Chapter4(Citing the Passage of Proof on the General Transfer in the “Entrustment” Chapter)
Question: The teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime were all intended to benefit the people. And because people differ from one another in their innate nature, he expounded the various teachings. Nevertheless, his basic intention in all cases was simply to enable everyone to attain the Buddha way. Therefore, [people reason that] the sutra that is pertinent to oneself may be quite irrelevant to others, while the sutra that is pertinent to them will be irrelevant to oneself. Thus, for example, for persons who can attain the way through the Nembutsu teachings of the sutras other than the Lotus Sutra, the Meditation and related sutras will be of greatest benefit while the Lotus Sutra will be of no help. Conversely, for those who can reach Buddhahood and achieve the way through the Lotus Sutra, the other sutras will be irrelevant while the Lotus Sutra will be of greatest benefit. When the Buddha said, “In these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth”; when he said, “Though they [the Buddhas] point out various different paths, in truth they do so for the sake of the Buddha vehicle”; or when he said, “Honestly discarding expedient means, I will preach only the unsurpassed way,” he was addressing persons with the capacity to attain the way through the Lotus Sutra. Everyone in the world agrees that this argument is reasonable. How should we understand this? If this view is correct, then there is really no difference between the Mahayana and the Hinayana, and no dissimilarity between the provisional and true teachings. Thus I find myself in great doubt as to which sutra the Buddha defined as representing his true intention, and which in fact he proclaimed to be the teaching for attaining Buddhahood.
Answer: From the very beginning, the Buddha’s intention in appearing in the world was to preach the wonderful Law. But because the people differed so greatly in their capacity and were not ripe to receive it, the Buddha first pondered for a period of three weeks, then spent the following forty years and more preparing and readying the people, and then finally preached this wonderful Law. The Buddha said: “If I merely praised the Buddha vehicle, then the living beings, sunk in their suffering, would be incapable of believing in this Law. And because they rejected the Law and failed to believe in it, they would fall into the three evil paths.” He also said, “The World-Honored One has long expounded his doctrines and now must reveal the truth.”
The meaning of these passages is that the Buddha from the very beginning intended to preach this doctrine of the Buddha vehicle. But he knew that the people, having no inclination to hear the Buddha’s Law, would not put their faith in it, but on the contrary would undoubtedly slander it. Therefore, in order to develop the people’s capacities to the same level, he first spent a period of forty or more years preaching the Flower Garland, Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom sutras, and then at the very last preached the Lotus Sutra. At that time, Shāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and the others of the twelve thousand voice-hearers; Manjushrī, Maitreya, and the others of the eighty thousand bodhisattvas; the ten thousands of millions of wheel-turning kings; as well as Brahmā, Shakra, and the countless other heavenly beings, who had all been present during the Buddha’s more than forty years of preaching, each exclaimed with regard to the teachings they had heard before, “We would never gain the immeasurable insight of the Thus Come One.” But when they heard him preach the Lotus Sutra, they rejoiced, exclaiming, “This cluster of unsurpassed jewels has come to us unsought.” Therefore, they said, “Since times past often we have heard the World-Honored One’s preaching, but we have never heard this kind of profound, wonderful, and superior Law.” They also said, “The Buddha preaches a rarely encountered Law, one never heard from times past.”
The intent of these passages is to praise the Lotus Sutra by saying that, though those present at the assembly had heard the Buddha preach a considerable number of times during the preceding forty years and more, they had never heard anything like the Law of the Lotus Sutra, and that the Buddha had never before preached a doctrine such as this.
The doctrines heard by the assembly in the preceding forty-two years cannot in any way be compared with those of this sutra they were now hearing. Therefore, it is a grave error to assert that this sutra was preached for the sake of persons who can attain the way through the Lotus Sutra, but that it is useless for persons who can gain the way through the sutras preached earlier. In the case of the sutras preached during the previous forty-two years, since they were provided as expedient means for individuals each with a particular capacity or relationship, one can perhaps speak of them as being relevant to some persons but not to others. But in the case of the Lotus Sutra, the different capacities that had enabled individuals to benefit from hearing one or another of the earlier sutras were all drawn together and readied so that they became identical and pure; the sutra was preached to such people. Therefore, there can be no question of it being relevant to some persons and irrelevant to others.
How lamentable that the distinctions between Mahayana and Hinayana, or between provisional and true teachings, should become confused in this manner, so that the purpose of the Buddha’s advent has been lost, and people go about declaring that the Lotus Sutra is useless for persons with the capacity to attain the way through the earlier sutras. One should guard against and fear such errors! In past times there was a man known as the Great Teacher Tokuitsu who taught just this sort of doctrine to others and fully believed it in his own mind, reading the Lotus Sutra in the light of such an interpretation. But the Great Teacher Dengyō attacked him, saying that though he praises the Lotus Sutra he destroys its heart.26 After that, the Great Teacher Tokuitsu’s tongue split into eight pieces and he died.
Notes
17. Immeasurable Meanings Sutra.
18. Lotus Sutra, chap. 2.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., chap. 3. In the text of the sutra, these words are spoken in the singular by Shāriputra. The Daishonin interprets them here as expressing the thoughts of the entire assembly.
23. Ibid., chap. 4. In the text of the sutra, these words are spoken by Mahākāshyapa.
24. Ibid., chap. 3. In the text of the sutra, these words are spoken by the sons of the gods.
25. Ibid., chap. 17. In the text of the p.890sutra, these words are spoken by Maitreya.
Lecture
Here, the Daishonin cites the widely held secular view that although Shakyamuni Buddha preached the teachings in accordance with the capacities of living beings, all of them were intended to lead people to enlightenment, and therefore living beings should simply practice according to the sutra with which they have an affinity. He refutes this misconception by clarifying that while the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings were indeed expounded according to people’s varying capacities, the Lotus Sutra was preached after preparing and uniting all people into a single capacity; thus, regardless of one’s capacity, the Lotus Sutra alone is the teaching that leads to the attainment of Buddhahood.”
Question: “The teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime were all intended to benefit the people. And because people differ from one another in their innate nature, he expounded the various teachings. Nevertheless, his basic intention in all cases was simply to enable everyone to attain the Buddha way. Therefore, [people reason that] the sutra that is pertinent to oneself may be quite irrelevant to others, while the sutra that is pertinent to them will be irrelevant to oneself. Thus, for example, for persons who can attain the way through the Nembutsu teachings of the sutras other than the Lotus Sutra, the Meditation and related sutras will be of greatest benefit while the Lotus Sutra will be of no help. Conversely, for those who can reach Buddhahood and achieve the way through the Lotus Sutra, the other sutras will be irrelevant while the Lotus Sutra will be of greatest benefit. When the Buddha said, “In these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth”; when he said, “Though they [the Buddhas] point out various different paths, in truth they do so for the sake of the Buddha vehicle”; or when he said, “Honestly discarding expedient means, I will preach only the unsurpassed way,” he was addressing persons with the capacity to attain the way through the Lotus Sutra. Everyone in the world agrees that this argument is reasonable. How should we understand this? If this view is correct, then there is really no difference between the Mahayana and the Hinayana, and no dissimilarity between the provisional and true teachings. Thus I find myself in great doubt as to which sutra the Buddha defined as representing his true intention, and which in fact he proclaimed to be the teaching for attaining Buddhahood.
Answer: “From the very beginning, the Buddha’s intention in appearing in the world was to preach the wonderful Law. But because the people differed so greatly in their capacity and were not ripe to receive it, the Buddha first pondered for a period of three weeks, then spent the following forty years and more preparing and readying the people, and then finally preached this wonderful Law. The Buddha said: “If I merely praised the Buddha vehicle, then the living beings, sunk in their suffering, would be incapable of believing in this Law. And because they rejected the Law and failed to believe in it, they would fall into the three evil paths.” He also said, “The World-Honored One has long expounded his doctrines and now must reveal the truth.”
The meaning of these passages is that the Buddha from the very beginning intended to preach this doctrine of the Buddha vehicle. But he knew that the people, having no inclination to hear the Buddha’s Law, would not put their faith in it, but on the contrary would undoubtedly slander it. Therefore, in order to develop the people’s capacities to the same level, he first spent a period of forty or more years preaching the Flower Garland, Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom sutras, and then at the very last preached the Lotus Sutra. At that time, Shāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and the others of the twelve thousand voice-hearers; Manjushrī, Maitreya, and the others of the eighty thousand bodhisattvas; the ten thousands of millions of wheel-turning kings; as well as Brahmā, Shakra, and the countless other heavenly beings, who had all been present during the Buddha’s more than forty years of preaching, each exclaimed with regard to the teachings they had heard before, “We would never gain the immeasurable insight of the Thus Come One.” But when they heard him preach the Lotus Sutra, they rejoiced, exclaiming, “This cluster of unsurpassed jewels has come to us unsought.” Therefore, they said, “Since times past often we have heard the World-Honored One’s preaching, but we have never heard this kind of profound, wonderful, and superior Law.” They also said, “The Buddha preaches a rarely encountered Law, one never heard from times past.”
The intent of these passages is to praise the Lotus Sutra by saying that, though those present at the assembly had heard the Buddha preach a considerable number of times during the preceding forty years and more, they had never heard anything like the Law of the Lotus Sutra, and that the Buddha had never before preached a doctrine such as this.
The doctrines heard by the assembly in the preceding forty-two years cannot in any way be compared with those of this sutra they were now hearing. Therefore, it is a grave error to assert that this sutra was preached for the sake of persons who can attain the way through the Lotus Sutra, but that it is useless for persons who can gain the way through the sutras preached earlier. In the case of the sutras preached during the previous forty-two years, since they were provided as expedient means for individuals each with a particular capacity or relationship, one can perhaps speak of them as being relevant to some persons but not to others. But in the case of the Lotus Sutra, the different capacities that had enabled individuals to benefit from hearing one or another of the earlier sutras were all drawn together and readied so that they became identical and pure; the sutra was preached to such people. Therefore, there can be no question of it being relevant to some persons and irrelevant to others.
How lamentable that the distinctions between Mahayana and Hinayana, or between provisional and true teachings, should become confused in this manner, so that the purpose of the Buddha’s advent has been lost, and people go about declaring that the Lotus Sutra is useless for persons with the capacity to attain the way through the earlier sutras. One should guard against and fear such errors! In past times there was a man known as the Great Teacher Tokuitsu who taught just this sort of doctrine to others and fully believed it in his own mind, reading the Lotus Sutra in the light of such an interpretation. But the Great Teacher Dengyō attacked him, saying that though he praises the Lotus Sutra he destroys its heart. After that, the Great Teacher Tokuitsu’s tongue split into eight pieces and he died.”
The Daishonin indicates that the Lotus Sutra alone expounds the Law for attaining Buddhahood, and that the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings of the preceding forty-some years were teachings established to prepare and nurture the capacities of living beings so that the Lotus Sutra could be preached.
In other words, what Shakyamuni truly wished to preach was the Mystic Law, but because there were differences in the capacities and conditions of living beings, he preached various teachings as expedient means for more than forty years to prepare them, and finally expounded the Mystic Law.
This is shown in the “Expedient Means” (second) chapter of the Lotus Sutra, which states: “If I were merely to praise the Buddha vehicle, then the living beings, sunk in their suffering, would be incapable of believing in this Law. And because they rejected the Law and failed to believe in it, they would fall into the three evil paths,” and also: “After the World-Honored One has long expounded his doctrines, he will without fail proclaim the truth.”
Following the first passage, it reads: “Those of shallow wisdom delight in lesser teachings and do not believe that they themselves can become Buddhas. For this reason I employ expedient means, making distinctions and speaking of various fruits. And though I preach the three vehicles, I do so solely for the sake of instructing the bodhisattvas.”
The subsequent passage continues: “I say to the multitude of voice-hearers and to those who seek the vehicle of the cause-awakened ones: The fact that I enabled you to free yourselves from the bonds of suffering and to attain nirvana was merely through the Buddha’s power of expedient means, whereby I showed you the teachings of the three vehicles.”
Namely, if the Buddha had immediately preached the Lotus Sutra, which is the Law for attaining Buddhahood, living beings would have doubted and failed to believe it, thereby falling into the evil paths. Therefore, as an expedient means, he first preached the teachings of the three vehicles—voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and bodhisattvas—and after gradually preparing and maturing the capacities of living beings, he revealed the true teaching.
The passage beginning “The meaning of these passages is…” explains this point. “Living beings who have no inclination toward Buddhism” refers to those whose capacity does not dispose them to seek the Buddhist teachings. Without the capacity to seek Buddhism, even if they hear the Law for attaining Buddhahood, they will not try to believe it and will instead slander it.
Therefore, in order to prepare their capacities and inspire them to wish for Buddhahood, over a period of more than forty years Shakyamuni preached the sutras of the Flower Garland (Kegon), Agama, Correct and Equal (Hodo), and Wisdom (Hannya) periods among the five periods of teachings. Consequently, the Daishonin states that when the Buddha finally preached the Lotus Sutra, “the twelve thousand voice-hearers including Shariputra and Maudgalyayana, the eighty thousand bodhisattvas including Manjushri and Maitreya, the myriad wheel-turning kings, and the immeasurable heavenly beings such as Brahma and Shakra” said of the teachings they had heard prior to the Lotus Sutra that they had “lost the Tathagata’s immeasurable insight and wisdom.”
This refers to the “Simile and Parable” (third) chapter of the Lotus Sutra, where Shariputra states: “Now, hearing the voice of this Law from the World-Honored One, my heart leaps with joy and I have gained what I never had before. Why is this? Because in the past, when I followed the Buddha and heard teachings such as these, I saw the bodhisattvas receive prophecies that they would become Buddhas, while we ourselves had no part in this matter; and I grieved deeply that we had lost the Tathagata’s immeasurable insight and wisdom.”
In other words, we can understand that the Daishonin regarded Shariputra’s statement—that through the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings one could not attain the Buddha’s immeasurable insight and wisdom, that is, the Buddha’s enlightenment—as representing the voices of all the voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and bodhisattvas who had attended the assemblies of the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings.
The Daishonin’s statement, “Hearing the Lotus Sutra, they rejoiced, saying that the unsurpassed cluster of jewels had come to them unsought,” refers to Mahakashyapa’s words in the “Belief and Understanding” (fourth) chapter of the Lotus Sutra: “Today we have heard the Buddha’s voice teaching us, and we dance for joy, having gained what we never had before. The Buddha declares that voice-hearers will be able to become Buddhas. The unsurpassed cluster of jewels has come to us unsought.”
This means that in the “Belief and Understanding” chapter of the Lotus Sutra, Mahakashyapa and the other voice-hearers related the parable of the wealthy man and his impoverished son, rejoicing that they had attained Buddhahood upon hearing the Lotus Sutra, and expressing their immense joy by saying, “It is truly as though we have obtained the most supreme treasure without even seeking it.”
The phrase “Ever since the past, we…” refers to the statement made by the heavenly sons in the “Simile and Parable” (third) chapter: “Ever since the past, we have often heard the World-Honored One preaching, but we have never before heard such a profound, wonderful, and supreme Law as this. As the World-Honored One preaches this Law, we all rejoice in assent. Shariputra of great wisdom has now been able to receive the revered prophecy. We too, in like manner, will surely become Buddhas, and in all the world we will become most honored and unsurpassed.”
Furthermore, the passage “The Buddha has preached a rare Law, one that we have never heard before in the past” comes from the “Distinctions in Benefits” (seventeenth) chapter, where Bodhisattva Maitreya, filled with heartfelt joy upon hearing the preaching of the “Life Span” (sixteenth) chapter, declares that it is a rare Law and an unsurpassed teaching never before expounded.
The Daishonin explains that these passages praise the Lotus Sutra by making clear that although the disciples had heard various teachings over Shakyamuni’s forty-some years of preaching, they had never heard a teaching as superior as the Lotus Sutra, nor had the Buddha ever expounded one.
He then strictly admonishes that one must never consider the teachings of the forty-two years to be equal to the Lotus Sutra.
Here, he demonstrates that Myoho-renge-kyo (the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law) alone represents the entirety of Shakyamuni’s enlightenment, and that the Mystic Law alone is the Law for attaining Buddhahood.
Accordingly, the view that the Lotus Sutra is only for those who attain the way through the Lotus Sutra and is useless for those who attain the way through the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings is a grave error. Because the sutras of the forty-two years are provisional teachings established as expedient means for “a single capacity and a single connection,” there is a distinction between those who have an affinity with them and those who do not, depending on the capacity of the living beings. In the case of the Lotus Sutra, however, because it binds together living beings of diverse capacities into one and expounds the Law by which all living beings attain Buddhahood, the Daishonin declares that “there can be no question of having or not having an affinity with it.”
Nevertheless, the teachers of the various schools who claim that “the Lotus Sutra is useless for those who attain the way through the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings” are denying the distinctions between Mahayana and Hinayana, provisional and true teachings, and thereby denying the Buddha’s true purpose. One should fear the offense of slandering the Law inherent in such claims.
As an example of this, the Daishonin cites Tokuitsu of the Dharma Characteristics (Hosso) school, who disparaged the Lotus Sutra and slandered the Great Teacher Dengyo.
Tokuitsu (whose name was also written with alternate characters and who was commonly known as Aizu Tokuitsu) was the son of Fujiwara no Nakamaro. After renouncing the world, he studied the doctrines of the Dharma Characteristics school under Shuen at Kofuku-ji temple, and later resided at Todai-ji temple, where he propagated the Dharma Characteristics teachings. Because he composed a new commentary on the Lotus Sutra as well as the twenty-volume Chuhen Gikyo (Mirror of the Middle and Extreme Meanings) to criticize the Great Teacher Dengyo, Dengyo wrote the Shugo Kokkaisho (Essay on the Protection of the Nation) to refute him. Later, banished to the eastern provinces for opposing the imperial court, Tokuitsu founded Chuzen-ji temple on Mount Tsukuba and built Enichi-ji temple in Aizu of Mutsu Province, where he lived.
Tokuitsu’s assertion was that “the three vehicles are true, and the one vehicle is an expedient means”—claiming that the truth lies in living beings of respective capacities practicing the voice-hearer vehicle, the cause-awakened vehicle, or the bodhisattva vehicle, whereas the one Buddha vehicle expounded in the Lotus Sutra is merely an expedient teaching.
Tokuitsu “both taught to others and held in his own heart” the Dharma Characteristics doctrine that the three vehicles are true and the one vehicle is an expedient means, and wrote works such as the Chuhen Gikyo interpreting the Lotus Sutra in that light. The Great Teacher Dengyo refuted him with the words, “Although he praises the Lotus Sutra, he instead destroys the heart of the Lotus,” and as a result, it is said that Tokuitsu died with his tongue split into eight pieces.
Incidentally, the passage “Although he praises the Lotus Sutra, he instead destroys the heart of the Lotus” is from the Great Teacher Dengyo’s Hokke Shuku (Outstanding Principles of the Lotus Sutra), and was originally a refutation of the Hokke Genzan (Praises of the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra) by Jion (Kuiji), the founder of the Dharma Characteristics school. Although Jion appeared to praise the Lotus Sutra by writing the Hokke Genzan, in works such as his Joyuishikiron Jukki (Commentary on the Discourse on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only) and Joyuishikiron Shochu Suyo (Essentials of the Discourse on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only in the Palm of the Hand), he maintained as the true intent that persons of the two vehicles can never attain Buddhahood, while treating the Lotus Sutra’s principles of opening the three vehicles to reveal the one vehicle and the attainment of Buddhahood by persons of the two vehicles as expedient teachings. Dengyo’s passage refuted this stance.
The Daishonin employs this passage presumably because Tokuitsu criticized the doctrines of the Lotus Sutra on the basis of Jion’s theories, meaning that a refutation of Jion’s Hokke Genzan serves directly as a refutation of Tokuitsu.
Furthermore, in Questions and Answers about Embracing the Lotus Sutra (Jimyo Hokke Mondou Sho), the Daishonin states: “You are referring to the view that the Lotus Sutra was preached for the benefit of those of the two vehicles and not for bodhisattvas, and that the words “I have not yet revealed the truth” therefore apply only to the two vehicles. This was the opinion put forth by the Great Teacher Tokuitsu, a priest of the Dharma Characteristics school. It has been repudiated by the Great Teacher Dengyō, who wrote: “There is at present a certain feeder on lowly food who has composed several volumes of spurious writings, slandering the Law and slandering persons. How can he possibly escape falling into hell!” As a result of these words of censure directed at him, Tokuitsu’s tongue split into eight pieces and he died.” (WND-1, p. 57).
The actual proof of Tokuitsu’s severe punishment is presented as the consequence of slandering the Law—contravening the Buddha’s teachings by claiming that people can attain Buddhahood through whichever sutra matches their capacity and affinity—thereby vividly demonstrating the error of that view.