Letter to Shimoyama（2nd of 2nd paragraph）

2023.12.28

Main Text

Thus, though one’s own father may have been a monk living in a temple devoted solely to Hinayana teachings, if one lived in a temple devoted solely to Mahayana, one would not pay obeisance to one’s father or attempt to associate closely with him.

Letter to Shimoyama（2nd of 2nd paragraph）

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

Again, though a person may seem to have a very sound grasp of the Buddhist teachings, if he does not understand how the factors of time, capacity, country, and the proper sequence of propagation relate to the teachings,2 then although he may labor in mind and body to put the teachings into practice, he will achieve no success. Thus, for example, though one may propagate the Mahayana doctrines in a country where heretofore only the Hinayana doctrines have prevailed, one must not under any circumstances propagate the Hinayana doctrines in a country where only the Mahayana doctrines have prevailed. If one insists on propagating them in such a case, the country will be visited by disaster and its inhabitants will almost certainly fall into the evil paths of existence.

Again, when dealing with a beginner in Buddhist practice, one should never attempt to have such a person practice both the Hinayana and Mahayana doctrines simultaneously. In India it was the custom for persons in temples devoted solely to Hinayana teachings to avoid walking in the middle lane of the road, the so-called “king’s lane.” Similarly, monks in temples devoted solely to Mahayana teachings would avoid walking in the right or left lanes. In like manner, the two groups would refrain from drinking water from the same well or the same river. And of course they would never live together in the same room.

The Lotus Sutra, speaking of beginners in temples devoted solely to Mahayana teachings, describes them as “desiring only to accept and embrace the sutra of the great vehicle [Mahayana] and not accepting a single verse of the other sutras.”3 And it also says, “Again one should not associate with monks, nuns, laymen, or laywomen who seek to become voice-hearers, nor should one question or visit them.”4

Thus, though one’s own father or mother may have been a monk or nun living in a temple devoted solely to Hinayana teachings, if one lived in a temple devoted solely to Mahayana, one would not pay obeisance to one’s father or mother or attempt to associate closely with either of them. And of course one would never have gone so far as to practice the Hinayana teachings that they followed. Temples in which both Mahayana and Hinayana practices were observed were suitable only for bodhisattvas who were far advanced in religious training.

———————————-～(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.

p.713The 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.

Notes

2. This refers to the five guides for propagating Buddhism: the teaching, the people’s capacity, the time, the country, and the sequence of propagation. The point of the criterion of the sequence of propagation is that one should not propagate a teaching inferior to those that have already spread.

3. Lotus Sutra, chap. 3.

4. Ibid., chap. 14.

 

Home
Copied title and URL