The Letter of Petition from Yorimoto

Background

This petition was written by Nichiren Daishonin in the sixth month of 1277 on behalf of his loyal follower Shijō Nakatsukasa Saburō Saemon-no-jō Yorimoto, or Shijō Kingo, who had been served an official letter of reprimand from his lord, Ema Chikatoki. The petition, addressed to Lord Ema, asserts that Shijō Kingo was being subjected to unjustified slander.

On the ninth day of the sixth month, 1277, a religious debate took place at Kuwagayatsu in Kamakura, in which Sammi-kō (also known by the more commonly used name Sammi-bō), a disciple of Nichiren Daishonin, soundly defeated Ryūzō-bō, a Tendai priest who had been expelled from Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei and had later come to Kamakura where he won the patronage of Ryōkan of Gokuraku-ji temple. The audience was so pleased that they begged Sammi-bō to remain and preach for them.

Shijō Kingo had been present at this debate merely as a member of the audience. His enemies, however, told Lord Ema that he had forcibly disrupted the debate and shown contempt for Ryūzō-bō and Ryūzō-bō’s teacher, Ryōkan—whom Lord Ema revered. About two weeks later, he was suddenly served an official letter from his lord accusing him of these things. The letter further charged Kingo with disobeying his lord, in defiance of both Buddhist and secular custom, and ordered him to write an oath to the effect that he would discard his faith in the Lotus Sutra. If he refused to do so, Lord Ema threatened, his fief would be confiscated and he would be banished.

Shijō Kingo immediately wrote a report of the entire affair and sent it with Lord Ema’s official letter to Nichiren Daishonin at Minobu. In his report he expressed his firm resolve never to write an oath discarding his faith, even if his fief were to be confiscated.

Kingo’s messenger left Kamakura on the afternoon of the twenty-fifth and arrived at Minobu on the evening of the twenty-seventh. Nichiren Daishonin was delighted to learn that his disciple was determined to uphold his faith and propagate the Law even at the cost of his life. He also perceived the machinations of Ryōkan and Ryūzō-bō behind this incident. He therefore wrote this letter of petition to encourage Kingo and sent it addressed to Lord Ema in which he defended. This petition, however, was apparently never submitted.

In it the Daishonin sought to correct Lord Ema’s misunderstanding about Kingo’s behavior during the debate, and to expose the real intentions of the priests Ryōkan and Ryūzō-bō and enable Lord Ema to understand the error of their teachings. The petition also clarifies what true loyalty from a vassal to his lord really means—in both Buddhist and secular terms.

Introduction

Concerning “The Petition on Behalf of Shijo Kingo” (Yorimoto Chinjo)

Before lecturing on “The Petition on Behalf of Shijo Kingo” (Yorimoto Chinjo), I would first like to outline the background and the general overview of this text.

Background of This Petition

This petition was written by Nichiren Daishonin himself on behalf of his loyal follower Shijo Kingo (Yorimoto) in response to an official letter of reprimand served by Kingo’s lord, Ema, to assert Kingo’s innocence against unjustified slander.

On the ninth day of the sixth month in 1277 (the third year of Kenji), a religious debate took place at Kuwagayatsu in Kamakura. On this occasion, Sammi-bo Nichigyo, a disciple of Nichiren Daishonin, soundly defeated Ryuzo-bō with his sharp tongue and refutations. Ryuzo-bo was a priest who had been enjoying immense prestige at the time. The audience was so greatly delighted that they begged Sammi-bo to stay and preach for them. Kingo had been present at this debate merely as a single member of the audience. However, about two weeks later on the twenty-fifth day of the sixth month, an official letter from his lord was suddenly delivered to Kingo.

The letter can be summarized as follows:

1. Kingo committed an unreasonable act at the venue of the Kuwagayatsu debate.

2. Kingo has been criticizing Ryuzo-bo and Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji temple, whom his lord deeply reveres.

3. Obeying the lord’s will is the model standard in terms of both the spirit of the Buddhas and gods and secular custom, yet Kingo refuses to comply.

Furthermore, from the concluding section of this petition and “Reply to Shijo Kingo,” which contains meticulously detailed precautions for submitting the document, it is evident that the official letter pressed Kingo to write an oath discarding his faith in the Lotus Sutra. It threatened that if he refused, his fief would be confiscated and he would be banished.

Kingo immediately compiled a report of the entire affair starting from the origin of the Kuwagayatsu debate, and sent it with the official letter from his lord via a swift messenger to the Daishonin at Minobu. In his report, Kingo expressed his unwavering resolve never to write an oath discarding his faith, even if his fief were to be confiscated.

The messenger left Kamakura on the afternoon of the twenty-fifth and arrived at Minobu at around 6:00 p.m. on the twenty-seventh. Nichiren Daishonin was profoundly delighted to learn of Kingo’s steadfast faith and his resolve to propagate the Law even at the cost of his life. The Daishonin also perceived the behind-the-scenes machinations of Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji and Ryuzo-bo. Thus, he wrote this letter of petition in the format of Kingo replying to each charge made by his lord; this letter is “The Petition on Behalf of Shijo Kingo.”

This petition is based strictly on facts and reason. The “facts” refer to the details of the Kuwagayatsu debate and the true reality of Ryokan and Ryuzo-bo. Clarifying the former was intended to make Kingo’s actions during the debate explicit and dispel his lord’s suspicions. Exposing the latter aimed to awaken the lord from his delusions regarding his erroneous religion by revealing the true nature of the religious figures he revered. The “reason” refers to clarifying the stance of a retainer serving his lord from the viewpoints of both secular and Buddhist principles, thereby explaining Kingo’s position. In particular, rather than viewing the lord-retainer relationship solely within this present existence, the Daishonin addresses it from the Buddhist perspective of the two existences of the present and the future.

General Overview of This Petition

First, in response to the official letter accusing Kingo of leading armed men to cause a riot at the Kuwagayatsu debate, the petition flatly denies this, stating that it completely contradicts the facts. It asserts that the debate was strictly a doctrinal discussion between Sammi-bo and Ryuzo-bo, and that Kingo, as a layman, merely participated as an audience member. Therefore, not only did he refrain from interfering in the debate, but the allegation that he led armed men to disrupt the assembly is a total fabrication of which he has absolutely no knowledge. He firmly rejects the charge and requests a confrontation with his accusers to uncover the truth. As corroborating evidence, the petition provides a detailed account of the origin and progression of the Kuwagayatsu debate.

Next, regarding the charge that Kingo criticized Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji and Ryuzo-bo whom his lord deeply reveres, the petition dispels the false images of Ryokan and Ryuzo-bo, reveals their true characters, and urges the lord to reflect upon his own faith. Specifically, it points out that although Ryokan outwardly behaves like a holy priest and loftily claims that “one must not even cut live grass,” he was the very mastermind who plotted to have Nichiren Daishonin executed. Furthermore, through the reality of the rainmaking contest in the eighth year of Bunei (1271), the Daishonin exposes Ryokan’s deceptive nature. The petition also admonishes the lord by revealing that Ryuzo-bo is a corrupt priest who is a monk in name only, and who has been feared by the conscientious people of Kamakura for consuming human flesh.

Furthermore, regarding the passage in the letter stating that obeying the lord’s will is the model standard for both the spirit of the gods and secular courtesy, the petition offers detailed responses from various angles regarding the true nature of the lord-retainer relationship. Namely, by citing passages from Confucian and Buddhist texts, the Daishonin expounds the true path of master and retainer, as well as parent and child, objectively validating Kingo’s stance.

Next, evoking the historical precedent of Jivaka, who served King Ajatashatru, the Daishonin compares the lord to King Ajatashatru and Kingo to Jivaka, expressing Kingo’s firm resolve to ultimately save his lord. Moreover, the petition reveals Kingo’s inner anguish, stating that if he fails to admonish his lord despite knowing the gravity of his lord’s slander of the Law, he would fall into the sin of complicity.

Furthermore, by citing the fact that the Shijo family has dedicated their lives to their lord for two generations, father and son, Kingo demonstrates his unchanging loyalty, showing that he has never distanced his heart from his master. In addition, wishing for the simultaneous enlightenment of both master and retainer, Kingo explains the background of his conversion, stating that he listened to the preachings of various priests and eventually came to believe in Nichiren Daishonin’s Lotus Sutra as the ultimate conclusion.

Following this, the Daishonin implies how superior the Lotus Sutra is compared to all other sutras, and how erroneous teachings lead people to unhappiness. He explains that Kingo has earnestly prayed until this day to save his lord through this Lotus Sutra.

Finally, after refuting the Hinayana and Precepts (Ritsu) schools relied upon by Ryokan based on the comparative classification of Hinayana and Mahayana teachings, Kingo refuses to submit the requested oath. He warns his lord from the strict perspective of the life-law of cause and effect that if he were to submit the oath, it would cause his lord to suffer the same tragic fate as the sons of the Nagoe family, using this as the ultimate reason for his refusal. Reiterating his request for a direct confrontation with his accusers, the Daishonin concludes this petition.

Chapter1(The Background and Origin of the Kuwagayatsu Debate)

ON the twenty-fifth day of the sixth month I respectfully read your official letter of the twenty-third, which I received through the intermediaries, the lay priests Shimada no Saemon and Yamashiro no Mimbu.¹ In the letter you state, “I am shocked to hear that all those present on that occasion are unanimous in saying that you behaved in a disorderly manner at the place where the priest Ryūzō was preaching. They say you interrupted with a group of your cohorts, all wearing weapons.”

That is a groundless falsehood. I do not know who told you so, but surely it would be fitting if, out of pity for me, you were to summon them to confront me in your presence and inquire into the truth or falsehood of their accusations.

Briefly, the root of this matter is as follows. On the ninth day of the sixth month, Sammi-kō, who is a disciple of the Sage Nichiren, came to my residence and said: “Recently a priest named Ryūzō-bō has arrived from Kyoto and settled in Kuwagayatsu, west of the gate of Daibutsu-den temple.² He preaches day and night, urging those who have questions about Buddhism to come and hold discourse with him in order to settle their doubts about this life and the next. All the people in Kamakura, high and low, revere him as they would Shakyamuni Buddha. However, I hear that no one has ever actually debated with him. I want to go to Kuwagayatsu to debate with him and clarify whatever doubts the people might have about their next life. Won’t you come and listen?”

At that time I was busy with official matters, so I did not originally intend to accompany him. However, I had heard that it concerned the Buddhist teachings, and I have often gone to hear preaching on that subject. Being a lay believer, however, I never said a single word. Therefore, I believe that a strict investigation on your part should be sufficient to reveal that I was not in any way abusive.

Notes

1. Shimada no Saemon and Yamashiro no Mimbu were apparently two of Lord Ema’s retainers, who, as messengers, carried his official letter to Shijō Kingo. Nichiren Daishonin wrote this letter, a petition from Shijō Nakatsukasa Saburō Saemon-no-jō Yorimoto, or Shijō Kingo, to his lord, Ema Chikatoki, on behalf of his disciple. “I” refers to Shijō Kingo, “you” to Lord Ema.

2. “Temple of the Great Buddha Image.” One of the seven major temples of Kamakura, which enshrines a huge image of Amida Buddha.

Lecture

It was on the twenty-fifth day of the sixth month that the official letter of reprimand from the lord was delivered to Yorimoto (Shijo Kingo) by way of a messenger. The content of this letter was entirely one-sided; it reproached Yorimoto for his allegedly unreasonable behavior based on hearsay from those around him, and declared that the lord himself revered Ryokan and Ryuzo-bo as though they were Shakyamuni and Amida Buddhas. It further asserted that if the lord holds such devotion, it is the duty of a retainer to follow suit, threatening that failure to do so would result in the confiscation of his fief. In this section, the Daishonin emphasizes that the accusation in the letter—claiming “Yorimoto committed unreasonable acts at the venue of the Kuwagayatsu debate”—is an absolute falsehood, and proceeds to outline the origin of the Kuwagayatsu debate, which is detailed below. The petition appeals that while Yorimoto did indeed attend the doctrinal debate, he did so merely as a layman; he did not utter a single word to interfere, let alone resort to abusive language. It is argued that this truth would become instantly clear if only the lord were to conduct a thorough investigation.

The Origin of the Kuwagayatsu Debate

The populace of Kamakura at the time had witnessed, both directly and indirectly, the power struggles within the Hojo clan. Through these ugly, internecine conflicts where kindred shed the blood of their own kin, conscientious people deeply felt the impermanence of life. Moreover, experiencing the fleeting nature of reality through sudden threats of natural disasters and the terrifying prospect of foreign invasion, a prevailing undercurrent of resignation formed among the people; rather than seeking happiness in this present existence, they sought enlightenment in the world after death.

It was under these societal conditions that Ryuzo-bo came down from Kyoto. It remains uncertain exactly when he arrived in Kamakura from the capital. However, it is an undeniable fact that he astutely perceived the anxiety of the Kamakura populace and captured their hearts, which became the catalyst for his rising prestige. He boldly went so far as to publicly declare, “One must seek the Buddhist Law for the sake of peace and security in both this present existence and the future. Therefore, if you have any doubts regarding Buddhism, come to my place to debate and dispel those doubts.”

Such immense confidence conversely made him appear to the common people as a high priest upon whom they could rely. For the populace who were seeking a pillar of support after losing their bearings in a turbulent society, the lofty proclamations of this priest from Kyoto must have seemed more reassuring than anything else. Consequently, without even attempting to investigate his past misdeeds—which were utterly unbecoming of a human being—they were instantly deceived by him.

It was Sammi-bo who stood up against this prevailing tide. He was well-versed in doctrinal debate and frequently traveled between Kyoto and Kamakura to preach the Daishonin’s Buddhism. Therefore, resolving that now was the time to expose Ryuzo-bo’s erroneous doctrines, arrogance, and evil deeds—and to demonstrate that the Mystic Law is the great teaching that truly saves the populace, and that his mentor’s actions arose from an irrepressible concern for the people—Sammi-bo called upon Yorimoto, and together they set out for Kuwagayatsu.