Chapter1(Citing the Assertions of the Founders of the True Word School)
WITH regard to the Mahāvairochana Sutra, Shan-wu-wei, Pu-k’ung, and Chin-kang-chih declared that the principle of the Mahāvairochana Sutra is the same as the principle of the Lotus Sutra, but in the matter of mudras and mantras, the Lotus Sutra is inferior. On the other hand, the priests Liang-hsü, Kuang-hsiu, and Wei-chüan declared that the Mahāvairochana Sutra cannot compare to the Flower Garland, Lotus, or Nirvana Sutra, but is merely one of the sutras of the Correct and Equal period.
The Great Teacher Kōbō of Japan states, “The Lotus Sutra is inferior even to the Flower Garland Sutra, and so of course it cannot compare with the Mahāvairochana Sutra.” He also says: “The Lotus Sutra was preached by Shakyamuni, while the Mahāvairochana Sutra was preached by the Thus Come One Mahāvairochana. These sutras were thus taught by two different Buddhas. In addition, the Thus Come One Shakyamuni is a mere messenger of the Thus Come One Mahāvairochana. He preached the exoteric doctrines, which represent no more than the first step toward the esoteric doctrines.” And again he states: “The Buddha of the ‘Life Span’ chapter, which is the heart of the Lotus Sutra, is a Buddha in terms of the exoteric teachings; but from the point of view of the esoteric teachings, he is no more than a common mortal who is bound by and entangled in illusions and desire.”
Notes
1. This opinion is stated in Shan-wu-wei’s Annotations on the Mahāvairochana Sutra and other commentaries on the esoteric sutras.
2. Liang-hsü (n.d.), Kuang-hsiu (771–843), and Wei-chüan (n.d.) were priests of the T’ien-t’ai school in China. Liang-hsü taught the T’ien-t’ai doctrines to Chishō (later the fifth chief priest of Enryaku-ji, the head temple of the Japanese Tendai school), when the latter visited K’ai-yüan-ssu temple in 851. Kuang-hsiu and his disciple Wei-chüan are said to have answered questions posed by Enchō (the second chief priest of Enryaku-ji) concerning the T’ien-t’ai school’s doctrines.
3. Source unknown.
4. Kōbō makes this assessment in his Treatise on the Ten Stages of the Mind, though this is not an exact quotation.
5. This is a summation of views set forth in Kōbō’s Comparison of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism, which differentiates between the two Buddhas, and his Precious Key to the Secret Treasury, which identifies the exoteric teachings as an introduction to the True Word teachings.
6. This opinion is stated in Precious Key to the Secret Treasury.
Lecture
This treatise was written in the third year of Kenji (1277) from Minobu and addressed to Shōmitsu-bō at Seichō-ji temple in Awa Province, when Nichiren Daishonin was fifty-six years old.
Although detailed records concerning Shōmitsu-bō are scarce, two passages provide valuable insight: the closing line of this letter, which reads, “This is an extremely important doctrine. You should visit Bodhisattva Space Treasury and read this aloud repeatedly,” and a passage from “Reply to the Temple Superintendent,” which states, “IHAVE written in detail in my letter to Shōmitsu-bō. Please meet with him and read it to each other.
On any matter concerning the temples Futama and Kiyosumi, you had better speak with Shōmitsu-bō. I say this because he is one who understands the ways of the world.” (WND-1, p. 1032). From these passages, it is understood that Shōmitsu-bō was a resident priest of Seichō-ji who was well acquainted with worldly affairs, which is why the Daishonin recommended him as a counselor to the chief priest (believed to have been Jōken-bō). Naturally, he had become a disciple of the Daishonin and frequently sought his instruction.
The central theme of this letter is a thorough refutation of the True Word (Shingon) school. First, the Daishonin cites textual references from True Word teachers across India, China, and Japan who declared the Lotus Sutra inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra. Next, he refutes these erroneous teachings on the basis of the presence or absence of the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life established by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai. In particular, he dismantles the doctrine of “equal in principle, but superior in practice” (ri-dō ji-shō), declaring that incorporating the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life into the Mahāvairochana Sutra to assert equality in principle constitutes “stealing the Dharma.” Furthermore, he denounces the claim that the Mahāvairochana Sutra is superior in practice because it contains mudras and mantras, asserting that compared to the actual facts of the attainment of Buddhahood by persons of the two vehicles and the Buddha’s original enlightenment in the far distant past revealed in the Lotus Sutra, regarding mudras and mantras as superior is the erroneous view of non-Buddhists who “regard what is inferior as superior.”
Next, the Daishonin points out the slanderous teachings of the True Word and Flower Garland schools. Finally, he clarifies the Great Teacher Dengyō’s refutations of the various schools and his true stance toward True Word, explaining that the Mahāvairochana Sutra, though inferior in principle, gained widespread acceptance solely because prominent scholars and teachers championed it. Out of deep care for Shōmitsu-bō, the Daishonin wrote these matters down as a guide and urged him to study them diligently.
Seichō-ji was steeped in Tendai Esotericism, and Shōmitsu-bō had spent many years studying within that tradition. To lead him to recognize the absolute supremacy of the Lotus Sutra and establish an unshakeable faith, the Daishonin refuted the fallacies of True Word from every angle. Thus, this letter reflects the Daishonin’s profound compassion.
At the beginning of this letter, the Daishonin examines how the relative superiority between the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra was evaluated, citing the interpretations of the three Tripitaka masters of Chinese True Word—Shan-wu-wei, Pu-k’ung, and Chin-kang-chih—the judgments of Chinese Tendai masters such as Kuang-hsiu and Liang-hsü, and the doctrines asserted by Kōbō (Kūkai), the founder of the Japanese True Word school.
The three Tripitaka masters who traveled from India to China and founded the True Word school maintained that when comparing the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra, their ultimate principle is identical, but because the Lotus Sutra contains neither mudras nor mantras, it is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra. Thus, they formulated the doctrine that the two are “equal in principle, but [the Mahāvairochana Sutra is] superior in practice.”
In contrast, Kuang-hsiu, the eleventh patriarch of Chinese T’ien-t’ai, along with his disciples Liang-hsü and Wei-chüan, clearly judged that the Mahāvairochana Sutra does not even measure up to the Flower Garland, Lotus, or Nirvana sutras, but belongs merely to the Correct and Equal (Hōdō) period.
As recorded in “Examining the True Word School”: “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, in their reply to his questions they indicated clearly that the True Word sutras belong to the Correct and Equal category of sutras.
Objection: I will leave aside for the moment the question of whether the [Mahāvairochana] sutra belongs to the provisional teachings. But as to the reply by the Chinese priests, its contents have been refuted by the eminent leader of the Tendai school, the Great Teacher Enchin. In his Essentials of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, he says, “Even the Lotus Sutra cannot compare [to the Mahāvairochana Sutra], much less the other doctrines.” This question therefore has already been settled by the patriarch of earlier times. Who, then, would venture to go against his opinion?
[Answer]: The reply by the Chinese priests says, “The truth has already p.443been decided,” by which it means that one should rely on the Law and not upon persons. However, though you cite Essentials of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, it is not certain whether this work is actually by Chishō, the Great Teacher Enchin, or not.
I say this because, in the second volume of his Collection of Orally Transmitted Teachings, Chishō states: “In comparison to the teachings set forth in the Lotus, Flower Garland, and Nirvana sutras, these [True Word doctrines] are intended to serve as an introduction to those higher teachings.” ” (WND-2, p. 442). This exchange reflects the responses given when Gishin, Enchō, and others sought doctrinal resolution from China regarding the relative superiority of the Lotus and Mahāvairochana sutras, as well as the record in the Juketsushū regarding the queries of Chishō.
However, Kōbō (Kūkai), the founder of the Japanese True Word school, asserted the following views in works such as The Treatise on the Ten Stages of the Mind, The Differences between Exoteric and Esoteric Teachings, and The Precious Key to the Secret Treasury:
- The Lotus Sutra is inferior even to the Flower Garland Sutra, and so of course it cannot compare with the Mahāvairochana Sutra.
- The Lotus Sutra was preached by Shakyamuni, while the Mahāvairochana Sutra was preached by Mahāvairochana Tathagata; thus, the presiding Buddhas are different.
- Shakyamuni preached the exoteric teachings merely as an envoy of Mahāvairochana Tathagata, serving as no more than the introductory gate to the esoteric teachings.
- The Buddha of the “Life Span” chapter, the heart of the Lotus Sutra, is a Buddha within the exoteric teachings, but viewed from the esoteric teachings, he is merely a common mortal bound by illusions and earthly desires.
In “The Sevenfold Superiority of the True Word School,” under the section “On the Evaluation of the Buddha’s Lifetime Teachings by Scholars of China and Japan” (0192:01), the Daishonin illustrates how scholars of various schools ranked the sutras:
- T’ien-t’ai Chih-che’s View (Disciple of Nan-yüeh; active during the Ch’en and Sui dynasties; adopted by Miao-lo and others):
- First: Lotus Sutra
- Second: Nirvana Sutra
- Third: Flower Garland Sutra
- Shan-wu-wei and Pu-k’ung’s View (Active in Tang China during the reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung):
- First: Mahāvairochana Sutra
- Second: Lotus Sutra
- Third: Other sutras
- Dengyō’s View (Active during the reigns of Emperors Kammu [the 50th sovereign], Heizei, and Saga; Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei):
- First: Lotus Sutra
- Second: Nirvana Sutra
- Third: Other sutras
- Kōbō’s View (Active during the reigns of Emperors Saga [the 52nd sovereign] and Junna; Tō-ji and Mount Kōya):
- First: Mahāvairochana Sutra
- Second: Flower Garland Sutra
- Third: Lotus Sutra
- Jikaku’s View (Regarded Shan-wu-wei as his master; active across the reigns of Emperors Nimmyō, Montoku, and Seiwa; Sōji-in at the lecture hall on Mount Hiei; Chishō shared this view at Onjō-ji):
- First: Mahāvairochana Sutra
- Second: Lotus Sutra
- Third: Other sutras
In this way, Kōbō’s assertions took the erroneous doctrine of “equal in principle, but superior in practice” advanced by Shan-wu-wei and others a step further, directly disparaging the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha.
The Daishonin strictly refutes this in various writings, stating in On Repaying Debts of Gratitude: “The Great Teacher Kōbō declared that, in comparison to the Flower Garland and Mahāvairochana sutras, the Lotus Sutra was a piece of childish theory. And this same man, we are told, appeared in the form of a Buddha. He must be the devil who, as the Nirvana Sutra states, will change his shape, which is still subject to illusion, into that of a Buddha and attempt to destroy the correct teaching of Shakyamuni.
This “correct teaching” referred to in the Nirvana Sutra is the Lotus Sutra. Therefore, we find later on in the Nirvana Sutra the statement “It has already been a long time since I attained Buddhahood.” The text also says, “[When this sutra was preached . . . the prediction had already been made] in the Lotus Sutra [that the eight thousand voice-hearers would attain Buddhahood].”
Shakyamuni, Many Treasures, and the Buddhas of the ten directions declared with regard to the various sutras that the Lotus Sutra represents the truth; the Mahāvairochana and all the other sutras do not represent the truth. Yet the Great Teacher Kōbō appeared in the form of a Buddha and announced that, compared to the Flower Garland and Mahāvairochana sutras, the Lotus Sutra is a piece of childish theory. If the words of the Buddha are true, then Kōbō must be none other than the devil king in heaven, must he not?” (WND-1, p. 726).