On Repaying Debts of Gratitude

Nichiren

Background

This lengthy treatise is one of Nichiren Daishonin’s five major writings. It is dated the twenty-first day of the seventh month, 1276, a little more than two years after the Daishonin had taken up residence at Minobu. It was prompted by the news of the death of Dōzen-bō, a priest of Seichō-ji temple in Awa Province, who had been the Daishonin’s teacher when he first entered the temple as a boy of twelve. Nichiren Daishonin wrote this treatise to express his gratitude to Dōzen-bō and sent it to Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō, senior priests at the time he entered the temple, who later became his followers. He entrusted this text to Nikō, one of his disciples, and requested that it be taken to Seichō-ji on his behalf and read aloud at Kasagamori on the summit of Mount Kiyosumi where he had first chanted Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, and again in front of the tomb of his late teacher.

In 1233, Nichiren Daishonin entered Seichō-ji temple to study under Dōzen-bō. At that time, temples served as centers of learning as well as religion. During his stay at this temple, the Daishonin developed his extraordinary literary skills that later proved so valuable in propagating his teachings. He also embarked on a lifelong journey to find and proclaim the unique truth of Buddhism, which had been all but obscured by the emergence of various misleading schools.

On the twenty-eighth day of the fourth month, 1253, the Daishonin proclaimed Nam-myoho-renge-kyo to be the sole teaching leading directly to enlightenment in the Latter Day of the Law, while denouncing the doctrines of the then prevalent Pure Land school. Tōjō Kagenobu, the steward of the area and a fervent Pure Land believer, became furious on hearing of this and sent his men to the temple to arrest the Daishonin. Dōzen-bō, a devotee of the Pure Land teaching, could not defend him openly, but instructed the two senior priests, Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō, to guide his young disciple to safety.

Nichiren Daishonin and his former teacher met again in 1264, when the Daishonin visited his home in Awa after returning from exile on the Izu Peninsula. He later wrote that Dōzen-bō had asked him on this occasion if his practice of the Pure Land teaching would lead him into the hell of incessant suffering. In reply, the Daishonin told Dōzen-bō that he could not free himself from the effects of his slander unless he revered the Lotus Sutra as the fundamental teaching. Afterward, though Dōzen-bō did not entirely abandon his belief in Amida, he carved a statue of Shakyamuni Buddha. The Daishonin rejoiced that Dōzen-bō was apparently beginning to see his error because he felt indebted to this man who had initiated him into the priesthood and earnestly desired to lead him to the correct teaching.

Nichiren Daishonin begins this treatise by emphasizing the need to repay one’s obligations to one’s parents, teacher, the three treasures of Buddhism, and one’s sovereign. He teaches the importance of repaying debts of gratitude as a fundamental aspect of human behavior. Of these four debts of gratitude, this work stresses specifically repaying the debt owed to one’s teacher. Next, the Daishonin states that to repay such debts one must master the truth of Buddhism and attain enlightenment. To accomplish this goal, one must dedicate oneself single-mindedly to the Buddhist practice. However, to attain enlightenment, one must also practice the correct Buddhist teaching. The Daishonin traces the development of the various schools of Buddhism in India, China, and Japan, and examines their doctrines in terms of the relative superiority of the sutras on which they are based, emphasizing the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra. In particular, he refutes the erroneous doctrines of the True Word school. He vehemently denounces Jikaku and Chishō who, though they were patriarchs of the Japanese Tendai school, corrupted the school’s profound teachings, which are based on the Lotus Sutra, by mixing them with esoteric elements. The Daishonin concludes that only the Lotus Sutra contains the ultimate truth and, moreover, that the essence of the sutra, and of the whole of Buddhism, is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. This is the teaching to be propagated in the Latter Day of the Law.

The concluding part of this work makes clear that the Buddha of the Latter Day is none other than Nichiren Daishonin himself, and that the Buddhism he teaches comprises the Three Great Secret Laws—the invocation or daimoku of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the object of devotion, and the sanctuary—which are implicit in the “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra but have never before been revealed. The Daishonin also makes it clear that, in establishing the Three Great Secret Laws for the enlightenment of all people, he is at the same time repaying his debt of gratitude to the deceased Dōzen-bō. Flowering and Bearing Grain, written two years later, states, “The blessings that Nichiren obtains from propagating the Lotus Sutra will always return to Dōzen-bō”. This passage restates the message of the concluding part of this letter.

The present treatise is particularly important because it is the first extant writing in which Nichiren Daishonin specifies each of the Three Great Secret Laws, declaring that this teaching will save people for the ten thousand years of the Latter Day and more, for all eternity. These three, the core of the Daishonin’s Buddhism, represent the Law that was transferred to the Bodhisattvas of the Earth in the “Supernatural Powers” chapter for propagation in the Latter Day. The object of devotion is the Gohonzon that enables all people to attain Buddhahood; the daimoku is the chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with faith in the object of devotion; and the sanctuary is the place where the object of devotion is enshrined and the daimoku is chanted to it.

 

 

Introductory Lecture

Introduction

In giving a lecture on the On Repaying Debts of Gratitude (Hōon-shō), I will first, as a preliminary talk, briefly explain the following three points:

1. The circumstances under which this treatise was composed

2. The general purport of the treatise

3. The original intent and inner meaning of the treatise

The Circumstances of the Treatise’s Composition

This treatise was written by Nichiren Daishonin on the 21st day of the 7th month of Kenji 2 (1276), at Mount Minobu.
It was sent to Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō for the sake of posthumous offerings for the late Dōzen-bō of Seichō-ji in Awa.

At that time, three years had passed since Nichiren Daishonin had taken up residence at Minobu, and he was fifty-five years of age.
The original autograph of the treatise was kept at Minobu, but it was lost in a fire in 1875 (Meiji 8).

In On the Heritage of the One Single Transmission at Fuji by Nikko Shōnin, among the so-called “Ten Major Writings,” the entry for the Treatise on Repaying Debts of Gratitude is as follows:

“One fascicle, Hōon-shō.
Now opened and divided into an upper and lower section.
Written at Mount Minobu for the departed spirit of the master Dōzen-bō and sent to Seichō-ji.
I have heard that it is now in the possession of Hyūga.
The copy held by Nikko is a second-generation transcription and has not yet been collated against the original manuscript.” (1604)

From the above, it is clear that this treatise was written after Nichiren Daishonin heard of Dōzen-bō’s passing, in order to repay his kindness and express gratitude, and that it was sent to Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō.

The Former Teacher, Dōzen-bō

Nichiren Daishonin, from the age of twelve, went up to Seichō-ji in Awa Province and devoted himself to study.
His teacher at that time was Dōzen-bō, and his two senior fellow disciples were Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō.

On the 28th day of the 4th month of Kenchō 5 (1253), in the Buddha hall of the priests’ quarters at Seichō-ji, facing south, he first expounded the Three Great Secret Laws of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

However, the local steward (jitō), Tōjō Saemon Kagenobu, was a fervent Nembutsu believer and persecuted Nichiren Daishonin.
Most of the monks within Seichō-ji also opposed the Daishonin’s correct doctrine.
Nichiren Daishonin only barely managed to escape because Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō hid him and helped him flee.

The On Repaying Debts of Gratitude states:

However, it often happens with worthies that, although they do not think of themselves as having retired from the world, other people assume that they have, and therefore, if they were to come rushing out of retreat for no good reason, people would suppose that they had failed to accomplish their purpose. For this reason, no matter how much I might wish to visit his grave, I feel that I cannot do so.

Now you two, Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō, were my teachers in my youth. You are like the administrators of priests Gonzō and Gyōhyō, who though they were at one time the teachers of the Great Teacher Dengyō, later instead became his disciples. When Kagenobu was bent on harming me and I decided that I must leave Mount Kiyosumi [on which Seichō-ji is located], you helped me escape in secret. You have performed an unrivaled service for the Lotus Sutra. There can be no doubt about the reward that awaits you in your next rebirth. (WND1, p.729)

And in Questions and Answers on the Object of Devotion (Honzon Mondō-shō) it says:

At the time when the steward displayed his anger toward me, you, Jōken-bō, along with Gijō-bō, helped me to escape from Seichō-ji unharmed. Without doing anything further, you have already performed a service for the Lotus Sutra. I hope you will therefore take this opportunity to free yourselves from the sufferings of birth and death. (WND2, p.798)

Toward such Jōken-bō and Gijō-bō, their teacher Dōzen-bō, however, was timid and faint-hearted, fearing the authority of the steward and clinging above all to his own position as chief priest of Seichō-ji.
He thought Nichiren Daishonin’s teaching was correct and, especially in his later years, felt drawn to it, yet for the sake of his own safety he could not abandon the Nembutsu.
His attitude was such that he seemed to think, “Even if I fall into hell, it cannot be helped.”

The On Repaying Debts of Gratitude says:

The late Dōzen-bō treated me as one of his favorite disciples, so I cannot believe that he bore any hatred toward me. But he was a timid man, and he could never bring himself to give up his position at the temple where he lived, Seichō-ji. Moreover, he was fearful of what Kagenobu, the steward of the region, might do if he gave ear to my teachings. And at Seichō-ji he had to live in the midst of priests like Enchi and Jitsujō, who were as evil as Devadatta or Kokālika, and to put up with their intimidations, so that he became more fearful than ever. As a result, he turned a deaf ear to the longtime disciples he was fondest of. I wonder what will become of such a man in the next life.

There is one thing to be thankful for. Kagenobu, Enchi, and Jitsujō all died before Dōzen-bō did, and that was something of a help. These men all met an untimely death because of the chastisement of the ten demon daughters who protect the Lotus Sutra. After they died, Dōzen-bō began to have some faith in the Lotus Sutra. But it was rather like obtaining a stick after the fight is over, or lighting a lantern at midday—the proper time had already passed.

In addition, whatever happens, one ought to feel pity and concern for one’s own children or disciples. Dōzen-bō was not an entirely helpless man, and yet, though I was exiled all the way to the province of Sado, he never once tried to visit me. This is hardly the behavior of one who believes in the Lotus Sutra. (WND1, p.729)

In Questions and Answers on the Object of Devotion we also read:

The late priest Dōzen-bō was my teacher. In his heart he felt kindly toward me. But he was afraid that some trouble might arise between himself and the steward of the region because of the Lotus Sutra, and therefore he acted outwardly as though he were my enemy. I heard later that he seemed to manifest a certain degree of faith in the Lotus Sutra. But I do not know just what his condition was when he was on the point of death. (WND2, p.798)

And in The Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei (Zenmui Sanzō-shō):

 To repay the debt that I owe to my former teacher Dōzen-bō, I desired to spread the teachings of the Buddha on Mount Kiyosumi and lead my teacher to enlightenment. But he is a rather ignorant man, and in addition he is a believer in the Nembutsu, so I did not see how he could escape the three evil paths. Moreover, he is not the kind of person who would listen to my words of instruction.

Nevertheless, in the first year of the Bun’ei era (1264), on the fourteenth day of the eleventh month, I met with him at the priests’ lodgings of Hanabusa in Saijō. At that time, he said to me: “I have neither wisdom nor any hope for advancement to important position. I am an old man with no desire for fame, and I claim no eminent priest of Nembutsu as my teacher. But because this practice has become so widespread in our time, I simply repeat like others the words Namu-Amida-butsu. In addition, though it was not my idea originally, I have had occasion to fashion five images of Amida Buddha. This perhaps is due to some karmic habit that I formed in a past existence. Do you suppose that as a result of these faults I will fall into hell?”

At that time I certainly had no thought of quarreling with him. But because of the earlier incident with the lay priest Tōjō Saemon Renchi, I had not seen my teacher for more than ten years, and thus it was in a way as though we had become estranged and were at odds. I thought that the proper and courteous thing would be to reason with him in mild terms and to speak in a gentle manner. On the other hand, when it comes to the realm of birth and death, neither young nor old know what fate awaits them, and it occurred to me that I might never again have another opportunity to meet with him. I had already warned Dōzen-bō’s elder brother, the priest Dōgi-bō Gishō, that he was destined to fall into the hell of incessant suffering if he did not change his ways, and they say that his death was far worse than what he had hoped. When I considered that my teacher Dōzen-bō might meet a similar fate, I was filled with pity for him and therefore made up my mind to speak to him in very strong terms.

I explained to him that, by making five images of Amida Buddha, he was condemning himself to fall five times into the hell of incessant suffering.(WND1, p.176)

From all this we see that Dōzen-bō was, in summary, a foolish, timid, small-minded Nembutsu believer.
The steward Tōjō Kagenobu, for his part, was not only stubborn in his attachment to heretical teachings but, as indicated in another writing, a villain who even killed Seichō-ji’s tame deer.
Moreover, within Seichō-ji there were priests such as Enchi-bō and Jitsujō-bō who strongly opposed Nichiren Daishonin.
Amid such circumstances, Dōzen-bō did show some faint signs of awakening to faith toward the end,
but he ultimately concluded his life in a most unreliable and pitiable manner.

Originally, Dōzen-bō and indeed the entire community of Seichō-ji should have been moved to profound admiration for the Daishonin’s virtue, especially in light of the following event.

Letter to the Priest of Seicho-ji states:

Above all, if the priests of Mount Kiyosumi treat me with less respect than they show their own parents or the three treasures, they will become wretched beggars in this life and will fall into the hell of incessant suffering in the next. I will explain why. The villainous Tōjō Saemon Kagenobu once hunted the deer and other animals kept by Seichō-ji, and tried to force the priests in the various lodging temples to become Nembutsu believers. At that time I pitted myself against Tōjō and supported the lord of the manor. I composed a fervent oath that read, “If the two temples Kiyosumi and Futama should come into Tōjō’s possession, I will discard the Lotus Sutra!” Then I tied it to the hand of the object of devotion, to which I prayed continuously. Within a year, both temples had been freed from Tōjō’s grasp.  (WND1, p.652)

At that time the steward Tōjō Kagenobu, backed by Nembutsu followers such as Gokuraku-ji, sought to turn all of Seichō-ji—originally a Tendai temple—into a Nembutsu stronghold.
Moreover, he tried to take Nima-dera away from its estate-holders.
The killing of the tame deer can be seen as a kind of show of force against Seichō-ji.

Nichiren Daishonin therefore sided with the estate-holders and the Seichō-ji faction, while Tōjō’s side brought suit.
Within a year the case was won in favor of Seichō-ji and the estate-holders.

The estate-holders had also shown kindness to the Daishonin’s parents.
Thus this was a difficult problem that the Daishonin himself resolved.

 The Recitation at Kasagamori

Although Dōzen-bō generally took positions contrary to Nichiren Daishonin’s guidance, and the situation at Seichō-ji was as described,
when the Daishonin heard of Dōzen-bō’s passing, he nevertheless said:

In On Repaying Debts of Gratitude:

In spite of all that, I thought a great deal of him, and when I heard the news of his death, I felt as though, whether I had to walk through fire or wade through water, I must rush to his grave, pound on it, and recite a volume of the Lotus Sutra for his sake.

However, it often happens with worthies that, although they do not think of themselves as having retired from the world, other people assume that they have, and therefore, if they were to come rushing out of retreat for no good reason, people would suppose that they had failed to accomplish their purpose. For this reason, no matter how much I might wish to visit his grave, I feel that I cannot do so. (WND1, P.729)

In the accompanying letter to the treatise he writes:

A sketchy report of the passing of the Reverend Dōzen-bō reached me last month. I felt that I should go in person as quickly as possible, as well as sending the priest who bears this letter. However, though I do not think of myself as one who has retired from the world, other people seem to look at me in that way, and so I make it a rule not to leave this mountain. (WND1, p.737)

Since the Daishonin himself could not leave Minobu under these circumstances,
he selected among his disciples Minbu Nikō (Hyūga), who was from the Bōsō region, to carry the treatise to Seichō-ji.
There he was to read it on the summit of Kasagamori and in front of Dōzen-bō’s grave.

The same letter says:

Therefore, I ask that just the two of you, you and Gijō-bō, have the work read aloud two or three times at the summit of Kasagamori, with this priest to do the reading. Please have him read it once before the grave of the late Dōzen-bō as well. (WND1, p.737)

These instructions of Nichiren Daishonin were carried out exactly as directed.

In Flowering and Bearing Grain (Keka Jōju-gosho) we read:

But I was very pleased to learn that you had read at Kasagamori the two documents I wrote in the Kenji era in memory of the late Sage Dōzen-bō. (WND1, p.909)

As for the term “Kasagamori” appearing in this sending letter, many older editions of the writings read it as “on the high mountain forest” or “on the high forest of the mountain,”
but these are serious misreadings.

The General Purport of the Treatise

 

 The Title of the Treatise

The title Hōon-shō (“Treatise on Repaying Debts of Gratitude”) contains both a general and a specific meaning.

In general, it means repaying the four debts of gratitude;
in its specific sense, it means repaying the debt owed to one’s teacher.

The four debts referred to here differ somewhat from the four debts listed in The Four Debts of Gratitude (Shion-shō), as follows:

• The four debts in this treatise:

  1. The debt to one’s parents

  2. The debt to one’s teacher

  3. The debt to the Three Treasures

• The four debts in The Four Debts of Gratitude:

  1. The debt to all living beings

  2. The debt to one’s parents

  3. The debt to the sovereign

  4. The debt to the Three Treasures

Why then does this treatise single out the debt to one’s teacher and omit explicit mention of the debt to all living beings?
It is because this writing was composed specifically to repay the kindness of his former teacher, Dōzen-bō;
therefore, Nichiren Daishonin especially highlights the teacher’s kindness.

At the same time, the debt to all beings is included within the debt to one’s parents.
In the Letter to Horen (Hōren-shō) it says:

Among the living beings of the six paths and the four forms of birth there are both men and women. And these men and women all were our parents at some point in our past existences. (WND1, p.512)

Thus, to repay the debt to one’s parents is to repay the debt to all living beings.

In its more specific aspect, the title indicates repaying the kindness of one’s teacher.
As stated earlier, the Daishonin composed this treatise to mourn the passing of his former teacher Dōzen-bō and to repay his kindness, and had it read on Kasagamori and before his grave.

At the conclusion of the treatise he writes:

Thus the flower will return to the root and the essence of the plant will remain in the earth. The benefit that I have been speaking of will surely accumulate in the life of the late Dōzen-bō. (WND1, p.737)

The Daishonin’s feelings as he remembered his teacher are far beyond what we ordinary people, with our shallow insight, can fathom.

For us in the Soka Gakkai, we have our own great teachers who devoted their entire lives to the propagation of the great Law—President Makiguchi and President Toda.
When we contemplate the Daishonin’s spirit in repaying even the “ignorant and timid” Dōzen-bō,
we must deeply reflect on how we ourselves can possibly repay even a ten-thousandth of the kindness of these noble mentors.

Now, as we commemorate the seventh anniversary of our mentor Josei Toda’s passing,
we straighten our collars in solemn feeling and our sense of gratitude deepens all the more.

One thing that gives us great confidence, however,
is the fact that after our mentor’s passing we have advanced exactly as he instructed along the broad path of kosen-rufu,
and have carried out a great propagation that has surpassed 4.6 million households worldwide.
I am firmly convinced that our mentor is unquestionably rejoicing over this.

 The Essential Message of the Treatise

From what has been said about the circumstances of its composition,
it is evident that the central purport of this treatise is, in general, to explain how to repay the four debts of gratitude,
and in particular, how to repay the debt owed to his former teacher, Dōzen-bō.

How, then, are we to repay such great kindness?

As the treatise itself teaches,
we must “surely learn and thoroughly master the Buddha’s Law and become a person of wisdom.”
If one truly wishes to “learn and exhaust the Buddha’s Law,”
one must renounce the world and study the entire corpus of the Buddha’s lifetime teachings.

However, in Japan ten schools have arisen, each claiming to be supreme.
They argue back and forth, all saying “we are number one,” and it is unclear which is truly in accord with the Buddha’s intent.

Examining them in light of the whole of the Buddha’s lifetime teachings,
the relative superiority and inferiority of Mahayana and Hinayana, provisional and true, trace and origin, seed and harvest become completely clear.
It then becomes evident that, in the Latter Day of the Law, the Buddha of great compassion is Nichiren Daishonin himself,
and that the Great White Law he established is the Three Great Secret Laws.

In this treatise in particular, he strictly refutes the erroneous doctrines of Shingon.
Of the five major writings, On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land (Risshō Ankoku-ron) is a pre-Sado work mainly aimed at refuting Hōnen’s Nembutsu teaching on the basis of the relative standpoint of provisional and true.
In The Opening of the Eyes (Kaimoku-shō), he clarifies the Person as the Object of Devotion through the five levels of comparison;
in The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind (Kanjin no Honzon-shō), he reveals the Great Gohonzon to be propagated in the Latter Day.
Yet even in these works, the name “Three Great Secret Laws” does not explicitly appear.

In The Selection of the Time (Senji-shō), he refutes the errors of the various schools and concludes:

And, unbelievable as it may seem, there clearly appears in the text of the Lotus Sutra a correct Law that is supremely profound and secret, one that, though expounded in full by the Buddha, in the time since his passing has never yet been propagated by Mahākāshyapa, Ānanda, Ashvaghosha, Nāgārjuna, Asanga, or Vasubandhu, nor even by T’ien-t’ai or Dengyō. (WND1, p.560)

But even there, the Three Great Secret Laws are not fully elaborated.

In this Kenji-era treatise, however, he thoroughly exposes the mistaken doctrines of the three Tripiṭaka Masters—Śubhakarasiṃha, Vajrabodhi, and Amoghavajra—in China,
and those of Kōbō, Jikaku, and Chishō in Japan,
together with their deceptive miracles and ominous dreams.
In general, he refutes Zen and Nembutsu, but in particular he attacks the errors of Shingon,
and especially those of Jikaku and Chishō, who, while occupying the seat of T’ien-t’ai’s successor as heads of the Tendai school, fell into Shingon teachings.

At the same time, he clarifies the Three Great Secret Laws of the Original Doctrine (Honmon) and, out of his vast compassion, concludes that these Three Great Secret Laws will save living beings not only throughout the ten thousand years of the Latter Day, but for all eternity.
Because this treatise reveals the Three Great Secret Laws, the sending letter remarks:

I have written matters of the utmost importance. (WND1, p.737)

Finally, in the concluding passage he states:

The benefit that I have been speaking of will surely accumulate in the life of the late Dōzen-bō. (WND1, p.737)

In this way he makes clear that only by propagating the Three Great Secret Laws and thereby saving all living beings can one truly repay the great kindness of one’s deceased teacher.

The Original Intent, That Is, the Inner Realization of the Treatise

 

 Genuine Knowing and Repaying of Debts of Gratitude

As we have seen, the essential method of repaying debts of gratitude lies in believing in and spreading the Three Great Secret Laws.

Thus, although on the surface this treatise discusses repaying the kindness of the late teacher Dōzen-bō,
its deeper intent—its inner realization—is that Nichiren Daishonin, as the Original Buddha of the Latter Day,
has established and will widely propagate the Three Great Secret Laws.

We, the disciples in later ages, must likewise, in a general sense, repay the debts we owe to our parents, teachers, the Three Treasures, and the sovereign,
and in a specific sense, repay the debt to our own teacher.
This is the message being impressed upon us.

 

 

Chapter1(Expounding the Principle of Repaying Debts of Gratitude)

Main Text

THE old fox never forgets the hillock where he was born;¹ the white turtle repaid the kindness he had received from Mao Pao.² If even lowly creatures know enough to do this, then how much more should human beings! Thus Yü Jang, a worthy man of old, fell on his sword in order to repay the debt he owed his lord Chih Po,³ and the minister Hung Yen for similar reasons cut open his stomach and inserted the liver of his dead lord, Duke Yi of Wei.⁴ What can we say, then, of persons who are devoting themselves to Buddhism? Surely they should not forget the debts of gratitude they owe to their parents, their teachers, and their country.

Note

1. This appears in “Nine Pieces” of Elegies of Ch’u and other Chinese works. A commentary on Elegies of Ch’u by Chu Hsi of the Sung dynasty states: “The old fox dies, invariably turning his head toward the hillock. This is because he never forgets the place of his birth.”

2. This story appears in A Collection of Stories and Poems. When the young Mao Pao, who later became a general of the Chin dynasty, was walking along the Yangtze River, he saw a fisherman about to kill a turtle he had caught. Moved to pity, he gave the fisherman his clothing in exchange for the turtle and thus saved its life. Later, pursued by enemies, he reached the banks of the Yangtze. There the turtle he had saved in his youth appeared and carried him to the opposite shore.

3. According to Records of the Historian, Yü Jang of Chin first served the Fan and Chung-hang families but was not given an important position. Later, Yü Jang served under Chih Po, who treated him with great favor. In time, Chih Po was killed by Hsiang-tzu, the lord of Chao. To avenge his lord, Yü Jang disguised himself as a leper by lacquering his body, made himself a mute by drinking lye, and in this way attempted to approach Hsiang-tzu. But his attempt at assassination failed, and he was caught. Hsiang-tzu, understanding his feeling of loyalty, gave Yü Jang his robe. Yü stabbed it three times to show his enmity for the man who had killed his lord and then turned his sword upon himself.

4. This story appears in Records of the Historian. While Hung Yen was away on a journey, enemies attacked the state of Wei and killed his lord, Duke Yi, and devoured his body, leaving only the duke’s liver. Then they left the land. When Hung Yen returned, he saw the disastrous scene and wept. He slit open his own stomach and inserted the liver to save his lord from dishonor, and so died.

 

Lecture

 

 Repaying the Four Debts—Especially the Teacher’s Benevolence

 

This chapter clarifies the principle that a disciple of the Buddha must necessarily repay their debts of gratitude.True gratitude, as expounded in Buddhism, was already discussed in detail in the introductory section. In summary, one must repay the four debts of gratitude, and in particular, repay the debt owed to one’s teacher. There are two ways of grouping these “four debts of gratitude”:

(The four debts in this treatise)(The four debts in the “Treatise on the Four Debts”)

1. The debt to one’s parents        1. The debt to all living beings

2. The debt to one’s teacher        2. The debt to one’s parents

3. The debt to the Three Treasures     3. The debt to the sovereign

4. The debt to the sovereign        4. The debt to the Three Treasures

Why, then, does this treatise omit the debt owed to all living beings and instead emphasize the debt to one’s teacher? According to Nichikan Shōnin, this is because the Daishonin intentionally highlights the debt to one’s teacher, wishing to instruct that one must in particular repay the teacher’s benevolence. Moreover, the reason living beings’ debt is included within the category of “parents” is explained in the  Letter to Horen:

Among the living beings of the six paths and the four forms of birth there are both men and women. And these men and women all were our parents at some point in our past existences. (WND1, p.512)

Echigo Nikkō teaches that the treatise first clarifies secular, worldly forms of repayment of gratitude, and that the passage beginning “How much more so for those who study Buddhism…” indicates supramundane, spiritual forms of repayment. Nichikan Shōnin refutes this understanding, stating:

“The purport of this treatise concerns repayment of gratitude solely in terms of supramundane, Buddhist principles. It concerns the repayment expected of a monk, not ordinary men and women. And even among the monks, it concerns Nichiren Daishonin’s own repayment of gratitude. How, then, could it be explained as referring to general, worldly forms of gratitude?”

Nichiren Daishonin’s teacher, Dōzen-bō, is described as “a foolish man, a Nembutsu practitioner, unlikely to escape the three evil paths,” and also as one who, “though inwardly he may have felt pity because of the Lotus Sutra, outwardly feared the steward and treated me as an enemy.” And yet, even toward such a foolish teacher, the Daishonin, upon hearing of his death, composed the Treatise on Repaying Debts of Gratitude for him, instructing that it be read before Dōzen-bō’s grave and again atop Kasagamori.

Furthermore, in the letter of transmission accompanying that work, the Daishonin indicated that he had expressed “the most important matter among important matters.” Nichikan Shōnin states that because this treatise is the first within the Five Major Works in which the three great secret laws are explicitly named, it indeed constitutes “the most important of important teachings.” Therefore, true repayment of gratitude lies in believing in the Three Great Secret Laws and practicing shakubuku.

Repaying Gratitude: An Eternal Ethical Principle for Humanity

Repaying debts of gratitude is not a relic of feudal times or any particular era. Although its meaning and outward forms have varied across ages, it remains an ethical duty that human beings must uphold eternally.

From the dawn of human history, East and West alike, the virtue of gratitude has been deeply rooted in human nature and woven into the lives of ordinary people. This is evident from the countless fables and moral tales preserved throughout the world.

For example, the Aesop’s Fables, composed around 620 BCE by Aesop of Greece and later quoted in works such as Plato’s Phaedo and the writings of Aristotle, used animal allegories to teach basic moral conduct. Many of these fables convey the lesson that one must feel gratitude and repay kindness. This mindset functioned as the everyday moral philosophy of ancient Greece—some have even called it “philosophy through example.” These fables appear to have spread widely among Eastern peoples, Germanic tribes, and others.

Roman proverbs declare: “A person without gratitude is like a tub full of holes.”
An Arabian proverb states: “Do not cut down the tree that has given you shade.”
Centuries later, the German philosopher Kant said: “There is nothing more evil than an ungrateful person.”

These examples show that the European populace clearly held the idea that “the ungrateful fall below even beasts.”

China also had, from ancient times, a powerful sense of gratitude and repayment. Nichiren Daishonin himself cites stories such as the “Old Fox,” the “White Tortoise,” “Yu Rang,” and “Hongyan” in the On Repaying Debts of Gratitude.

Japan, too, from its oldest literature—the Kojiki, the Manyōshū, and many traditional folktales—embedded the spirit of gratitude in narratives and songs. Thus, the virtue of repaying gratitude has long been praised as an inherent moral excellence of humankind.

In modern Japan, “repaying gratitude” often evokes images of feudal lord-vassal relationships. However, true repayment of gratitude is entirely different. Feudal interpretations were exaggerations introduced during the late Edo period by Confucian scholars. Because of such distortions, society has come to belittle true gratitude and foster forgetfulness of kindness—an unfortunate trend indeed.

True gratitude is that taught in the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin. The four debts of gratitude, and the essential principles revealed in this treatise, constitute an ethical foundation that should serve as a timeless guide for humanity.

True Democracy and Gratitude

Turning to modern society, we find a rampant confusion of democracy with permissiveness and irresponsibility. Such misguided notions—freedom without responsibility, personal rights without ethics, equality without order—are far from true democracy.

True democracy can only be taught and practiced through a true religious philosophy. Historically and in actual experience, democratic ideals originate in religion and stand upon that foundation.

We know, through reason and actual proof, that the principles of democracy cannot arise from idealistic monism or materialism. We are convinced that the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin is the true religion capable of establishing genuine democracy.

To believe in the great Law and live joyfully, unbound by suffering, is true freedom. Because all people inherently possess the life of three thousand realms, true equality is established. And because everyone has the Buddha nature and can bring it forth, true dignity arises.

 Differences in Gratitude Among Religions and Philosophies

Different philosophies and religions present widely varying views on gratitude. To conclude: Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, and materialism do not teach true gratitude; in fact, they often undermine the natural gratitude found among common people. Only the essence of Eastern Buddhism—specifically, the Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin—offers a correct view.

Christianity teaches that humans, created by God and stained with sin, receive grace solely from God; gratitude is directed only upward, not reciprocally among people.

Materialism may appear to teach gratitude toward society or the state, but in practice it often manifests as a search for enemies, fostering retaliation and hatred. Because its underlying ideology is flawed, even its outward expressions of gratitude do not truly benefit humanity.

In Buddhism, however, the principle of gratitude is explained with profound depth. Scriptures such as the Sutra of Gratitude, the Miscellaneous Āgamas, the Great Compilation Sutra, the Mahāratnakūṭa Sutra, the Inconceivable Liberation Sutra, and many others teach gratitude as a core virtue. The Sūtra on Mindfulness of the Right Dharma lists the four debts of gratitude: to one’s mother, father, the Tathāgata, and the preacher of the Law.

Among these teachings, the Lotus Sutra stands supreme. For this reason, Nichiren Daishonin says:

Since I have realized that only the Lotus Sutra teaches the attainment of Buddhahood by women, and that only the Lotus is the sutra of true requital for repaying the kindness of our mother, in order to repay my debt to my mother. (WND1, The Sutra of True Requital, p.931)
and
The Lotus Sutra is The Classic of Filial Piety of Buddhism. (WND1, The Opening of the Eyes, p.269)

Throughout India, China, and Japan, the true successors of Buddhism—Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, Tiantai, Dengyō—also emphasized gratitude after the Buddha’s passing. Ultimately, however, it was Nichiren Daishonin, the Buddha of the Latter Day, who most fundamentally expounded the principle of gratitude.

Confucianism, by contrast, seldom addressed gratitude directly. The “gratitude” described by Mencius to King Xuan of Qi refers more to benevolence or affection. And it was only in the mid-Edo period that Confucian scholars such as Nakae Tōju and Kaibara Ekken, reacting to Buddhism, attempted to formulate a Confucian theory of gratitude. This later became distorted into a tool for enforcing feudal obedience, causing the modern misunderstanding that gratitude is a feudal relic.

Buddhist gratitude is not coerced, restrictive, or feudal in nature. The gratitude taught by Nichiren Daishonin surpasses even the Buddha’s earlier teachings, presenting the highest principle of gratitude—one that should be revered as a universal ethic for all humankind.

 

 

Chapter2(Clarifying the Essential Method of Repaying Debts of Gratitude)

Main Text

But if one intends to repay these great debts of gratitude, one can hope to do so only if one learns and masters Buddhism, becoming a person of wisdom. If one does not, one will be like a man who attempts to lead a company of the blind over bridges and across rivers when he himself has sightless eyes. Can a ship steered by someone who cannot even tell the direction of the wind ever carry the traveling merchants to the mountains where treasure lies?

If one hopes to learn and master Buddhism, then one cannot do so without devoting time to the task. And if one wants to have time to spend on the undertaking, one cannot continue to wait on one’s parents, one’s teachers, and one’s sovereign. Until one attains the road that leads to emancipation, one should not defer to the wishes and feelings of one’s parents and teachers, no matter how reasonable they may be.

Many people may think that counsel such as this runs counter to secular virtues and also fails to accord with the spirit of Buddhism. But in fact secular texts such as The Classic of Filial Piety make clear that there are times when one can be a loyal minister or a filial child only by refusing to obey the wishes of one’s sovereign or parents. And in the sacred scriptures of Buddhism it is said, “By renouncing one’s obligations and entering the Buddhist life one can truly repay those obligations in full.”⁵ Pi Kan refused to go along with his sovereign’s wishes and thereby came to be known as a worthy man.⁶ Prince Siddhārtha disobeyed his father King Shuddhodana and yet became the most outstanding filial son in all the threefold world. These are examples of what I mean.

 

Note

5. Salvation by Men of Pure Faith Sutra. Though this sutra is no longer extant, this passage from it is quoted in The Forest of Gems in the Garden of the Law. “The Buddhist life” in the sutra’s context means a monastic life, but here the Daishonin interprets it as a life based on faith in the Mystic Law.

6. This story is found in Records of the Historian. King Chou of the Yin dynasty was so absorbed in his affection for his consort, Ta Chi, that he totally neglected affairs of state. When his minister Pi Kan remonstrated with him, King Chou flew into a rage and killed him.

 

Lecture

From this chapter onward, the text turns to clarifying the essential method for repaying debts of gratitude.

Even in ordinary society, it is important to recognize and repay one’s debts of gratitude; however, there are greater and lesser forms of repayment, shallow and profound forms, and much must be judged according to a correct sense of values.

Before this, let us first consider the matter of “good.” Since antiquity, many debates have arisen concerning the concept of good, and it remains a central issue in contemporary ethics. Yet no definition has ever been given that all people can accept. Plato discussed the “Idea of the Good,” yet avoided a clear definition. Kant stated that “good is to act in accordance with the moral law.” The Heibonsha Philosophy Dictionary defines good as “in a broad sense, that which is valuable, precious, or advantageous to us,” while the Iwanami Philosophy Handbook states that good is “that which is sought as suited to will, demand, or purpose.” Nishida Kitarō, in his A Study of the Good, says that “good is the self’s development and perfection.”

Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, first president of the Soka Gakkai, criticized Kantian philosophy and established a hierarchy of values—good, benefit, and beauty. Concerning the concept of good, he defined it as “that which contributes to the public welfare.” He further taught that there are small goods, medium goods, and great goods, and that “to cling to a small good and betray a great good becomes a great evil, while even a small evil that opposes a great evil becomes a great good.”

In the same way, the repayment of gratitude must also be discussed from the perspective of values. Repayment of gratitude also has great, medium, and small forms; shallow and deep forms; temporary forms and transcendent forms. For example, the Chūshingura (story of the Forty-seven Rōnin) became a famous play in the mid-Edo period because its protagonists avenged their lord and thereby repaid his favor. Many other examples in history show people giving up their lives to repay a lord’s favor. Likewise, many have died in war to repay their debt to the nation or society. However, even if one repays a lord’s favor, if the outcome becomes harmful to the nation and society, such repayment is merely temporary and cannot be called genuine repayment of gratitude. In modern elections, being bribed or supporting corrupt candidates out of a slight sense of obligation is, conversely, ingratitude toward society. Ultimately, repayment of gratitude must possess universal validity and lasting value. True pacifism and opposition to war, for example, are repayment of gratitude toward humanity as a whole.

Nichiren Daishonin states in the Letter from Sado :
“The way of the world dictates that one should repay a great obligation to another, even at the cost of one’s life. Many warriors die for their lords, perhaps many more than one would imagine. A man will die to defend his honor; a woman will die for a man.  […] They give their lives for shallow, worldly matters but rarely for the Buddha’s precious teachings. Small wonder they do not attain Buddhahood.” (WND1, p. 301)

Here, the “lord’s favor” may be interpreted, in modern terms, as the favor of society as a whole. In any case, to uphold the great Law of Buddhism, to carry out human revolution, and to practice Buddhism for the prosperity and happiness of society—this is, he teaches, the highest form of repayment toward one’s teacher and the four debts of gratitude.

In ancient times, three thousand years ago, Shakyamuni Buddha left home and became a monk in order to repay the debts of gratitude to his parents, relatives, and all people of society. Likewise, the Buddha of the Latter Day, Nichiren Daishonin, left home to save all living beings; this was the supreme act of repayment of gratitude. Therefore, in modern times, we must be convinced that our practice for the propagation of the Mystic Law is the highest repayment of gratitude to the nation and society.

Regarding the text of this chapter: first, it teaches that in order to repay this great debt of gratitude, one must learn Buddhism thoroughly and become a wise person. To learn Buddhism thoroughly and become such a wise person would require studying the entire body of the sacred teachings and mastering the doctrinal treatises of the eight schools. However, how could people of the Latter Age, of inferior capacity, possibly engage in such study? Yet if they are unable to do so, would it not follow that no one at all can repay their debts of gratitude?

In answer to this doubt, Nikkō Shōnin teaches the following:

“People of other sects and other schools, even if they keep the entire body of sacred teachings in mind, can never be said to have mastered Buddhism; for they do not know the Threefold Secret Teachings, and are confused regarding provisional and true teachings, theoretical and essential teachings, and sowing and harvesting teachings. However, scholars of our lineage, because they follow the footsteps of the one true guide, Nichiren Daishonin, and know this from the outset, may be said to have mastered Buddhism. […] Yet even if scholars of our lineage know the profundity of the Threefold Secret Teachings, if they do not transmit the true Law and carry out shakubuku for the salvation of the people, they ultimately fail to repay their debts of gratitude. The Buddha teaches that only by widely teaching and transmitting the Law can one be said to repay debts of gratitude.

Question: Even within our lineage, there are uneducated lay men and women who do not know the Threefold Secret Teachings. Does that mean they cannot repay their debts of gratitude?
Answer: No. Uneducated men and women, by believing in the Gohonzon of the Essential Teaching and chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, indeed thereby repay this great debt of gratitude.”

As indicated above, true repayment of gratitude is to believe in the Buddhism of the Three Great Secret Laws, to chant the Daimoku, and to carry out shakubuku. Therefore, only members of the Soka Gakkai, who carry out shakubuku and fight for kosen-rufu, can fulfill the true repayment of gratitude.

“By renouncing one’s obligations and entering the Buddhist life one can truly repay those obligations in full.” refers to value judgment. Even in debts of gratitude, there are greater and lesser degrees of value. Nichiren states, “One cannot continue to wait on one’s parents, one’s teachers, and one’s sovereign.” (when such compliance obstructs the study of the Three Great Secret Laws and the practice of shakubuku).

The Letter to Brothers states:
“In all worldly affairs, it is the son’s duty to obey his parents, yet on the path to Buddhahood, disobeying one’s parents ultimately constitutes filial piety.” (WND1, p.499)

When we speak of the debt to parents, teachers, or rulers, it may remind one of feudal morality or relationships of lord and vassal—but that is not the case. Nichiren’s teaching of recognizing and repaying debts of gratitude is firmly grounded in the Buddhism of the Three Great Secret Laws. Naturally, gratitude to parents and one’s lord is included, but the foundation is the Gohonzon of the Three Great Secret Laws.

Repaying the debt to one’s parents is called filial piety, but in Buddhism there are lower, middle, and highest forms of filial piety. “There are three kinds of filial piety: supplying clothing and food is the lowest; acting in accordance with the parents’ wishes is the middle; directing one’s merits toward them is the highest.” Therefore, upholding the great Buddhism of the Three Great Secret Laws, leading one’s parents to the true Law, and for deceased parents dedicating the merit of practice to them morning and evening—this is the highest form of filial piety. Even if parents oppose the practice, if the first believer in the family steadfastly practices and manifests the benefits of the Gohonzon in daily life, eventually the opposing family members will embrace the faith and attain Buddhahood in this lifetime. This is genuine filial piety and benefits both family and nation. Nichiren states, “You must insure the safety of the nation, for in doing so you will be fulfilling your obligations of loyalty and those of filial piety.” (WND2 , The Day before Yesterday, p.392)

Thus, not only repayment toward parents but all forms of repayment of gratitude have degrees: highest, middle, and lower.

 

 

Chapter3(On Exposing the Confusion of the Various Buddhist Schools)

Main Text

Once I had understood this and prepared to cease deferring to my parents and teachers and instead to delve into the truths of Buddhism, I found that there are ten clear mirrors that reflect the sacred doctrines of the Buddha’s lifetime of teachings. These are the ten schools of Buddhism known as the Dharma Analysis Treasury, Establishment of Truth, Precepts, Dharma Characteristics, Three Treatises, True Word, Flower Garland, Pure Land, Zen, and Tendai Lotus schools. Scholars today believe that, with these ten schools as enlightened teachers, one should understand the heart of all the sacred scriptures and claim that these ten mirrors all in an accurate manner reflect the path of the Buddha’s teachings. However, we may set aside for now the three Hinayana schools [Dharma Analysis Treasury, Establishment of Truth, and Precepts]. They are like a message that is somehow sent to a foreign country by a private citizen and therefore lacks authority.

But the seven Mahayana schools are a great ship that can carry us across the vast sea of the sufferings of birth and death and take us to the shore of the pure land. By practicing and understanding them, we can save ourselves and at the same time lead others to salvation. When, with this thought in mind, I began to examine them, I found that each of the seven Mahayana schools sings its own praises, saying, “Our school, and our school alone, represents the very heart of the Buddha’s lifetime of teachings!”

There are men such as Tu-shun, Chih-yen, Fa-tsang, and Ch’eng-kuan⁷ of the Flower Garland school; Hsüan-tsang, Tz’u-en, Chih-chou, and Chishō⁸ of the Dharma Characteristics school; Hsing-huang and Chia-hsiang⁹ of the Three Treatises school; Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih, Pu-k’ung, Kōbō, Jikaku, and Chishō of the True Word school; Bodhidharma, Hui-k’o, and Hui-neng¹⁰ of the Zen school; and Tao-ch’o, Shan-tao, Huai-kan, and Genkū¹¹ of the Pure Land school. Basing themselves on the particular sutras and treatises favored by their respective schools, these leaders of the various schools all claim that “our school” understands all of the myriad sutras, that “our school” has grasped the innermost meaning of the Buddha’s teachings.

Thus, some of these men claim, “The Flower Garland Sutra is first among all the sutras; other sutras such as the Lotus and the Mahāvairochana are its underlings.” Again, the leaders of the True Word school claim, “The Mahāvairochana Sutra is first among all the sutras; the other sutras are like crowds of little stars.” The men of the Zen school say, “The Lankāvatāra Sutra is first among all the sutras.” And so forth for the men of the various other schools. The many Buddhist teachers whose names I have listed above are honored by the people of our time, who pay reverence to them in the way that all the heavenly deities pay reverence to the lord Shakra and follow them in the way the hosts of stars follow the sun and the moon.

 

Note

7. Tu-shun (557–640), Chih-yen (602–668), Fa-tsang (643–712), and Ch’eng-kuan (738–839) are the first four patriarchs of the Flower Garland school in China.

8. Hsüan-tsang (602–664), Tz’u-en (632–682), Chih-chou (678–733), and Chishō were scholars of the Dharma Characteristics school. Hsüan-tsang is generally regarded as the founder of the school, and Tz’u-en who formally established the school is considered his successor. Chih-chou is the fourth patriarch counting from Hsüan-tsang. Chishō is thought to refer either to Chihō (Kor Chipong), who studied the Dharma Characteristics doctrine under Chih-chou, or to Dōshō, who studied under Hsüan-tsang and founded the school in Japan.

9. Hsing-huang, more commonly known as Fa-lang (507–581), and Chia-hsiang, known also as Chi-tsang (549–623), were establishers of the Three Treatises school.

10. Bodhidharma (n.d.), Hui-k’o (487–593), and Hui-neng (638–713) are the first, second, and sixth patriarchs of Zen in China.

11. Tao-ch’o (562–645) and Shan-tao (613–681) are listed as the second and third patriarchs of Pure Land Buddhism in China. Huai-kan (seventh century) studied under Shan-tao’s guidance. Genkū is another name for Hōnen, the founder of the Pure Land school in Japan.

 

Lecture

In clarifying the essential method of repaying debts of gratitude (hōon no yōjutsu), this section points out the confusion and delusion of the various Buddhist schools.

Nikkō Shōnin poses the question:

“Question: What is meant by the essential method of repaying debts of gratitude?”

He then explains as follows:

“Answer: To ‘not begrudge one’s life’ is called the essential method. That is, by not sparing one’s life, one refutes erroneous doctrines and propagates the correct Law; thus there remains no debt of gratitude that is not thereby repaid.”

As already mentioned in the previous section, to refute erroneous doctrines and to propagate the correct teaching is itself the act of repaying debts of gratitude. Therefore, the most crucial point is to distinguish which teaching is heretical and which is correct.

However, as the text itself says, “The scholars in the world think…,” the scholars of the world at large suppose that all sects and all scriptures have their own merits. But we must understand that, in philosophy, ethics, and religion, there are always distinctions of superior and inferior, shallow and profound, right and wrong. We must therefore seek that which is superior, profound, and correct.

Before setting out the principles by which such criticism is to be made, the discussion turns to Western philosophy, and so we shall briefly consider what is meant by philosophy, ethics, and religion.

---

Philosophy, Ethics, and Religion

Philosophy (philosophia) in ancient Greece generally meant the love of knowledge and the pursuit of culture, and in a broad sense referred to learning in general.
As learning became differentiated into various disciplines, the natural sciences, psychology, aesthetics, ethics, and so on separated from philosophy and became independent. Today, philosophy generally refers to disciplines such as metaphysics and epistemology, and also includes logic, philosophy of history, and related fields.

Ethics is the normative standard of what ought to be in regard to human volitional actions. It is broader in scope than what is commonly called morality or self-cultivation.

What is commonly called morality or “修身” (shūshin, cultivation of character) still contains relatively narrow and feudal elements.

The character 「宗」 in “religion” (shūkyō) means “fundamental.” Therefore, religion is that which clarifies the fundamental source of the activity of life and the basic principle underlying all phenomena of the universe. It is nothing other than the manifestation, in concrete form, of this fundamental theory as a way of life. Thus, religion must invariably have an object of devotion (honzon), and there must be a mutual response of benefit (kannō-riyaku) between that object of devotion and human beings.

If, however, philosophy, ethics, and religion are inferior, shallow, or erroneous, unhappiness is unavoidable.

---

The Five Periods and Eight Teachings

Now, the classification of the Buddha’s lifetime teachings is made in terms of the Five Periods and Eight Teachings.
The Five Periods are: Flower Garland (Kegon), Āgama (Agon), Correct and Equal (Hōdō), Wisdom (Hannya), and Lotus (Hokke).
Their teachings are expounded as provisional devices, inducements, rebukes, purifications, and final integrations, all in accord with the Buddha’s skillful means.

The Eight Teachings consist of:

• Four teachings in terms of method of instruction (kegi) – sudden, gradual, secret, and indeterminate;

• Four teachings in terms of content (kebō) – Tripiṭaka, shared, distinct, and perfect.

These, too, were expounded according to the time and the capacities of the people to be taught.

The various Buddhist schools base themselves on these numerous sutras, both Mahayana and Hinayana, provisional and true, exoteric and esoteric.
Therefore, it is not the case that “any religion will do,” nor that “because all derive from Śākyamuni’s teaching, any sect is equally valid.” The Law itself contains distinctions; in its philosophical principles there are higher and lower, and differences as great as between heaven and earth.

Moreover, as this treatise points out with respect to the ten schools, even if one uses their original sutras exactly as they are, those sutras are already useless and harmful in the Latter Day of the Law.
In the Latter Day, people have no karmic connection with Śākyamuni’s Buddhism. Nonetheless, the founders of these schools disparaged the Lotus Sutra, which is the true purpose of Śākyamuni’s appearance in the world, and established their own sects. Furthermore, after the appearance of Nichiren Daishonin, the Original Buddha of the Latter Day, they slandered his Three Great Secret Laws. As a result, they have all become slanderers of the Law destined for the Avīci hell.

Whether one becomes a person who knows and repays debts of gratitude, or one who does not know them and forgets them and thus falls into hell, depends first of all on recognizing whether one’s religion is the correct Law or an erroneous law, and then striving in practice accordingly.

---

The Criteria for Judging Right and Wrong in Religion

Concerning the criteria for determining whether a religion is right or wrong, the writing　Three Tripitaka Masters Pray for Rain states:

In judging the relative merit of Buddhist doctrines, I, Nichiren, believe that the best standards are those of reason and documentary proof. And even more valuable than reason and documentary proof is the proof of actual fact. (WND1, P.599)

In other words, a correct religion must first have an accurate scriptural basis; moreover, its doctrine must accord with reason; and when it is practiced, actual proof appears exactly as taught. Conversely, a heretical religion lacks reason, documentary proof, and actual proof.

In President Toda’s Lecture on “On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land”, he states:

“First, documentary proof (bunshō) means to seek the textual evidence.
When a religion A exists, we must first determine what scripture that religion bases itself on.
If it is a religion other than Buddhism, then we must compare and examine its scripture against the Buddhist sutras.
A religion that has no doctrine cannot be called a religion.
If it is a teaching within Buddhism, we must, through the five levels of comparison and so on, judge the relative superiority, depth or shallowness, and correctness or falsity of its sutras.

Second, theoretical proof (rishō) means that, even if there is documentary proof, we must examine whether that proof accords with philosophy when studied, whether it agrees with modern science, and whether, as a theory, it can convince and be affirmed by cultured people.
However splendid a sutra passage may seem, if it has no philosophical value, it must be discarded.
Philosophy is thinking, but no matter how splendidly something is thought out, it must still be scientific.
That is, it must possess universal validity; the same cause must produce the same effect irrespective of time and place.
Moreover, it must lead to a conclusion that brings about the highest value—namely, a theory that proves and guarantees happiness.
That happiness must be eternal, unchanging through all ages; it must not be a kind of happiness that can be shattered by various events.

Third, actual proof (genshō) is that which is verified in the realities of daily life.
The supreme religion fundamentally consists in human revolution and the breaking of one’s karmic destiny; therefore, unless it can explain this principle completely as a science, it cannot be called the supreme religion.
Actual proof is the experimental verification of what kind of concrete results appear in one’s life when one practices that religion; it is the most important.
However, today many heretical religions misuse this, saying, for example, that bubbles appeared in a glass and that this is ‘actual proof’—this is a grave mistake.
The correct view of actual proof is that it must be experienced in real life exactly in accordance with the documentary and theoretical proofs.”

When we criticize each religion on the basis of such principles of religious criticism, its truth or falsity, correctness or heresy, becomes completely clear.

In conclusion, now, more than 700 years after the passing of Nichiren Daishonin, the Original Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law, the only religion that meets all three standards—reason, documentary proof, and actual proof—is, in the final analysis, Soka Gakkai alone.
From the standpoint of the five nets of religion, the five levels of comparison, and every principle of religious criticism, this conclusion is absolutely free of error.

---

The Three Hinayana Schools and the Seven Mahayana Schools

The phrase, “However, we may set aside for now the three Hinayana schools ” expresses the standpoint of “discarding the small and adopting the great”—that is, the relative comparison of Hinayana and Mahayana.

By way of comparison, Hinayana is like a private letter about a commoner’s affairs, while Mahayana is like an official notice bearing the seal of the sovereign.
Also, Hinayana is a small boat, and Mahayana is a great ship: if one wishes truly to cross the great ocean and reach the other shore, one must choose the proper vessel.

Next, from the phrase “I found that each of the seven Mahayana schools sings its own praises, saying,…” the text exposes the confusion of the seven schools.
In short, if a master believes in and spreads a heretical doctrine, then all his disciples and lay supporters likewise become followers of a heretical school.
If the master falls into hell, his disciples and lay followers all fall into hell as well.

In those days, among the seven or ten great schools, there were some that, to a certain degree, were like private letters, and others that were like official notices bearing the ruler’s seal.
But since then the age has become ever more defiled and evil; and in recent times, heretical religions such as Tenrikyō and Risshō Kōseikai, which can be said to be neither Buddhism nor non-Buddhist, have flourished.
All of this, however, can be regarded as an auspicious sign foretelling the wide propagation of the Three Great Secret Laws.

---

Teacher–Disciple Relationships in Western Philosophy

Next, we must confirm that in philosophy and religion alike, everything is ultimately decided by teacher–disciple relationships, and that people’s happiness or unhappiness is determined by the kind of leaders they follow.
Regarding Buddhist philosophy, we have already discussed this; but in the so-called field of Western philosophy as well, the same principle holds.

For example, Nishida Kitarō became famous with his An Inquiry into the Good and is regarded as the founder of the so-called Kyoto School of philosophy, having a tremendous impact as a modern Japanese philosopher.
He attempted to unify modern Western philosophy with Buddhist philosophical thought, such as the experience of Zen and Nembutsu.

Born into a Jōdo Shin (True Pure Land) family and having a mother who was a Shin believer, he himself claimed not to be a Shin adherent. Nonetheless, he was unconsciously influenced and deeply moved by Shinran and the Tannishō.
Thus, in the end, the basis of Nishida’s philosophy inevitably took the form of a fusion between so-called Christian philosophy and the philosophy of “good” and Nembutsu.

Nishida had such disciples as Tanabe Hajime and Miki Kiyoshi.
According to his own confession, Tanabe’s philosophy, in its religious direction, was influenced by Nishida’s Zen intuition, and he also received a strong impact from Koeber’s Christian philosophy and Hatano Seiichi’s lectures on early Christianity.
Furthermore, he says he was led by Shinran in the shift from self-power (jiriki) to other-power (tariki), but ultimately returned to Christianity.
In the end, Tanabe, like Nishida, merely expounded a philosophy that confused Christian, Zen, and Shin religious philosophies.
This was nothing other than the influence of his teachers—Nishida, Koeber, and others.

Miki Kiyoshi states in his A History of My Reading that he repeatedly read the Bible and was impressed each time,
that he memorized and recited Pure Land texts such as the Shōshin-ge and the Letters of Shinran, and that ultimately he was deeply moved by the Tannishō.
Under such a background, Miki also came to study under Nishida Kitarō.

These are examples showing that philosophy, too, is determined by teacher–disciple relationships.
We can say that the tragedy of Japanese philosophy lies in the fact that Japan’s leading philosophers, almost without exception, became enamored with Christianity, Zen, and Nembutsu.

Western philosophy, when studied historically, is likewise to be discussed in terms of teacher–disciple relations.
The philosophy of Marx and Engels, for instance, arose merely through the influence of Hegel’s dialectic, the materialism of the Hegelian leftist Feuerbach, and the utopian socialism of their time.

“If the source is turbid, the stream cannot be clear.”
Unless one bases oneself on the true essence of Eastern Buddhism—the great life-philosophy of the non-duality of body and mind taught by the great sage Nichiren—religion, ethics, and philosophy cannot truly make humankind happy. This is what we assert.

---

The Philosophy of Leaders and the Fate of Peoples

Looking at the modern world’s leaders—Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and, in Japan, Tōjō—because they all based themselves on erroneous philosophies, they led the masses into misery.
Was there any concept of repaying debts of gratitude, as we have discussed, in their philosophies or guiding principles? No.
What they possessed was nothing more than power and a mistaken, low-level philosophy.
What is truly terrifying is the content of the philosophy held by the leadership class.

If we probe this matter thoroughly, we find that ethics, too, when its fundamental premise is questioned, inevitably becomes religious philosophy.
In the Hellenistic period of the third century B.C., the Stoics and Epicureans, and in the Middle Ages the Scholastics, all took the form of ethical systems, but at root they were religious philosophies.
And whenever religion is at issue in Western philosophy, it is always Christianity that is meant.

Thus, whether in modern existentialism, positivistic philosophy, or anything else, the central question in Western philosophy is always how Christianity and God are to be understood.
Here again, philosophy and ethics must be examined by the same principles of religious criticism, so that their relative superiority or inferiority, depth or shallowness, and correctness or heresy may be judged.

 

 

Chapter4(The Final Admonitions of the Nirvana Sutra)

Main Text

For ordinary people like us, whomever we may take as our teacher, if we have faith in him, then we will not think him inadequate in any way. But though others may still revere and believe [in the teachers of their respective schools], I, Nichiren, have found it difficult to dispel my doubts.

When we look at the world, we find each of the various schools saying, “We are the one, we are the one!” But within a nation, there can be only one man who is sovereign. If two men try to be sovereign, the country will know no peace. Likewise, if one house has two masters, it will surely face destruction. Must it not be the same with the sutras?

Among the various sutras, there must be one that is the monarch of all. Yet the ten schools and seven schools I have mentioned all argue with one another over which of the sutras it is and can reach no consensus. It is as though seven men or ten men were all trying to be the monarch of a single nation, thus keeping the populace in constant turmoil.

Wondering how to resolve this dilemma, I made a vow. I decided that I would not heed the claims of these eight or ten schools, but would do as the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai did and let the sutras themselves be my sole teacher, in this way determining which of the various teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime are superior and which are inferior. With this in mind, I began to read through all the sutras.

In a scripture called the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha says, “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.” Relying on the Law here means relying on the various sutras. Not relying upon persons means not relying on persons other than the Buddha, such as the bodhisattvas Universal Worthy and Manjushrī or the various Buddhist teachers I have enumerated earlier.

In the same sutra, the Buddha also says, “Rely on sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final.” When he speaks of the “sutras that are complete and final,” he is referring to the Lotus Sutra, and when he speaks of “those that are not complete and final,” he means the Flower Garland, Mahāvairochana, Nirvana, and other sutras preached before, during, and after the preaching of the Lotus Sutra.

If we are to believe these dying words of the Buddha, we must conclude that the Lotus Sutra is the only bright mirror we should have, and that through it we can understand the heart of all the sutras.

 

Lecture

From this point onward, Nichiren Daishonin clarifies his correct doctrinal judgment. First, he raises doubts about the fact that Buddhism had become divided into seven or ten schools, and he vows to judge the superiority and inferiority of the entire corpus of teachings based solely on the sutras as his teacher. He concludes that when judged according to the four reliances—the final injunctions of the Nirvana Sutra—one can grasp the true intent of all the sutras only by using the Lotus Sutra as a clear and perfect mirror.

---

“Rely on the Law, not upon persons,” and so forth

The four reliances consist of the Four Reliances on Persons and the Four Reliances on the Law.

 The Four Reliances on Persons

The “Four Reliances on Persons” refers to four types of individuals who, after the Buddha’s passing, guide all living beings and serve as their foundation. These are the spiritual leaders who form the basis of the era’s thought, philosophy, and education.

The Nirvana Sutra lists them as follows:

1. Those who still possess the obstacles of earthly desires

2. Stream-enterers and once-returners

3. Non-returners

4. Arhats

These correspond to levels within:

• Śrāvakas (Hinayana / Lesser Vehicle)

• Bodhisattvas of the Separate Teaching

• Bodhisattvas of the Perfect (Lotus) Teaching

And are classified in detail as follows:

 

Śrāvaka (Hinayana) Separate Teaching Perfect (Lotus) Teaching
First reliance — Three Worthies — Ten Abodes, Ten Practices, Ten Transferences — Ten Faiths — Similarity Stage
Second reliance — First & Second Fruits — First to Sixth Grounds — First to Sixth Abodes
Third reliance — Third Fruit — Seventh to Ninth Grounds — Seventh to Ninth Abodes
Fourth reliance — Fourth Fruit — Tenth Ground, Equal Enlightenment — Tenth Abode and above (holy state)


 

In the commentary of Zhangan (Changan) Great Master, although the Nirvana Sutra lists Hinayana ranks, the meaning extends to the Mahayana, and he gives the above correspondences.

Nichiren Daishonin also states in the Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind that “there are four categories within the Four Reliances,” identifying the Hinayana Four Reliances, Mahayana Four Reliances, the Trace Gate Four Reliances, and the Original Gate Four Reliances, as explained earlier.

---

The Four Reliances on the Law

The “Four Reliances on the Law” are the four principles that those four types of persons must unfailingly follow. They are the guiding spirit and doctrinal foundation for any religious leader of the time:

1. Rely on the Law, not upon persons.

2. Rely on the meaning, not upon the words.

3. Rely on wisdom, not upon discrimination.

4. Rely on definitive teachings, not upon provisional teachings.

These four principles form the most fundamental guiding standard, whether in Buddhist practice or in the propagation of the teaching.

The first principle, “Rely on the Law, not upon persons,” means that one must depend upon all the sutras preached by the Buddha, and not base one’s understanding upon any bodhisattva or human teacher.

In the present age of the Latter Day of the Law, the Original Buddha, Nichiren Daishonin, embodies the oneness of person and Law. The Gohonzon of the Three Great Secret Laws, which is the ultimate purpose of his advent, is the Law. This fundamental Law alone must serve as the standard. No other object of worship, and no other teaching, can serve as the criterion—much less the behavior or personal lifestyle of believers.

The second principle, “Rely on the meaning, not upon the words,” teaches that we must not cling merely to literal expressions; rather we must grasp the intended meaning behind them.

The third principle, “Rely on wisdom, not upon discrimination,” means that we must rely on the Buddha’s wisdom, not the partial knowledge of bodhisattvas or modern intellectuals.

The fourth principle, “Rely on definitive teachings, not upon provisional teachings,” means that the definitive teaching is the Lotus Sutra, the very purpose of Shakyamuni’s advent, while provisional teachings are all earlier expedient doctrines. Accordingly, as indicated in the text, one must use the Lotus Sutra as a bright mirror to understand the true intent of all sutras.

---

Nichiren Daishonin declares in On the Five Guides for Propagation:

“But in addition to these people, there were others such as the Great Teacher Chi-tsang of the Three Treatises school and his hundred or more followers, the Great Teacher Tz’u-en of the Dharma Characteristics school, Fa-tsang and Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school, and Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih, Pu-k’ung, and Hui-kuo of the True Word school, all of them Chinese priests, as well as the Japanese priests Kōbō and Jikaku. All these various teachers and Tripitaka masters failed to qualify to be included among the four ranks of bodhisattvas. They were benighted teachers, foolish men.” (WND2, p.553)

These individuals, praised as founders and great scholars of their respective schools, leaders of their eras, are in fact “failed to qualify to be included among the four ranks of bodhisattvas. They were benighted teachers, foolish men.”
This is truly astonishing.

Even today, scholars, critics, and thinkers hailed as leaders of society are alike “blind teachers” if they do not know the great pure Law of Nichiren Daishonin.

Thus, the principle of “Rely on the Law and not upon persons” is a universal principle fully applicable in the modern world.

Many contemporary critics and scholars pass judgment on the Soka Gakkai without even understanding the distinction between correct and false religion. Yet almost none have seriously examined the profound life-philosophy of Nichiren Daishonin upheld by the Gakkai. This is a truly strange phenomenon.

Most such critics do not know Buddhism at all, nor do they practice it correctly. A true critic or scholar must, objectively or subjectively, investigate the essence of Buddhist philosophy and put it into practice—only then can they claim genuine standing.

But by what philosophy or worldview do they criticize? In truth, it is unreliable. Many so-called scholars cling simply to the first idea or belief they happened to encounter—Christianity, Zen, Pure Land, or the like—and assume it must be correct. How, with such shallow philosophies, can they possibly criticize the supreme Buddhist philosophy?

If they wish to speak on Buddhism or criticize the Gakkai, they must thoroughly study the essence of Eastern Buddhism—the great philosophy of the unity of body and mind taught by Nichiren Daishonin—and only then speak freely.

Moreover, the tendency to cling to one’s first-learned concept, whether good or bad, is widespread in Japan, not only in religion and philosophy but even in academic fields such as natural science. This fosters academic factionalism and other distortions.
Such rigidity becomes especially harmful in matters of religion and philosophy.

Critics and scholars are often unable to view Buddhism with an open and impartial mind precisely because they cling to their preconceptions. They lack even a trace of the seeking spirit and commitment to truth expressed by Nichiren Daishonin when he declared:

“whatever obstacles I might encounter, so long as persons of wisdom do not prove my teachings to be false, I will never yield! ”(WND1, The Opening of the Eyes, p.280)

”if I am bested in the argument and yet refuse to change my views, then you gods may take away my life!” (WND1, The Doctrine of Attaining Buddhahood in Ones Present Form, p.1058)

Look—ordinary people today, including youth and students who freely choose their beliefs, are abandoning false doctrines and false teachers in great numbers and seeking Nichiren Daishonin’s true Buddhism.

Some might argue that certain young people pursue materialism or new religions. But most such seekers soon grow weary of such inferior ideologies, leaving them within several years at most.

By contrast, youth who embrace the true Law, dedicated to human revolution and societal betterment, uphold this great life-philosophy throughout their lives—this difference is unmistakable.

Thus, if one sincerely investigates the essence of Buddhism, one will realize that just as a single king governs a nation, and a single sun shines in the heavens, the Original Buddha of the Latter Day—the true Savior—is Nichiren Daishonin alone.

 

 

Chapter5(The Relative Superiority of All the Sutras Taught Throughout the Buddha’s Lifetime)

Main Text

Accordingly, let us turn to the text of the Lotus Sutra itself. There we find it stated that “This Lotus Sutra [is the secret storehouse of the Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones]. Among the sutras, it holds the highest place.”¹² If we accept these words of the sutra, then, like the lord Shakra dwelling on the peak of Mount Sumeru, like the wish-granting jewel that crowns the wheel-turning kings, like the moon that dwells above the forest of trees, like the knot of flesh¹³ that tops the head of a Buddha, so the Lotus Sutra stands like a wish-granting jewel crowning the Flower Garland, Mahāvairochana, Nirvana, and all the other sutras.

If we set aside the pronouncements of the scholars and teachers and rely upon the text of the sutra, then we can see that the Lotus Sutra is superior to the Mahāvairochana, Flower Garland, and all the other sutras as plainly and as easily as a sighted person can distinguish heaven from earth when the sun is shining in a clear blue sky.

And if we examine the texts of the Mahāvairochana, Flower Garland, and the other sutras, we will find that there is not a word or even a brushstroke in them that resembles the above-cited passage of the Lotus Sutra. True, at times they speak about the superiority of the Mahayana sutras as compared to the Hinayana sutras, or of the Buddhist truth as opposed to secular truth, or they praise the truth of the Middle Way as opposed to the various views that phenomena are non-substantial or that they have only temporary existence.¹⁴ But in fact they are like the rulers of petty kingdoms who, when addressing their subjects, speak of themselves as great kings. It is the Lotus Sutra that, in comparison to these various rulers, is the true great king.

The Nirvana Sutra alone of all the sutras has passages that resemble those of the Lotus Sutra. For this reason, the Buddhist scholars who preceded T’ien-t’ai in both northern and southern China were led astray into declaring that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Nirvana Sutra. But if we examine the text of the Nirvana Sutra itself, we will find that, as in the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, the comparison is being made between the Nirvana Sutra and the sutras of the Flower Garland, Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom periods that were expounded during the first forty and more years of the Buddha’s preaching life. It is in comparison to these earlier sutras that the Nirvana Sutra declares itself to be superior.

Moreover, the Nirvana Sutra, comparing itself with the Lotus Sutra, says: “When this [Nirvana] sutra was preached . . . the prediction had already been made in the Lotus Sutra that the eight thousand voice-hearers would attain Buddhahood,¹⁵ a prediction that was like a great harvest. Thus, the autumn harvest was over and the crop had been stored away for winter [when the Nirvana Sutra was expounded], and there was nothing left for it [but a few gleanings].” This passage from the Nirvana is saying that the Nirvana is inferior to the Lotus Sutra.

The above passages [from the Lotus and Nirvana sutras] are perfectly clear on this point. Nevertheless, even the great scholars of northern and southern China went astray, so students of later ages should take care to examine them very thoroughly. For the passage [from the Lotus Sutra] not only establishes the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over the Nirvana Sutra, but indicates its superiority over all other sutras in the worlds of the ten directions.

Earlier, there were those who were misled concerning these passages, but after the great teachers T’ien-t’ai, Miao-lo, and Dengyō had clearly indicated their meaning, one would suppose that any person with eyes would understand them. Nevertheless, even such men as Jikaku and Chishō of the Tendai school failed to understand these passages correctly, so what can one expect from the members of the other schools?

 

Notes

12. Lotus Sutra, chap. 14.

13. The knot of flesh is one of the thirty-two features of a Buddha.

14. This refers to the three truths of non-substantiality, temporary existence, and the Middle Way, which are expounded in the provisional teachings as being separate and independent of one another.

15. Lotus Sutra, chap. 13.

 

Lecture

From this point onward, the Daishonin judges the superiority of all the Buddhist sutras based on the clear passages of the Lotus Sutra.

 

 

Chapter6(Demonstrating the Lotus Sutra’s Absolute Supremacy)

Main Text

Someone might doubt my words, saying that, although the Lotus Sutra is the finest among all the sutras that have been brought to China and Japan, in India, in the palaces of the dragon kings, the realms of the four heavenly kings, the realms of the sun and moon, the heaven of the thirty-three gods, or the Tushita heaven, for instance, there are as many sutras as there are sands in the Ganges. Among these, may there not be one that is superior to the Lotus Sutra?

I would reply that, by looking at one thing, you can surmise ten thousand. This is what is meant by the statement that you can come to know all under heaven without ever going out of your garden gate. But a fool will have doubts, saying, “I have seen the sky in the south, but I have not seen the sky in the east or west or north. Perhaps the sky in those other three directions has a different sun in it from the one I know.” Or he will see a column of smoke rising up beyond the hills, and although the smoke is in plain sight, because he cannot see the fire itself, he will conclude that the fire may not really exist. Such a person is my questioner, an icchantika, or person of incorrigible disbelief, no different from a man with sightless eyes!

In the “Teacher of the Law” chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Thus Come One Shakyamuni, uttering words of absolute sincerity from his golden mouth, establishes the relative superiority of the various sutras he expounded during the fifty or so years of his preaching life, saying, “The sutras I have preached number immeasurable thousands, ten thousands, millions. Among the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand.”

Though this statement is the declaration of a single Buddha, the Thus Come One Shakyamuni, all the bodhisattvas from the stage of near-perfect enlightenment on down should honor it and have faith in it. For the Buddha Many Treasures came from the east and testified to the truth of these words, and the [emanation] Buddhas assembled from the ten directions and extended their long broad tongues up to the Brahmā heaven just as Shakyamuni Buddha did. Afterward, they all returned to their respective lands.

The words “have preached, now preach, and will preach” include not only the sutras preached by Shakyamuni in his fifty years of teaching, but all the sutras preached by the Buddhas of the ten directions and three existences without setting aside a single character or even a single brushstroke. It is in comparison to all of these that the Lotus Sutra is proclaimed to be superior. At that time the Buddhas of the ten directions indicated their agreement beyond all doubt. If, after they had returned to their respective lands, they had told their disciples that there was in fact a sutra that is superior to the Lotus Sutra, do you suppose their disciples would ever have believed them?

If there are those who, though they have not seen it with their own eyes, nevertheless suspect that there may be a sutra superior to the Lotus Sutra somewhere in India or in the palaces of the dragon kings, the four heavenly kings, or the gods of the sun and moon, I would say this. Were not Brahmā, Shakra, the gods of the sun and moon, the four heavenly kings, and the dragon kings present when Shakyamuni preached the Lotus Sutra? If the sun and moon and the other deities should say, “There is a sutra superior to the Lotus Sutra; you merely do not know about it,” then they would be a sun and moon who speak great falsehoods!

In that case, I would berate them, saying: “Sun and moon, you dwell up in the sky rather than on the ground as we do, and yet you never fall down—this is because of the power you gain by observing most strictly the precept of never telling a lie. But now if you tell this great lie by saying there is a sutra superior to the Lotus Sutra, I am certain that, even before the kalpa of decline arrives, you will come plummeting down to earth. What is more, you will not stop falling until you have reached the depths of the great citadel of the hell of incessant suffering that is surrounded by solid iron! Beings who tell such great lies should not be allowed to remain a moment longer in the sky, circling above the four continents of the earth!” That is how I would berate them.

Yet such men of great wisdom, such great teachers and Tripitaka masters as Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school or Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih, Pu-k’ung, Kōbō, Jikaku, and Chishō of the True Word school, proclaim that the Flower Garland and Mahāvairochana sutras are superior to the Lotus Sutra. Though it is not for me to judge in such matters, I would say that, in the light of the higher principles of Buddhism, such men would appear to be archenemies of the Buddhas, would they not? Beside them, evil men such as Devadatta and Kokālika are as nothing. In fact they are in a class with Mahādeva and the Great Arrogant Brahman. And those who put faith in the teachings of such men—they too are a fearful lot indeed.

 

Lecture

From this point, the text seeks to establish that the Lotus Sutra is supreme above all.
First, a hypothetical objection is raised and resolved; next, passages from the “three declarations of superiority” are cited to clarify that, among all the sutras taught throughout the Buddha’s lifetime as well as those of the Buddhas of the ten directions and three existences, the Lotus Sutra is the foremost.

The initial hypothetical objection is this:
Even if the scriptures transmitted from India to China, and from China to Japan, place the Lotus Sutra above all others, might there not exist somewhere in the vast world an even more superior scripture unknown to us?

To this, it is taught:
“One may fathom all by understanding one,” and, “Without ever stepping beyond the garden of one’s dwelling, one may know the world.”

Furthermore, the text says that foolish people, seeing the sun in the southern sky, imagine that there may also be separate suns in the east, west, or north; or, upon seeing smoke rising beyond a mountain, they doubt whether fire exists because they cannot directly see it.
Such people are called icchantikas—incorrigible unbelievers—or “living blind.”

Yet even today, despite the astounding advance of material civilization, religion remains filled with such icchantikas and the uninformed.
Those who do not know the Soka Gakkai all fall into this category.
That is, even when they hear of the benefits of the Gohonzon of the Essential Teaching—Nichiren Daishonin’s supreme purpose for appearing in this world—they refuse to believe.

They say things like:

• “All religions are the same no matter what you believe.”

• “If you feel gratitude toward your object of devotion, that is fine for you; I am different.”

• “No object of worship can be absolutely supreme; there may be something better elsewhere.”

Such opinions are common not only among ordinary people but even among so-called scholars and critics—who speak without knowing the essence of Buddhism, the philosophy of life itself.
All of these people can be declared icchantikas, utterly ignorant of religion.

Next is the passage known as the “three declarations of superiority,” found in the Teacher of the Law (Hōshi) chapter of the Lotus Sutra:

“The scriptures that I have preached, now preach, and will preach in the future are immeasurable in number, tens of millions of myriads. Yet among them, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and understand.”

Here, “previously preached” refers to all pre-Lotus teachings,
“currently preached” to the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra,
and “to be preached” to the Nirvana Sutra.
The reason this Lotus Sutra is “most difficult to believe and understand” is precisely because it is the highest, foremost sutra.

Moreover, this supremacy applies not only within Śākyamuni’s lifetime teachings but among all sutras preached by Buddhas throughout the ten directions and the three existences.
This is because the Expedient Means chapter proclaims:

“Just as all Buddhas of the three existences teach according to a single method,
so too do I now teach in the same manner.”

Furthermore, even within the Lotus Sutra itself, there are distinctions—
the trace teaching (shakumon), the origin teaching (honmon), and the hidden depths (montei).
The following passages, cited later, show that in contrast to all provisional and pre-Lotus teachings, even the trace teaching of the Lotus Sutra is difficult to believe and understand, and is supreme.

Nichiren Daishonin states in the The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind Established in the Fifth Five-Hundred-Year Period after the Thus Come One’s Passing:

“Among the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand.” The “six difficult and nine easy acts” he expounds in the next chapter explains how difficult it is. (WND1, p.363)

Again:

The Great Teacher Dengyō remarks, “The Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and to understand because in it the Buddha directly revealed what he had attained. (WND1, p.363)

And again:

He revealed the hundred worlds and thousand factors inherent in life, but he did not expound their eternal nature. Since the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra thus directly reveals a part of the Buddha’s own enlightenment, it excels all the other sutras that the Buddha had preached, now preached, or would preach, and is the correct teaching that is difficult to believe and difficult to understand. (WND1, p.368)

The next passage shows that Nichiren Daishonin overturns all earlier teachings—including the pre-Lotus and the trace teaching—and establishes the origin teaching of the Lotus Sutra.

All these teachings that fall into the three categories of preaching are therefore easy to believe and easy to understand. In contrast, the essential teaching, which transcends the three categories, is difficult to believe and difficult to understand, for it directly reveals the Buddha’s own enlightenment. (WND1, p.368)

In the Latter Day of the Law, the three great secret laws—the hidden depths of the “Life Span of the Thus Come One” chapter—are the most difficult to believe and understand and are supreme.
In comparison, the twenty-eight chapters of the Lotus Sutra taught by Śākyamuni, including both trace and origin teachings, become merely “easy to believe and easy to understand”—teachings adapted to others.

Nichiren writes:

The doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life is found in only one place, hidden in the depths of the “Life Span” chapter of the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra. (WND1, The Opening of the Eyes, p.224)

And again:

The essential teaching of Shakyamuni’s lifetime and that revealed at the beginning of the Latter Day are both pure and perfect [in that both lead directly to Buddhahood]. Shakyamuni’s, however, is the Buddhism of the harvest, and this is the Buddhism of sowing. The core of his teaching is one chapter and two halves, and the core of mine is the five characters of the daimoku alone. (WND1, The Object of Devotion for Observing the Mind Established in the Fifth Five-Hundred-Year Period after the Thus Come One’s Passing, p.370)

”this is because of the power you gain by observing most strictly the precept of never telling a lie.”

 

 

Chapter7(The Hardships Encountered in the Buddha’s Lifetime and in the Former Day of the Law)

Main Text

Question: Do you really proclaim that Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school, Chia-hsiang of the Three Treatises school, Tz’u-en of the Dharma Characteristics school, and Shan-wu-wei and the others of the True Word school on down to Kōbō, Jikaku, and Chishō are the enemies of the Buddha?

Answer: This is a very important question, a matter of the gravest concern to the Buddha’s teachings. Yet, on examining the text of the sutra, I find that, if someone should declare that there is a sutra superior to the Lotus Sutra, then regardless of who that person may be, he or she cannot escape the charge of slandering the Law. Therefore, if we go by what the sutra says, then persons such as this must be regarded as enemies of the Buddha. And if, out of fear, I fail to point out this fact, then the distinctions of relative merit made among the various sutras will all have been made in vain.

If, out of awe of these great teachers of the past, I should simply point at their latter-day followers and call them enemies of the Buddha, then these latter-day followers of the various schools would say: “The assertion that the Mahāvairochana Sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra is not something that we ourselves invented on our own. It is the doctrine taught by the patriarchs of our school. Though we may be no match for them in observing the precepts, in wisdom and understanding, or in status, when it comes to the doctrines that they taught, we never diverge from them in the slightest.” And in that case, one would have to admit that they are guilty of no fault.

Nevertheless, if I know that this assertion is false and yet, out of fear of others, I fail to say so, then I will be ignoring the stern warning of the Buddha, who said, “[It is like a royal envoy who] would rather, even though it costs him his life, in the end conceal none of the words of his ruler.”¹⁶

What am I to do? If I speak up, I face fearful opposition from the world at large. But if I am silent, I can hardly escape the condemnation of failing to heed the Buddha’s stern warning. Forward or backward, my way is blocked.

Yet perhaps it is only to be expected. For, as the Lotus Sutra states, “Since hatred and jealousy toward this sutra abound even when the Thus Come One is in the world, how much more will this be so after his passing?”¹⁷ Again elsewhere, “It will face much hostility in the world and be difficult to believe.”¹⁸

When Shakyamuni Buddha had been conceived by his mother, Lady Māyā, the devil king of the sixth heaven gazed down into Lady Māyā’s womb and said, “My archenemy, the sharp sword of the Lotus Sutra, has been conceived. Before the birth can take place, I must do something to destroy it!” Then the devil king transformed himself into a learned physician, entered the palace of King Shuddhodana, and said, “I am a learned physician, and I have brought some excellent medicine that will insure the safe delivery of the child.” In this way he attempted to poison Lady Māyā.

When the Buddha was born, the devil king caused stones to rain down on him and mixed poison in his milk. Later, when the Buddha left the palace to enter the religious life, the devil king changed himself into a black venomous serpent and tried to block his way. In addition, he possessed the bodies of such evil men as Devadatta, Kokālika, King Virūdhaka, and King Ajātashatru, inciting them to hurl a great stone at the Buddha that injured him and drew blood, or to kill many of the Shākyas, the Buddha’s clansmen, or murder his disciples.

These great persecutions were planned long ago, schemes that were designed to prevent the Buddha, the World-Honored One, from preaching the Lotus Sutra. It is persecutions such as these that the sutra means when it says, “Hatred and jealousy toward the sutra abound even when the Thus Come One is in the world.”

In addition to these troubles arising long before the Buddha preached the Lotus Sutra, there were others that occurred later when he expounded the sutra itself. [These were the doubts that arose when Shakyamuni revealed that] for forty-some years, Shāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and the great bodhisattvas had in fact been among the archenemies of the Lotus Sutra.¹⁹

But the sutra says, “How much more will this be so after his passing?” By this we know that, in a future age after the passing of the Buddha, there are bound to be persecutions and difficulties even greater and more fearful than those that occurred during his lifetime. If even the Buddha had difficulty bearing up under such persecutions, how can ordinary people be expected to bear them, particularly when these troubles are destined to be even greater than those that occurred during the Buddha’s lifetime?

Though one might wonder what great persecutions could possibly be more terrible than the huge rock thirty feet long and sixteen feet wide that Devadatta rolled down on the Buddha or the drunken elephant that King Ajātashatru sent charging after him, if persecutions greater than those that arose during the Buddha’s lifetime keep occurring again and again to someone who is not guilty of the slightest fault, then one should realize that that person is a true votary of the Lotus Sutra in the age after the Buddha’s passing.

The successors of the Buddha²⁰ were among the four ranks of bodhisattvas; they were messengers of the Buddha. Yet Bodhisattva Āryadeva was killed by a non-Buddhist, the Venerable Āryasimha had his head cut off by the king Dammira, Buddhamitra had to stand for twelve years under a red flag [before he could attract the notice of the ruler], and Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna had to stand seven years under a similar flag. Bodhisattva Ashvaghosha was sold to an enemy country for the sum of three hundred thousand coins,²¹ and the Scholar Manoratha died of chagrin.²² These are examples of troubles that took place in the thousand years of the Former Day of the Law.

 

Notes

16. A part of the following passage from the Nirvana Sutra: “For example, it is like a royal envoy skilled in discussion and clever with expedient means who, when sent on a mission to another land, would rather, even though it costs him his life, in the end conceal none of the words of his ruler. Wise persons too do this. In the midst of ordinary people and without begrudging their lives, those who are wise should without fail proclaim the Thus Come One’s prize teaching from the correct and equal sutras of the great vehicle, that is, all living beings possess the Buddha nature.”

17. Lotus Sutra, chap. 10.

18. Ibid., chap. 14.

19. The translation has been expanded here for the sake of clarity. The two major revelations of the Lotus Sutra, that people of the two vehicles can attain Buddhahood and that Shakyamuni has been the Buddha since the remote past, awoke great doubts on the part of the voice-hearer disciples (represented by Shāriputra and Maudgalyāyana) and the great bodhisattvas, respectively. Because the two groups had been unaware of these crucial teachings before the Lotus Sutra was revealed, the Daishonin says they were its “archenemies.”

20. The successors of the Buddha are the twenty-four successors who inherited the lineage of Shakyamuni’s Buddhism and propagated it in India in the Former Day of the Law. See also twenty-four successors in Glossary.

21. This story appears in The Record of the Western Regions. When Ashvaghosha, the twelfth successor, was preaching Buddhism in Pātaliputra in Magadha, King Kanishka led his army against Pātaliputra and demanded a huge sum in tribute. The defeated king offered Ashvaghosha in place of the money. Later, with the support of Kanishka, Ashvaghosha propagated Buddhism in northern India.

22. This story appears in Record of the Western Regions. Manoratha is thought to have been the teacher of Vasubandhu. King Vikramāditya of Shrāvastī resented Manoratha and plotted to humiliate him. He assembled one hundred scholars from various schools to debate with Manoratha. Ninety-nine yielded, but the last, in collusion with the king, refused to yield to Manoratha. As a result, Manoratha is said to have bitten off his tongue and died.

 

Lecture

From this chapter onward, the text begins a broad denunciation of the slanderous doctrines of the various Buddhist schools.

The first question raised concerns the criticism that the founders of each school—Cheng-guan of the Huayan school, Jizang of the Sanron school, Ci’en of the Hosso school, Śubhakarasiṃha and others of the Shingon school—have been denounced as “enemies of the Buddha.”
Even in the present-day Japanese religious world, the founders of each sect are revered as if they were gods, Buddhas, or great leaders. Yet, because they all oppose the true Dharma, they must unavoidably be regarded as enemies of the Buddha.

The passage, “Though we may be no match for them in observing the precepts, in wisdom and understanding, or in status,” compares the founders of the schools with the teachers of the present day. Even if such differences exist, so long as they study the same doctrines and worship the same object of devotion, the founder’s error becomes the present teacher’s error; the founder’s slander of the Law means that those who follow him continue that slander even now. Therefore, in refuting erroneous doctrines and mistaken sects, one must begin by exposing the founder’s mistaken views and distorted wisdom, thereby clarifying why they are enemies of the Buddha.

The statement “[It is like a royal envoy who] would rather, even though it costs him his life, in the end conceal none of the words of his ruler.” is the commentary by Chang-an (Zhangan) on the following passage of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra:

“It is like a royal emissary, skilled in debate and adept in expedient means, who carries out the king’s command in foreign lands. Even if he loses his life, he will never conceal the king’s words. A wise person is the same: among ordinary people he does not begrudge his life. He must proclaim the secret treasury of the Tathāgata—the Mahāyāna teachings and the truth that all living beings possess the Buddha nature.”

In modern times, only the members of the Soka Gakkai—who carry out shakubuku—are faithfully upholding this admonition.

“Yet perhaps it is only to be expected. For, as the Lotus Sutra states,…”

From this passage, the text illustrates that encountering persecution is itself the mark of the true practitioner of the Lotus Sūtra.

The Teacher of the Law chapter states:
“Since hatred and jealousy toward this sutra abound even when the Thus Come One is in the world, how much more will this be so after his passing?”
And the Peaceful Practices chapter likewise states:
“It will face much hostility in the world and be difficult to believe.”

According to these predictions, anyone who spreads the Lotus Sūtra exactly as the Buddha taught after his passing will inevitably encounter great persecutions. By never begrudging one’s life, boldly denouncing slander of the Law, and enduring the arising of hardships, one proves oneself a true practitioner of the Lotus Sūtra and repays the immense debts of gratitude owed to parents and teachers.

The passage beginning with “When Shakyamuni Buddha had been conceived by his mother, Lady Māyā,…” enumerates the seven persecutions suffered by Śākyamuni during his lifetime:

1. Poison was placed in the womb of his mother.

2. Stones were hurled at him at birth.

3. His milk was poisoned.

4. A venomous serpent blocked his path when he left the castle.

5. Devadatta rolled a great boulder down upon him.

6. King Virūḍhaka slaughtered countless members of the Shākya clan.

7. King Ajātaśatru’s drunken elephant killed innumerable disciples.

These seven persecutions are called the “distant persecutions.” Those such as Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and the great bodhisattvas suffered what are termed the “near persecutions.”
Concerning why even Śāriputra and others incurred persecution, Nichikan Shonin comments:

“In the Trace Gate, the two vehicles and dull-witted bodhisattvas become the source of jealousy. In the Original Gate, bodhisattvas who aspire to immediate enlightenment become the source of jealousy.”

Yet, no matter how great Śākyamuni’s persecutions were, he himself predicted, “How much more so after my passing.” He declared, “The hardships I faced in my lifetime are insignificant; after my extinction, the true practitioner will face far greater persecution.”

“But the sutra says, “How much more will this be so after his passing?” By this we know that, in a future age after the passing of the Buddha,…”

Just as the Buddha foretold, in the ages after his passing, people entirely innocent of worldly faults have repeatedly suffered great persecutions solely for upholding the Lotus Sūtra. Thus one can recognize the true practitioner of the Lotus Sūtra.

Those who inherited the Buddha’s teachings after his passing (the Patriarchs of the Dharma) served as the Buddha’s emissaries to save all beings. Yet even among them:

• Bodhisattva Deva (Devadatta in Indian tradition) was killed by non-Buddhists,

• The Venerable Lion (Siṃha) was beheaded by King Damiṣṭa,

• Buddhamiṭra preached for twelve years carrying a red banner,

• Nāgārjuna preached with a red banner for seven years, confronting the rulers of their nations.

The origin of the “red banner” is explained as the emblem of shakubuku in Buddhism.

A detailed account of Buddhamiṭra (Buddhamitra) is then given: how he inherited the Dharma, confronted a king steeped in heretical Brahmanical views, raised a red banner for twelve years, debated with scholars and ascetics, defeated them all in debate, and finally converted the king and nation to the correct teaching.

Likewise Nāgārjuna, seeing the king’s deep slander, raised a large red banner and walked before the palace for seven years, until the king summoned him. When the king asked, “What are the heavenly beings doing now?” Nāgārjuna replied, “They are battling the asuras.”
He caused signs—such as swords and the severed limbs of asuras—to appear, astonishing the king and converting him.

Even so, these persecutions—though severe—did not surpass those of Śākyamuni. Throughout the 1,000 years of the Former Day of the Law and the 1,000 years of the Middle Day, no one endured persecutions equal to or surpassing those of the Buddha.

But the phrase “How much more will this be so after his passing?” has both general and specific meanings: generally, it applies to all three periods (Former, Middle, Latter Day); specifically, it applies most of all to the Latter Day of the Law.

Thus the On Persecutions Befalling the Sage states:

I do not know whether these trials equal or surpass those of the Buddha. Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, T’ien-t’ai, and Dengyō, however, cannot compare with me in what they suffered. Had it not been for the advent of Nichiren in the Latter Day of the Law, the Buddha would have been a teller of great lies, and the testimony given by Many Treasures and by the Buddhas of the ten directions would have been false. In the 2,230 and more years since the Buddha’s passing, Nichiren is the only person in the entire land of Jambudvīpa who has fulfilled the Buddha’s words.(WND1, p.997)

This shows that Nichiren Daishonin alone manifested persecutions surpassing even those of the Buddha, thus proving with actual evidence that he is the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law.

The Opening of the Eyes states:

When it comes to understanding the Lotus Sutra, I have only a minute fraction of the vast ability that T’ien-t’ai and Dengyō possessed. But as regards my ability to endure persecution and the wealth of my compassion for others, I believe they would hold me in awe.(WND, p.242)

“Bodhisattva Ashvaghosha was sold to an enemy country for the sum of three hundred thousand coins, and the Scholar Manoratha died of chagrin. These are examples of troubles that took place in the thousand years of the Former Day of the Law.”

Even in the Former Day, when persecutions were relatively mild, great teachers such as Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa, the Venerable Siṃha, and others gave their lives for the propagation of the true Dharma. In Nichiren’s own time, the three martyrs of Atsuhara, Kudō Yoshitaka, Kyōnin-bō, and others demonstrated the spirit of sacrificing their lives for the Law.

After Nichiren’s passing, centuries of persecutions continued. In the Edo period numerous believers suffered for the Lotus Sūtra. In modern times, the Soka Gakkai, under the first president, experienced severe oppression; twenty-one senior leaders were imprisoned, and the first president died in prison.
All this accords precisely with the Buddha’s prediction of “how much more so after his extinction.”

Since the time of the second president, propagation has accelerated dramatically. After the devastation of World War II, the movement for worldwide kōsen-rufu began, and today—at the time of the teacher’s seventh memorial—the membership has exceeded several million households. We live in an age of favorable conditions for propagation, yet must never forget Nichiren’s injunction in the Document for Entrusting the Law to the Future:

“Until kōsen-rufu is achieved, you must be prepared to give your lives and propagate the Law to the full extent of your abilities.”

 

Chapter8(The Propagation by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai in China)

Main Text

We come now to a time five hundred years after the beginning of the Middle Day of the Law or fifteen hundred years after the passing of the Buddha. At that time in China there was a wise man who was at first known as Chih-i and later as the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che. He determined to spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra in their true form. There had been thousands and thousands of wise men who preceded T’ien-t’ai, and they had held various opinions concerning the teachings set forth by the Buddha in his lifetime, but in general, they were grouped into ten schools or traditions, the so-called three schools of the south and seven schools of the north. Of these, one school emerged as foremost among them. This was the third of the three southern schools, the school of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün of the temple called Kuang-che-ssu.

Fa-yün divided the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime into five periods. From among the teachings of these five periods, he selected three sutras, the Flower Garland, the Nirvana, and the Lotus. He declared that, among all the sutras, the Flower Garland Sutra ranks first and is comparable to the monarch of a kingdom. The Nirvana Sutra ranks second and is like the regent or prime minister, while the Lotus Sutra ranks third and is like one of the court nobles. All the other sutras are inferior to these and are comparable to the common people.

Fa-yün was by nature extremely clever. Not only did he study under such men of great wisdom as Hui-kuan, Hui-yen, Seng-jou, and Hui-tz’u,²³ but he refuted the doctrines of various teachers of the northern and southern schools, and retired to the seclusion of the mountain forest, where he devoted himself to the study of the Lotus, Nirvana, and Flower Garland sutras.

As a result, Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty summoned him to court and had a temple called Kuang-che-ssu built for him within the palace grounds, paying him great honor. When Fa-yün lectured on the Lotus Sutra, flowers fell down from the heavens just as they had done when Shakyamuni Buddha first preached it.

In the fifth year of the T’ien-chien era (c.e. 506), there was a great drought. The emperor had the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün lecture on the Lotus Sutra, and when he reached the verses in the “Parable of the Medicinal Herbs” chapter that read, “The rain falls everywhere, coming down on all four sides,” soft rain began to fall from the sky. The emperor was so overwhelmed with admiration that he appointed Fa-yün on the spot to the rank of administrator of priests, and he served him in person as the heavenly deities served the lord Shakra and as the common people look up in awe to their sovereign. In addition, it was revealed to someone in a dream that Fa-yün had been lecturing on the Lotus Sutra ever since the time of the Buddha Sun Moon Bright in the distant past.

Fa-yün wrote a commentary in four volumes on the Lotus Sutra. In this commentary²⁴ he stated, “This sutra is not truly eminent,” and spoke of it as “an unusual expedient means.” By this he meant that the Lotus Sutra does not fully reveal the truth of Buddhism.

Was it because Fa-yün’s teachings met with the approval of the Buddha that the flowers and the rain came down on him from the sky? In any event, as a result of the wonderful and unusual things that happened to him, the people of China came to believe that the Lotus Sutra was in fact perhaps inferior to the Flower Garland and Nirvana sutras. This commentary by Fa-yün was in time disseminated to the kingdoms of Silla, Paekche, and Koguryŏ, and to Japan,²⁵ where people in general came to hold the same opinion as that prevalent in China.

Shortly after the death of Fa-yün, in the latter years of the Liang dynasty and the early years of the Ch’en, there appeared a young priest known as the Dharma Teacher Chih-i. He was a disciple of the Great Teacher Nan-yüeh, but perhaps because he wished to clarify his understanding of his teacher’s doctrines, he entered the storehouse where the scriptures were kept and examined the texts again and again. He singled out the Flower Garland, Nirvana, and Lotus sutras as worthy of special attention, and of these three, he lectured on the Flower Garland Sutra in particular. In addition, he compiled a book of devotional exercises²⁶ in honor of the Buddha Vairochana of the Flower Garland Sutra and day after day furthered his understanding of this scripture. The people of his time supposed that he did this because he considered the Flower Garland Sutra to be the foremost of all sutras. In fact, however, he did it because he had grave doubts about Fa-yün’s assertion that the Flower Garland Sutra was to be ranked first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Lotus Sutra third, and he therefore wished to make a particularly close examination of the Flower Garland Sutra.

After he had done so, he concluded that, among all the sutras, the Lotus Sutra was to be ranked first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Flower Garland Sutra third. He also observed in sorrow that, although the sacred teachings of the Thus Come One had spread throughout the land of China, they had failed to bring benefit to its inhabitants but on the contrary caused people to stray into the evil paths. This, he concluded, was due to the errors of their teachers.

It was as though the leaders of the nation had told the people that east is west, or that heaven is earth, and the common people had accepted their assertions and believed accordingly. Later, if some person of humble stature should come forward and tell them that what they called west was really east, or that what they called heaven was really earth, not only would they refuse to believe him, but they would curse and attack him in order to ingratiate themselves with their leaders.

Chih-i pondered what to do about the situation. He felt that he could not remain silent, and he therefore spoke out in severe condemnation of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün of Kuang-che-ssu temple, asserting that, because of his slanders against the correct teaching, he had fallen into hell. With that, the Buddhist teachers of the north and south rose up like angry hornets and descended on him like a flock of crows.

 

Notes

23. Hui-kuan (368–438), Hui-yen (363–443), Seng-jou (431–494), and Hui-tz’u (434–490) were all celebrated priests during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period.

24. This presumably refers to Fa-yün’s Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, though the two quotations below are not found in this commentary.

25. This means that The Annotations on the Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, attributed to Prince Shōtoku, is based on Fa-yün’s Meaning of the Lotus Sutra.

26. The fourth volume of The One Hundred Records of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai that sets forth forms of daily and nightly worship of the Buddha Vairochana and all the other Buddhas.

 

Lecture

In the preceding chapter, it was explained that during the Buddha’s lifetime, and throughout the thousand years of the Former Day of the Law, those who propagated Buddhism—especially those who spread the Lotus Sutra—encountered great persecutions.

This chapter now elucidates how, in China, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai widely propagated the Lotus Sutra and, as a result, faced severe oppression.

Concerning the “Three Schools of the South and Seven Schools of the North”(Based on SOKAnet glossary)

The term “Three Schools of the South and Seven Schools of the North” refers to the doctrinal classification systems formulated by ten Buddhist scholars during China’s Southern and Northern Dynasties period (440–589).
There were three masters in the southern regions, located along the Yangtze River basin, and seven masters in the northern regions, centered around the Yellow River basin.
These ten scholars were categorized by Grand Master Zhiyi (T’ien-t’ai) in volume 10 (upper fascicle) of The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Fahua xuanyi).

Each of the ten masters presented the scriptures upon which they relied, established their own doctrinal classifications, and competed with one another to assert doctrinal superiority.
Nichiren Daishonin summarizes their overall tendency in The Selection of the Time:

Yet in general they shared a common view. Namely, among the various sutras preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, they put the Flower Garland Sutra in first place, the Nirvana Sutra in second place, and the Lotus Sutra in third place.

T’ien-t’ai criticized these positions of the Three Schools of the South and Seven Schools of the North and instead established the Five Periods doctrinal classification, asserting that among all the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime, the Lotus Sutra is supreme, the Nirvana Sutra ranks second, and the Flower Garland Sutra ranks third, thereby clarifying the doctrinal primacy of the Lotus Sutra.

The southern and northern doctrinal factions classified the Buddha’s teachings according to the manner in which they were preached into three categories:

1. Sudden teaching (tonkyō) – teachings that reveal the truth directly (identified with the Flower Garland Sutra).

2. Gradual teaching (zenkyō) – teachings that lead practitioners step by step to higher understanding, consisting of the Hinayana teachings with characteristics (sāṃmitīya doctrines) and later, the Mahayana teachings without characteristics (such as the Prajñā sutras).

3. Indeterminate teaching (fujōkyō) – teachings that fit into neither the sudden nor gradual categories yet reveal Buddha-nature and eternal truth (e.g., the Śrīmālādevī Sutra and the Golden Light Sutra).

The Three Schools of the South

These represent three different interpretations within the gradual teachings found in the southern region:

1. Three-period teaching of Master Ji of Tiger-Hill Mountain.

2. Four-period teaching of Zong’ai (some say by Zong of Dachang Temple and Dun’ai of White Horse Temple).

3. Five-period teaching advocated by the monks Rou and Huici of Dinglin Temple and Huiguan of Daochang Temple.

The Seven Schools of the North

1. Five-period teaching

2. The “Half and Full” two teachings of Bodhiruci

3. Four Schools (taught by Guangtong/Huiguang)

4. Five Schools

5. Six Schools

6. The twofold Mahayana of northern meditation masters (Mahayana with characteristics and Mahayana without characteristics)

7. The One-Sound Teaching of northern meditation masters

(The names of the founders of schools 1 and 4–7 are not indicated in historical sources.)

---

“but in general, they were grouped into ten schools or traditions, the so-called three schools of the south and seven schools of the north. ”

The ten schools are also discussed in the Treatise on Choosing the Time and in detail in volume ten of the Profound Meaning.
The Three Schools of the South are those of the three-period, four-period, and five-period teachings. All these factions classify the Buddha’s teachings into the sudden teaching, the gradual teaching, and the indeterminate teaching.
The sudden corresponds to the Flower Garland Sutra;
the gradual encompasses all teachings from Deer Park to the Nirvana Sutra;
and the indeterminate includes sutras such as the Śrīmālādevī and Golden Light Sutras.

Among the gradual teachings, three differing interpretations arose:

1. Three-Period Teaching:

   1. Teachings with marks (Āgama),

   2. Teachings without marks (Prajñā, Vaipulya, Lotus),

   3. Teachings of permanence (Nirvana).

2. Four-Period Teaching:
   Extracts the Lotus Sutra from the teachings without marks and names it the “Teaching to which all good returns.”

3. Five-Period Teaching:
   Further extracts Vaipulya sutras such as the Vimalakīrti Sutra from the teachings without marks and calls this the “Teaching of Gradual Elevation.”

The Seven Schools of the North consist of the doctrines of:

1. Five Periods,

2. Half and Full Teachings,

3. Four Schools,

4. Five Schools,

5. Six Schools,

6. Two Mahayana Schools,

7. One-Sound Teaching
   (“Only the One Buddha Vehicle exists; there is neither a second nor a third.”)

Among these ten schools, the most influential was Fa-yun of Kuang-tse Temple, who was the third of the southern schools and placed the Flower Garland Sutra first. As the Profound Meaning states:

“Throughout the ages, scholars have regarded Kuang-tse as foremost. Now, in refuting Kuang-tse, refuting the rest is like scattering dust before the wind.”

This text states, “and he therefore spoke out in severe condemnation of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün of Kuang-che-ssu temple, asserting that, because of his slanders against the correct teaching, he had fallen into hell.”
Thus, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai refuted all ten schools, and because of this, scholars from both the northern and southern factions swarmed around him like bees or crows, inflicting severe persecutions upon him.
This is an inevitable principle: wherever the true Law spreads, persecution must arise.

Śākyamuni Buddha himself faced the nine great persecutions when he refuted the ninety-five Brahmanical schools.
In Japan, the Great Teacher Dengyō similarly refuted the six Nara schools and established the precepts platform of the Trace Gate of the Lotus Sutra on Mount Hiei.
Nichiren Daishonin, as is well known, faced the greatest persecutions in fulfillment of the prediction “How much more so after his extinction,” and, as the Buddha of the Latter Day, opened the way for saving all living beings.

---

A View of Buddhist History in the Middle Day of the Law

Concerning the three periods of the Law—Former, Middle, and Latter—several theories exist, such as:

• Former: 1,000 years; Middle: 1,000 years; Latter: 10,000 years

• Former: 500 years; Middle: 1,000 years

• Former: 1,000 years; Middle: 500 years

However, the orthodox lineage of Buddhism—T’ien-t’ai, Dengyō, and Nichiren Daishonin—adopt the teaching of Former 1,000 years, Middle 1,000 years, Latter 10,000 years, extending into eternity.

The “Five Five-Hundred-Year Periods” of the Great Assembly Sutra divide the three periods as follows:

1. Age of Attaining Liberation (500 years)

2. Age of Meditation (500 years)
   → These constitute the Former Day.

3. Age of Reading, Reciting, and Hearing the Teachings (500 years)

4. Age of Building Temples and Stupas (500 years)
   → These constitute the Middle Day.

5. Age of Strife, Disputes, and the Disappearance of the True Dharma
   → This is the Latter Day.

During the Former Day:

• The first 500 years saw the spread of Hinayana teachings in India.

• The second 500 years saw the spread of provisional Mahayana.

In the Middle Day:

• The third 500 years saw the spread of the Lotus Sutra’s Trace Gate in China.

• The fourth 500 years saw the same spread in Japan.

In the Latter Day, the pure Law disappears, and only the Three Great Secret Laws—embodied in Nam-myoho-renge-kyo—remain to spread throughout the world.

---

Historical Context of the Middle Day in China

The Middle Day (“Age resembling the Law”) is so named because the outward forms of Buddhism remain, but the essential spirit gradually declines.

Buddhism was transmitted to China in the year 67 CE—fifteen years into the Middle Day—when Kāśyapa-mātanga and Dharmarakṣa arrived in Luoyang with Buddhist scriptures on a white horse.

Translation efforts progressed rapidly, culminating with eminent translators such as Kumārajīva (old translations) and Xuanzang (new translations).
Chinese scholars, being philosophically inclined, systematized doctrines and produced numerous doctrinal classification systems—including the ten schools of the Three South and Seven North.

Ultimately, it was T’ien-t’ai who unified them under the supreme classification of the Five Periods and Eight Teachings and clarified that the Lotus Sutra is the ultimate purpose of the Buddha’s advent.
His Mo-ho chih-kuan (“Great Concentration and Insight”) came to be known as the Lotus Sutra of the Middle Day.

T’ien-t’ai completed this work in the year 594, about 1,540 years after the Buddha’s passing.
This astonishingly precise fulfillment of prophecy—that the Trace Gate of the Lotus Sutra would spread in China during the early Middle Day—must be regarded as remarkable.

---

The Social Background of T’ien-t’ai’s Emergence

After the collapse of the Later Han, China entered the Three Kingdoms period, followed by the rise of the Jin dynasty, which later split, leading to the North–South dynastic divide.
T’ien-t’ai appeared during the Chen dynasty, was invited by its last ruler to lecture on the Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, and after the unification under the Sui, conferred the bodhisattva precepts on Emperor Yang, who granted him the title “Great Teacher of Wisdom.”

At Jade Spring Temple in Dangyang, Hubei, he completed the Profound Meaning and Great Concentration and Insight, thereby fulfilling his life’s purpose.

This period—the Six Dynasties—was also a flourishing age of Buddhist art, temple construction, and scholastic study, preparing the ground for the magnificent culture of the Sui and Tang dynasties.

Thus, just as the tides ebb and flow and the seasons change, the correct Law arises at the appointed time and in the appropriate land, gaining strength through the appearance of a worthy teacher.
The spread of the true Law in the Latter Day throughout the entire world is, therefore, a historical inevitability.

 

 

Chapter9(The Public Debate Conducted by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai)

Main Text

Some proposed that Chih-i should have his head smashed; others, that he should be driven out of the country. The ruler of the Ch’en dynasty, hearing of what was going on, summoned a number of Buddhist leaders from the north and south and had them appear in his presence along with Chih-i so that he could listen to the proceedings. There were such priests as Hui-jung, a disciple of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün, and Fa-sui, Hui-k’uang, and Hui-heng—over a hundred men, some in the ranks of administrator of priests and supervisor of priests. They struggled to outdo one another in speaking ill of Chih-i, raising their eyebrows and glaring angrily, or clapping their hands in an impatient rhythm.

The Dharma Teacher Chih-i, though he was seated in a humble position far below the others, showed no sign of emotion and made no slip of speech. Instead, with quiet dignity he took notes on each of the charges and assertions made by the other priests and succeeded in refuting them. Then he began to attack his opponents, saying: “According to the teachings of the Dharma Teacher Fa-yün, the Flower Garland Sutra ranks first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Lotus Sutra third. In what sutra is the proof of this to be found? Please produce a passage that gives clear and certain proof of this!” Pressed in this way, the other priests all lowered their heads and turned pale, unable to say a word in reply.

He continued to press them, saying: “In the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, the Buddha says, ‘Then I preached the twelve divisions of the correct and equal sutras,²⁷ the teaching of great wisdom, and the Flower Garland teaching of the ocean-imprint meditation.’²⁸ Thus the Buddha himself mentions the Flower Garland Sutra by name and denies its worth, saying that, in these sutras preached before the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, ‘I have not yet revealed the truth.’ If in the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, which is inferior to the Lotus Sutra, the Flower Garland Sutra is attacked in this way, then what grounds could there be for asserting that the Flower Garland Sutra represents the highest achievement of the Buddha’s preaching life? Gentlemen, if you wish to show your loyalty to your teacher, then please produce some scriptural passage that will refute and override this passage I have cited from the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, and vindicate your teacher’s doctrines!

“And on what passage of scripture do you base your assertion that the Nirvana Sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra? In the fourteenth volume of the Nirvana Sutra, there is a discussion of the relative merit of the Nirvana Sutra in comparison to the sutras of the Flower Garland, Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom periods, but no mention whatsoever of its merit in comparison to the Lotus Sutra.

“Earlier in the same sutra, however, in the ninth volume, the relative merits of the Nirvana and Lotus sutras are made abundantly clear. The passage states, ‘When this [Nirvana] sutra was preached . . . the prediction had already been made in the Lotus Sutra that the eight thousand voice-hearers would attain Buddhahood, a prediction that was like a great harvest. Thus, the autumn harvest was over and the crop had been stored away for winter [when the Nirvana Sutra was expounded], and there was nothing left for it [but a few gleanings].’

“This passage makes clear that the other sutras were the work of spring and summer, while the Nirvana and Lotus sutras were like a ripening or fruition. But while the Lotus Sutra was like a great fruition in which the harvest is gathered in autumn and stored away for winter, the Nirvana Sutra was like the gleaning of the fallen grain that takes place at the end of autumn and the beginning of winter.

“In this passage, the Nirvana Sutra is in effect acknowledging that it is inferior to the Lotus Sutra. And the Lotus Sutra speaks about the sutras that have already been preached, are presently being preached, and are to be preached in the future. By this, the Buddha is indicating that the Lotus Sutra is not only superior to the sutras preached before it as well as those preached at the same time, but is also superior to those he will preach afterward.

“If Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, laid it down so clearly, what room could there be for doubt? Nevertheless, because he was concerned about what might happen after his passing, he determined to have Many Treasures Buddha of the World of Treasure Purity in the east act as a witness to the truth of his words. Therefore, Many Treasures Buddha sprang forth from beneath the earth and testified to the verity of the Lotus Sutra, saying, ‘The Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law . . . all that you have expounded is the truth!’²⁹ In addition, the Buddhas of the ten directions who were Shakyamuni’s emanations gathered around and put forth their long broad tongues until the tips reached to the Brahmā heaven, as did Shakyamuni’s, in witness to the truth of the teachings.

“After that, Many Treasures Buddha returned to the World of Treasure Purity, and the various Buddhas who were emanations of Shakyamuni returned to their respective lands in the ten directions. Then, when neither Many Treasures Buddha nor the emanations were present, Shakyamuni Buddha preached the Nirvana Sutra. If he had claimed that the Nirvana Sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra, would his disciples in fact have believed such a thing?”

This was the way Chih-i, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che, chided them. He was like the brilliant light of the sun and moon striking the eyes of the asuras,³⁰ or the sword of the emperor of Han³¹ pressing against the necks of his barons, and his opponents accordingly closed their eyes tightly and let their heads droop. In his appearance and manner, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai was like the lion king roaring at foxes and rabbits, or like a hawk or an eagle swooping down on doves and pheasants.

As a result, not only did the fact that the Lotus Sutra is superior to the Flower Garland and Nirvana sutras become known throughout the whole of China, but word of it also spread to the five regions of India. There the Indian treatises of both the Mahayana and Hinayana divisions of Buddhism were inferior to the Great Teacher Chih-che’s doctrine, and the people there praised him, wondering if Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, had appeared in the world once again, or whether Buddhism would now have a second beginning.

 

Notes

27. The twelve divisions of the correct and equal sutras refer to a generic term for all the Mahayana teachings. In general, these sutras refute attachment to Hinayana.

28. A kind of meditation expounded in the Flower Garland Sutra. In this meditation all phenomena of the three existences appear clearly in the mind, just as all things are clearly reflected on the surface of the ocean when the waves are quiet.

29. Lotus Sutra, chap. 11.

30. It is said that the asura king was blinded by the light of the sun and moon when he tried to do battle with the god Shakra.

31. The emperor of Han refers to Liu Pang (247–195 b.c.e.), the founder of the Former Han dynasty, who is said to have controlled the other lords by wielding his three-foot sword.

 

Lecture

This chapter continues the discussion of Grand Master T’ien-t’ai’s propagation, focusing here on the debates held in the Chen court—formal public disputations.

In the On Repaying Debts of Gratitude (Hōon-shō), it is stated of Grand Master T’ien-t’ai that, “The ruler of the Ch’en dynasty, hearing of what was going on, summoned a number of Buddhist leaders from the north and south”, Concerning Grand Master Dengyō, it is recorded: “But as it happened, on the nineteenth day of the first month in the twenty-first year of the Enryaku era (802), Emperor Kammu paid a visit to the temple called Takao-dera, and he summoned fourteen eminent priests—namely, Zengi, Shōyū, Hōki, Chōnin, Kengyoku, Ampuku, Gonzō, Shuen, Jikō, Gen’yō, Saikō, Dōshō, Kōshō, and Kambin—to come to the temple and debate with Saichō.”(WND1, p.703) In this way, the sovereign himself clarified the true and false of Buddhism—something of the utmost importance.

The reason is explained in On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land (Risshō Ankoku-ron): “Now surely the peace of the world and the stability of the nation are sought by both ruler and subject and desired by all the inhabitants of the country. The nation achieves prosperity through the Buddhist Law, and the Law is proven worthy of reverence by the people who embrace it. If the nation is destroyed and the people are wiped out, then who will continue to pay reverence to the Buddhas? Who will continue to have faith in the Law? Therefore, one must first of all pray for the safety of the nation and then work to establish the Buddhist Law.” (WND1, p.18). It also states: “it seems to me that restraining those who slander the Law and respecting the followers of the correct way will assure stability within the nation and peace in the world at large.” (WND1,p.18).

When the correct Law is upheld, a country prospers; when erroneous teachings prevail, the nation is thrown into disorder and ultimately destroyed. Therefore, for the ruler of the age to determine what is true or false in the Dharma is the very heart of good governance.

In the first year of Bun’ō, Nichiren Daishonin admonished the shogunate with the Risshō Ankoku-ron, and in the fifth year of Bun’ei, he submitted eleven letters admonishing the nation. Yet in the eighth year of Bun’ei, a monk named Gyōbin challenged him, demanding a public debate on the Four Dictums. To this the Daishonin replied, in Reply to Gyōbin: “Regarding each of the questions you have raised, I believe that they would be difficult to settle in a private debate. For that reason, hadn’t you better present them to the government authorities and then, abiding by the instructions they give, pursue this matter to determine what is right and what is wrong?”(WND2, p.384).

Again, in the first year of Kenji, a monk named Gōnin similarly sought debate. The Daishonin answered in Reply to a Communication from Gōnin: “Trying, however, to determine what is correct and what is not correct in matters relating to Buddhist doctrine when one is living in the countryside is, regrettably, like wearing fine brocade garments and wandering about in the dark [where no one can see them], or like a fine pine growing in the depths of the valley where no woodcutter can judge its true worth. In addition, attempts such as this to arrive at agreement on points of doctrine are likely to become a cause for dispute. If you really wish to settle this matter, then I think that notification should be given to the imperial court and to the government in Kanto so that an official record may be drawn up and a clear decision as to the truth of the matter arrived at. In that case, the ruler will be delighted and persons of lesser status will have their doubts dispelled.” (WND2, p.608).

In summary: because private debate leads only to quarrels, the determination of true and false in Buddhism must be conducted in a public forum. Thus Gyōbin and Gōnin were instructed that, if they desired debate with Nichiren Daishonin, they must have the authorities establish an official venue for such a disputation.

Just as the Chen emperor did in T’ien-t’ai’s time, and as Emperor Kammu did in Dengyō’s era, the sovereign must summon both sides and judge for himself. Where this occurs, the correct Law spreads and peace prevails.

During Nichiren Daishonin’s own lifetime, there were moments when a public debate seemed possible. In Reply to the Followers, he states: “In the end, if the slanderous proponents of the True Word, Zen, and other schools are summoned and brought together to confront me, and right and wrong are decided, the people of Japan will all become my disciples and lay supporters. Of my disciples, the priests will become teachers to the emperors and retired emperors, while the lay believers will be ranked as the ministers of the left and right.”(WND1, p901).

He further declared that if only a public debate were held, “Now Nichiren’s lifelong prayer and desire will be achieved in an instant.”(WND1, Reply to the Followers, p.901). In other words, the great dissemination of the Law would be guaranteed.

However, despite the Daishonin’s admonitions to the government, no public debate was granted; instead he suffered persecution and repeated attempts at exile and death.

After his passing as well, neither the shogunate nor the court accepted his teaching; rather, persecution continued. In the Shōwa era, during the Pacific War, the Soka Kyōiku Gakkai suffered severe oppression, with its president Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and twenty other leaders imprisoned—Makiguchi dying in prison. Thus the Daishonin’s prophecy of the two calamities—internal strife and foreign invasion—was fulfilled, the nation ultimately ruined and the people plunged into misery.

Under President Makiguchi, the Soka Gakkai grew to three thousand members but was nearly annihilated by wartime persecution. After the war, President Jōsei Toda alone rebuilt the organization in devastated Tokyo, ultimately achieving over 800,000 households of converts by his death in 1958. Since then, in accord with his spirit, the movement has expanded across the world and now embraces over 7.5 million households, steadily advancing kosen-rufu.

In former times, when political authority resided in the shogunate or imperial court, the Daishonin rightly addressed and admonished them, demanding public debate. But today we live in an age of democracy. The highest political authority lies in the national Diet, and the sovereign power belongs to the people who elect its members. Thus, to convert each citizen, one by one—to help each household demonstrate the actual proof of faith in its daily life—this is today’s form of admonishing the nation, and the only path to kosen-rufu.

Therefore, in today’s democratic society, kosen-rufu is not something achieved by decree of rulers or single acts of legislation. It must be realized through the collective will of the people—and the history of the Soka Gakkai clearly bears this out.

---

“wondering if Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, had appeared in the world once again”

“There the Indian treatises of both the Mahayana and Hinayana divisions of Buddhism were inferior to the Great Teacher Chih-che’s doctrine, and the people there praised him, wondering if Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, had appeared in the world once again, or whether Buddhism would now have a second beginning.”

Wherever the correct Law is propagated, culture flourishes and society prospers. In India, this was proven by Kings Ajātashatru, Asoka, and Kaniṣka; likewise in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Burma, and elsewhere.

In China, where the provisional teachings of the Lotus Sutra were widely spread by Grand Master T’ien-t’ai, the magnificent culture of the Sui and Tang dynasties blossomed.

In the early Tang period, Chang’an was the center of politics and culture—a peaceful, radiant capital. Many foreign visitors came seeking its civilization, as well as traders from afar, making it an international metropolis—virtually the center of the world.

Japan also sent missions to Sui and Tang in order to absorb this culture. Many of the treasures of today’s Shōsōin are Tang-period works of art. Buddhism and almost every form of culture were transmitted to Japan.

Tang politics in the early period produced the grand era known as the Zhenguan Reign, later the Kaiyuan era of prosperity. The power of the Han people surged, and international culture extended widely—to Europe, Arabia, Persia, India, Southeast Asia, Japan, and Korea. Political organization and centralization progressed dramatically.

Socially, it was one of the most peaceful eras in Chinese history. Agriculture flourished; in the Yellow River region, triple and quadruple crop rotations with millet and wheat increased yields. Production of sugar, rice, tea, hemp, and other goods greatly expanded. Textile production, lacquerware, sericulture, metalworking, commerce, and transportation developed, and trade with Europe and Arabia flourished.

Art, crafts, and music also developed, influenced by many foreign cultures, largely under the inspiration of Buddhism. Literature flourished, with classical Chinese prose reaching maturity; poetry produced the great masters Li Bai and Du Fu, as well as Bai Juyi and Wang Wei.

However, this era of prosperity endured only while T’ien-t’ai’s correct doctrine prevailed and permeated society. Once the doctrines of the Hossō master Xuanzang and the Shingon master Śubhakarasiṃha (Zenmui) gained influence in the mid-Tang, the decline of the dynasty began.

 

 

Chapter10(The Confusion of the Three Schools after T’ien-t’ai’s Passing)

Main Text

In time the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai passed away, and the Ch’en and Sui dynasties came to an end and were replaced by the T’ang dynasty. The Great Teacher Chang-an also passed away, and there were few who continued to study the type of Buddhism taught by T’ien-t’ai.

Then, in the reign of Emperor T’ai-tsung, there appeared a priest named the Tripitaka Master Hsüan-tsang. He journeyed to India in the third year of the Chen-kuan era (629) and returned in the nineteenth year of the same era. During his journey, he conducted a thorough investigation of Buddhism in India and on his return introduced to China the school known as the Dharma Characteristics.

This school is to the T’ien-t’ai school as fire is to water. Hsüan-tsang brought with him works such as the Profound Secrets Sutra, The Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice, and The Treatise on the Consciousness-Only Doctrine that were unknown to T’ien-t’ai, and claimed that, although the Lotus Sutra is superior to the other sutras, it is inferior to the Profound Secrets Sutra. Since this was a text that T’ien-t’ai had never seen, his followers in these later times, shallow as they were in wisdom and understanding, seemed inclined to accept this allegation.

Moreover, Emperor T’ai-tsung was a worthy ruler, but he placed extraordinary faith in the teachings of Hsüan-tsang. As a result, though there were those who might have wished to speak out in protest, they were, as is too often the case, awed by the authority of the throne and held their peace. Thus, regrettable as it is to relate, the Lotus Sutra was thrust aside. Hsüan-tsang taught that the three vehicle doctrine represents the truth and the one vehicle doctrine set forth in the Lotus Sutra is an expedient means, and expounded the theory of the five natures into which all beings are inherently divided.

Though these new teachings came from India, it was as though the non-Buddhist teachings of India had invaded the land of China. The Lotus Sutra was declared to be a mere expedient teaching, and the Profound Secrets Sutra, the embodiment of the truth. Thus the testimony given by Shakyamuni, Many Treasures, and the Buddhas of the ten directions was totally ignored, and instead Hsüan-tsang and his disciple Tz’u-en were looked upon as living Buddhas.

Later, during the reign of Empress Wu, a priest called the Dharma Teacher Fa-tsang appeared who, in order to vent his anger over the attacks that had been made earlier by the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai on the Flower Garland Sutra, founded a new school called the Flower Garland school. In doing so, he utilized a new translation of the Flower Garland Sutra³² that had recently been completed, using it to supplement the older translation of the Flower Garland Sutra that had been the target of T’ien-t’ai’s attack. This school proclaimed that the Flower Garland Sutra represents the “root teaching” of the Buddha, while the Lotus Sutra represents the “branch teachings.”

To sum up, the teachers in northern and southern China ranked the Flower Garland Sutra first, the Nirvana Sutra second, and the Lotus Sutra third. The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai ranked the Lotus first, the Nirvana second, and the Flower Garland third. And the newly founded Flower Garland school ranked the Flower Garland first, the Lotus second, and the Nirvana third.

Later, in the reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung, the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei journeyed to China from India, bringing with him the Mahāvairochana and Susiddhikara sutras. In addition, the Tripitaka Master Chin-kang-chih appeared with the Diamond Crown Sutra. Moreover, Chin-kang-chih had a disciple named the Tripitaka Master Pu-k’ung.

These three men were all Indians who not only came from very distinguished families but were in character quite different from the priests of China. The doctrines that they taught appeared highly impressive in that they included mudras and mantras, something that had never been known in China since the introduction of Buddhism in the Later Han. In the presence of this new Buddhism, the emperor bowed his head and the common people pressed their palms together in reverence.

These men taught that, whatever the relative merits of the Flower Garland, Profound Secrets, Wisdom, Nirvana, and Lotus sutras might be, they were all exoteric teachings, the various preachings of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni. The Mahāvairochana Sutra that they had newly introduced, on the other hand, represented the royal pronouncements of the Dharma King Mahāvairochana. The other sutras were the multiple sayings of the common people; this sutra was the unique pronouncement of the Son of Heaven. Works such as the Flower Garland and Nirvana sutras could never hope to reach as high as the Mahāvairochana Sutra even with the help of a ladder. Only the Lotus Sutra bears some resemblance to the Mahāvairochana Sutra.

Nevertheless, the Lotus Sutra was preached by the Thus Come One Shakyamuni and thus represents merely the truth as spoken by a commoner, while the Mahāvairochana Sutra represents the truth as spoken by the Son of Heaven. Hence, although the words resemble each other, the persons who spoke them are as far apart as the clouds in the sky and the mud on earth. The difference between them is like the moon that is reflected in muddy water on the one hand and in clear water on the other. Both alike are reflections of the moon, yet the nature of the water that catches the reflection is vastly different.

Such were the assertions put forth by these men, and no one attempted to examine them carefully or make clear their true nature. Instead, the other schools of Buddhism all bowed down and acknowledged themselves subservient to this new school called the True Word.

After Shan-wu-wei and Chin-kang-chih died, the Tripitaka Master Pu-k’ung made a trip to India and brought back to China a treatise entitled The Treatise on the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment, and the True Word school grew all the more influential.

In the T’ien-t’ai school, however, there appeared a priest known as the Great Teacher Miao-lo. Though he lived more than two hundred years after the time of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, because he was extremely wise and had a clear understanding of the teachings of T’ien-t’ai, he perceived that the meaning of T’ien-t’ai’s commentaries was that the Lotus Sutra is superior to the Profound Secrets Sutra and the Dharma Characteristics school, which were both introduced to China after T’ien-t’ai’s time, and to the Flower Garland school and the True Word school with its Mahāvairochana Sutra, both of which were first established in China.

Up until then, either because T’ien-t’ai’s followers lacked the wisdom to see what was wrong, or because they feared others or were in awe of the ruler’s power, no one had spoken out. It was clear that a correct understanding of the teachings of T’ien-t’ai was about to be lost, and that the erroneous doctrines that were rife surpassed even those that had prevailed in northern and southern China in the period before the Ch’en and Sui dynasties. Therefore, Miao-lo wrote commentaries on T’ien-t’ai’s works in thirty volumes, the writings known as The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight,” The Annotations on “The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra,” and The Annotations on “The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra.” Not only did these thirty volumes of commentary serve to eliminate passages of repetition in T’ien-t’ai’s works and to elucidate points that were unclear, but at the same time, in one stroke, they refuted the Dharma Characteristics, Flower Garland, and True Word schools, which had escaped T’ien-t’ai’s censures because they did not exist in China during his lifetime.

 

Notes

32. The eighty-volume Flower Garland Sutra, translated by Shikshānanda in the T’ang dynasty.

 

Lecture

 

This chapter clarifies how, after the passing of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai, confusion once again arose within Buddhism.

Although, thanks to T’ien-t’ai’s admonition to the nation, the doctrinal disputes among the ten schools were refuted and unified, and the Lotus Sutra—the king of all scriptures—was widely propagated, this unity lasted only for two generations, from T’ien-t’ai to Chang-an. Soon after, the doctrines became entangled once more with the arrival of the Hosso (Dharma-character) school, the Kegon (Avataṃsaka) school, and the Shingon (Mantra) school from abroad. It is indeed extraordinarily difficult for the correct teaching to be transmitted properly to later ages. That Buddhism, which arose in India three thousand years ago and spread throughout the East, still continues today—three thousand years later—to save people from suffering through the profound Dharma of the East, is a truly astonishing fact.

Furthermore, that the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, composed seven hundred years ago, have been preserved in such great number down to the present day is something we can only revere as the manifestation of the Buddha’s intention. The On the Buddha’s Prophecy  states, “It was as though there were only wooden or stone statues garbed in priests’ robes and carrying begging bowls.” (WND1, p.401)  Likewise, the The Meaning of the Sacred Teachings of the Buddha’s Lifetime teaches, “It is difficult to understand this sutra properly without reference to the traditions that have been handed down concerning it.”(WND2, p.54) Thus, the teachings have been handed down correctly to later ages through those who inherited and upheld them.

As explained in the main text, more than two hundred years after the passing of T’ien-t’ai, the Great Teacher Miao-le, the sixth patriarch in the lineage from T’ien-t’ai, appeared and once again proclaimed the true doctrine of T’ien-t’ai. However, after Miao-le, the school again steadily declined. Yet the lamp of transmission crossed over to Japan: when the Great Teacher Dengyō journeyed to Tang China, he received the profound doctrines of the Threefold Contemplation in a Single Mind and Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment (ichinen-sanzen) from Master Xingman, who had been a disciple of Miao-le, and from the monk Daosui.

---

Hsüan-tsang taught that the three vehicle doctrine represents the truth and the one vehicle doctrine set forth in the Lotus Sutra is an expedient means, and expounded the theory of the five natures into which all beings are inherently divided.

These doctrines belong to the Hosso (Dharma-character) school. It was established by the Tripitaka Master Hsüan-tsang, who brought back these teachings from India after seventeen years of travel and transmitted them to Emperor Taizong of the Tang dynasty. Both  On Repaying Debts of Gratitude, The Opening of the Eyes, and The Selection of the Time describe in detail how the nation, including the emperor, came to place their faith in these doctrines.

According to this school, the five natures (gosho) are as follows:

1. The nature of the Śrāvaka vehicle

2. The nature of the Pratyekabuddha vehicle

3. The nature of the Tathāgata (Buddha) vehicle

4. The indeterminate (undetermined) nature

5. The nature without seeds (icchantika)

For beings possessing the first three natures—Śrāvaka nature, Pratyekabuddha nature, and Buddha-nature—the Buddha expounded the teachings of the three vehicles: the Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva vehicles. For beings of indeterminate nature, he taught the Lotus Sutra (the One Vehicle), leading them to Buddhahood. For beings without the seeds of Buddhahood, he taught the human-heaven vehicle, for they would never attain enlightenment.

The Selection of the Time states:
”The heart of the Dharma Characteristics doctrine lies in its assertion that Buddhist teachings should accord with the capacities of the listeners. If people have the capacity to understand the doctrine of the one vehicle, then the doctrine of the three vehicles can be no more than an expedient to instruct them, and the doctrine of the one vehicle, the only true way of enlightening them. For people such as these, the Lotus Sutra should be taught. On the other hand, if they have the capacity to understand the three vehicles, then the one vehicle can be no more than an expedient to instruct them, and the three vehicles, the only true way of enlightening them.”(WND1, p.546)

Furthermore, the The Opening of the Eyes states:
”According to this school, in all the teachings of the Buddha, from the Flower Garland Sutra, the earliest of the sutras, to the Lotus and Nirvana sutras, which were preached last, it is laid down that those sentient beings without the nature of enlightenment and those predestined for the two vehicles can never become Buddhas. The Buddha, they say, never contradicts himself. Therefore, if he has once declared that these people will never be able to attain Buddhahood, then, even should the sun and moon fall to the earth or the great earth itself turn upside down, that declaration can never be altered. In the earlier sutras, those sentient beings without the nature of enlightenment and those predestined for the two vehicles were said to be incapable of attaining Buddhahood. Therefore, they conclude, even in the Lotus or Nirvana Sutra it is never said that they can in fact do so.”(WND1, p.237)

Beings without Buddha-nature are those of the fifth category of the five natures, who will never attain enlightenment. Beings of fixed nature in the two vehicles are those who remain eternally as Śrāvakas or Pratyekabuddhas and, likewise, will never attain enlightenment.

In summary, the Hosso school asserts—in complete reversal of the truth—that the Lotus Sutra, which expounds the One Buddha Vehicle, is merely an expedient, while the teachings of the three vehicles are the true teaching suited to each separate capacity.

Yet the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra proclaims, “For more than forty years the Buddha did not reveal the truth.” The Expedient Means chapter of the Lotus Sutra states:
“Since the Buddha has long expounded his doctrines, he must now reveal the truth,”
and,
“By the power of expedients, the Buddha teaches the doctrine of the three vehicles,”
and again,
“The Tathagata teaches the Law solely for the purpose of leading beings to the One Buddha Vehicle. There are no other vehicles—neither two nor three.”

Moreover, the truth of the Lotus Sutra is certified by the appearance of Many Treasures Buddha and the Buddhas of the ten directions who assemble as his witnesses. Despite such clear and explicit statements, the Hosso school became lost in confusion and asserted such mistaken doctrines as “the three vehicles are true,” or that beings without Buddha-nature and fixed-nature two vehicles can never attain Buddhahood. In the provisional sutras, the Buddha expounded the three vehicles separately because those teachings were expedient; but in the Lotus Sutra, he teaches the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds and the principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment, revealing that all phenomena are inherently embodiments of Myoho-renge-kyo. Thus, there can be no fixed distinctions such as “three vehicles” or “five natures.”

The The Opening of the Eyes states:
”The doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life begins with the concept of the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds. But the Dharma Characteristics and Three Treatises schools speak only of eight worlds and know nothing of the entirety of the Ten Worlds, much less of the concept of their mutual possession.”(WND1,p.224)

Looking at the Buddhist world today, one cannot help but lament that, although Nichiren Daishonin cut off the root of these errors seven hundred years ago, teachings such as Pure Land, Zen, and Shingon continue to flourish unabated. Moreover, baseless theories unrelated to the essence of Buddhism are propagated—especially in the schools founded by these sects—leading to even greater misunderstanding of Buddhism and reducing it to the subordinate position beneath Western philosophy. This is truly regrettable.

Today, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is no longer anyone who earnestly seeks to uncover the true essence of Buddhism. People merely cling to the doctrines of their fragmented sects as a means of making a livelihood.

Therefore, here and now, following the spirit of Nichiren Daishonin of seven hundred years ago, we must call for the unification of Buddhist philosophy and the restoration of doctrinal integrity. That there has been no answer or rebuttal to the Daishonin’s fundamental refutations—“Nembutsu leads to the hell of incessant suffering; Zen is the work of devils; Shingon will ruin the nation; the Precepts school is a traitor to the state”—and that some attempt instead to gloss over mistaken doctrines by adopting Western philosophies—this is exactly the condition described in the Kaimoku-shō as “appearing to study Buddhism but actually betraying it.”

The so-called established Buddhist sects today possess neither firm doctrine nor true faith. They increasingly reveal themselves as mere custodians of funerals, memorial services, and graveyards. Now that the age of widespread propagation of the true Law has arrived, the time has come for the essence of Eastern Buddhism to shine forth even more brilliantly and to shatter the provisional teachings and doctrines of the pre-Lotus and theoretical teachings.

 

 

Chapter11(The Propagation of the Teachings by the Great Teacher Dengyō in Japan)

Main Text

Turning now to Japan, we find that, in the reign of the thirtieth sovereign Emperor Kimmei, on the thirteenth day of the tenth month in the thirteenth year of his reign (552), cyclical sign mizunoe-saru, a copy of the Buddhist scriptures and a statue of Shakyamuni Buddha were brought to Japan from the Korean kingdom of Paekche. And in the reign of Emperor Yōmei, Prince Shōtoku began the study of Buddhism. He dispatched a court official named Wake no Imoko to go to China and bring back the copy of the Lotus Sutra in one volume that had belonged to him in a previous life,³³ and expressed his determination to honor and protect the sutra.

Later, by the reign of the thirty-seventh sovereign Emperor Kōtoku, the Three Treatises, Flower Garland, Dharma Characteristics, Dharma Analysis Treasury, and Establishment of Truth schools were introduced to Japan and, in the time of the forty-fifth sovereign Emperor Shōmu, the Precepts school was introduced, thus making a total of six schools. But during the time from Emperor Kōtoku to the reign of the fiftieth sovereign Emperor Kammu, a period of over 120 years under fourteen reigns, the T’ien-t’ai and True Word schools had not yet been introduced.

During the reign of Emperor Kammu, there was a young priest named Saichō who was a disciple of the Administrator of Priests Gyōhyō of Yamashina-dera temple. He made a thorough study of Dharma Characteristics and the others of the six schools mentioned above, but he felt that he had yet to reach a true understanding of Buddhism. Then he came upon a commentary that the Dharma Teacher Fa-tsang of the Flower Garland school had written on The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, and in it were quotations from the works of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai.

These works of T’ien-t’ai seemed to be worthy of special attention, but Saichō did not even know whether they had yet been brought to Japan or not. When he questioned someone about this, the person replied that there had been a priest named the Reverend Chien-chen, [known as Ganjin in Japan], of a temple called Lung-hsing-ssu in Yang-chou in China who had studied the T’ien-t’ai teachings and had been a disciple of the Discipline Master Tao-hsien. Toward the end of the T’ien-pao era (742–756), he journeyed to Japan, where he worked to spread a knowledge of the Hinayana rules of monastic discipline. He had brought with him copies of the works of T’ien-t’ai, but had not attempted to disseminate them. All this took place, Saichō was told, during the time of the forty-fifth sovereign Emperor Shōmu.

When Saichō asked if he could see these writings, they were brought out and shown to him. On his first perusal of them, he felt as though he had been awakened from all the delusions of birth and death. And when he began to consider the basic doctrines of the six schools of earlier Buddhism in the light of what he found in these writings, it became apparent that each of the schools was guilty of doctrinal error.

Immediately he vowed to do something about the situation, saying, “Because the people of Japan are all patrons of those who are slandering the correct teaching, the nation will surely fall into chaos.” He thereupon expressed his criticisms of the six schools, but when he did so, the great scholars of the six schools and the seven major temples of Nara rose up in anger and flocked to the capital, until the nation was in an uproar.

These men of the six schools and seven major temples were filled with the most intense animosity toward Saichō. But as it happened, on the nineteenth day of the first month in the twenty-first year of the Enryaku era (802), Emperor Kammu paid a visit to the temple called Takao-dera, and he summoned fourteen eminent priests—namely, Zengi, Shōyū, Hōki, Chōnin, Kengyoku, Ampuku, Gonzō, Shuen, Jikō, Gen’yō, Saikō, Dōshō, Kōshō, and Kambin—to come to the temple and debate with Saichō.

These various men of the Flower Garland, Three Treatises, Dharma Characteristics, and other schools expounded the teachings of the founders of their respective schools just as they had learned them. But the Honorable Saichō took notes on each point put forward by the men of the six schools and criticized it in the light of the Lotus Sutra, the works of T’ien-t’ai, or other sutras and treatises. His opponents were unable to say a word in reply, their mouths as incapable of speech as if they were noses.

The emperor was astounded and questioned Saichō in detail on various points. Thereafter he handed down an edict criticizing the fourteen men who had opposed Saichō.

They in turn submitted a memorial acknowledging their defeat and apologizing, in which they said, “We, students of the seven major temples and six schools, . . . have for the first time understood the ultimate truth.”

They also said, “In the two hundred or more years since Prince Shōtoku spread the Buddhist teachings in this country, a great many sutras and treatises have been lectured upon, and their principles have been widely argued, but until now, many doubts still remained to be settled. Moreover, the lofty and perfect doctrine of the Lotus Sutra had not yet been properly explained and made known.”

They also said, “Now at last the dispute that has continued so long between the Three Treatises and Dharma Characteristics schools has been resolved as dramatically as though ice had melted. The truth has been made abundantly clear, as though clouds and mist had parted to reveal the light of the sun, moon, and stars.”

The Reverend Saichō, in his appraisal of the teachings of his fourteen opponents, wrote as follows: “You each lecture upon the single scripture [of your own school], and though you sound the drums of the teachings within the deep valleys, both lecturers and hearers continue to go astray on the paths of the three vehicles. Though you fly the banners of doctrine from lofty peaks, and both teachers and disciples have broken free from the bonds of the threefold world, you still persist on the road of the enlightenment that takes countless kalpas to achieve, and confuse the three kinds of carts with the great white ox cart outside the gate.³⁴ How could you possibly attain the first stage of security and reach perfect enlightenment in this world that is like a house on fire?”

The two court officials [Wake no] Hiroyo and Matsuna³⁵ [the brothers who were present at the debate] commented as follows: “Through Nan-yüeh, the wonderful Law of Eagle Peak was made known, and through T’ien-t’ai, the wonderful enlightenment of Mount Ta-su³⁶ was opened up. But one regrets that the single vehicle of the Lotus is impeded by provisional teachings, and one grieves that the unification of the three truths has yet to be made manifest.”

The fourteen priests commented as follows: “Zengi and the others of our group have met with great good fortune because of karmic bonds and have been privileged to hear these extraordinary words. Were it not for some profound karmic tie, how could we have been born in this sacred age?”

These fourteen men had in the past transmitted the teachings of the various Chinese and Japanese patriarchs of their respective schools such as Fa-tsang and Shinjō of the Flower Garland school, Chia-hsiang and Kanroku of the Three Treatises school, Tz’u-en and Dōshō of the Dharma Characteristics school, or Tao-hsüan and Ganjin of the Precepts school. Thus, although the vessel in which the water of the doctrine was contained had changed from generation to generation, the water remained the same.

But now these fourteen men abandoned the erroneous doctrines that they had previously held, and embraced the teachings of the Lotus Sutra as expounded by Saichō, the Great Teacher Dengyō. Therefore, how could anyone in later times assert that the Flower Garland, Wisdom, or Profound Secrets Sutra surpasses the Lotus Sutra?

These fourteen men had of course studied the doctrines of the three Hinayana schools [Establishment of Truth, Dharma Analysis Treasury, and Precepts]. But since the three Mahayana schools [of Flower Garland, Three Treatises, and Dharma Characteristics] had suffered a doctrinal defeat, we need hardly mention the Hinayana schools. However, there are some people today who, being unaware of what actually happened, believe that one or another of the six schools did not suffer a doctrinal defeat. They are like the blind who cannot see the sun and moon, or the deaf who cannot hear the sound of thunder, and who therefore conclude that there are no sun and moon in the heavens, or that the skies emit no sound.

 

Notes

33. This story appears in The Genkō Era Biographies of Eminent Priests, written in Japan by the Zen priest Kokan Shiren (1278–1346). Tradition also has it that, in a previous life, Shōtoku was Nan-yüeh, T’ien-t’ai’s master.

34. Reference is to the parable of the three carts and the burning house in chapter 3 of the Lotus Sutra.

35. Hiroyo and Matsuna were sons of Wake no Kiyomaro, a court official. In 802, in response to an imperial command, they assembled fourteen learned priests from the seven major temples of Nara at Mount Takao to debate with Dengyō. Later, they supported Dengyō in establishing the Tendai school.

36. The place where T’ien-t’ai studied under Nan-yüeh and is said to have awakened to the truth of the Lotus Sutra.

 

Lecture

The Wide Propagation of the Lotus Sutra by the Great Teacher Dengyō in Japan

This chapter clarifies how Dengyō Daishi widely propagated the Lotus Sutra in Japan.

Fundamentally, the Japanese people are a nation deeply connected to the Lotus Sutra and have profound karmic ties to Mahayana Buddhism. Numerous ancient records attest to this, and a few representative examples may be cited.

In Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, it is stated:

“In the eastern direction there is a small country, and within it there exists only the lineage of the Mahayana.”

In the Record of the Translation of the Scriptures by Sengzhao (Jōkō), it is said:

“The Great Master Sūryasoma held the Lotus Sutra in his left hand and, placing his right hand upon the head of Kumārajīva, entrusted it to him, saying: ‘… This scripture has karmic affinity with the lands of the northeast. You must transmit and propagate it with utmost care.’”

In the writings of the Fundamental Master (Dengyō Daishi), it is stated:

“In terms of the age, it is the end of the Semblance Dharma and the beginning of the Latter Day; in terms of location, it lies east of Tang and west of Katsu (Korea).”
Here, “east of Tang and west of Katsu” unmistakably refers to Japan.

In The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings it is stated:

“This passage on how the eight-year-old dragon girl attained Buddhahood is particularly noteworthy because it refers to the ancestors of the rulers who uphold the Lotus Sutra. The first p.107human sovereign of Japan was Emperor Jimmu. Emperor Jimmu was the son of Ugayafuki-aezu-no-mikoto, the fifth of the five generations of earthly deities. The mother of Ugayafuki-aezu-no-mikoto was Princess Toyotama, the daughter of the dragon king Sāgara and an elder sister of the eight-year-old dragon girl. Therefore we know that the ancestors of the rulers of Japan were votaries of the Lotus Sutra, a fact of profound significance, a fact of profound significance!” (OTT, p.107)

 

---

The Introduction of Buddhism to Japan

Buddhism was introduced to Japan in the 13th year (552) of Emperor Kinmei, the 30th emperor. Envoys of King Seong of Baekje presented Buddhist scriptures, treatises, images of Śākyamuni Buddha, and monks and nuns.

According to the Nihon Shoki, in the winter of that year, on the 13th day of the tenth month, King Seong of Baekje dispatched his minister, Noryang Sachi and others, to present a gilt-bronze image of Śākyamuni Buddha, banners and canopies, and various scriptures and commentaries.

He also submitted a formal memorial praising the merits of faith and propagation, stating in part:

“Among all teachings, this Dharma is the most supreme, profound, difficult to understand, and difficult to enter. Even the Duke of Zhou and Confucius could not comprehend it. This Dharma gives rise to immeasurable and boundless merits, leading ultimately to unsurpassed enlightenment. It is like possessing a wish-fulfilling jewel, which supplies all needs according to one’s desire. This wondrous Dharma jewel is the same. From India through the Three Korean Kingdoms, it has been upheld and revered without exception. Therefore, I, King Seong of Baekje, respectfully dispatch my minister to transmit it to the imperial land, allowing it to circulate throughout the capital region, thereby fulfilling the Buddha’s prophecy that ‘My Dharma shall flow eastward.’”

This was an official offering of the Three Treasures—Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha—from one sovereign to another. While some dispute this memorial’s authenticity, it is noteworthy that the grand idea of “the Dharma flowing eastward” was already present at that time.

Nichiren Daishonin, in Rulers of the Land of the Gods, cites a different memorial, likely drawn from an ancient Japanese record now lost. It states:

“The memorial accompanying it reads: “Your servant has heard that, of all the ten thousand doctrines, the doctrine of the Buddha is the finest. In dealing with worldly affairs as well, the Buddhist doctrine is most superior. Your Imperial Majesty too should practice it. Therefore with all due respect I have entrusted to my envoy this Buddhist image, the sacred writings, and Buddhist teachers, and present them herewith. I urge Your Majesty to put faith in them.” (WND1, p.613)

 

---

The Flourishing of Buddhism under Prince Shōtoku

Prince Shōtoku, son of Emperor Yōmei and regent to Empress Suiko, greatly advanced Buddhism in Japan. He personally lectured on the sutras and authored commentaries on the Śrīmālādevī Sutra, the Vimalakīrti Sutra, and the Lotus Sutra. He also established the Seventeen-Article Constitution, grounding state governance in Buddhist principles.

Prince Shōtoku is said to have obtained “a single volume of the Lotus Sutra previously upheld by my teacher” from China—something modern people may find unimaginable, yet entirely plausible given the continuity of life across the three existences.

In The Opening of the Eyes, it is recorded that Prince Shōtoku encountered disciples from the continent who had once been his own students in a past life:

“Prince Shōtoku of Japan was the son of Emperor Yōmei, the thirty-second sovereign. When he was six years old, elderly men came to Japan from the states of Paekche and Koguryŏ in Korea and from the land of China. The six-year-old prince thereupon exclaimed, “These are my disciples!” and the old men in turn pressed their palms together in reverence and said, “You are our teacher!” This was a strange happening indeed.” (WND1, p.254)

Prince Shōtoku lectured on the Lotus Sutra in 607 and completed the four-volume Hokke Gisho in 615. These manuscripts, recently discovered among imperial treasures, are the oldest extant Japanese writings and handwriting.

Although influenced by Fazun of Guangzhai Temple, Prince Shōtoku’s commentary was written independently. However, the profound doctrines such as ichinen sanzen were later fully elucidated by Zhiyi, Dengyō Daishi, and ultimately Nichiren Daishonin. For this reason, Nichiren Daishonin did not rely on Prince Shōtoku’s Hokke Gisho.

---

The Great Teacher Dengyō’s Admonition of the State

As previously explained, the propagation of Buddhism requires admonishing the state and holding public debates to clarify right and wrong teachings.

During Dengyō Daishi’s time, Emperor Kanmu discerned true Buddhism and supported the wide propagation of the Lotus Sutra, ushering in the long peace and cultural flourishing of the Heian period.

In 802, at age 36, Dengyō Daishi expounded the Lotus Sutra before leading monks at Takaosan-ji. Until his passing in 822, he established the Tendai monastic code, authored the Kenkairon, and called for the establishment of the Mahayana ordination platform, which was approved shortly after his death.

This unified Japanese Buddhism, affirming the Lotus Sutra as its philosophical core and recognizing Tendai doctrines such as ichinen sanzen and the perfect integration of the Three Truths as supreme.

---

The Strange Nature of Modern Buddhist Organizations

In modern Japan, two particularly peculiar organizations exist: the All Japan Buddhist Federation and the New Religions Federation.

The former, plagued by internal conflicts and discriminatory practices, has strayed far from the Buddhist ideal of saving the people. The latter, lacking coherent philosophy, represents religion reduced to mere enterprise.

Yet history and reason alike show that no matter how such groups unite against the True Law, their inner discord and erroneous doctrines will inevitably lead to their downfall—just as demonstrated by the public debates of Zhiyi and Dengyō Daishi, and the state admonitions of Nichiren Daishonin.

 

 

Chapter12(The Great Teacher Dengyō’s Refutation of the True Word school)

Main Text

With regard to the True Word school, during the reign of the forty-fourth sovereign Empress Genshō, the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei brought the Mahāvairochana Sutra to Japan, but returned to China without spreading a knowledge of it.³⁷ Moreover, Gembō and others brought back from China The Commentary on the Meaning of the Mahāvairochana Sutra in fourteen volumes, as did the Preceptor Tokusei of Tōdai-ji.

These works were studied by the Great Teacher Dengyō, but he had doubts about what they said concerning the relative worth of the Mahāvairochana and Lotus sutras. Therefore, in the seventh month of the twenty-third year of the Enryaku era (804), he went to China, where he met the Reverend Tao-sui of Hsi-ming-ssu temple and Hsing-man of Fo-lung-ssu temple, and received the teachings on concentration and insight³⁸ and the great precepts of perfect and immediate enlightenment. He also met the Reverend Shun-hsiao of Ling-kan-ssu temple and received instruction in the True Word teachings. He returned to Japan in the sixth month of the twenty-fourth year of Enryaku. He was granted an audience with Emperor Kammu, and the emperor thereupon issued an edict instructing the students of the six schools to study the teachings on concentration and insight and the True Word teachings and to preserve them in the seven major temples of Nara.

In China there were various theories concerning the relative superiority of these two teachings—concentration and insight and the True Word. Moreover, Meaning of the Mahāvairochana Sutra claims that, though they are equal in terms of principle, the True Word is superior in terms of practice.

The Great Teacher Dengyō, however, realized that this was an error on the part of the Tripitaka Master Shan-wu-wei and understood that the Mahāvairochana Sutra is inferior to the Lotus Sutra. Therefore, he did not establish the True Word teachings as an eighth school, but instead incorporated them into the teachings of the seventh school, the Lotus school, after removing from them the label “True Word school.” He declared that the Mahāvairochana Sutra is to be regarded as a supplementary sutra of the Lotus Tendai school and ranked it along with the Flower Garland, Larger Wisdom, and Nirvana sutras. However, at the time there was much dispute over whether or not a vitally important Mahayana specific ordination platform of perfect and immediate enlightenment should be established in Japan. Perhaps because of the trouble that arose on this account, it seems that the Great Teacher Dengyō did not give his disciples clear instructions concerning the relative superiority of the True Word and Tendai teachings.

In a work called A Clarification of the Schools Based on T’ien-t’ai’s Doctrine, however, he clearly states that the True Word school stole the correct doctrines of the Lotus Tendai school and incorporated them into its interpretation of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, thereafter declaring that the two schools were equal in terms of principle. Thus the True Word school had in effect surrendered to the Tendai school.

This is even more evident when we consider that, after the death of Shan-wu-wei and Chin-kang-chih, the Tripitaka Master Pu-k’ung went to India, where he met Bodhisattva Nāgabodhi. Nāgabodhi informed him that there were no treatises or commentaries in India that made clear the Buddha’s intent, but that in China there was a commentary by a man named T’ien-t’ai that enabled one to distinguish correct from incorrect teachings and to understand the difference between partial doctrines and those that are complete. He exclaimed this in admiration and repeatedly begged that a copy of the work be brought to India.

This incident was reported to the Great Teacher Miao-lo by Pu-k’ung’s disciple Han-kuang as is recorded at the end of the tenth volume of On “The Words and Phrases.” It is also recorded in Dengyō’s Clarification of the Schools. From this it is perfectly evident that the Great Teacher Dengyō believed the Mahāvairochana Sutra to be inferior to the Lotus Sutra.

Thus it becomes apparent that the Thus Come One Shakyamuni, the great teachers T’ien-t’ai, Miao-lo, and Dengyō were of one mind in regarding the Lotus Sutra as the greatest of all the sutras, including the Mahāvairochana Sutra. Moreover, Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, who is regarded as the founder of the True Word school, held the same opinion, as becomes obvious if we carefully examine his Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom. Unfortunately, however, Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment brought from India by Pu-k’ung is full of errors and has led everyone astray, bringing about the present confusion.

 

Notes

37. The legend that Shan-wu-wei went to Japan is found in Genkō Era Biographies.

38. The “teachings on concentration and insight” refers to the entire system of meditation set forth by T’ien-t’ai.

 

Lecture

From this chapter onward, it is clarified that in the Latter Day of the Law, Nichiren Daishonin appeared in Japan, propagated the Lotus Sutra, incurred animosity and jealousy, and met with great persecutions.

First, the text takes up the refutation of Shingon(the True Word school), which had spread in earlier ages, and in this chapter it explains that, in our country, Dengyō Daishi refuted Shingon. From Chapter Eleven, beginning with the passage “Again, in the land of Japan there was a ruler …,” it appears to describe the transmission of Buddhism to Japan—first the Six Schools, and then the introduction of the two schools of Tendai and Shingon. Why, then, does it speak of “refuting the Shingon that had spread in earlier ages”? On this point, Nichikan Shōnin’s commentary explains the following.

From Chapter Seven onward, the treatise discusses the persecutions suffered during the Buddha’s lifetime and the Former Day of the Law, thereby substantiating the Buddha’s prediction: “Even during the lifetime of the Tathāgata there are many who harbor resentment and jealousy; how much more so after his passing.” In explaining the phrase “how much more so after his passing,” it first cites the Four Reliances of the Former Day of the Law and clarifies that Devadatta, the Venerable Shishi (Śiṃha), Buddhāmitra, Nāgārjuna, Aśvaghoṣa, the Master Ruyi, and others met with great persecutions because they propagated the correct Law. Next, it cites three teachers of the Middle Day of the Law, showing that Great Teacher Tiantai, Great Teacher Miaole, and Dengyō Daishi each suffered severe persecutions on account of the Lotus Sutra. Thus, having completed its explanation of the Former and Middle Days of the Law, the treatise now proceeds from this passage to expound the Latter Day of the Law.

Why does it speak specifically of “the Shingon of former ages,” without raising the confusion caused by the Nembutsu or Zen schools? Because, in this writing, the primary intent of Nichiren Daishonin’s refutation is directed at the Shingon school. In Letter to the Lay Priest of Seichō-ji (addressed to the people of Seichō-ji), he states: “The True Word school, among others, attempts to destroy the Lotus Sutra. It is essential to refute the True Word teachings, so in preparation I first attacked the errors of the Zen and Nembutsu schools. I have good reason for my accusations. I will reserve discussion of the rights and wrongs of Buddhist schools in India and China for some other time, but as for Japan, all the people have discarded the correct teaching of the Lotus Sutra and are therefore without exception destined to fall into the evil paths. ” (WND1, p.650).

---

The Relative Superiority of the Teachings on Concentration and Insight and the True Word teachings

As indicated in the passage cited above, Shingon is an evil teaching that discards the Lotus Sutra, a heretical school that leads to the ruin of the nation and descent into hell. Here, let us survey the point in outline, citing passages from The Selection of the Time.

---

 The Founders of the True Word teachings in China

In the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang dynasty, three Tripiṭaka masters—Śubhakarasiṃha, Vajrabodhi, and Amoghavajra—brought from India to China the Mahāvairocana Sutra, the Vajraśekhara Sutra, and the Susiddhikara Sutra. Śubhakarasiṃha, upon arriving in China, realized that even if he now propagated the Mahāvairocana Sutra, it would never rival the Huayan or Tendai schools. Therefore, he enlisted a Tendai scholar-monk named Yixing Ācārya and had him formulate and record the following erroneous doctrine:

“At that time, Tripiṭaka Master Śubhakarasiṃha, with great cunning, declared: ‘In the Mahāvairocana Sutra there is a chapter called “Abiding in the Mind,” which strikes down the sutras preached for more than forty years as if in the Sutra of Infinite Meaning. The chapters of the Mahāvairocana Sutra beginning with “Entering the Mandala,” though in China they appear as two sutras—the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairocana Sutra—are in India like one sutra. Shakyamuni Buddha, addressing Shariputra and Maitreya, called the Mahāvairocana Sutra the Lotus Sutra and expounded only the principle, setting aside mudras and mantras; Tripiṭaka Master Kumārajīva transmitted this, and Great Teacher Tiantai saw it. Mahāvairocana Buddha, calling the Lotus Sutra the Mahāvairocana Sutra, preached it to Vajrasattva; this is called the Mahāvairocana Sutra. I have seen this with my own eyes in India. Therefore, what you should do is make the Mahāvairocana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra one flavor, like water and milk. If you do so, you can strike down the sutras of the three categories—those already preached, now being preached, and to be preached—just as the Lotus Sutra does. And if mudras and mantras adorn the mind’s “three thousand realms in a single moment of life,” they will constitute the secret teaching of “correspondence of the three mysteries.” If they correspond to the three mysteries, then Tendai is only “mystery of mind,” whereas Shingon is like a general wearing armor, carrying bow and arrows, and bearing a sword; while Tendai, being only mystery of mind, is like that general standing naked.’ Thus did Yixing Ācārya write.” (The Selection of the Time)

This is what is called the doctrine of “identity in principle but superiority in practice,” which asserts that the Mahāvairocana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are identical in principle, but that the Mahāvairocana Sutra is superior in practice because it includes mudras and mantras.

Though Yixing was a Tendai scholar-monk, he transmitted such an outrageous distortion to the world. Moreover, within the Tendai school there was no teacher of wisdom comparable to Great Teacher Tiantai, and since Śubhakarasiṃha and the others were of royal lineage and high status, Shingon’s false doctrine spread widely, while the correct teaching of Tendai grew faint.

---

 The Great Teacher Dengyō and the True Word teachings

When Dengyō Daishi returned from his studies in China, he brought Tendai and Shingon to Japan. He taught Tendai to the emperor of Japan and had the monks of the Six Schools study Shingon. After that, Dengyō Daishi did not openly refute Shingon, possibly because disputes over whether or not to establish the ordination platform were intense, and he sought to minimize opposition in order to accomplish its establishment; or perhaps it was left to be refuted in the Latter Day of the Law.

However, Dengyō Daishi authored a secret work called Yōhyōshū (Collection of Reliances), in which he clearly refuted Shingon. This is discussed in detail in Chapter Sixteen of these lectures. For example, the preface states, “Regarding the newly arrived Shingon adherents, one must lament the oral transmission by brush.” Further, as the text indicates, after Śubhakarasiṃha and Vajrabodhi had died, Amoghavajra traveled to India and met Bodhisattva Ryūchi (Nāgabodhi). There he learned that, although India had no commentary that fully grasped the Buddha’s intent, in China the Tendai school had thoroughly clarified the distinctions between correct and erroneous, partial and perfect teachings, and thus he was told to take that teaching back to India and propagate it. Miaole recorded this account in volume ten of his commentary, based on what Han Guang, a disciple of Amoghavajra, related to him; and Dengyō Daishi also included it in Yōhyōshū. This alone demonstrates plainly that Tendai surpasses Shingon by far.

Thereafter, in Japan, under figures such as Kōbō and Jikaku, Shingon’s erroneous doctrines became ever more severe.

---

The Erroneous Doctrines of the True Word teachings in Japan

Kōbō wrote in works such as The Treatise on the Ten Stages of the Mind and The Precious Key to the Secret Treasury that the Lotus Sutra is “mere idle theory,” that Shakyamuni is “a region on the side of ignorance and not a stage of enlightenment” when compared to Mahāvairocana, and, most extremely, that “the teachers of China, disputing among themselves, stole the ghee and each gave it the name of his own school.”

In other words, with respect to the Mahāvairocana Sutra, he claimed that the Lotus Sutra is “playful theorizing,” that Shakyamuni is on the side of ignorance compared to Mahāvairocana, and even asserted the reverse—that Great Teacher Tiantai stole Shingon’s “ghee” and designated the Tendai school as ghee. In fact, it was the founders of Shingon who stole Tendai’s doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life and then spoke of “identity in principle.” Though they themselves were thieves, they pointed to those from whom they had stolen and called them thieves.

Next, the ceremony text for the Sharira Lecture by Shōgakubō states that “the Buddhas of the Lotus and Huayan sutras, compared to Shōgaku and Kōbō, do not even measure up to a cowherd or a sandal-bearer.”

Further, although Jikaku and Chishō served as chief priests of the Tendai school, they held Shingon to be supreme and advocated “identity in principle but superiority in practice.” Because no one within the Tendai school refuted this erroneous view, the evil teaching that leads to the ruin of the nation and descent into hell spread throughout Japan.

As also cited later in On Repaying Debts of Gratitude, the foremost actual proof that Shingon causes a nation’s ruin is the Jōkyū Disturbance. Emperor Go-Toba attempted to overthrow the Kamakura shogunate and employed every kind of secret Shingon ritual in prayer; yet within merely one month of raising troops, and in a single day of battle with the shogunate forces, the imperial army was annihilated and three retired emperors were exiled.

Thereafter, practices such as praying for victory at Mount Kōya likewise became causes that led to defeat and national ruin. Even today, in Shingon households, one can often observe “actual proof” of Shingon’s ruinous influence, as heirs in a family fall ill one after another or leave home, and the like.

---

Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment brought from India by Pu-k’ung is full of errors 

The Selection of the Time states:

”Question: In the latter part of the T’ang dynasty, the Tripitaka Master Pu-k’ung introduced to China a treatise in one volume entitled The Treatise on the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment, whose authorship he ascribed to Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna. The Great Teacher Kōbō says of it, “This treatise represents the heart and core of all the thousand treatises of Nāgārjuna.” What is your opinion on this?

Answer: This treatise consists of seven leaves. There are numerous places in it that could not be the words of Nāgārjuna. Therefore, in the catalog of Buddhist texts it is sometimes listed as a work of Nāgārjuna and sometimes as a work of Pu-k’ung. The matter of its authorship has never been resolved. In addition, it is not a summation of the lifetime teachings of the Buddha and contains many loose statements. To begin with, a vital passage, the one asserting that “only in the True Word teachings [can one attain Buddhahood in one’s present form],” is in error, since it denies the fact that the Lotus Sutra enables one to attain Buddhahood in one’s present form, a fact well attested by both scriptural passages and actual events. Instead it asserts that the True Word sutras enable one to attain Buddhahood in one’s present form, an assertion for which there is not the slightest proof in scriptural passages or actual events. That one word “only” in the assertion that “only in the True Word teachings [can one attain Buddhahood in one’s present form]” is the greatest error of all.

In view of the facts, it seems likely that the work was written by Pu-k’ung himself who, in order to ensure that the people of the time would regard it with sufficient gravity, attributed it to Nāgārjuna.

Pu-k’ung makes a number of other errors as well.” (WND1, p.554)

When one compares the philosophies of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairocana Sutra upheld by Shingon, the difference is as vast as heaven and earth; viewed from the Lotus Sutra, the Mahāvairocana Sutra is inferior many times over.

The Mahāvairocana Buddha established by Shingon, even granting the claim, is merely a Buddha of the Dharma body alone; and since it does not reveal the eternal, it is a provisional Buddha manifested in accordance with circumstances. In contrast, the Buddha of true enlightenment in the remote past revealed in the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra, as established by Tendai, is the eternally endowed Buddha possessing the three bodies—Dharma body, reward body, and manifested body—and thus is incomparably superior to a Mahāvairocana Buddha of the Dharma body alone.

Because Shingon propounds a doctrine centered on the Dharma body, it resembles Western Christianity in certain respects. Also, considering that at that time Shingon appropriated, one after another, the doctrines of the Tendai school, including the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, it may be likened to a religion that persists in mere imitation.

Thus Shingon establishes the three sutras of Mahāvairocana as supreme among the vaipulya teachings and, at the same time, demotes the Lotus Sutra—the king of sutras—to a teaching inferior by several degrees, calling it idle theorizing; it lowers Shakyamuni Buddha of the essential teaching to the status of the lord of the “exoteric” teachings; it proclaims “identity in principle but superiority in practice”; it steals the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life; and it has people worship such objects as Fudō Myōō and even animals as objects of devotion. This is indeed a terrifying heretical teaching that brings a nation to ruin.

Dengyō Daishi refuted Shingon to a certain extent in Yōhyōshū, but the complete refutation awaited the appearance of the Original Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law, Nichiren Daishonin. That is, while at the outset of his propagation the Daishonin thoroughly refuted the Nembutsu teaching, after his exile to Sado he especially pulverized Shingon, leaving it utterly without ground.

Next, since this treatise also mentions many sutras and commentaries, it should be noted that in Buddhism there are sutras, treatises, and commentaries. Sutras are the scriptures expounded by the Buddha. Treatises are writings by bodhisattva scholars in India and elsewhere that broadly interpret and transmit the Buddha’s teachings. Commentaries are works by teachers in China and Japan that annotate sutras.

For example, Nāgārjuna’s Great Perfection of Wisdom Treatise, Middle Way Treatise, and Treatise on the Twelve Gates; Devadatta’s Hundred Treatise; and Vasubandhu’s treatises on consciousness-only belong to the category of treatises. Tiantai’s Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, and Great Concentration and Insight, as well as Miaole’s Annotations on the Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, The Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, and Further Notes on Great Concentration and Insight, belong to the category of commentaries.

In the Latter Day of the Law, as the Daishonin states, “Now, in the Latter Day of the Law, neither the Lotus Sutra nor the other sutras lead to enlightenment.” (WND1, The Teaching for the Latter Day, p.903) , and “the pure Law will become obscured and lost.” (WND1, The Selection of the Time, p.541). Therefore, the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, the Original Buddha, must be revered as the sutras, and the papers we produce based on Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism are applications and may be regarded as treatises and commentaries.

 

 

Chapter13(Kōbō’s Propagation of the True Word school)

Main Text

We come now to the disciple of the Administrator of Priests Gonzō of Iwabuchi named Kūkai, known in later ages as the Great Teacher Kōbō. On the twelfth day of the fifth month in the twenty-third year of Enryaku, he set out for T’ang China. After arriving there, he met the Reverend Hui-kuo, whose teacher belonged to the third generation of the True Word lineage beginning with the Tripitaka masters Shan-wu-wei and Chin-kang-chih. From Hui-kuo he received the transmission of the two True Word mandalas.³⁹ He returned to Japan on the twenty-second day of the tenth month in the second year of Daido (807).

It was then the reign of Emperor Heizei, Emperor Kammu having passed away a short time before. Kōbō was granted an audience with Emperor Heizei, who placed great confidence in him and embraced his teachings, valuing them above all. Not long after, Emperor Heizei ceded the throne to Emperor Saga, with whom Kōbō likewise ingratiated himself. The Great Teacher Dengyō passed away on the fourth day of the sixth month in the thirteenth year of Kōnin (822), during the reign of Emperor Saga. From the fourteenth year of the same era, Kōbō served as teacher to the sovereign. He established the True Word school, was given supervision of the temple known as Tō-ji, and was referred to as the supreme priest of the True Word. Thus the True Word, the eighth school of Buddhism in Japan, had its start.

Kōbō commented as follows on the relative merit of the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime: “First is the Mahāvairochana Sutra of the True Word school, second is the Flower Garland Sutra, and third are the Lotus and Nirvana sutras.

“In comparison to the sutras of the Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom periods, the Lotus is a true sutra, but from the point of view of the Flower Garland and Mahāvairochana sutras, it is a doctrine of childish theory.

“Though Shakyamuni was a Buddha, in comparison to the Thus Come One Mahāvairochana, he was still in the region of darkness. Mahāvairochana is as exalted as an emperor; Shakyamuni, by comparison, is as lowly as a subjugated barbarian.

“The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai is a thief. He stole the ghee of the True Word and claimed that the Lotus Sutra is ghee.”

This is the sort of thing that Kōbō wrote. As a result, though people may previously have believed that the Lotus is the greatest of all sutras, after hearing of the Great Teacher Kōbō, they no longer regarded it as worthy of notice.

I will set aside the erroneous doctrines propounded by non-Buddhists in India. But these pronouncements of Kōbō are certainly worse than those put forward by the priests of northern and southern China who declared that, in comparison to the Nirvana Sutra, the Lotus Sutra is a work of distorted views. They go even farther than the assertions of those members of the Flower Garland school who stated that, in comparison to the Flower Garland Sutra, the Lotus Sutra represents the “branch teachings.” One is reminded of that Great Arrogant Brahman of India who fashioned a tall dais with the deities Maheshvara, Nārāyana, and Vishnu, along with Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, as the four legs to support it, and then climbed up on it and preached his fallacious doctrines.

If only the Great Teacher Dengyō had still been alive, he would surely have had a word to say on the subject. But how could his disciples Gishin, Enchō, Jikaku, and Chishō have failed to question the matter more closely? That was a great misfortune to the world indeed!

 

Notes

39. The Diamond Realm mandala and the Womb Realm mandala.

 

Lecture

Shingon(the True Word school) as an Evil Teaching That Brings About the Ruin of the Nation

In the previous chapter, we already pointed out the erroneous doctrines and slander of the Law inherent in Shingon. In truth, Shingon Buddhism is an evil and false teaching that destroys both the nation and the household.

According to Shingon doctrine, Mahāvairocana (Dainichi Nyorai) expounded the Mahāvairocana Sutra and the Vajraśekhara Sutra in the Palace of the Dharma Realm in the Heaven of Ultimate Form. Vajrasattva compiled these teachings and placed them in an iron stupa in southern India.

About one hundred years after Shakyamuni Buddha’s passing, Nāgārjuna opened the door of this iron stupa, received the two sutras from Vajrasattva, and transmitted them to Nāgabodhi. Nāgabodhi then transmitted the Mahāvairocana Sutra to Śubhakarasiṃha and the Vajraśekhara Sutra to Vajrabodhi. These teachings were later transmitted to Amoghavajra, and from Amoghavajra to Huiguo. Although Śubhakarasiṃha, Vajrabodhi, Amoghavajra, and Huiguo all propagated these teachings in China, they had not yet formed an independent Shingon school.

In Japan, Kōbō received the transmission of the Diamond and Womb mandalas from Huiguo and, after returning to Japan, propagated them as Shingon Buddhism. As explained in the previous chapter, Kōbō, Shōgakubō, and Jion established Mahāvairocana as the supreme Buddha and verbally disparaged the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha as mere “idle theories.”

The lineage stemming from Kōbō spread primarily from Tō-ji temple, and thus came to be known as Tōmitsu (Eastern Esoteric Buddhism). In contrast, Jikaku and Chishō, though serving as chief priests of the Tendai school, repudiated Tendai and the Lotus Sutra and established Shingon as supreme. Their propagation is known as Taimitsu (Tendai Esoteric Buddhism).

Nichiren Daishonin declared Shingon to be a false teaching that brings about the ruin of the nation because it abandons Shakyamuni Buddha, the true teacher, and instead elevates Mahāvairocana, a Buddha of the Dharma body alone. Mahāvairocana, as a Buddha of the Dharma body, has no direct connection with the actual lives of ordinary people. The Buddha who guides living beings with compassion and wisdom—the Buddha who embodies the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent—is the Buddha who possesses the three bodies in one. In the Former and Middle Days of the Law, this was Shakyamuni Buddha; in the Latter Day of the Law, it is Nichiren Daishonin.

Why does erroneous religion bring about the ruin of a nation? Modern people, being ignorant of religion, may find this puzzling. Yet Nichiren Daishonin states in The Opening of the Eyes:

“I, Nichiren, am the only person in all Japan who understands this.”(WND1, p.239)

No matter how diligently people practice Buddhism or how earnestly they strive, if a false teaching that brings about national ruin prevails, the happiness of the people can never be realized. This is especially something that a nation’s leaders and those in political authority must keep firmly in mind.

Excluding Taimitsu, present-day Shingon Buddhism traces its lineage to Kōbō and is divided into the Old Shingon schools, with Mount Kōya as their head temple, and the New Shingon schools, with Chisan and Buzan as their head temples. The Old Shingon schools include Kongōbu-ji on Mount Kōya, Ninna-ji, Daikaku-ji, Tō-ji, Daigo-ji, and others, totaling seven branches. The New Shingon schools consist primarily of the Chisan and Buzan branches.

The New Shingon schools teach that Mahāvairocana expounded the Mahāvairocana Sutra from the absolute standpoint of self-enlightened wisdom, known as the doctrine of preaching by the original body. The Old Shingon schools teach that Mahāvairocana manifested a body empowered to protect living beings and preached the sutra, known as the doctrine of preaching by the empowered body. Yet all Shingon schools alike relegate the Lotus Sutra—the true purpose of Shakyamuni Buddha’s advent—to an inferior position, labeling it a mere idle theory, and demean Shakyamuni Buddha as dwelling in the realm of ignorance, inferior even to a servant who tends footwear.

In the mid-Edo period, the fifth shogun, Tsunayoshi, was initially regarded as a capable ruler. However, after devoting himself to Ryūkō of the New Shingon school, he indulged in corrupt governance. At Ryūkō’s urging, he issued the infamous “Edicts on Compassion for Living Beings,” which treated human beings as inferior even to animals such as dogs—an outrageous abuse of power.

Even today, Shingon’s erroneous doctrines remain teachings that bring ruin to both nation and family. There are countless examples of how Shingon prayers have led to national downfall, social disorder, and the destruction of households. The worship of Fudō Myōō at places such as Narita is likewise an outgrowth of the harmful practices of esoteric Shingon Buddhism and continues to inflict grave harm upon society.

That such false teachings, born of Kōbō’s personal and mistaken views, have been spread throughout Japan to this very day is truly something that must be regarded with the gravest concern.

 

 

Chapter14(The Great Teacher Jikaku’s Descent into the Mahāvairochana Sutra)

Main Text

The Great Teacher  went to T’ang China in the fifth year of Jōwa (838) and spent ten years there studying the doctrines of the T’ien-t’ai and True Word schools. With regard to the relative merit of the Lotus and Mahāvairochana sutras, he studied under Fa-ch’üan, Yüan-cheng, and others, eight True Word teachers⁴⁰ in all, and was taught by them that, although the Lotus and Mahāvairochana sutras are equal in principle, the latter is superior in terms of practice. He also studied under Chih-yüan, Kuang-hsiu, and Wei-chüan⁴¹ of the T’ien-t’ai school, and was taught that the Mahāvairochana Sutra belongs to the Correct and Equal group of sutras [that are inferior to the Lotus Sutra].

On the tenth day of the ninth month in the thirteenth year of Jōwa, he returned to Japan, and on the fourteenth day of the sixth month of the first year of Kashō (848), an imperial edict was handed down [permitting him to conduct the True Word initiation ceremonies]. Perhaps because he had had difficulty determining the relative merit of the Lotus and Mahāvairochana sutras when he was studying in China, he proceeded to write a seven-volume commentary on the Diamond Crown Sutra and a seven-volume commentary on the Susiddhikara Sutra, making a total of fourteen volumes. The gist of these commentaries is that the doctrines set forth in the Mahāvairochana, Diamond Crown, and Susiddhikara sutras and the doctrines expounded in the Lotus Sutra ultimately indicate the same principle, but because of the ritual use of mudras and mantras associated with the former, the three True Word sutras just mentioned are superior to the Lotus Sutra.

In essence, this agrees exactly with the view of Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih, and Pu-k’ung set forth in their commentary on the Mahāvairochana Sutra. But perhaps Jikaku still had doubts in his mind, or perhaps, having resolved his own doubts, he wished to clear up the doubts of others. In any event, he placed his fourteen volumes of commentary before the object of devotion in the temple where he resided and made this appeal in prayer: “Though I have written these works, the Buddha’s intention is very difficult to determine. Are the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the other two True Word sutras associated with it superior? Or are the Lotus Sutra and the two sutras⁴² associated with it to be ranked higher?”

While he was earnestly praying in this manner, on the fifth day, early in the morning at the time of the fifth watch,⁴³ a sign suddenly came to him in a dream. He dreamed that the sun was up in the blue sky, and that he took an arrow and shot at it. The arrow flew up into the sky and struck the sun. The sun began to roll over and over, and when it had almost fallen to the earth, Jikaku woke from his dream.

Delighted, he said, “I have had a very auspicious dream. These writings, in which I have declared that the True Word sutras are superior to the Lotus, accord with the Buddha’s will!” He then requested that an imperial edict be issued to this effect, and he disseminated his teaching throughout the country of Japan.

But the edict that was handed down as a result of this request says in effect, “It has at last become known that the concentration and insight doctrines of the Tendai school and the doctrines of the True Word school are in principle in perfect agreement.” Jikaku had prayed to confirm that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra, but the edict that was issued says that the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra are the same!

 

Notes

40. Along with the two priests mentioned in the text, Tsung-jui, Ch’üan-ya, I-chen, Pao-yüeh, K’an, and Wei-chin.

41. Chih-yüan (768–844) was a T’ien-t’ai priest who lived at Hua-yen-ssu temple on Mount Wu-t’ai. Kuang-hsiu (771–843) was the eighth patriarch in the T’ien-t’ai lineage, counting from T’ien-t’ai. He was also a disciple of Tao-sui, who taught the T’ien-t’ai doctrine to Dengyō. Wei-chüan was a leading disciple of Kuang-hsiu.

42. The two sutras refer to the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra and the Universal Worthy Sutra, which are regarded as the introduction and the epilogue to the Lotus Sutra. These two sutras and the Lotus itself are sometimes referred to collectively as the threefold Lotus Sutra.

43. Fifth watch: The hour of the tiger (3:00–5:00 a.m.).

 

Lecture

This chapter clarifies the propagation carried out by Jikaku and refutes his slander of the Law.

Jikaku composed a fourteen-volume commentary and claimed as proof that it accorded with the Buddha’s intent that, in a dream, he shot an arrow at the sun, the arrow struck the sun, and the sun was shaken. To assert that such a dream—an unmistakably ominous dream—accords with the Buddha’s intent is utterly beyond reason. It must also be said to be thoroughly unscientific.

Accordingly, The Selection of the Time states: “And yet there is something that is more evil than these three teachings, so evil that it is a hundred, thousand, ten thousand, million times more difficult to believe. ” (WND1, p.569). Here, Nichiren Daishonin reproaches Jikaku for the fact that, although he was the third chief priest of the Tendai school, he asserted that Shingon surpasses the Lotus Sutra and thereby became a cause for the ruin of the nation of Japan. Both Jikaku and Chishō were originally priests of the Tendai school and disciples or grand-disciples of Dengyō Daishi. As such, they were in a position to uphold their teacher’s correct teaching and to exalt it widely, and, should those of distorted wisdom and erroneous views appear after their teacher’s passing, to struggle without begrudging their lives to refute them.

Nevertheless, they immersed themselves in the study of Shingon and ultimately fell into Kōbō’s outrageous erroneous doctrine that the Lotus Sutra is inferior and Shingon superior. If they had originally been disciples of Kōbō and merely inherited their teacher’s errors, one might argue that even falling into the same hell would be unavoidable. But to descend into erroneous doctrines and views while occupying the highest position in the Buddhist world as chief priests of Tendai fully warrants being condemned as having committed “the greatest evil, hundreds of millions of times more difficult to believe.”

In the principles of religious criticism, there are documentary proof, theoretical proof, and actual proof. Even the most immature person could never claim, either by reason or by actual evidence in daily life, that shooting down the sun and calling it an auspicious dream makes any sense. Such a claim can only be described as madness.

Indeed, Jikaku’s erroneous view of “identity in principle but superiority in practice” is beyond redemption. Nichiren Daishonin even states in the Dialogues for Quick Victory, “Point out that it is because of assertions of this nature that the Great Teacher Jikaku condemned himself to the hell of incessant suffering.” (WND2, p.403).

Jikaku’s personal name was Ennin. He was from Tsuga District in Shimotsuke Province. At the age of fifteen, he became a disciple of Dengyō Daishi, later received the Perfect and Immediate Precepts at Shikan-in, and in 838, by imperial command, traveled to Tang China. After years devoted to study and practice, he returned to Japan in September 843. His Diary and Record of a Pilgrimage to Tang China are well known, and their meticulous detail makes them invaluable historical records of Tang-dynasty China. Nevertheless, after being appointed chief priest of Enryaku-ji, he fell into Shingon teachings. No matter how much a person is respected in society or how many records he leaves behind, if he commits grave errors and serious slander of the Law in Buddhism, he can only be called an enemy of the Buddha. This applies equally to Kōbō, Chishō, and all other false teachers.

As it turned out, the ends of Kōbō and Jikaku alike were extremely unfortunate. In The Teaching, Practice, and Proof, Nichiren Daishonin states: “Nothing is more certain than actual proof. Look at the sudden death of Shan-wu-wei and the unexpected disaster that beset I-hsing, or how Kōbō and Jikaku died. Could they have met such horrible fates if they were actually votaries of the correct teaching? How do you read the Meditation on the Buddha’s Ocean-like Characteristics Sutra and other sutras, or Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna’s treatise that describes the state of death? The Meditation Master I-hsing incorporated Shan-wu-wei’s deceptions into his explanation of the Mahāvairochana Sutra. Kōbō denounced the Lotus Sutra as a doctrine of childish theory. Jikaku contended that the Mahāvairochana Sutra was equal to the Lotus Sutra in terms of principle, but superior in terms of practice. T’an-luan and Tao-ch’o proclaimed that the Nembutsu alone suits the people’s capacity in the Latter Day. Such views are commonplace in the false teachings of schools founded on provisional sutras. No one would wish to die as these people did. ” (WND1, p. 478).

It is said that Jikaku’s remains are now at Risshaku-ji (Yamadera) in Yamagata Prefecture, but that his head and body are separated, suggesting a very unfortunate death. Kōbō, likewise, is said to have suffered from malignant sores before his death and to have secluded himself under the pretense of entering meditation, refusing to meet anyone. Because clear records existed even seven hundred years ago, Nichiren Daishonin made these statements. How should we take the golden words, “Therefore I should first of all learn about death, and then about other things.” (The Importance of the Moment of Death, WND2, p.759).

---

Contemporary Views of Buddhism

In general society, figures such as Kōbō, Jikaku, and Ninshō Ryōkan tend to be evaluated not in terms of whether their teachings were correct Buddhism or whether they truly brought happiness to the people, but rather on superficial appearances and formalities. Especially today, people’s views of Buddhism are increasingly drifting away from its true essence—a trend that must be strongly cautioned against.

For example, many people today think that Buddhism is “a religion of passive resignation,” “a religion of reliance on other power like the nembutsu,” “a teaching about sitting in meditation,” or that “all Buddhism is the same.” Some even believe that “a Buddha is a dead person,” or that “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and Namu Amida Butsu are the same.” Such views are extremely shallow and mistaken.

As a result, people belittle Buddhism, lose interest in it, and turn instead to inferior religions and philosophies such as Christianity or Western philosophy. This is largely the fault of long-degenerated established Buddhism—funeral Buddhism and grave-tending Buddhism. True Buddhism, however, is a great philosophy of life that can confidently lead and guide all religions and philosophies of the world.

In Buddhism, terms such as “perceiving the truth,” “renunciation,” or “the Three Truths” do not mean passive resignation or giving up, as they are commonly understood today. Rather, they mean thoroughly clarifying the principles of reality. From this arise the doctrines of the Three Truths of emptiness, provisional existence, and the Middle Way, and the perfect fusion of the Three Truths—truly revolutionary philosophical systems far beyond the reach of Western philosophy.

Teachings described as “other-power faith like the nembutsu” or “self-power faith like Zen” were already determined by Shakyamuni Buddha three thousand years ago to be provisional expedient teachings that should be discarded. True Buddhism is none other than the Lotus Sutra in Shakyamuni’s lifetime, the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra and the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life in the Former and Middle Days of the Law, and in modern times, the teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo of the Three Great Secret Laws revealed by Nichiren Daishonin. From the perspective of Buddhist history, this should be clearly understood. Buddhism has classifications such as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings and the Five Guidelines; it is never the case that “all Buddhism is the same.” There are clear distinctions of superiority and inferiority, correctness and error.

Furthermore, the notion that “a Buddha is a dead person” arose around the Edo period, when Buddhist thought had degenerated. A true Buddha refers to a great sage such as Shakyamuni in India or Nichiren Daishonin in Japan—one who has attained a state of absolute happiness and who works to save all people without exception. Buddhism teaches that through the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, by believing in and practicing with the true object of devotion, anyone can achieve human revolution and attain a life state of absolute happiness. Therefore, those who believe in correct Buddhism become Buddhas, while those who believe in erroneous teachings and reject the correct Law suffer in this life and cannot become Buddhas even after death.

Only familiar examples have been cited here, but it is no exaggeration to say that modern people are filled with misconceptions about true Buddhism. From the bottom of my heart, I fervently hope that people of conscience will soon seek the essence of Eastern Buddhism—the world’s greatest philosophy—and thereby achieve great human revolution in their own lives and bring about genuine prosperity in society.

 

 

Chapter15(The Great Teacher Chisho’s Fall into the Mahāvairochana Sutra)

Main Text

The Great Teacher Chishō in his youth in Japan was a disciple of the Reverend Gishin, the Great Teacher Enchō, the superintendent [Kōjō], and Jikaku. Thus he received instruction in both the exoteric and esoteric doctrines as they were taught in Japan at the time. But presumably because he was in doubt as to the relative superiority of the Tendai and True Word schools, he journeyed to China. He arrived in T’ang China in the second year of Ninju (852),⁴⁴ where he studied under the True Word priests Fa-ch’üan and Yüan-cheng. In general, their teachings accorded with the view held by Jikaku, namely that the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra are equal in terms of principle, but that the former is superior in terms of practice.

Chishō also studied under the Reverend Liang-hsü of the T’ien-t’ai school, who taught him that, with regard to the relative merit of the True Word and T’ien-t’ai schools, the Mahāvairochana Sutra of the True Word school cannot compare with the Flower Garland and Lotus sutras.

After spending seven years in China, Chishō returned to Japan on the seventeenth day of the fifth month in the first year of Jōgan (859).⁴⁵

In his Essentials of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, Chishō states, “Even the Lotus Sutra cannot compare [to the Mahāvairochana Sutra], much less the other doctrines.” In this work, therefore, he argues that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra. On the other hand, in another work A Collection of Orally Transmitted Teachings, he states that the True Word, Zen, and other doctrines, when compared with the Flower Garland, Lotus, and Nirvana sutras, can at best serve as an introduction to these sutras. And he repeats this same view in his Commentary on the Universal Worthy Sutra and Commentary on “The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra.”

On the twenty-ninth day, the day of the cyclical sign mizunoe-saru, of the fourth month of the eighth year of Jōgan (866), the year hinoe-inu, an imperial edict was handed down that stated, “We have heard that the two schools, True Word and Tendai, and their teachings are both worthy to be called the ghee of Buddhism, and to be described as profound and recondite.”

Again, on the third day of the sixth month, an edict proclaimed, “Ever since the great teacher in former times [Dengyō] established the two disciplines⁴⁶ as the proper way for the Tendai school, the successive heads of the school in generation after generation have all followed this practice and transmitted both types of doctrines. Why then should their successors in later times depart from this old and established tradition?

“And yet we hear that the priests of Mount Hiei do nothing but turn against the teachings of the patriarch and instead follow the prejudices and inclinations of their own hearts. It would appear that they give themselves almost entirely to promulgating the doctrines of other schools and make no attempt to restore the old disciplines of the Tendai school.

“On the path inherited from the master, one cannot neglect either the concentration and insight or the True Word teachings. In diligently transmitting and spreading the doctrine, must not one be proficient in both types of teachings? From now on, only a person who is thoroughly familiar with both teachings shall be appointed as head of the Tendai school at Enryaku-ji, and this shall become a regular practice for future times.”

 

Notes

44. The third year of Ninju (853) is generally accepted as the date of Chishō’s journey to China.

45. The sixth month of the second year of Ten’an (858) is the generally accepted date.

46. The Tendai “concentration and insight” and the Mahāvairochana practices.

 

Lecture

Chisho’s Propagation of the Teachings

Next, this chapter discusses the propagation of Buddhism by Chisho. Chisho’s given name was Enchin; he later restored Mii-dera Temple, which is also known as Onjo-ji. Like Jikaku, Chisho spread the erroneous doctrine of “theoretical equality but practical superiority” (referring to the idea that the Lotus Sutra and Esoteric teachings are equal in principle, but Esoteric practices are superior).

The Enryaku-ji Temple on Mount Hiei, which regards Jikaku as its founder, and Onjo-ji Temple, which regards Chisho as its founder, later came to oppose each other like cats and dogs. Their conflict left a major stain on both Japanese history and the history of Buddhism. For approximately one thousand years, Mount Hiei and Mii-dera brought misfortune to the Japanese people. Today, they are nothing more than pathetic historical ruins that serve as tourist attractions. One can only imagine how deeply the Great Teacher Dengyo, the original teacher, must be grieving.

Like Dengyo and Jikaku before him, Chisho traveled to Tang China to clarify the truth or falsehood of the Buddhist Law. During the Middle Day of the Law, when Buddhism was spreading eastward (buspo tozen), Buddhist practitioners of the time desired to cross to the continent at least once to study the entire body of sutras and master their profound depths. This is much like how students today go to study in Europe or America. Doing so was considered a necessary qualification, both socially and for those serving the government. However, today, Buddhism has already perished in India—the birthplace of Buddhism—as well as in various regions of China, which once flourished as the center of Buddhism and welcomed many Japanese students.

We are now in the era of the westward transmission of Buddhism (buspo seizen). The True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law appeared in this country of Japan and established the Three Great Secret Laws. Through these, the attainment of Buddhahood in one’s current form (sokushin jobutsu) is made possible for all living beings.

 

---

The Contradictions of Chisho

This chapter highlights the contradictions in Chisho’s teachings:

1. In his Dainichi-kyo Shiki (Guide to the Mahavairocana Sutra): He states that the Mantra (Esoteric) teachings are superior, and since even the Lotus Sutra cannot equal them, other sutras are out of the question.

2. In his Juketsu-shu (Collection of Received Decisions): He states that the Lotus Sutra is superior, and that the Mantra teachings are merely a “means of induction” (setsuin-mon).

3. Regarding the Imperial Decree: He cites an Imperial Decree to claim that the Mantra teachings and the Lotus Sutra are equal.

The reason an Imperial Decree is cited to demonstrate Chisho’s contradiction is that the decree was issued based exactly on the meanings and arguments presented by Chisho himself. Therefore, citing the decree is equivalent to citing Chisho’s own inconsistent positions.