Letter to Shimoyama（1st of 5th paragraph）

2024.01.04

Main Text

Such behavior is comparable to a dog barking at a lion or a monkey railing at the god Shakra.

Letter to Shimoyama（1st of 5th paragraph）

—————————–～（ continued from the previous section)～————————-

Despite all this, there are at present some priests of perverse wisdom, “observers of the precepts,” who take up the old Hinayana sutras that were cast aside long ago, and though they in fact do not observe a single precept, go about calling themselves priests of the two hundred and fifty precepts, misleading the members of the court and warrior families and declaring themselves to be the teachers of the nation.

What is more, these men in their self-conceit go so far as to insult the observers of the Mahayana precepts by calling them breakers of the precepts or men of no precepts. Such behavior is comparable to a dog barking at a lion or a monkey railing at the god Shakra.

At present these priests of the Precepts school appear to the people of the world to be keepers of the precepts and speakers of truth. But if one investigates the truth of the matter, one finds that they are in fact the most grossly untruthful men under heaven. I say this is because the texts they base themselves on, the works called The Fourfold Rules of Discipline and The Ten Divisions of Monastic Rules, belong wholly to the Hinayana division of the canon, not to the Mahayana, and even among the Hinayana writings they represent the very lowest of the works on Hinayana monastic discipline. When the Buddha was in the world, he preached them as a temporary doctrine after the twelve years of the period of the Āgama sutras and before moving on to the Correct and Equal period of the Mahayana sutras. After the passing of the Buddha, they were observed in temples devoted solely to the Hinayana teachings during the first five hundred years of the Former Day of the Law. Moreover, it was intended that they should be attacked and denounced by the temples devoted to the Mahayana teachings. Thus in Japan in the middle of the Middle Day of the Law, they were introduced by the Reverend Ganjin as a form of training in preparation for the Mahayana teachings.

When the Great Teacher Dengyō refuted the doctrines of the Precepts school and converted its adherents to the Tendai school, the Precepts school should have been abolished entirely. But in order that later ages would understand just what had happened, the Great Teacher Dengyō dispatched some of his own Mahayana disciples to help the school survive. Now the scholars of our present age, unaware of the particulars of the situation, believe that the six schools of Buddhism in Japan have gone on since the beginning without being refuted. What foolishness! What foolishness!

———————————-～(to be continued to the next section)～————————

Background

One of Nichiren Daishonin’s ten major writings, Letter to Shimoyama is a petition to Shimoyama Hyōgo Gorō Mitsumoto, the steward of the district of Shimoyama near Mount Minobu in the province of Kai. The Daishonin wrote it on behalf of a priest named Inaba-bō Nichiei in the sixth month of 1277, while residing at Mount Minobu.

Inaba-bō Nichiei had been converted by Nikkō to the Daishonin’s teachings, and tried to convert Shimoyama Mitsumoto, who was Inaba-bō’s father (or, according to another account, his lord in the feudal system of the time). But Shimoyama, who was a believer in the Nembutsu, or Pure Land, teachings, furiously opposed the priest’s new-found faith. Hearing this, the Daishonin wrote a petition on behalf of Inaba-bō to persuade Shimoyama to discard the Pure Land teachings and take faith in the Lotus Sutra.

The petition explains the superiority of the Lotus Sutra to the Pure Land doctrines, and states that Inaba-bō’s conversion to the Lotus Sutra constitutes a distinguished act of loyalty to Shimoyama. Later, Shimoyama in fact gave up the Nembutsu and became a follower of the Daishonin’s teachings.

In the beginning paragraphs, the voice is that of Inaba-bō addressing his angry father or lord, Shimoyama. Inaba-bō explains that he has ceased reciting the Amida Sutra and instead taken up recitation of the Lotus Sutra because of an encounter with the Sage Nichiren. He says he went to Mount Minobu to listen to a lecture by the sage without the intention of taking faith. He writes very briefly of what he felt about the lecture.

The letter then outlines the Daishonin’s lecture from a third-party viewpoint. The lecture first introduces the five guides of propagation, the teaching, the time, the people’s capacity, the country, and the proper sequence of propagation. Then it describes the history of the spread of Buddhism in Japan. This begins with the Chinese priest Chien-chen (known in Japan as Ganjin), who brought the Hinayana precepts and T’ien-t’ai’s teachings to Japan but propagated only the former, which he thought were appropriate to the time. Later Dengyō appeared and studied T’ien-t’ai’s teachings and investigated thoroughly the doctrines of the six schools of Nara, demonstrating the superiority of the former over the latter. Dengyō also asserted that the Hinayana precepts should be abolished and replaced with the Mahayana precepts.

Next, the Daishonin describes the spread of Buddhism during the Former, Middle, and Latter Days of the Law. The Buddhist leaders in the first two periods knew the great Law of the Lotus Sutra but did not expound it because the time had not yet come for its propagation. As the Daishonin points out, the Latter Day is the time for the advent of Bodhisattva Superior Practices, who will spread the essence of the Lotus Sutra, which is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

Then the Daishonin refutes the views of Ryōkan, who attempted to restore the Hinayana precepts and who urged the shogunate to put to death his rival, Nichiren Daishonin. Basing his view on the Lotus Sutra, the Daishonin regards Ryōkan as the third of the three powerful enemies and himself as the votary of the sutra. He also describes the other persecutions he experienced.

He points out the errors of the shogunate and the Buddhist schools it supported, the Pure Land, True Word, and Zen schools. Moreover, he describes how Dengyō’s teachings were distorted by his successors, Jikaku and Chishō, who incorporated True Word teachings into the Tendai school. In addition, he asserts that the Pure Land and Zen schools have turned the people away from the Lotus Sutra. As a result of these errors, the three calamities and seven disasters have occurred.

The Daishonin explains that he submitted his work On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land to Hōjō Tokiyori, the retired regent and de facto leader of the shogunate, to identify the basic cause for these calamities. Not only was his advice unheeded, however, but he was subjected to various persecutions. Finally, without carrying out a full investigation, the shogunate exiled him to Sado Island. Because the internal strife he had predicted took place, he was pardoned from exile and summoned to an interview with Hei no Saemon, a powerful official of the shogunate. Hei no Saemon asked him when the Mongols would attack Japan, referring to another of the Daishonin’s prophecies. The Daishonin replied that it would occur within the year and warned Hei no Saemon that mistaken Buddhist teachings should not be relied on for prayers to protect the nation. When his admonitions went unheeded, he retired to Mount Minobu. Thus at this time the country appeared to be on the verge of ruin.

At the end of the letter, the voice returns to that of Inaba-bō Nichiei. He says that the Sage Nichiren regretted the turn events had taken, expressing great pity for the people. He says he himself has written down here only a part of the lecture, and urges Shimoyama to take faith in the sage’s teachings. He expresses his conviction that, in discarding the Nembutsu and embracing the Lotus Sutra, he had the happiness of his parents in mind, and is therefore exercising the highest form of filial piety.

Home
Copied title and URL