On the Relative Superiority of the True Word and Tendai Schools

Main Text

In the end, then, we must say that the Great Teacher Kōbō, in regarding the Lotus Sutra as inferior to the Flower Garland Sutra, was departing in a most flagrant manner from the Buddha’s true intention.

On the Relative Superiority of the True Word and Tendai Schools

Background

QUESTION: On what sutras and treatises does the True Word school base its teachings?

Answer: The Mahāvairochana Sutra, the Diamond Crown Sutra, the Susiddhikara Sutra, and The Treatise on the Mind Aspiring for Enlightenment. The True Word school bases itself on these three sutras and one treatise.

Question: Of the Mahāvairochana Sutra and the Lotus Sutra, which is superior?

Answer: In the relative comparison of seven or eight sutras, the Lotus ranks highest, and of the seven or eight, the Mahāvairochana is lowest.

Objection: This is most surprising! From early times to the present, no one has ever maintained that the True Word teachings are inferior to the Lotus Sutra. The Great Teacher Kōbō, when he put forth the doctrine of the ten stages of the mind, accordingly ranked the Lotus Sutra third from the True Word teachings [which he ranked top]. And Kakuban in his commentary declared that the Lotus Sutra is not even worthy to be a sandal-tender for the True Word teachings. Following the opinion of these authorities, the world at large has therefore agreed in regarding the esoteric teachings as superior and the exoteric teachings as inferior. This view of yours that the esoteric teachings rank at the seventh level is strange indeed!

Answer: You may well be startled by this “strange” assertion that the True Word teachings are to be ranked at the seventh level [but I have my reasons for saying so].

Thus, in the “Teacher of the Law” chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha states: “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.” And [in the “Peaceful Practices” chapter] he says: “Among the sutras, it [the Lotus Sutra] holds the highest place.” These passages mean that the Lotus Sutra is superior to all the other sutras. (This is the first reason.)

Next, in the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra, the Buddha states: “Then I preached the twelve divisions of the correct and equal sutras, the teaching of great wisdom, and the Flower Garland teaching of the ocean-imprint meditation.” And the same sutra also states: “Truly it is profound, profound, profound!”

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

The T’ang Period Decisions13 states that, since these sutras contain all the four teachings, they should be classified with the Correct and Equal sutras. Meaning of the Teaching and the Time [by Annen], however, states that, because they expound the “opening up and merging” of the three vehicles, the single flavor of the wisdom of all-penetrating wisdoms, they should therefore be classified with the Lotus Sutra.

Of these two views, that which classifies them with the Correct and Equal sutras is more appropriate. The assertion that, because they deal with the single flavor of the wisdom of all-penetrating wisdoms, they belong with the Lotus Sutra, may therefore be dismissed as wholly unreasonable.

The “opening up and merging” that Annen speaks of is one that pertains to matters of doctrine; it is not in any sense an “opening up and merging” that pertains to the persons who may attain enlightenment. So how could such sutras be classified with the Lotus Sutra? The type of “opening up and merging” that pertains to doctrine is discussed at length in the Correct and Equal sutras and the Wisdom sutras, but that does not mean that such sutras are to be regarded as equal to the Lotus Sutra.

If we examine the Mahāvairochana Sutra from beginning to end, we see that it deals entirely with the four teachings mentioned earlier, and therefore is best classified with the Correct and Equal sutras. Because it does not deal with the doctrine of opening the provisional and revealing the true, it cannot be classified with the Lotus Sutra.

It expounds none of the doctrines found in the Tripitaka teaching of Hinayana sutras, and therefore it cannot be classified with the Āgama sutras. It does not expound true wisdom or the non-substantiality of all things, and hence does not belong with the Wisdom sutras. What it deals with are the four teachings of the Mahayana and Hinayana doctrines, and so where else could it be classified if not with the Correct and Equal sutras?

Moreover, you can hardly claim that the True Word sutras cannot be classified among the teachings set forth by Shakyamuni in the five periods of his preaching life. That would imply that two Buddhas had appeared simultaneously in a single world, which is absurd. Nor is it conceivable that some outside Buddha would come to Shakyamuni’s realm and presume to expound his teachings there.

Finally, with regard to the statement by the Great Teacher Kōbō, who cites On the Mahayana Treatise as his proof, that [the Buddha of] the Lotus Sutra still belongs to “the region of darkness,” and that the Lotus Sutra is a doctrine of “childish theory.” Such an assertion is totally preposterous.

The work known as On the Mahayana Treatise was written by Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, who was a follower of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni. Why would a work by the follower speak disparagingly of the Lotus Sutra, which the teacher declared to be the foremost among all the sutras expounded in the course of his preaching life, and call it a doctrine of “childish theory”?

Moreover, there is in fact no such passage to be found in On the Mahayana Treatise. The teachings set forth in this work deal with the specific teaching, a doctrine expounded in the provisional sutras. This teaching cannot compare with the perfect teaching or with the true teaching, both embodied in the Lotus Sutra. How, then, could such a work be used to disparage the Lotus Sutra?

Furthermore, though this commentary quotes various sutras, it never once quotes the Lotus Sutra. This is because it is concerned only with the provisional teachings.

In the end, then, we must say that the Great Teacher Kōbō, in regarding the Lotus Sutra as inferior to the Flower Garland Sutra, was departing in a most flagrant manner from the Buddha’s true intention. His opinion should never be heeded! It should never be heeded!

Nichiren

Back to Top

Background

This letter consists of a series of five questions and answers, all aimed at refuting the position of the True Word school concerning the relative superiority of the Lotus Sutra and the True Word sutras. Nichiren Daishonin wrote it in Kamakura in 1270. The recipient is unknown. “Tendai school” in the title refers to the doctrines that T’ien-t’ai established based on the Lotus Sutra. The Tendai school in Japan was founded to spread these doctrines in Japan. But because the Tendai school had long since incorporated True Word teachings, the Daishonin is not referring to the doctrinal positions of the Tendai school of his own time.

The Daishonin begins by confirming the basic scriptures of the True Word school and pointing out that, among all the sutras, the Lotus Sutra ranks first, and the Mahāvairochana Sutra seventh or eighth. He assigns the following order to various sutras according to their teachings: First, the Lotus Sutra; second, the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra; third, the Nirvana Sutra; fourth, the Flower Garland Sutra; fifth, the Great Wisdom Sutra; sixth, the Susiddhikara Sutra; and seventh, the Mahāvairochana Sutra. If both the theoretical teaching and essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra are considered, then the essential teaching ranks first, the theoretical teaching second, and one is added to each subsequent ranking, putting the Mahāvairochana Sutra in eighth place.

Next, the Daishonin overturns the assertion of Kōbō, the founder of the True Word school in Japan, that the Lotus Sutra ranks third while the Mahāvairochana Sutra ranks first. He cites five reasons set forth by Annen, a scholar of the Tendai school, as to why Kōbō’s assertion is wrong. These explain how Kōbō’s view goes against the teachings of various sutras and does not accord with the views of various Buddhist teachers. In addition, the Daishonin dismisses Kakuban’s claim that the Lotus Sutra is not even worthy to be a sandal-tender for the True Word teachings, indicating it is a statement of personal bias with no basis in any sutra or commentary, and therefore constitutes a slander of the Law.

Throughout the remainder of the text, the Daishonin addresses and counters a number of misleading views set forth by teachers of the True Word school. He cites the sutra passage “Rely on the Law and not upon persons” as the standard of judgment. With regard to the contention of the True Word school that Mahāvairochana Buddha is the Buddha of the Dharma body, the Daishonin points out, citing both the old and new translations of the sutras, that this does not compare with the Buddha of the reward body or of the Dharma body described in the Lotus Sutra. Other arguments concerning Mahāvairochana Buddha are also refuted.

Regarding the contention of the True Word school that it is superior because it teaches mudras and mantras, the Daishonin points out that these are devices associated with the provisional teachings, and they have no relation to the true teaching. Regarding the claim that the True Word teaching constitutes an esoteric teaching in both theory and practice, and that the Lotus Sutra is an esoteric teaching in theory only, he says that the Lotus Sutra contains the principle of opening the provisional and revealing the true, which far surpasses any theory or principle found in the Mahāvairochana Sutra, and that it embodies the practice associated with Shakyamuni Buddha’s actual attainment of Buddhahood countless kalpas in the past, a practice unmatched by anything found in the Mahāvairochana Sutra.

While True Word priests contend that the Mahāvairochana Sutra cannot be classified among any of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha’s lifetime, the Daishonin responds that such a teaching could not be called Buddhism, and goes on to classify the Mahāvairochana Sutra as a sutra of the Correct and Equal period among the Buddha’s teachings. Finally, the Daishonin refutes Kōbō’s claim that the Buddha who expounded the Lotus Sutra belongs to the “region of darkness” and that the Lotus Sutra itself amounts to a work of “childish theory.” While Kōbō cites as proof of his contention Nāgārjuna’s Commentary on the Mahayana Treatise, the Daishonin affirms that no such statement appears in this work.

In closing, a brief explanation of the three bodies of the Buddha may be helpful in understanding the text. Among the three bodies, the Dharma body, which represents the Law, or truth, a Buddha has realized, is foremost. The reward body, or the wisdom that is equal to the Law, which a Buddha has acquired as the result of practice, ranks second. And the manifested body, the form in which the Buddha appears in the world to teach living beings, is regarded as third. Further, the Buddha of the reward body is characterized as having either the body of self-enjoyment, which never preaches the Law, or the body of beneficence, which preaches the Law. The Lotus Sutra’s Buddha of self-enjoyment is also called the Buddha of limitless joy. While the Lotus Sutra reveals that the three bodies exist in one Buddha, other sutras view them as being separate and distinct. “Mahāvairochana, a Buddha of the Dharma body,” is equated with the Law itself and cannot preach the Law. In contrast, “the Lotus Sutra’s Thus Come One of the Dharma body” is endowed with all three bodies and appears in the world in order to preach the Law.

Back to Top

Notes

13. A reference to one of several different lists of answers given on different occasions by Tao-sui, Kuang-hsiu, Wei-chüan, and other eminent priests of the T’ien-t’ai school in T’ang-dynasty China to questions submitted by Dengyō, Enchō, and other priests of the Japanese Tendai school. The T’ang Period Decisions is a list of Kuang-hsiu’s answers to thirty questions submitted by Enchō.

Home
Copied title and URL