On the Relative Superiority of the Lotus Sutra and the True Word Teachings

Main Text

Men such as Jikaku and Chishō, however, were direct heirs of the doctrines taught by T’ien-t’ai, and yet they supported the view that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra. If that was indeed their view, did they too have tongues that festered and will they suffer for many long kalpas to come?

On the Relative Superiority of the Lotus Sutra and the True Word Teachings

Background

KŪKAI, or the Great Teacher Kōbō, of Tō-ji temple stated his opinion that the Lotus Sutra was inferior even to the Flower Garland Sutra, so how much more inferior was it in comparison with the Mahāvairochana Sutra.

Ennin, or the Great Teacher Jikaku; Enchin, or the Great Teacher Chishō; the Reverend Annen, and others stated that the principles put forth in the Lotus Sutra were the same as those of the Mahāvairochana Sutra, but that the former was inferior to the latter in matters pertaining to mudras and mantras. (I have cited their statements in other writings.)

Kūkai, basing himself on the Mahāvairochana Sutra and The Treatise on the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment, postulated ten stages of the mind by which he attempted to determine the relative worth of the exoteric and esoteric teachings. Among these, he stated that the sixth stage, the “Mahayana mind with sympathetic concern for others,” corresponded to the Dharma Characteristics school; the seventh stage, the “mind that realizes that the mind is unborn,” to the Three Treatises school; the eighth stage, the “mind that understands the one way as it truly is,” to the Tendai school; the ninth stage, the “profoundest mind that is aware of the absence of self-nature,” to the Flower Garland school; and the tenth stage, the “solemn mind, the most secret and sacred,” to the True Word school.

This way of ranking the schools, he said, proceeds from the shallower teachings to those of increasing profundity. The textual evidence to support it is drawn from the “Stage of the Mind” chapter of the Mahāvairochana Sutra and Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment.

If we turn to the text of the “Stage of the Mind” chapter, however, we find that, although the chapter contains the names “Mahayana mind with sympathetic concern for others,” “mind that realizes that the mind is unborn,” and “profoundest mind that is aware of the absence of self-nature,” it is nowhere stated that these three designations refer to the Dharma Characteristics, Three Treatises, and Flower Garland schools respectively.

Moreover, between the designations “mind that realizes that the mind is unborn” and “profoundest mind that is aware of the absence of self-nature,” we do not find any passages or doctrine that would correspond to the designation “mind that understands the one way as it truly is.”

To be sure, at the beginning of the “Stage of the Mind” chapter we find the words “What is the meaning of enlightenment? It means to understand one’s own mind as it truly is.” Kūkai has taken this passage and has placed it between the designations for the seventh and ninth stages, and declared that it corresponds to the teachings of the Tendai school.1 He then asserts that, as a result, the Tendai teachings are inferior to those of the Flower Garland school. But in the “Stage of the Mind” chapter there is not a single passage or doctrine that has that meaning. In some cases, there are both words and doctrine to support one’s assertions, and in other cases, no exact words but pregnant doctrine2; but in this case there are neither words nor doctrine, and so we can put no trust in such an assertion.

—————————————-～（中略）～————————————————-

Question: With regard to the seven points you have raised, there are objections that might be set forth, but I will leave aside the first six points. However, I have a question regarding the seventh. Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school and I-hsing of the True Word school both subscribe to the doctrine of evil inherent in the nature of a Buddha. How then can you say there is no such doctrine in the teachings of these schools?

Answer: It would appear that Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school and I-hsing of the True Word school stole this doctrine that had been expounded by T’ien-t’ai and made it a part of the teachings of their own schools. But I have dealt with this matter elsewhere.

Question: Volume three of the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai’s Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra states: “The Lotus Sutra constitutes a summation of all the other sutras. . . . [If one persists in viewing it with contempt, then] that person’s tongue will fester in his mouth. One must not allow personal feelings to lead one into persistence in such a grave error.”

And volume three of The Annotations on “The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra” states: “If, failing to understand that the Lotus Sutra expounds the ultimate truth, one claims that the Lotus Sutra speaks only on the phenomenal level in prophesying Buddhahood for the voice-hearer disciples, and hence cannot match the unobstructed mutual fusing and penetrating conveyed in the Flower Garland and Wisdom sutras; and if one persists in such a view even after one has been admonished for doing so, then without doubt that person’s tongue will fester in his mouth . . . Concerning the sutra passage that states that this wonderful sutra surpasses all those of past, present, and future, such a person persists in going astray. His tongue will fester unceasingly as an omen of what awaits him in the future. For the offense of slandering the Law, he will suffer for many long kalpas to come.”

If what T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo say in their commentaries is true, then the followers of the three schools in the south of China and the seven schools in the north, along with those of the Flower Garland school, the Dharma Characteristics school, the Three Treatises school, and men such as Kōbō of Tō-ji temple—all these must without doubt have had their tongues fester, and must be suffering for long kalpas to come, must they not? But I will say no more of them.

Men such as Jikaku and Chishō, however, were direct heirs of the doctrines taught by T’ien-t’ai, and yet they supported the view that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Mahāvairochana Sutra. If that was indeed their view, did they too have tongues that festered and will they suffer for many long kalpas to come?

Answer: This is the most serious objection that can be raised in regard to the doctrine. It is dealt with in the oral traditions.

 

Nichiren

 

This was written on the twenty-ninth day of the seventh month in the first year of the Bun’ei era [1264], cyclical sign kinoe-ne

Background

This work was written on the twenty-ninth day of the seventh month in 1264, when Nichiren Daishonin was residing in Kamakura. It clarifies the relative superiority of the Lotus Sutra and the True Word teachings. In Japan at the time there were two main streams of the True Word teachings, also called esoteric Buddhism. One was that of the True Word school, founded by Kūkai (774–835; also known as the Great Teacher Kōbō) and centered at Tō-ji temple in Kyoto. The other was the esoteric, or True Word, tradition that existed within the Tendai school centered at Enryaku-ji temple on Mount Hiei overlooking Kyoto. Jikaku (794–864) and Chishō (814–891), the third and fifth chief priests of the school, opened the way for this tradition.

The Daishonin methodically examines and refutes the assertions of these men and others that rank the True Word teachings and the sutras they are founded on as being superior to the Lotus Sutra. In particular, he focuses on the True Word tradition of the Tendai school, a school originally based on the teachings of T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo in China and Dengyō in Japan.

He begins by stating the positions of the two main streams of the True Word teachings and then points out their errors. First, Kūkai, or Kōbō, of the True Word school associated various Buddhist schools respectively with ten stages of the mind, ranking the Mahāvairochana Sutra in first place, the Flower Garland Sutra second, and the Lotus Sutra third. These are the basic sutras respectively of the True Word, Flower Garland, and Tendai schools. The Daishonin points out that this conclusion lacks scriptural evidence and doctrinal principles.

Next, he mentions the view of Tendai Esotericism that the Lotus Sutra ranks equal to the Mahāvairochana Sutra in terms of principle, but is inferior to it in terms of practice. Equal in principle means that both the Lotus Sutra and the Mahāvairochana Sutra contain the same principles, such as the three thousand realms in a single moment of life, the attainment of Buddhahood by persons of the two vehicles, and the Buddha’s original enlightenment, that are uniquely superior among Buddhist teachings. Superior in practice means that the Mahāvairochana Sutra contains descriptions of mudras (mystic hand gestures) and mantras (mystic incantations), but the Lotus Sutra does not. Because Tendai Esotericism held these practices to be superior in nature, they regarded the Mahāvairochana Sutra as superior to the Lotus Sutra.

The Daishonin assails this position first by questioning whether the Mahāvairochana Sutra is in fact equal in principle to the Lotus Sutra. Tendai Esotericism maintains that the Mahāvairochana Sutra contains principles that are also found in the Lotus Sutra, but the Daishonin makes clear that this in fact is not the case. In the Mahāvairochana Sutra, for example, a concept of the eternal Dharma body is put forth, but not the eternity of all three bodies. And Shakyamuni Buddha is still regarded as having attained enlightenment for the first time under the bodhi tree in India. It does not reveal or recognize Shakyamuni Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment in the remote past as the Lotus Sutra does. Thus the Mahāvairochana Sutra cannot match the Lotus Sutra in terms of principle.

Then he questions whether the inclusion of mudras and mantras in the Mahāvairochana Sutra in fact makes it superior in practice. These mystic words and hand gestures are of no consequence compared to the profound principle inherent in the Lotus Sutra that enables all people to attain Buddhahood, he asserts. And once one attains Buddhahood, of what need are such spells and gestures?

In closing, to counter the conclusion that the Lotus Sutra is foremost among all the sutras Shakyamuni expounded, the True Word teachers argue that the Mahāvairochana Sutra was expounded by the Buddha Mahāvairochana. The Daishonin refutes this argument from seven viewpoints.

In this work the Daishonin avoids quoting in detail various True Word texts and commentaries, but summarizes their positions, saying, “I have cited their statements in other writings.”

Back to Top

Notes

1. “To understand one’s own mind as it truly is” is another designation for “mind that is truly in harmony with the one way.”

2. This is the principle that, though the sutra text has no exact words for a doctrine, a person of wisdom can find the doctrine inherent in the sutra. For example, the Lotus Sutra has no words for the doctrine of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, but T’ien-t’ai found it in the sutra.

Home
Copied title and URL