 Patriarchal Zen, named after Bodhidharma, the patriarch of the Zen school, is a kind of meditation that describes itself as a “separate transmission outside the sutras,” a work of the heavenly devil. Both types of meditation represent methods based on falsehoods that will never lead one to the attainment of the way and hence must not be employed.

But if these practices are based on the threefold contemplation in a single mind that is set forth in T’ien-t’ai’s Great Concentration and Insight, then of course it would not go against T’ien-t’ai’s original intention expressed in that work with regard to which meditative practices are to be adopted and which discarded. If these procedures are based on the contemplation of the mind, the practice expounded in Great Concentration and Insight, then they cannot conflict with the Lotus Sutra, for the entire Great Concentration and Insight is founded upon the Lotus Sutra. The practices associated with the threefold contemplation in a single mind are designed for the purpose of perceiving the wonderful Law, which is ordinarily beyond one’s power of perception.

Therefore one should understand that those who advocate that the Lotus Sutra be cast aside and the method of concentration be regarded as the only correct procedure are committing great slander of the Law, holding a seriously mistaken view, and doing the work of the heavenly devil. I say this because T’ien-t’ai’s threefold contemplation in a single mind represents a method of concentration and insight that is based upon the Lotus Sutra and enables one to gain insight through meditation, an awakening to the truth of one’s own mind.

Question: What proof is there that the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai’s Great Concentration and Insight and the doctrines of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, the threefold contemplation in a single mind, and the wonderful contemplation for attaining awakening to the truth of one’s own mind, are based upon the Lotus Sutra?

Answer: I would reply to your objection by asking what proof there is that they are not based on the Lotus Sutra?

Someone has cited as proof the passage that states, “Great Concentration and Insight reveals the teaching that T’ien-t’ai Chih-che himself practiced in the depths of his being.” And another passage that states, “When at last he revealed the method of meditation in Great Concentration and Insight, he at the same time employed the ‘three thousand realms’ as a way to understand. This principle is the ultimate revelation of his final and supreme teaching. That is why Chang-an states in his introduction, ‘Great Concentration and Insight reveals the teaching that T’ien-t’ai Chih-che himself practiced in the depths of his being.’ He had good reason for saying this.”5

I would note here that these passages in no way prove that these doctrines are not based on the Lotus Sutra, because they speak of “the teaching that T’ien-t’ai Chih-che himself practiced in the depths of his being.” “The teaching that T’ien-t’ai Chih-che himself practiced” is none other than the Lotus Sutra; therefore these passages may be taken as proof that these doctrines are based on the Lotus Sutra.

But when debating these matters with followers of other schools, one should confine the discussion to matters dealing with general principles. Thus, for example, one should point out that if T’ien-t’ai’s Great Concentration and Insight were not based on the Lotus Sutra, then it should be summarily discarded. Why? Because the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai himself stated emphatically, “That which accords with the sutras is to be written down and made available. But put no faith in anything that in word or meaning fails to do so.”6 The Great Teacher Dengyō said, “Depend upon the preachings of the Buddha, and do not put faith in traditions handed down orally.”7 The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom of Nāgārjuna says that one should rely on treatises that are faithful to the sutras, but not rely on those that distort the sutras.8 And Shakyamuni, the lord of teachings, said, “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.”9

T’ien-t’ai based himself on the Lotus Sutra and looked up to Nāgārjuna as the first patriarch of the teaching. How then could he possibly have departed from the sutra, gone back on his own pronouncement, and based his Great Concentration and Insight on doctrines that are erroneous and foreign to Buddhism? Such an interpretation is completely impossible.

———————————-～（omitted)～—————————————————–

The Great Teacher Dengyō states: “If it is not a decree of the ruler of the nation, it should not be honored and obeyed. If it is not the teaching of the Buddha, the Dharma King, it should not be accepted and believed.”34

He also states: “[The great bodhisattvas who are] the four ranks of sages produced their treatises, speaking sometimes of the provisional teachings and sometimes of the true teaching. In describing the meaning of the three vehicle teachings, they spoke sometimes of the three vehicles and sometimes of the one vehicle. For that reason, T’ien-t’ai Chih-che went along with their definition of the three vehicles, established the consecutive categories of the four teachings, and basing himself on the one true teaching, set forth the one Buddha vehicle. The six pāramitās are separate and distinct practices, so why should the precepts be the same in all cases? The rules of discipline that persons come to accept are not the same, so why should modes of behavior be all the same? Therefore, when T’ien-t’ai came to transmit the doctrines, he relied strongly on [the great bodhisattvas who were] the four ranks of sages and followed the teachings of the Buddhist sutras.”

The doctrines of the T’ien-t’ai school were first introduced to our country by the Great Teacher Dengyō. If you say that the concentration and insight of T’ien-t’ai is not based on the Lotus Sutra, then you are going against what was taught in Japan by Dengyō, the founder of the school in this country, and what was taught by T’ien-t’ai in China. The doctrines transmitted by these two great teachers were from the first founded on the Lotus Sutra. Why, then, do the latter-day scholars of the school adopt a different view in the matter?

The reason they do so is easily divined. Though the men of the Tendai lineage at the present time in name represent themselves as members of the school of Mount T’ien-t’ai, the doctrines that they embrace and study are based upon the distorted views of Bodhidharma and the falsehoods of Shan-wu-wei. If they were to abide by the interpretations and commentaries of T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō, then they would understand that the secret Law realized within their own minds is that expressed in the one word myōhō, or wonderful Law, and nothing else.

But the scholars of the Tendai school at the present time have forgotten about the heritage of T’ien-t’ai’s teaching that was secretly preserved in the stone tower storehouse. Because of this, they have ceased the custom of passing on the heritage of T’ien-t’ai’s secret Law, and instead describe themselves as embracing the heritage of the threefold contemplation in a single mind. Trusting to their own ideas, they fashion a document describing that heritage, put it in a brocade bag and hang it around their neck, or hide it away in a box and sell it for a high price. As a result, the erroneous teachings of theirs have come to be propagated everywhere throughout the country, and the true doctrine of Buddhism taught by T’ien-t’ai has become obliterated and lost.

The fact that T’ien-t’ai’s original intentions have in this way been forgotten and the wonderful Law of Shakyamuni Buddha demoted is due solely to the influence of Bodhidharma’s doctrines and to the urgings of Shan-wu-wei. Hence these Tendai scholars do not understand the teaching of concentration and insight, do not understand the threefold contemplation in a single mind or the three truths in a single mind, do not understand what it means to meditate on the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life. They do not know what is meant by the theoretical teaching and essential teaching, what is meant by the comparative myō and the absolute myō,35 what is meant by the wonderful contemplation of the Lotus Sutra, what is meant by doctrinal classification of the sutras, by the terms “provisional” and “true,” by the four teachings and the eight teachings, or by the different types of preaching and guidance represented by the five periods and the five flavors. It is only natural, therefore, that they know nothing of the principles governing the proper response to the circumstances of teaching, capacity, time, and country, and that the ideas they put forth should resemble neither the true teaching nor the provisional teachings. It is only natural, only natural.

They have fallen into the habit of regarding the Lotus Sutra as inferior to the pronouncements of Zen and True Word, and therefore they confound the teachings handed down from T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō with the erroneous teachings of Bodhidharma and the True Word falsehoods, producing something that is neither the true teaching nor the provisional teachings, something that cannot be encompassed in either. Hence they show themselves to be guilty of great slander of the Law by propagating the erroneous view that the teaching of concentration and insight is superior to the Lotus Sutra, making it appear that T’ien-t’ai was guilty of error when in fact he is blameless. In doing so, they are acting as unfilial followers who turn against the founder of their line, as great slanderers of the Law who commit the crime of turning against the Lotus Sutra.

If we ask, then, what was the nature of T’ien-t’ai’s method of contemplation, we may say that after he had entered into meditation and gained insight at his place of practice on Mount Ta-su, he realized that when one’s eyes are open and one thinks of the wonderful Law, it is the essential truth as it is manifested in accordance with the circumstances. And when one’s eyes are shut and one thinks of the wonderful Law, it is the essential truth in its unchanging aspect.

These two types of essential truth are to be found only in the wonderful Law expressed in a single word. When one chants the word myōhō, the wonderful Law, one is thereby encompassing all phenomena; all the sutras preached by the Buddha in the course of his lifetime are contained therein.

If one seeks the truth through the theoretical teaching, that teaching is too extensive; and if one seeks it through the essential teaching, that teaching is too lofty. In the end, therefore, T’ien-t’ai believed it best that one should try to contemplate or observe the wonderful Law that is within one’s own inner being.

But because scholars of the present time do not understand this fact, they have forgotten the wonderful Law that T’ien-t’ai experienced in the depths of his being. Instead they have come to believe that the teaching of concentration and insight is superior to the Lotus Sutra, and that the Zen doctrine is superior to the teaching of concentration and insight. They discard the Lotus Sutra and adhere to the teaching of concentration and insight, and then they discard the teaching of concentration and insight and adhere to the Zen doctrine.

They do so because they have heard the proponents of the Zen school teachings say, “The wisteria vine twines around the pine tree, but after both the pine tree and the wisteria vine have died, what will you do?” or “How can you break a high branch without climbing the tree?” And they have put great faith in these words of the heavenly devil.

The lord of teachings of the sutras, say the Zen proponents, may be likened to the pine tree, and his doctrines are like the wisteria vine. But although the various groups of followers may dispute over their meaning, the Buddha himself has already entered extinction and his doctrines have lost their authority. From this we know that the Buddhist teachings set forth in the sutras are like a finger pointing at the moon. Only the one Law of Zen is alone worthy to be called wonderful. By observing this Law, one may see into one’s true nature and gain enlightenment. And it is because persons of our time put faith in such great slanders of the Law as these, the invention of the heavenly devil, that they act as they do.

The fact is that the Buddha of the Lotus Sutra has a life span that is immeasurable; he abides constantly in the world without ever entering extinction. But the Zen school, as we have seen, regards the Buddha as already having entered extinction, and therefore it may be said to embrace the view of the non-Buddhists that things cease to exist. This is an erroneous view that contradicts the golden words of the Buddha, “These phenomena are part of an abiding Law, [and] the characteristics of the world are constantly abiding.”36

The Zen teachings are an expedient means that leads one to the Lotus Sutra. But to say that this Zen, which is incapable of bringing one to enlightenment, represents the true and constantly abiding Law is to fall into the view of the non-Buddhists that all things are permanent and continue without change.

If one is to be lenient in view, one may say that Zen represents an expedient means employed by the Buddha, a part of the Tripitaka teaching. More strictly speaking, it is simply an erroneous doctrine put forth by non-Buddhists.

In lenient terms, it may be said to represent the expedients of the Tripitaka teaching, but in stricter terms it must be judged in the light of the principles of the Lotus Sutra. And when so judged in the light of the Lotus Sutra, it can only be said that Zen is a non-Buddhist doctrine invented by the heavenly devil.

Question: What proof can you offer to support this view that Zen is a doctrine of the heavenly devil?

Answer: The proof is in what I have just now said.

Back to Top

Background

This letter, entitled Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation, is also known as Determining the Similarities and Differences between the Lotus Sutra and the Teaching of Concentration and Insight, the words found at the beginning of the letter. It was written in 1274 and is addressed to Sairen-bō, a learned priest, originally of the Tendai school. Sairen-bō, who had been exiled to Sado for some unknown reason, encountered Nichiren Daishonin there and took faith in his teachings. He asked the Daishonin a number of important questions and received answers in writings such as The True Aspect of All Phenomena and The Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life. Soon after the Daishonin was officially pardoned from his exile, Sairen-bō was pardoned as well and returned to Kyoto. There he would have encountered a doctrine that had been popular among the priests at Mount Hiei, the center of the Tendai school. It was the doctrine that T’ien-t’ai’s teaching of concentration and insight is superior to the Lotus Sutra.

At the time, the meditation of the Zen school had become greatly popular in Japan, even influencing the priests of the Tendai school at Mount Hiei. Thus they came to assert that practice of the ten meditations, which T’ien-t’ai in his Great Concentration and Insight established as a method of observing one’s mind, was a secret and extraordinary doctrine. This teaching of concentration and insight, they claimed, was superior to the Lotus Sutra itself, on which T’ien-t’ai had based his teachings.

The Daishonin wrote this letter to refute these errors of the Tendai school. He confirms that T’ien-t’ai’s Great Concentration and Insight, in which he sets forth the ten meditations, is founded on the Lotus Sutra. The argument that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the teaching of concentration and insight, therefore, constitutes a rejection or slander of the teaching itself.

The Daishonin’s argument is summed up in four points. First, Great Concentration and Insight represents a kind of personal enlightenment gained by T’ien-t’ai, while the Lotus Sutra represents the great Law gained by Shakyamuni Buddha. Second, Shakyamuni is the Buddha of perfect enlightenment and complete reward, while T’ien-t’ai gained a stage of enlightenment that did not reach to the first of the ten stages of security.

Third, the Lotus Sutra represents the original purpose for which Shakyamuni and the other Buddhas made their appearance in the world. Great Concentration and Insight represents a personal enlightenment, for the revelation of which T’ien-t’ai made his appearance in the world. Fourth, in the case of the Lotus Sutra, Many Treasures Buddha attests to the truth of the sutra, as do all the emanations of Shakyamuni Buddha who have come to the assembly. The Lotus Sutra is the great pure Law of which Many Treasures Buddha says, “All that you have expounded is the truth!” and the emanation Buddhas agree. Great Concentration and Insight is simply T’ien-t’ai’s personal exposition of that Law.

The “secret Law” that T’ien-t’ai realized in the depths of his being through the practice of the Lotus Sutra is myōhō, or the wonderful Law, which is the essence of the Lotus Sutra, the Daishonin says. T’ien-t’ai expressed this wonderful Law as the teaching of concentration and insight. The Daishonin concludes that T’ien-t’ai’s concentration and insight is to be regarded as a provisional teaching, intended for people of the Middle Day of the Law who lacked the capacity to directly grasp the wonderful Law of the Lotus Sutra.

Based on the above, the title of this work can be interpreted on an explicit level and an implicit level.

In explicit terms, “Establishing the Correct Method of Contemplation” means to reject and refute the erroneous doctrine of the Tendai school that the teaching of concentration and insight is superior to that of the Lotus Sutra, and to establish the correct method of contemplation that conforms with T’ien-t’ai’s original intention, that based on the Lotus Sutra.

Implicitly, however, T’ien-t’ai’s concentration and insight was after all a practice formulated for the capacities of people in the Middle Day of the Law, while the correct method of contemplation for the present age, the Latter Day of the Law, is the practice of the wonderful Law itself, or Nam-myoho-renge-kyo of the Three Great Secret Laws, which Nichiren Daishonin established.

Back to Top

Notes

1. Chang-an’s statement in his introduction to Great Concentration and Insight.

2. “Doctrinal Zen” refers to the methods of meditation formulated on the basis of sutras such as the Lankāvatāra Sutra (used by Bodhidharma) and the Diamond Wisdom Sutra (used by Hung-jen). “Patriarchal Zen” refers to the methods of meditation deriving from Bodhidharma, in which enlightenment is said to be transmitted wordlessly from master to disciple.

3. Immeasurable Meanings Sutra. It reads, “In these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth.”

4. Lotus Sutra, chap. 2.

5. The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight.”

6. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra.

7. The Outstanding Principles of the Lotus Sutra.

8. This statement is actually found in Nāgārjuna’s Commentary on the Ten Stages Sutra.

9. Nirvana Sutra.

34. A Clarification of the Precepts. The passage in the following paragraph is also from the same work.

35. See comparative myō and absolute myō in Glossary.

36. Lotus Sutra, chap. 2.

Home
Copied title and URL