Chapter2(Revealing the Flower Garland and True Word Schools as Thieves of the Law)
I, Nichiren, after pondering the matter, have this to say: The Mahāvairochana Sutra is one of the newer translations and was transmitted to China by the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei of India in the reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung of the T’ang, in the fourth year of the K’ai-yüan era (716). The Lotus Sutra is one of the older translations, transmitted to China by the Tripitaka Master Kumārajīva in the time of the Later Ch’in (384–417). The two are separated by an interval of more than three hundred years.
More than a hundred years after the Lotus Sutra was brought to China, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che established in the realm of doctrinal studies the classification of the five periods and the four teachings. He refuted the doctrinal interpretations put forward by the scholars of the preceding five hundred years or more and, through his practice of meditation, awakened to the truth of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, realizing for the first time the principle of the Lotus Sutra. The Three Treatises school that had preceded the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai and the Dharma Characteristics school that appeared after his time both taught the doctrine of the eight worlds but made no mention of the Ten Worlds. So these schools could not possibly have established the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life.
The Flower Garland school had its beginnings among the various teachers of northern and southern China before T’ien-t’ai’s advent. These teachers declared that the Flower Garland Sutra was superior to the Lotus Sutra, but at that time they did not refer to themselves as the Flower Garland school. It was the Dharma teachers Fa-tsang and Ch’eng-kuan, men of the reign of Empress Wu, the consort of Emperor Kao-tsung of the T’ang, who first began using the term Flower Garland school.
This school, in its doctrinal interpretations, posits the five teachings and, in its meditative practices, sets forth the principles of the ten mysteries and the six forms. All these teachings appear to be extremely impressive, and one might think that by means of them Ch’eng-kuan would have been able to refute the teachings of T’ien-t’ai. But in fact what Ch’eng-kuan did was to borrow T’ien-t’ai’s doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life and define it as the true intent of the passage in the Flower Garland Sutra that reads, “The mind is like a skilled painter.” We might say, then, that the Flower Garland school was actually defeated by T’ien-t’ai; or perhaps we should say that it was guilty of stealing the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life. Ch’eng-kuan was, to be sure, a strict observer of the precepts. He did not violate a single precept of either the Mahayana or Hinayana codes in any way. And yet he stole the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, a fact that ought to be spoken of widely.
Whether or not the term “True Word school” was used in India is a matter of serious doubt. It may simply be that, because there is a group of sutras known as the True Word sutras, Shan-wu-wei and others affixed the term school to the teachings based on these sutras when they introduced them to China. One should be well aware of this point.
In particular one should note that, when Shan-wu-wei came to judge the relative merits of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra, he set forth the interpretation that the two are equal in principle but that the latter is superior in terms of practice. By this he meant that, although the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life is the same in both the Lotus and the Mahāvairochana sutras, the Lotus Sutra contains no mention of mudras and mantras, and is therefore inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra in terms of the practices to be carried out. So long as it lacks actual descriptions of formulas for practice, one cannot say that it represents the esoteric teachings in both theory and practice.
Nowadays the people of Japan, and many scholars of the different schools, subscribe to this opinion of Shan-wu-wei, including even the scholars of the Tendai school, who should be the last to do so. In this regard they are just like the adherents of the other schools who, although jealous of the Nembutsu believers, have all begun themselves to call out the name of Amida and have completely abandoned the particular object of devotion revered in their own schools. So the Tendai priests have all sunk to the level of True Word believers.
Notes
7. The newer translations refer to the sutras translated into Chinese by Hsüan-tsang (602–664) and others who came after him. In contrast, the translations produced before Hsüan-tsang—by, for example, Kumārajīva (344–413) and Paramārtha (499–569)—are called “older translations.” The older translations are freer, while the newer translations tend to be more literal.
8. The eight worlds refer to all of the Ten Worlds except those of the two vehicles, voice-hearers and cause-awakened ones. The Daishonin says that the Three Treatises and Dharma Characteristics schools uphold “the doctrine of the eight worlds” because they do not teach the attainment of Buddhahood by voice-hearers and cause-awakened ones.
9. Tendai esotericism views the three vehicles as exoteric teachings and the one vehicle as the esoteric teaching. It therefore defines the Lotus and Flower Garland sutras as esoteric sutras, but because they do not mention mudras and mantras, which constitute the concrete form of esoteric practice, they are called esoteric teachings in theory, while the Mahāvairochana and Diamond Crown sutras are called esoteric teachings in both theory and practice.
Lecture
In this chapter, the author points out the deviousness of the True Word (Shingon) school, which surreptitiously appropriated the doctrine of “three thousand realms in a single moment of life” established by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, asserting that the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra share the same “principle” of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, but claiming that the Lotus Sutra is inferior when it comes to concrete practice—namely, the mudras and mantras.
First, addressing the chronological order of the arrival of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra in China, the author explains that the Lotus Sutra belongs to the older translations, rendered by Tripitaka Master Kumārajīva during the Hongshi era (406) of the Later Qin dynasty. In contrast, the Mahāvairochana Sutra belongs to the newer translations, brought from India to China by Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei (Śubhakarasiṃha) in the fourth year of the Kaiyuan era (716) during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang dynasty—arriving more than three hundred years later.
Furthermore, during the interim between these two translations, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che appeared. In terms of doctrinal classification, he established the five periods and eight teachings (the five periods and four teachings), and as a doctrine for observing the mind (kanjin), he expounded the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, thereby demonstrating that the Lotus Sutra represents the ultimate teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha’s entire lifetime.
The “five periods and four teachings” is a doctrinal classification system that categorizes Shakyamuni Buddha’s fifty years of preaching into five periods based on chronological order, and into four teachings based on doctrinal content. The five periods are the Flower Garland, Āgama, Correct and Equal, Wisdom, and Lotus and Nirvana periods. The Lotus and Nirvana sutras, expounded during the final eight years, constitute the true Mahayana teachings, revered as the flavor of ghee (the finest of all teachings). The four teachings are the Tripitaka, connecting, specific, and perfect teachings. The Lotus Sutra is designated as the perfect teaching because it completely and harmoniously encompasses the three truths, the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds, and the three thousand realms in a single moment of life. In addition to the four teachings of doctrine classified by theological content, there are also the four teachings of method—sudden, gradual, secret, and variable—classified by the form of preaching, collectively known as the “five periods and eight teachings.” Through this doctrinal classification by T’ien-t’ai, the overall structure as well as the relative superiority and inferiority of Shakyamuni’s lifetime teachings became completely clear. As stated in The Selection of the Time: “He refuted the mistaken doctrines of the northern and southern schools and declared that among the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime the Lotus Sutra ranks first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Flower Garland Sutra third.”(WND-1, p. 546)
Moreover, in Great Concentration and Insight, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai established the contemplative practice of “three thousand realms in a single moment of life,” thereby clearly illuminating the profound, ultimate principle of the Lotus Sutra, the essential core of all Buddhist teachings.
The Flower Garland School Appropriates the Doctrine of Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life
Because the Three Treatises (Sanron) and Flower Garland (Kegon) schools recognize only eight worlds and do not expound the Ten Worlds, it was fundamentally impossible for them to formulate the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life. Nevertheless, the Flower Garland school, which was established after the time of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, argued against T’ien-t’ai on the one hand while surreptitiously stealing his doctrine of three thousand realms on the other, claiming that the passage “The mind is like a skilled painter” in the Flower Garland Sutra served as their scriptural basis. Pointing this out in the present writing, the Daishonin refutes this deceit, exposing how Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school, despite boasting of his strict adherence to the precepts, had in fact stolen the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life.
The passage “The mind is like a skilled painter” refers to the statement in the Flower Garland Sutra: “The mind is like a skilled painter who paints various five components; throughout all worlds, there is not a single phenomenon that it does not create.”
In his Annotations on the Flower Garland Sutra, Ch’eng-kuan argued that this passage expressed the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, asserting that the Flower Garland Sutra also inherently contained this teaching.
It is true that the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai cited this passage in the first half of the fifth volume of Great Concentration and Insight, writing: “It is like a skilled artist depicting a citadel: the portrait is so true to life that the spirit and bone structure appear animated with vital energy.” He further stated: “Within all realms, both internal and external, there is nothing that does not arise from the mind,” thereby explaining that the mind is the author of all phenomena and that a single moment of life inherently possesses the three thousand realms.
However, if the Flower Garland Sutra does not actually expound the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, the question naturally arises: Why did the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai employ the passage “The mind is like a skilled painter” to explain this principle?
Regarding the question of whether the Flower Garland Sutra truly contains the three thousand realms, High Priest Nichikan decisively refuted this view in The Triple Secret Teaching, stating: “In reply: That sutra does not clarify the prophecy of enlightenment for the two vehicles or the Buddha’s attainment of Buddhahood in the remote past. How could it possibly clarify the three thousand realms in a single moment of life?” Regarding the significance of T’ien-t’ai quoting the Flower Garland Sutra, he explained: “As for the Great Teacher’s intention in citing it, Ching-chüeh stated, ‘The present citation follows only after the teaching has been integrated [into the Lotus Sutra],’ and so forth. Furthermore, a virtuous master of old stated, ‘The Flower Garland is a dead doctrine, while the Lotus Sutra is a living doctrine.’ On its own terms, that sutra is merely nominal and lacks real substance, which is why it is called a dead doctrine… Yet once it is integrated into the Lotus Sutra, it is revived as if brought back to life; thus, it is called a living doctrine.”
The attainment of Buddhahood by persons of the two vehicles and the realization of the Buddha’s original enlightenment in the remote past are indispensable prerequisites for the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life to be established. Because these are not expounded in the Flower Garland Sutra, it is obvious that the three thousand realms cannot be said to be revealed therein. Regardless of how many passages in the Flower Garland Sutra might appear to align with the concept of three thousand realms, it lacks the actual truth of that doctrine. Therefore, even if such parallel phrasing exists, it is empty in name and void of substance—a “dead doctrine.” However, when incorporated to explain and illustrate the true principle of the Lotus Sutra, it comes alive; the Flower Garland Sutra is revitalized from its dormant state and can be utilized as scriptural corroboration for the Lotus Sutra.
Next, concerning the True Word school, Shan-wu-wei and others, drawing upon the Flower Garland school, evaluated the relative superiority between the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra. They claimed that while the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life is identical in both, the Lotus Sutra is inferior in terms of concrete practice because it lacks mudras and mantras. As a result, even members of the Tendai school came to believe this assertion and fell into the errors of the True Word school.
The refutation of this doctrine of “identical in principle, superior in practice” will be developed in detail in the subsequent chapter. For a deeper analysis, please refer to The Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei, where the Daishonin refutes it as follows: “The Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei held the prejudiced opinion that both the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra should be regarded with great respect, since they agree in the profound principles that they embody, but that, because the Lotus Sutra mentions nothing about mudras and mantras, it is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra. The True Word teachers who came after him, moreover, were of the opinion that, even with respect to the important principles expressed, the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra, to say nothing of the matter of mudras and mantras. Thus they went much farther in their slander of the correct teaching, piling up offense upon offense. It is impossible to believe that they can long avoid being censured by King Yama and consigned to the sufferings of hell. Indeed, they will immediately call down upon themselves the flames of the Avīchi hell.
The Mahāvairochana Sutra does not originally contain any mention of the profound principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life. This principle is confined to the Lotus Sutra alone. But the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei proceeded to steal and appropriate this profound principle that the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai had put forth on the basis of his reading of the Lotus Sutra, incorporating it into his own interpretation of the Mahāvairochana Sutra. He then asserted that the mudras and mantras of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, which were originally expounded merely to lend adornment to the Lotus Sutra, were the very elements that make the Mahāvairochana Sutra superior to the Lotus. Shan-wu-wei was putting forth a distorted view when he stated that the Lotus and Mahāvairochana sutras were equal in principle, and he was likewise stating an erroneous view when he claimed that the Mahāvairochana Sutra was superior by reason of its mantras and mudras.”(WND-1, p. 175)