Chapter3(Refuting the Heretical Doctrine of “Equal in Principle, Superior in Practice”)
I am very suspicious of the logic underlying Shan-wu-wei’s argument. This Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei declares that the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra are equal in principle, but that the latter is superior in terms of practice. He is taking the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life first enunciated by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, reading it into the Mahāvairochana Sutra, and on that basis arbitrarily declaring that the two sutras are alike. But should we accept such an assertion?
For example, long ago, Hitomaro composed a poem that reads:
How I think of it—
dim, dim in the morning mist
of Akashi Bay,
that boat moving out of sight
beyond the islands.
Ki no Shukubō, Minamoto no Shitagō, and others have praised this poem, declaring it to be “the father and mother of poetry.” Now suppose someone should announce that he had composed a poem and, without changing a single syllable, should proceed to recite this poem by Hitomaro and then boast that his talent was in no way inferior to that of Hitomaro. Would anyone be likely to agree with his claim? Uneducated people such as mountain folk and fishermen might just possibly do so.
This principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life that was first put forward by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai is the father and mother of the Buddhas. Yet, more than a hundred years later, the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei stole this doctrine and proceeded to declare in his writings that the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra were equal in principle, and that the principle they had in common was this one of three thousand realms in a single moment of life. Should any person of understanding give credence to such a claim?
He further asserts that the Mahāvairochana Sutra is superior in terms of practice because the Lotus Sutra contains no mention of mudras and mantras. Now is he speaking of the relative worth of the Sanskrit versions of the Mahāvairochana and Lotus sutras? Or is he speaking of the relative worth of the Chinese versions of these two sutras?
The Tripitaka Master Pu-k’ung’s translation of The Rules of Rituals Based on the Lotus Sutra indicates that the Lotus Sutra does in fact contain mudras and mantras. Similarly, the translation of the Benevolent Kings Sutra by Kumārajīva contains no mudras or mantras, but a later translation of the same sutra by Pu-k’ung does contain mudras and mantras.
These various sutras as they existed in India no doubt had a countless number of such practices associated with them. But because India and China are far apart and it was difficult to transport everything, the sutras were abridged when they were brought to China.
Notes
10. Kakinomoto no Hitomaro (fl. c. 685–705), a major poet of The Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves, the earliest anthology of Japanese verse ranging from the earliest days of Japanese history to the year 760. The poem quoted here appears in the first of the imperially sponsored anthologies, A Collection of Ancient and Modern Poetry, where it is said that some people attribute it to Hitomaro.
11. Ki no Shukubō (d. 919) and Minamoto no Shitagō (911–983) were court nobles and poets of the Heian period. Shitagō was chosen to assist in compiling the second imperial anthology, The Later Selection of Japanese Poetry, and also devoted himself to the study of Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves.
Lecture
This chapter clarifies the following concerning the Shingon sect’s doctrine of “equal in principle, superior in practice” (ri dō ji shō): the claim that the Mahavairocana Sutra is “equal in principle” to the Lotus Sutra merely stems from the plagiarizing of the Great Teacher Tiantai’s principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life (ichinen sanzen); furthermore, the claim that it is “superior in practice” simply because it contains mudras (hand seals) and mantras (true words) fails as a basis for determining superiority, because mudras and mantras were simply included or omitted according to the discretion of individual translators when the sutras were rendered into Chinese.
The Daishonin refutes Shan-wu-wei’s (Tripitaka Master Zenmui) assertion that the Mahavairocana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are equal in principle—an assertion made by surreptitiously incorporating Tiantai’s doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life into his own interpretation—by drawing an analogy to waka poetry.
The poem cited here—“Dimly in the morning mist of Akashi Bay, my thoughts dwell on a boat vanishing behind an island”—is collected in the Travel Poems section of the Kokin Wakashu (Collection of Japanese Poems of Ancient and Modern Times). Although listed there as “author unknown,” it has long been attributed to Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, the foremost poet of the Man’yoshu, who has been revered throughout the history of waka as the Sage of Poetry (Kasei). This poem is also cited in numerous classics, such as the Shinsen Wakashu, Wakan Roeishu, The Tale of Genji, Konjaku Monogatarishu, Imakagami, The Tale of the Heike, Masukagami, and Kokon Chomonju, universally acclaimed as a masterpiece capturing the essence of traveler’s melancholy. Masters deeply versed in the poetic arts, such as Ki no Yoshimochi (who composed the Chinese preface to the Kokinshu) and Minamoto no Shitago (compiler of the Gosen Wakashu), praised it immensely, calling it “the father and mother of all poetry.”
The Daishonin observes that if a later writer were to plagiarize such a famous poem verbatim without altering a single syllable and boast, “My talent is in no way inferior to Hitomaro’s,” who would take such a person seriously? In the exact same way, the Daishonin refutes the erroneous views of Shan-wu-wei and others, who stolen the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life—the very “father and mother of all Buddhas”—and asserted that the Mahavairocana Sutra is equal in principle to the Lotus Sutra, asking: “Could any person of wise discernment accept such a claim?”
Having revealed that the assertion of “equal in principle” relies on the theft of the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, the Daishonin next demonstrates that the claim of “superior in practice” is likewise entirely groundless.
To the claim that the Mahavairocana Sutra is superior because it contains mudras and mantras while the Lotus Sutra lacks them, the Daishonin counters by asking whether this comparison pertains to the original Sanskrit texts or the Chinese translations. If it is based on the Chinese translations, he dismisses it by pointing out that the presence or absence of mudras and mantras was simply a matter of the translators’ personal editorial discretion, and therefore cannot serve as a critical criterion for determining the relative superiority of the sutras.
As an example, he notes that while the Lotus Sutra translated by Kumarajiva contains no mudras or mantras, the ritual manual (giki) of the Lotus Sutra translated by Tripitaka Master Amoghavajra (Bukū)—formally titled Ritual Manual of the Yoga Contemplation of the King of the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law (Joju Myoho Renge-kyo O Yuga Kanchi Giki)—does teach mudras and mantras. Furthermore, outside the Lotus Sutra, Kumarajiva’s translation of the Benevolent Kings Sutra (Ninno-kyo) contains no mudras or mantras, whereas Amoghavajra’s translation includes both. The Daishonin states: “Although there are immeasurable practices set forth in the sutras of India, because India and China are separated by vast distances, it was difficult to transport them all; hence, the sutras were abbreviated.” In other words, the absence of mudras and mantras in Kumarajiva’s translation of the Lotus Sutra is simply because they were deemed minor and omitted.
Moreover, a refutation along the same lines appears in Examining the True Word School (Shingon Kenbun):
“In China, Shan-wu-wei and Chin-kang-chih wrote commentaries that held that, when the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra are compared, they are found to be alike in principle, but the latter is superior in matters of practice. But were they deciding this matter of relative superiority on the basis of texts of the sutras found in both India and China?
In India the Lotus Sutra is said to have filled a storehouse sixteen ri round, so it must have included countless passages dealing with matters of practice. But the road from India to China is some fifty-eight thousand or even a hundred thousand ri in length, beset with difficulties and dangers such as the shifting sands of the desert and the mountain ranges of the Pamirs. In preparation for such a long and difficult journey, the less important parts of the sutra were omitted.
In addition, there are the tastes and intentions of the translators to be considered. Some favor detailed treatment and frown on conciseness; others prefer concise treatment and dislike abundant detail. For example, Hsüan-tsang favored detailed discussion, and so when he translated the Wisdom Sutra, which was in forty volumes in the original, into Chinese, his translation came to six hundred volumes. The Tripitaka Master Kumārajīva, on the other hand, preferred conciseness, and so his translation of Great Perfection of Wisdom, a thousand volumes in the original, was reduced in translation to a hundred volumes. It is thus very difficult to decide which sutra, the Lotus or the Mahāvairochana, is superior simply on the basis of which describes mudras and mantras.
Kumārajīva’s translation of the Lotus Sutra does not consider mudras and mantras to be of prime importance [and hence omits mention of them]. But The Rules of Rituals Based on the Lotus Sutra, translated by the Tripitaka Master Pu-k’ung, includes a discussion of mudras and mantras. Kumārajīva’s translation of the Benevolent Kings Sutra makes no mention of mudras and mantras, but Pu-k’ung’s translation of the same sutra has added a discussion of these matters. Thus we know that such differences are due to the taste and intention of the translator.
Furthermore, in the Lotus Sutra the Buddha says, “and for them I preach the emblem [in] of the reality of things,” in which the word “emblem” indicates the mudra [in] of the palms pressed together. And the “Simile and Parable” chapter states, “This Dharma seal [in] of mine I preach because I wish to bring benefit to the world.” What of these passages? Though one sutra may be detailed and the other concise, they are not wholly different in content.
Moreover, when the Buddha speaks with his long broad tongue, all such utterances are mantras, or “true words.”” (WND-2, p. 447)