On the Protection of the Nation

Main Text

Grieved by this situation, I have written a work in one volume entitled On the Protection of the Nation in which I have attempted to clarify the cause and origin of these slanders of the Law found in Nembutsu Chosen above All. I hope that all persons, whether they belong to the clergy or the laity, will take time off from worldly affairs to heed what I have said and thereby plant good roots that will affect their future for endless kalpas to come. 

On the Protection of the Nation

 

Background

WHEN we stop to consider, there can be no doubt that, among the beings in the three evil paths of existence, numerous as the dust particles in the worlds of the ten directions, there are at times a few, few as the particles of dust that can be placed on a fingernail, who happen to escape from the evil realms and to be born in the land of Japan in the continent of Jambudvīpa. And there are others who abandon their existence in the land of the rising sun in the continent of Jambudvīpa, where they were as few as the particles that can be placed on a fingernail, and take on an existence in the three evil realms, where beings are as numerous as the dust particles in the worlds of the ten directions.

But the cause that impels them to leave life as a human being and to sink down into the evil realms is not always the same in all cases. Some do so because of their pity and fondness for their wives and children or their other household members;1 some because of the grave karma they have created by killing living beings or committing other evil deeds; some because, having become rulers of a nation, they fail to heed or understand the afflictions of the populace; some because they do not distinguish between the correct doctrine and one that is erroneous; and some because they put their trust in evil teachers.

Among these various causes, those that pertain to the rights and wrongs of everyday behavior are readily apparent, and even a foolish person can judge what is proper conduct. But when it comes to determining what is correct or incorrect in matters of Buddhist doctrine or distinguishing between good teachers and evil ones, even a sage who has gained enlightenment as a result of extended religious practice will be at a loss, and how much more so an ordinary person in this latter age!

Moreover, since the Buddha, like the sun, has sunk from sight beyond the western hills, leaving his last rays to shine upon those of us in the eastern regions, the torch of wisdom held up for us by the four ranks of sages has grown daily dimmer, and the doctrinal teachings of the Tripitaka masters have become more corrupt with each passing month. Scholars, confused in their understanding of the true teaching, interpose themselves like clouds before the moon of Truth, and translators of sacred scriptures who are dedicated to the provisional sutras smash to pieces the jewels of the true sutras and reduce them to the rubble of provisional sutras.

Furthermore, there can hardly fail to be errors in the doctrinal principles expounded by the Buddhist teachers of the various schools of China, and it is even more likely that, among the latter-day scholars in this far-off land of Japan, mistakes are manifold and the truth seldom to be found. As a result of all this, though the persons who devote themselves to the study of the teachings are more numerous than the scales of a dragon, those who truly attain the way are rarer than the horn of a ch’i-lin.

Some persons err because they rely upon the provisional teachings, some because they rely on teachings that do not accord with the time or the capacities of the persons addressed. Some go astray because they fail to distinguish between the teachings of sages and those of mere ordinary mortals, some because they fail to distinguish between the provisional teachings and the true teaching, some because they mistake provisional teachings for the true teaching, and some because they do not understand the level of the persons to whom the teachings are directed. Thus these various types of persons in their capacity as ordinary mortals seek the Buddhist teachings but instead only increase the karma that will keep them bound to the sufferings of birth and death, but the exact cause in each case is not necessarily the same.

Some years ago there appeared an eminent priest of erroneous wisdom who, for the sake of the ignorant people of this latter age, cast aside all the doctrinal principles and wrote a work entitled The Nembutsu Chosen above All. Borrowing ideas from three earlier teachers, T’an-luan, Tao-ch’o, and Shan-tao, he divided all the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime into two categories,2 took note of the true sutras but classified them with the provisional sutras, closed the direct road to enlightenment propounded by the Lotus Sutra and the True Word teachings and instead opened up the narrow path indicated in the three Pure Land sutras.

Moreover, he did not abide by the principles laid down in the three Pure Land sutras, but committed slander of the Law by turning against both the provisional and the true sutras; he cut off for all time the seeds that lead to the four noble worlds of voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas, and set forth erroneous views that could only condemn him to fall into the depths of the Avīchi hell. And yet the people of the time bowed before his pronouncements like the branches of little trees blown by a great wind, and his disciples looked up to him with awe as though he were the god Shakra of the heavenly realm.

Many writings appeared that attempted to refute these evil doctrines, such as On Resolving Doubts regarding the Pure Land, A Refutation of “The Nembutsu Chosen above All,” or A Refutation of Erroneous Doctrines. Although the authors of such works were all men of eminent virtue whose names were known throughout the land, they have not, I fear, as yet succeeded in making clear the roots from which spring these slanders of the Law set forth in Nembutsu Chosen above All, and as a result its evil teachings flourish even more than before. The effect of such writings is like a little rain falling in a time of prolonged drought, which only makes the plants and trees more parched than before, or like dispatching one’s weakest forces to lead the attack on a powerful opponent, which only makes the enemy more confident than ever.

Grieved by this situation, I have written a work in one volume entitled On the Protection of the Nation in which I have attempted to clarify the cause and origin of these slanders of the Law found in Nembutsu Chosen above All. I hope that all persons, whether they belong to the clergy or the laity, will take time off from worldly affairs to heed what I have said and thereby plant good roots that will affect their future for endless kalpas to come. I have relied solely on the sutras and treatises in determining what is correct and what erroneous, and on the pronouncements of the Buddha in making clear what is trustworthy and what is slanderous. I have not ventured to put forth any private theories of my own.

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

When the other party replies with the name of the sutra, then ask him this question: “Among the various sutras expounded by the Buddha during the fifty years of his preaching life, was this sutra preached before the Lotus Sutra, or after it, or at the same time, or is it uncertain whether it came before or after?”

If the person replies that it was preached previous to the Lotus Sutra, then confront him with the passage “But in these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth” and base your attack on that, but do not try to go into the question of what doctrines are preached in that particular sutra.

If he replies that it was preached after the Lotus Sutra, then use the passage on “the sutras I will preach” to attack him. If he says it was preached at the same time, then confront him with the part about “the sutras I now preach.”

If he says that the date of the sutra is uncertain, then point out to him that such sutras of uncertain date are not to be counted among the major works of the canon but were preached simply for one particular time or one particular occasion and are not texts of real importance. Moreover, even if they are of uncertain date, they must be included in one or another of the three categories of sutras preached in the past, at present, or in the future. Although a work may set forth a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand doctrines, unless it is among those that are not invalidated by the statement “In these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth,” then it is not to be relied upon. This is because the Buddha himself has left instructions that we are “not to rely on sutras that are not complete and final.”

Your opponent may quote from Chih-yen, Chia-hsiang, Tz’u-en, Shan-tao, or others, praising the virtue of these men and basing his criticisms on their writings. But you should reply that if such teachers go against the pronouncements of the Lotus and Nirvana sutras, they are not to be heeded. This is because the Buddha has left us these golden words “Rely on the Law and not upon persons.”

For ordinary uninformed persons who wish to take faith in the Lotus Sutra, there are two types of believing mind that they may acquire. One, they may base their faith on a Buddha. Or, two, they may base their faith on a sutra.

If they base their faith on a Buddha, then the scholars of the provisional schools will criticize them, saying: “The Reverend Shan-tao was a teacher who attained enlightenment through meditation, a reincarnation of the Buddha Amida. The Great Teacher Tz’u-en was a reincarnation of the Eleven-faced Perceiver of the World’s Sounds, and relics of the Buddha rained from the tip of his writing brush. These men both based themselves on one or another sutra and both thereby attained enlightenment. Why then do you not base yourself on the sutras they upheld? And why will you not heed the doctrines of these teachers?”

One should reply in these words: “Listen to me! Even if all the great teachers and eminent predecessors of the provisional schools, along with Shāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Universal Worthy, Manjushrī, Perceiver of the World’s Sounds, and even the Thus Come Ones Amida, Medicine Master, and Shakyamuni, should gather together before us and the other people of the ten directions and say, ‘The Lotus Sutra is not suitable for your capacities. You should carry out the Nembutsu and the other practices of the provisional sutras and seek rebirth in the Pure Land, and after that you can come to understand the Lotus Sutra!’—even if they should preach to us in this manner, we would never heed or obey them. The reason is that nowhere in the sutras expounded in the first forty and more years of the Buddha’s preaching life is so much as the title of the Lotus Sutra ever mentioned. And where in those sutras is there any discussion of whether or not such a sutra is fitted for our capacities?

“In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni, Many Treasures, and the Buddhas of the ten directions gathered in one place and declared themselves in favor of the Lotus, saying they would ‘make certain the Law will long endure,’ and, ‘After the Thus Come One has entered extinction, I will cause it to be widely propagated throughout Jambudvīpa and will see that it never comes to an end.’

“If now some other Buddha should appear and declare that the Lotus Sutra is not suitable for persons in this latter age of ours, he would obviously be contradicting the sutra itself. We know, therefore, that he would be the sort of ‘devil Buddha’96 that the Nirvana Sutra has predicted will appear after the Buddha has entered extinction and hence not worthy to be trusted. And, needless to say, the same applies of course to the sort of bodhisattvas, voice-hearer disciples, and monks previously mentioned. These would without doubt be devils appearing in the form of bodhisattvas, and so forth, just as the Nirvana Sutra predicted they will after the Buddha has passed into extinction.

“This is because, when the assembly of the Lotus Sutra took place, it embraced not only this major world system, but four hundred ten thousand million asamkhyas of other worlds as well. And the various bodhisattvas, persons of the two vehicles, human and heavenly beings, and eight kinds of nonhuman beings all received the command of the Thus Come One, and each one vowed to propagate the Lotus Sutra in the land where he or she resided.

“If Shan-tao and the others are reincarnations of Buddhas or bodhisattvas, then why do they not, like Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu, first propagate the provisional teachings and after that propagate the Lotus Sutra? Are they not included among those who were commanded to do so by the Lotus Sutra? Why do they not, like the Buddha himself, first propagate the provisional teachings and after that propagate the Lotus Sutra?

“If anyone preaches doctrines other than these, then even though he may be a Buddha, he is not to be trusted.”

Thus one puts one’s faith in the Buddha who appears in the Lotus Sutra. Hence this is what I mean when I speak of basing one’s faith on a Buddha.

Question: If it is true, as the Thus Come One Shakyamuni states, that the other Buddhas testified to the truth of the Lotus Sutra, then should we not put faith in the Amida Sutra [which contains a similar passage]?

Answer: The Amida Sutra does not have any testimony to its truth such as is found in the Lotus Sutra, and therefore one should not put faith in it.

Question: If we examine the Amida Sutra, it states that, when the Thus Come One Shakyamuni described the Nembutsu to be carried out over a period of one to seven days, the Buddhas of the six directions extended their tongues to cover the major world system as a testimony to its truth. How then can you say that there is no testimony to its truth?

Answer: In the Amida Sutra there is no testimony to the truth of the sutra such as that found in the Lotus Sutra. A single Buddha, Shakyamuni, preaches to Shāriputra, saying, “It is not I alone who expound this Amida Sutra. The Buddhas of the six directions extend their tongues to cover the major world system, preaching the Amida Sutra.” This is simply a pronouncement made by a single Buddha, Shakyamuni. But it does not go so far as to say that these Buddhas have come to take part in the assembly.

In these texts of the provisional teachings, the Buddha is the lord of teachings of the first forty and more years, a Buddha who has attained enlightenment for the first time in this life, the enlightenment of a provisional Buddha. Because he is a provisional Buddha, the doctrines he sets forth are likewise provisional in nature. Therefore one must not put faith in the preachings of this provisional Buddha of the first forty and more years.

The Lotus and Nirvana sutras, on the other hand, represent the true pronouncements of the Buddha of the perfect teaching, who attained enlightenment in the inconceivably remote past. They are true words that describe the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds. Moreover, Many Treasures and the Buddhas of the ten directions came to the assembly to testify to their truth. Therefore we should have faith in them.

The pronouncements of the Amida Sutra were completely nullified by the statement in the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra that “I have not yet revealed the truth.” They are in their entirety the words of one single Buddha, Shakyamuni, and the other Buddhas never testified to their truth.

Second, as I have said, one may base one’s faith on a sutra.

The Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, referring to the sutras preached in the preceding forty and more years, says, “I have not yet revealed the truth.”

The Nirvana Sutra states: “Though the Thus Come One does not speak untruths, if I knew that by speaking falsely I could help living beings gain the benefits of the Law, then for their sake I would go along with what is best and speak such words as an expedient means.”

And the same sutra says: “Rely on sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final.”

There is more than one such passage, and they all indicate that the sutras preached by the Buddha in the first forty and more years may be termed untrue, an expedient means, works that are not complete and final, expositions of the devil. These passages are all intended to lead people to cast aside such sutras and replace them with the Lotus and Nirvana sutras. What reason could there be to continue to rely on sutras made up of false words, to carry out the practices they recommend, and to expect thereby to attain the way? So all those who cling to the provisional teachings should now cast them aside and put their faith entirely in the true sutras. This is what it means to base one’s faith on a sutra.

Question: The Reverend Shan-tao likewise declares that we should put our faith in a certain person and put our faith in a certain practice. How is this different from what you are saying?

Answer: He calls on people to base their faith on the Amida Sutra and the other works that make up the three Pure Land sutras. But in doing so, he fails to understand which of the sutras preached in the Buddha’s lifetime are complete and final and which are not complete and final. Therefore, if we examine his pronouncements critically in the light of the doctrines set forth in the Lotus and Nirvana sutras, we find that they are utterly discredited.

On the Protection of the Nation

Back to Top

Background

It is generally believed that Nichiren Daishonin wrote On the Protection of the Nation in 1259, the year before he submitted On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land to Hōjō Tokiyori, the de facto ruler of Japan. Both works explain from the viewpoint of Buddhism the fundamental cause of the great disasters that had plagued the country for the past several years.

In On the Protection of the Nation, the Daishonin writes, “At the present time, numerous prayers are offered for the peace and safety of the nation. And yet in the first year of the Shōka era [1257] there was a severe earthquake, and in the second year of the same era, torrential rains and violent winds occurred and the rice plants failed to ripen. It would appear to me that there is some evil teaching in this country that is bringing about the destruction of the nation.” He regards this “evil teaching” as The Nembutsu Chosen above All, written by Hōnen, the founder of the Pure Land school in Japan. The Daishonin describes the purpose of his own work, saying, “I have attempted to clarify the cause and origin of these slanders of the Law found in Nembutsu Chosen above All.”

As the Daishonin explains, On the Protection of the Nation consists of seven sections.

In the first section, the Daishonin clarifies the distinction made by Shakyamuni Buddha between the provisional and the true teachings. He then points out the error of those who, as Hōnen did, teach a Buddhism that is based upon the provisional teachings. For the purposes of argument, the Daishonin refers to the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra, and the Mahāvairochana and other sutras of the True Word teaching as the “true sutras,” or the sutras of the true teachings. His intention is to focus on the refutation of Nembutsu Chosen above All, which not only is based on provisional sutras, but rejects the true sutras.

In the second section, he raises the issue of which sutra or teaching is the correct teaching for the Latter Day of the Law, reviewing the rise and fall of the various teachings, provisional and true, during the Former, Middle, and Latter Days of the Law.

In the third section, he makes clear why Hōnen’s Nembutsu Chosen above All contradicts the correct teaching of Buddhism. He says it rejects the true teaching and promotes the practice of Nembutsu (recitation of the name of Amida Buddha) based on the three Pure Land sutras that belong to the provisional teachings. For this reason, he declares the work to be a serious slander of the correct teaching.

p.153In the fourth section, he cites sutra passages to show what steps are to be taken in dealing with those who put forth such slanders. The Buddha taught that one must refute doctrines that slander the correct teaching, stating that the Buddha’s disciples are charged with this important duty.

In the fifth section, the Daishonin emphasizes how difficult it is to encounter the true teaching that will lead one to the attainment of Buddhahood, and good friends who will aid one in understanding it. In the Latter Day of the Law, when persons who can serve as good friends are scarce, one should regard the Lotus Sutra itself as a good friend, for it is the direct way to Buddhahood.

In the sixth section, he explains that simply chanting the daimoku, or title, of the Lotus Sutra will enable people to free themselves from the three evil paths of existence. He refutes the “easy-to-practice way” of Nembutsu that Hōnen argues will lead to rebirth in the Pure Land. The Daishonin says Japan is a country whose people have strong connections to the Lotus Sutra, and that the true Pure Land (in contrast to the imaginary one expounded in Nembutsu Chosen above All) is the place where practitioners of the Lotus Sutra dwell.

In the final section, the Daishonin addresses a number of doubts regarding the efficacy of faith in the Lotus Sutra put forth by various Buddhist schools that base themselves upon provisional teachings. Resolving each of these doubts, he closes by admonishing people to take faith in the correct teaching of the Lotus Sutra.

The word “nation” in the title On the Protection of the Nation refers to Japan, which at this time was suffering from a succession of calamities. In the earlier Nara and Heian periods the rulers of Japan patronized Buddhism because they believed it could insure the safety of the nation as a political entity. But the Daishonin uses the term “nation” to refer rather to the people of the country. In his usage, it encompasses the social and natural environments that support the population as a whole. In principle, therefore, it is not limited in meaning to Japan, but applies to the world at large.

The original manuscript of this work was preserved at Kuon-ji temple at Mount Minobu, but was destroyed in a fire in 1875. Today, only copies are extant.

Back to Top

Notes

1. Moved by pity for impoverished relatives, for example, a person may commit theft.

2. The Sacred Way teachings and the Pure Land teachings. See Glossary.

96. A devil who pretends to be a Buddha. The Nirvana Sutra says, “After I have passed into nirvana . . . this devil king Pāpīyas will in time try to destroy the correct teaching of mine. . . . He will change his form into that of an arhat or a Buddha, and will try to destroy the correct teaching of mine.”

Home
Copied title and URL