Examining the True Word School

Main Text

The Lotus Sutra includes both principle and practice. The fact that the Buddha attained enlightenment in the far distant past is an example of a matter pertaining to practice. And the fact that persons of the two vehicles are capable of attaining Buddhahood is a matter of principle.

 

Examining the True Word School

Background

QUESTION: When you say that the True Word doctrine will ruin the nation, what passages from the sutras or treatises can you offer as proof?

Answer: I say so because the True Word doctrine slanders the Lotus Sutra and contradicts the correct teaching.

Question: But if you fail to cite any passage to prove that the True Word doctrine will ruin the nation, then how can anyone believe you?

Answer: Do you agree that the True Word doctrine constitutes a slander of the Law? If you admit that it is a slander of the Law, then it cannot fail to bring ruin to the nation and to cause its proponents to fall into hell.

Generally speaking, to slander the Law means to slander the Buddha and to slander the Order, since the three treasures, the Buddha, the Law, and the Order, constitute a single entity. This is made clear in the Nirvana Sutra.

This is what the Lotus Sutra means when it says: “[If a person fails to have faith but instead slanders this sutra], immediately he will destroy all the seeds for becoming a Buddha in this world.”1 Such a person is known as an icchantika, or person of incorrigible disbelief. This matter is discussed in detail in the first, tenth, and eleventh volumes of the Nirvana Sutra.2

Since offenses differ in terms of gravity, some offenders fall deeper into hell than others. Those who kill, steal, or commit other crimes, even those who endeavor to kill or injure all the living beings of the major world system, are destined to fall only into the hell of repeated rebirth for torture, the hell of black cords, or some other of the upper seven of the eight great hells. They never fall into the eighth hell, the hell of incessant suffering.

The deeds that condemn one to this hell, the Avīchi hell, are listed in the sutras and treatises as the five cardinal sins, the seven cardinal sins, the sin of denying the law of cause and effect, and that of slandering the Law.

However, though persons who commit only one of the five cardinal sins will fall into the hell of incessant suffering, after one medium kalpa has gone by, their guilt will come to an end and they will rise up out of hell. But, though one may never have violated a single precept and may be firm in one’s aspiration for the way and hopeful of good fortune in one’s next existence, if one turns one’s back on the Lotus Sutra, then, as the sutra says, one will fall into the hell of incessant suffering and will continue to be reborn there for a countless number of kalpas.

Thus we see that the offense of slandering the Law is graver than that of committing the five cardinal sins a countless number of times. How could persons [who are guilty of such an offense] possibly bring peace and stability to the world by offering prayers on behalf of the state?

All affairs are best judged in the light of actual happenings. At the time of the disturbance that took place in the Jōkyū era,3 though the leaders in Kanto took no such steps, the sovereign of the nation, the Retired Emperor Gotoba, hoping to quell the forces that were ranged against the imperial court, summoned forty-one renowned priests and had them perform fifteen secret ceremonies. Among these, rites based upon the Protection Sutra were performed in Shishin-den Palace, being conducted for the first time by the prelate of Omuro [the retired emperor’s second son]. But seven days later, when the rites came to an end, the forces defending the capital went down in defeat. Is this not proof in terms of an actual happening that the True Word teachings bring about the ruin of the state?

This is simply one relatively minor event that took place in our present age. Yet how lamentable is it that, because they trust to provisional teachings or erroneous doctrines, people should fall into the evil paths of existence!

Question: What scriptural passages can you offer as proof that the True Word school constitutes a “provisional teaching” or an “erroneous doctrine”?

The esoteric rites described by Mahāvairochana, the King of Enlightenment of the True Word teaching, constitute a storehouse of profound doctrine whereby one may attain Buddhahood in one’s present form. Therefore persons of high and low station alike all place their trust in this creed and the whole world looks up to it as the great Law. The fact that all within the four seas is at peace and the world is well ordered is due wholly to the power of these True Word doctrines. What do you mean by referring to them as a “provisional teaching” or an “erroneous doctrine”?

Answer: The True Word doctrines are termed a provisional teaching because they include all of the four teachings, three of which are set forth as an expedient means, as is made perfectly clear in the sutras. They are thus the same as the teachings that correspond to the first four of the five flavors. Such teachings conceal the fact that the Buddha attained enlightenment in the infinitely distant past, and deny that persons of the two vehicles can attain Buddhahood. Moreover, since they declare that the benefits accruing from observance of the precepts come to an end with the life of the individual, they without doubt belong to the category of Hinayana among the provisional teachings.

Therefore, when the Japanese priest Enchō sent his questions on doctrine to the Chinese priests Kuang-hsiu of Ch’an-lin-ssu temple and Wei-chüan of Kuo-ch’ing-ssu temple,4 in their reply to his questions they indicated clearly that the True Word sutras belong to the Correct and Equal category of sutras.

————————————～（omitted)～—————————————————

Kōbō says that the Lotus Sutra ranks in third place after the True Word teachings [and the Flower Garland Sutra], that it is a work of childish theory inferior even to the Flower Garland Sutra.34 The Mahāvairochana Sutra is in six volumes, or seven volumes when the volume on offerings is added, a work in thirty-one or thirty-six chapters.35 But in what chapter, in what volume, is such a statement to be found? Moreover, in all the thirty-four chapters of the Susiddhikara Sutra and the three volumes and three chapters or one volume36 of the Diamond Crown Sutra, no such statement is anywhere to be found.

Furthermore, in what volume or what chapter of the Mahāvairochana Sutra or the other two sutras that make up the three sutras of the esoteric teaching is the doctrine of the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds to be found? It is found nowhere in these works.

The Lotus Sutra includes both principle and practice. The fact that the Buddha attained enlightenment in the far distant past is an example of a matter pertaining to practice. And the fact that persons of the two vehicles are capable of attaining Buddhahood is a matter of principle. The wild assertion made by Shan-wu-wei and the others that the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra are the same in principle but that the latter is superior in matters of practice is utterly untrustworthy!

The True Word teaching contains many errors, among which are the following:

1. The Treatise on the Ten Stages of the Mind ranks the Lotus Sutra at the eighth stage, the Flower Garland Sutra at the ninth stage, and the True Word teaching at the tenth or highest stage. Upon what sutra or treatise is such a ranking based?

2. Shan-wu-wei’s four phrases and Kōbō’s ten stages of the mind clearly contradict one another. Why should the doctrines of teacher and disciple be so directly opposed?

3. When the proponents of the True Word teaching speak of the five storehouses or divisions of the Buddhist scriptures, why do they claim that the dhāranī division described in the Six Pāramitās Sutra refers to the mantras, or “true words,” of their own school?37

4. Kōbō states that “the Buddhist teachers of China vied with one another to steal the ghee [of the True Word dhāranīs].”38 But [if he is referring to the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai] are not the dates all wrong? I say this because from the time [T’ien-t’ai died] in the seventeenth year of the K’ai-huang era [597] to the fourth year of the Cheng-yüan era [788] in the reign of T’ang emperor Te-tsung, the year with the cyclical sign wu-ch’en, is a period of 192 years. If the Six Pāramitās Sutra was not introduced to China until 192 years after the death of T’ien-t’ai, how could he be accused of “stealing the ghee” of the dhāranīs described in that sutra? In making such a claim, Kōbō stands convicted by his own statement that “slandering persons or slandering the Law will assuredly cause one to fall into the Avīchi hell.”

5. Kōbō in his Secret Key to the Heart Sutra includes the Lotus Sutra within [the second of] the five sections of the Heart Sutra. One should inquire very carefully into why he thinks he can do so.

Seven Severe Criticisms of True Word

First, they claim that the True Word teaching was expounded by the Thus Come One Mahāvairochana, who is different from the Buddha who expounded the Lotus Sutra. If so, then did this Mahāvairochana appear in the world and gain the way, expound the Law and benefit living beings, before the time of Shakyamuni or after?

If he was a Buddha who expounded the Law in accordance with people’s capacities, he must have undergone the eight phases of a Buddha’s existence. Who, then, were his father and mother? What were their names?

Do they claim that he was a Buddha who appeared in this sahā world of ours? But there cannot be two Buddhas in a single world, just as there cannot be two rulers in a single nation—this is a principle established by the sacred teachings of the Buddha. One has only to look at the thirty-fifth volume of the Nirvana Sutra to see this.39

Or do they claim that he is the Buddha of a different world? If so, then why should we look with contempt on Shakyamuni, who is sovereign, teacher, and parent to us, and instead pay honor to a Buddha who belongs to another region and to whom we are only distantly related? Is this not to be disloyal, to be unfilial, to behave like a member of the Anti-Lokāyata school?40

If they say that Shakyamuni and Mahāvairochana are one in body, then why do they speak of the latter as “a different Buddha”? And if the latter is in fact “a different Buddha,” then why should we cast aside our own Buddha, to whom we owe such a great debt of gratitude, in order to serve him? The sage ruler Yao of T’ang continued to honor his mother even when she was old and failing, and the sage ruler Shun of Yü treated his father with respect, stubborn as the latter was.41 (This is the first criticism.)

The Six Pāramitās Sutra states: “The correct teachings expounded by the Buddhas of the past, the World-Honored Ones, who are as numberless as the sands of the Ganges—I now expound them just as they did. They are the gathering together of the eighty-four thousand wonderful teachings. . . . Moreover, Ānanda and my other major disciples, once they hear them, will all of them remember them all and keep them in mind.”

Kōbō claims that the dhāranī division contained in this sutra represents the mantras, or “true words,” of his school. Does he mean, then, that this dhāranī division was not preached by Shakyamuni? If so, then he is contradicting what the sutra says. (This is the second criticism.)

The Buddha says that among the immeasurable thousands, ten thousands, millions of sutras he has preached, now preaches, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is foremost. Among all the sutras preached by the Buddhas, or preached by the bodhisattvas, or preached by the voice-hearers, this sutra ranks first. Then is Mahāvairochana not included in this category of “the Buddhas”? But when, in preaching the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni said he was “honestly discarding” expedient means and preaching “the unsurpassed way,”42 Mahāvairochana and the other Buddhas extended their long tongues up to the Brahma heaven as testimony to the truth of his words.43 (This is the third criticism.)

The Sutra on the Form of the Lotus Mandala states: “His [the Thus Come One Many Treasures’] bodily appearance is golden in color; constantly he appears in a full moon circle, forming his hands in the mudras representing meditation and wisdom, testifying to the truth of the Lotus Sutra.”44 And the Buddhas of the section concerning the five categories of Buddhas [in the second chapter of the Lotus Sutra] likewise demonstrate that the Lotus Sutra is foremost. (This is the fourth criticism.)

[The “Supernatural Powers” chapter of the Lotus Sutra states]: “To put it briefly, all the doctrines possessed by the Thus Come One, . . . all these are proclaimed, revealed, and clearly expounded in this sutra.”

These passages from the sutras prove not only that the Lotus Sutra is foremost among the sutras preached by Shakyamuni, but that it is foremost among all the sutras preached by the Buddhas of the three existences of past, present, and future. If anyone should speak differently, claiming that, among the sutras preached by one Buddha or two Buddhas, there is a sutra that surpasses the Lotus Sutra, such claims are not to be heeded. For, be it the past, present, or future, the Lotus Sutra will never be overthrown. (This is the fifth criticism.)

Furthermore, there is no passage in the Mahāvairochana Sutra or the other sutras declaring that that sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra. (This is the sixth criticism.)

After Shakyamuni passed into nirvana, among the twenty-four scholars of India who successively inherited the lineage of his teaching,45 or the other great incarnations of Buddhas or bodhisattvas who appeared in the world to spread the doctrine there, or among the teachers of China, the teachers of the seven schools of the north and the three schools of the south, or among the founders of the Three Treatises school and the Dharma Characteristics school, there were none other than the proponents of the T’ien-t’ai school who taught the doctrine of the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds, the hundred worlds and thousand factors, and the three thousand realms in a single moment of life.

If the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life is not propounded, then there is no way to account for the principle of inherent evil in the nature of the Buddha. And if the principle of inherent evil is not accepted, this means that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas who universally manifest material bodies, as well as the five hundred and seven hundred honored ones depicted in the mandalas of the two realms of the True Word teaching, are temporary beings existing only in the present, their original state unknown.46 This is the same as the view expounded by the non-Buddhist teachers.

The followers of the True Word school may speak of the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds or of the hundred worlds and thousand factors, but in which of the three sutras upon which their school is founded is it stated that the beings of all the Ten Worlds are capable of attaining Buddhahood? It was only after they learned of the perfect teaching of the T’ien-t’ai school that they stole this doctrine and in wily fashion used it to adorn their own teachings.

One should not trust those who exercise their art and ingenuity, spouting out empty words. One should look to the correct sutra passages and the golden words of the Buddha to determine the truth. (This is the seventh criticism.)

Volume thirty-five of the Nirvana Sutra states: “I have explained this in various different sutras. When one Buddha makes his appearance in the world, he brings benefit to many people. But that two wheel-turning kings should exist in a single country, or that two Buddhas should appear in a single world—nowhere has any such thing ever happened.”

Volume nine of Great Perfection of Wisdom says: “The major world systems in the ten directions, numerous as the sands of the Ganges, make up what is called the world of a single Buddha. There are no other Buddhas there. Truly it is the world of one Buddha, Shakyamuni Buddha.”

In volume one of On “The Words and Phrases,” we read: “There are not two Buddhas in the world, there are not two rulers in the nation. In the realm of one Buddha, there are not two Venerable Ones.”

And The Treatise on the Upholding of the Stage47 states: “In one world there are not two Buddhas, in one nation there are not two rulers. Within the realm of a single Buddha’s teachings, there are not two Venerable Ones.”

Seventh month

Nichiren

Back to Top

Background

Nichiren Daishonin wrote this letter during his exile in Sado in the seventh month of 1272, and sent it to Sammi-bō Nichigyō, a priest who at the time was studying Buddhist doctrine in Kyoto. In it, citing scriptural evidence, he endeavors to clarify Buddhist principles, and points to actual events to show that the True Word school constitutes a teaching that causes suffering to the people and will ultimately lead to the ruin of the nation.

He first explains why the True Word teaching is capable of destroying the nation. Next, he refutes the True Word contention that the Lotus Sutra constitutes an “exoteric teaching,” and is thus inferior to the True Word sutras, which True Word defines as “esoteric,” or secret. Finally the Daishonin briefly lists five points of error in the assertions of True Word teachers, and then sets forth seven key criticisms of the True Word teachings.

As to why the True Word school can destroy the nation, the Daishonin points out the slander of the Lotus Sutra contained in its teachings. That the government relies on priests of this school to offer prayers to protect the nation, he says, is a cause for the nation’s downfall. He cites a 1221 incident known as the Jōkyū Disturbance, in which the Retired Emperor Gotoba sought to overthrow the Kamakura shogunate. Gotoba used True Word priests to offer prayers to overpower his enemies, but his forces were quickly wiped out and he was sent into exile. This, the Daishonin asserts, is proof that the True Word teaching will lead to the destruction of the nation. Quoting various sutras and commentaries, he states that the ruler of a nation is responsible for its destiny.

Concerning the True Word school’s claim that the Lotus Sutra is not an esoteric, or secret, teaching, but an exoteric teaching and therefore inferior, the Daishonin counters by asserting that there are two ways to view the term “secret.” One is to view it as the careful hiding of something precious, and the other, as an act of concealment to cover up a fault. The Lotus Sutra represents the first view of secret, he says, and the True Word sutras, the latter view. This is because, while the Lotus Sutra reveals what the Buddha had long kept secret—that he originally attained enlightenment in the remote past and that persons of the two vehicles are able to attain Buddhahood—the True Word sutras conceal these facts by stating that the Buddha attained enlightenment for the first time in Buddhagayā and speaking disparagingly of persons of the two vehicles.

The True Word school also calls the Lotus Sutra inferior in terms of practice because it lacks descriptions of mudras and mantras. To this, the Daishonin states that the Lotus Sutra originally contained such descriptions, but that Kumārajīva, who translated the Lotus Sutra into Chinese, left them out in translation, deeming them unimportant. Their inclusion in the Mahāvairochana and other True Word sutras, he suggests, is a result of the personal tastes of the translators of those sutras.

The Daishonin states that T’ien-t’ai established the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life based on his understanding of the Lotus Sutra. He placed the principle above the matters of mantra and mudra. Later Shan-wu-wei stole that principle and read it into the Mahāvairochana Sutra, arguing that that sutra is therefore equal to the Lotus Sutra.

Noting five brief examples of logical and textual inconsistencies in Kōbō’s doctrinal position, the Daishonin then lists seven major criticisms of the True Word doctrine. He questions the identity of Mahāvairochana Buddha, whom the True Word school reveres, raising doubts as to this Buddha’s very existence. Addressing contradictory assertions by Kōbō, he then cites various scriptural passages referring to the Lotus Sutra’s superlative position among the Buddha’s teachings. Finally, he reiterates that the True Word teachings do not embody the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, emphasizing that this accounts for the lack of a statement in the True Word sutras that all people are capable of attaining Buddhahood.

Back to Top

Notes

1. Lotus Sutra, chap. 3.

2. In these volumes “icchantika” means those who have destroyed the seed of Buddhahood inherent in their lives.

3. See Jōkyū Disturbance in Glossary. “Kanto” mentioned subsequently refers to p.455the Kamakura government.

34. See n. 6.

35. The Mahāvairochana Sutra consists of seven volumes and thirty-six chapters. The first six volumes consist of thirty-one chapters and concern essential doctrines and practices in esoteric Buddhism. The last and seventh volume consists of five chapters and concerns offerings and rituals pertaining to them.

36. “One volume” refers to the abbreviated version of the sutra.

37. This points to the fact that the True Word school regards the category of exoteric teachings including the Six Pāramitās Sutra as inferior to the category of esoteric teachings, but still values the doctrinal classification set forth by the Six Pāramitās Sutra itself.

38. A Comparison of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism.

39. This refers to a passage of the Nirvana Sutra that appears later. It reads as follows: “I have explained this in various different sutras. When one Buddha makes his appearance in the world, he brings benefit to many people. But that two wheel-turning kings should exist in a single country, or that two Buddhas should appear in a single world—nowhere has any such thing ever happened.” In the extant edition of the Nirvana Sutra, this passage appears in the thirty-fourth volume.

40. A non-Buddhist school in ancient India that is thought to have arisen from and in opposition to the Lokāyata school. In this sense, the Anti-Lokāyata school is often referred to as representing betrayers of their teachers.

41. Yao and Shun are regarded as two of the Five Emperors. See Yao, Shun, and Five Emperors in Glossary.

42. In the “Expedient Means” chapter, Shakyamuni Buddha says, “Honestly discarding expedient means, I will preach only the unsurpassed way.”

43. This scene is described in chapter twenty-one of the Lotus Sutra.

44. A summary of this sutra.

45. See twenty-four successors in Glossary.

46. “Evil,” or the nine worlds, inherent in the lives of Buddhas and bodhisattvas enabled them to manifest material bodies in order to save living beings. What makes their appearance in the world possible is that “inherent evil.”

47. The Treatise on the Upholding of the Stage corresponds to the Upholding the Bodhisattva Stage Sutra translated into Chinese by Dharmaraksha (385–433), a monk and translator from central India. The Upholding the Bodhisattva Stage Sutra corresponds to the section on the bodhisattva stage from the thirty-fifth volume through the fiftieth volume of The Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice. The passage in the text is a summary of a passage from this sutra.

 

ホーム
タイトルとURLをコピーしました