On Reciting the Daimokuof the Lotus Sutra

Main Text

But whether they are correct or incorrect in their views is to be judged solely on the basis of the doctrines they expound. It is not to be decided on the basis of whether or not they have keen capacity or can display supernatural powers.

Background

SOMEONE asked me the following question. Is it true that, even though members of the clergy or lay believers may not understand the exact meaning of the text of the Lotus Sutra, if they accept and uphold the entire sutra, or one volume of it, or the four most important chapters,1 or the verse section of the “Life Span” chapter, or just one phrase of the sutra; if they themselves read the sutra or copy it, or if they get others to read or copy it; or, if they neither read nor copy it, but just face the sutra, press their palms together and bow in obeisance, or make offerings of incense and flowers; or, if they do not do any of these things, but see others doing these things and have just a slight feeling of rejoicing in their hearts or are happy that the Lotus Sutra is being spread throughout the country—is it true that, if they carry out even one of these acts, they will not be held accountable for their worldly offenses, but will be aided by the benefits of the Lotus Sutra and, like the sages who have reached the first of the four stages of enlightenment in the Hinayana teachings, will in each of their future existences be reborn in the human or the heavenly realm, and will not fall into the evil paths of existence? And, is it true that, constantly reborn in the human or heavenly realms, they will eventually gain complete enlightenment into the Lotus Sutra, attain rebirth in one of the pure lands of the ten directions, or, should they remain in this present world, attain Buddhahood in their present form? Please explain to me in detail about this matter.

I would answer as follows. I do not have a complete understanding of the text, but judging from what is expressed in the Lotus and Nirvana sutras and the commentaries by T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo, if people happen to put their faith in the Lotus Sutra and do not in any way slander it, then they will not, as a result of other offenses they might commit, fall into the evil paths of existence.

But if they should encounter an evil friend who has only a slight understanding of the provisional teachings and who, pretending to be very knowledgeable, declares in a plausible manner that the Lotus Sutra is ill fitted for people of our capacities; and if they believe in his words and cease in their hearts to delight in the Lotus Sutra, and instead put their trust in some other teachings, never again for the remainder of their lives returning to their faith in the Lotus Sutra, then they will most likely fall into the evil paths of existence.

 

————————————-～（omitted)～————————————————

Still later, in the Nirvana Sutra, he repeated this message, saying, “After the Buddha has entered extinction, there will be four ranks of bodhisattvas who will preach the Law. And there will be four standards to follow with regard to the Law. But if in the end these bodhisattvas do not propagate the true sutra, then you should know that they are in fact manifestations of the heavenly devil.”

Therefore, in the period of five hundred to nine hundred years following the demise of the Thus Come One, Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna and Bodhisattva Vasubandhu appeared and widely propagated the sacred teachings of the Thus Come One.

Bodhisattva Vasubandhu at first wrote a work entitled The Dharma Analysis Treasury, representing the doctrines of the Hinayana Sarvāstivāda school, in which he set forth the doctrines preached by the Buddha over a period of twelve years in the Āgama sutras. He made no attempt whatever to elucidate the Mahayana teachings. Next, he wrote The Treatise on the Ten Stages Sutra, The Commentary on “The Summary of the Mahayana,” and other works in which he discussed the provisional Mahayana teachings expounded by the Buddha in the first forty and more years of his preaching life. And last, he wrote The Treatise on the Buddha Nature, The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra, and similar works in which he outlined the true Mahayana teachings. The career of Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna followed the same general pattern.

The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, a Buddhist teacher of China, classified the teachings of Shakyamuni’s lifetime into the distinct categories of Mahayana and Hinayana and provisional teachings and true teaching.

With regard to the other Buddhist teachers, they explain to a certain extent the meaning and principles of the teachings, but their views are not clearly expressed or lack sufficient passages of proof to support them. Among the scholars, translators, and Chinese teachers of the latter age, there are those who distinguish clearly between the Mahayana and the Hinayana teachings, but within the Mahayana teachings they do not distinguish between the provisional Mahayana and the true Mahayana. Or, though in their words they may seem to be making such a distinction, in their hearts and minds they cannot free themselves from their attachment to the provisional Mahayana teachings. The situation is like that described [in the “Expedient Means” chapter] when it says: “If bodhisattvas who never regress, their number like Ganges sands, [with a single mind should join in pondering and seeking], they could not understand it either.”

Question: Among the Chinese Buddhist teachers there were persons such as the Great Teacher Tz’u-en who was said to have been a reincarnation of the Eleven-faced Perceiver of the World’s Sounds and could emit rays of light from his teeth. Or like the Reverend Shan-tao, who was said to have been a reincarnation of Amida Buddha and could produce Buddha figures from his mouth. And there were many other teachers in the world who could manifest supernatural powers, bestow blessing, or enter meditation and attain enlightenment. Why did these persons fail to distinguish between the provisional sutras and the true sutra and to make the Lotus Sutra the basis of their teaching?

Answer: The ascetic Agastya, a non-Buddhist believer, poured the Ganges River into one ear and kept it there for twelve years. The ascetic Vasu transformed himself into the heavenly being Freedom and displayed three eyes. Among the Taoist adepts of China, Chang Chieh exhaled fog and Luan Pa exhaled clouds. It is said [in the Nirvana Sutra] that, after the demise of the Buddha, the devil of the sixth heaven will take on the form of a monk or a nun, a man or a woman lay believer, an arhat or a pratyekabuddha, and expound the sutras preached by the Buddha in the first forty and more years of his preaching life. But this shows simply that these persons possessed supernatural powers; it does not indicate whether they were wise or foolish.

As the Buddha indicated in his dying instructions, there will be teachers who propagate the provisional sutras only and never make any attempt to propagate the true sutra. This is perhaps because from past times they have had very close connections with the provisional sutras and have never looked into the true sutra, or perhaps because they have been led astray by the devil and have thus become able to display supernatural powers. But whether they are correct or incorrect in their views is to be judged solely on the basis of the doctrines they expound. It is not to be decided on the basis of whether or not they have keen capacity or can display supernatural powers.

Nichiren

The twenty-eighth day of the fifth month in the first year of the Bunnō era [1260], cyclical sign kanoe-saru

Written at Nagoe in Kamakura

Back to Top
    1. Main Text
  1. Background

Background

This work was designated one of the ten major writings of Nichiren Daishonin by Nikkō, the Daishonin’s successor. Written in Kamakura and dated the twenty-eighth day of the fifth month in 1260, its recipient is unknown. Within two months after completing this writing, the Daishonin completed On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, another of the ten major writings, and submitted it to Hōjō Tokiyori, the retired regent who still held the reins of power in the shogunate.

This work, like On Establishing the Correct Teaching, is written in a question and answer format, and refutes the doctrines of the Pure Land, or Nembutsu, school that deny the effectiveness of the Lotus Sutra in leading people to Buddhahood. The Daishonin criticizes the Nembutsu and other major schools of his day for failing to make distinctions between the Hinayana, provisional Mahayana, and true Mahayana teachings, and states that they are opposing the true Mahayana teaching, that is, the Lotus Sutra. He then points to the superior benefit that derives from reciting the daimoku, or title, of the Lotus Sutra, which he identifies as the wonderful Law, or the Law that leads one directly to Buddhahood.

This work consists of fifteen questions and answers, which can be summarized as follows: (1) The first question: Even though clergy and laity may not possess the slightest understanding of the Lotus Sutra, will they still receive any benefit from practicing it? The Daishonin answers yes, so long as they do not give way to slander or abandon faith in the Lotus Sutra; if only they continue to practice, he says, they will not fall into the evil paths of existence.

(2) The questioner, citing the words of a wise person, asserts the position of the Pure Land school that the Lotus Sutra is a very profound teaching that is beyond the understanding of the people of the Latter Day of the Law, and therefore it cannot enable them to attain Buddhahood. The Nembutsu, the questioner asserts, can enable even persons of the lowest capacity to attain rebirth in the pure land of Amida Buddha simply by reciting that Buddha’s name. In answer, the Daishonin directly overturns this assertion, indicating that it is not based on the sutras and that, because it may cause people to abandon the Lotus Sutra, it constitutes a slander of the Law.

(3) The questioner asks for scriptural proof of the above assertions. In answer, the Daishonin refers to the principles of the Lotus Sutra and cites the commentaries of T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo. He makes clear where in the sutra the grave effects of slander are shown and explains the benefit to be gained by those of the lowest capacity who rejoice upon hearing word of the Lotus Sutra. Assertions by other schools that the Lotus Sutra is suited exclusively for those of higher capacity are overturned. Particularly, the claim of the Nembutsu school—that the capacities of the people of this age are suited to the provisional teachings and not to the Lotus Sutra—is described as a cause for falling into the Avīchi hell because it contradicts the Lotus Sutra.

(4) To the question of what sort of persons are trying to turn people against the Lotus Sutra, the function of evil friends is described—those who profess to understand the entirety of the Buddha’s teachings yet fail to make a distinction between the provisional sutras and the true sutra, the Lotus Sutra. (5) Asked for scriptural proof, the Daishonin cites the passages from the sutras and commentaries to further clarify the nature of those who slander the Lotus Sutra and act as evil friends. (6) The questioner acknowledges a degree of understanding, but expresses doubt about his own capacity to take faith in the Lotus Sutra. The Daishonin asserts that this doubt stems from doubt about him and belief that anyone who can mount a clever argument must be wise.

(7) The questioner expresses his fear of rejecting words of wise persons and spending his life in vain. To this, the Daishonin cites the Buddha’s dying admonition to “rely on the Law and not upon persons,” and the Buddha’s instruction to rely on sutras that are “complete and final” and not on those that do not meet this standard. He goes on to conclude that only the Lotus Sutra is complete and final in every sense. It is the only sutra, he says, that contains the ultimate principle of compassion that can lead all people in the Latter Day of the Law to attain Buddhahood.

(8) The questioner cites the words of a wise person who regards the Nembutsu practice as easier than that of the Lotus Sutra. Citing the passage from the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra that reads, “But in these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth,” the Daishonin refutes the sutras preached prior to the Lotus Sutra, or the provisional Mahayana sutras, including the Pure Land sutras. (9) The questioner raises the objection that T’ien-t’ai declared both the perfect teaching of immediate enlightenment of the pre-Lotus sutras and that of the Lotus Sutra to be “wonderful,” or subtle, in contrast to the other three of the four teachings of doctrine that were regarded as “rough.” Explaining T’ien-t’ai’s classification in more detail, the Daishonin makes clear that, in the final analysis, T’ien-t’ai designated the perfect teaching of the Lotus Sutra as superior.

(10) The nature of practice and the object of devotion in the practice of the Lotus Sutra is described. (Though this object is not identified specifically here, later in Questions and Answers on the Object of Devotion the Daishonin identified it as “the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra.”) (11) The superiority of the benefit obtained by those who chant the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra is described. (12) The questioner again raises the concern that one should consider the capacity of the listener before teaching the Lotus Sutra, citing the Buddha’s statement in the “Simile and Parable” chapter, “Do not preach this sutra to persons who are without wisdom.” The Daishonin counters this by pointing to the case of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging in the “Never Disparaging” chapter, in which the bodhisattva continues to bow in obeisance to all people, saying, “I have profound reverence for you,” no matter how they slander or attack him.

(13) In resolving this apparent contradiction within the Lotus Sutra, the Daishonin explains that these two approaches—that of gradually leading people to the Lotus Sutra and that of teaching it directly to all even though it may anger them—are meant respectively for those who have developed some good roots through their past existences and those who have not. Citing T’ien-t’ai, he explains that those living in the Latter Day of the Law are those without good roots, and therefore it is an age in which the sutra should be taught directly, “in a forceful manner.” This may cause people to slander the sutra, but the connection they form with it, a reverse one, will enable them to attain Buddhahood eventually.

(14) Among the various Buddhist scholars and teachers, the Daishonin points out, T’ien-t’ai thoroughly and accurately classified all the Buddhist sutras into Mahayana and Hinayana, provisional and true, clarifying the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over all the other sutras. (15) Though some Buddhist teachers enjoy wide respect for their supernatural powers, if they do not spread the true sutra, they are possessed of devils. The standard for evaluating the correctness of Buddhist teachers is the doctrines they expound, not the supernatural powers they display.

 

Home
Copied title and URL