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.

 

 

Chapter2(The Kuwagayatsu Debate (1): Refuting the Errors of the Various Schools)

In any event, during his sermon, Ryūzō-bō said, “If anyone among you has a question about the Buddhist teachings, please do not hesitate to ask.” Thereupon Sammi-kō, the disciple of the priest Nichiren, raised the following question: “That death is inevitable from the time of birth is certainly no cause for surprise; in addition, especially in recent times, countless people in Japan have perished in calamities. No one can fail to realize this transience, which lies before our very eyes. Under these circumstances I heard that you, a respected priest, had come from Kyoto to dispel the doubts of the people, so I came to listen. I was feeling hesitant, thinking it rude to ask a question in the middle of your sermon, so I am happy that you have invited anyone who has doubts to speak freely.

“What puzzles me first of all is this: I am a lowly person, born in the Latter Day of the Law in a remote land [far from the birthplace of Buddhism]. Yet fortunately Buddhism, which originated in India, has already been introduced to this country. One should embrace it by all means. However, the sutras amount to no less than five thousand or seven thousand volumes. Since they are the teachings of a single Buddha, they must essentially be one sutra. But Buddhism is divided into eight schools, if one includes Flower Garland and True Word, or ten schools, if one includes Pure Land and Zen. Although these schools represent different gates of entry, I would presume that their truth must ultimately be one.

“However, the Great Teacher Kōbō, the founder of the True Word school in Japan, said, ‘The Lotus Sutra, when compared with the Flower Garland and Mahāvairochana sutras, not only represents a different gate but is a doctrine of childish theory, and the Buddha who expounded it is still in the region of darkness.’³ He also stated, ‘The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai of the Lotus school and others vied with one another to steal the ghee [of the True Word school].’ The Great Teacher Tz’u-en, the founder of the Dharma Characteristics school, said, ‘The Lotus Sutra is an expedient means while the Profound Secrets Sutra represents the truth; those sentient beings without the nature of enlightenment can never attain Buddhahood.’⁴

“Ch’eng-kuan of the Flower Garland school said, ‘The Flower Garland Sutra represents the root teaching, and the Lotus Sutra, the branch teachings.’⁵ He also said, ‘The Flower Garland Sutra is the teaching of enlightenment for the people of the sudden teaching, and the Lotus Sutra, the teaching of enlightenment for the people of the gradual teaching.’⁶ The Great Teacher Chia-hsiang of the Three Treatises school said, ‘Of all the Mahayana sutras, the Wisdom sutras are supreme.’ The Reverend Shan-tao of the Pure Land school said, ‘[If people practice the Nembutsu continuously until the end of their lives,] then ten persons out of ten and a hundred persons out of a hundred will be reborn in the Pure Land. . . . However, not even one person in a thousand can be reborn there’⁷ through the Lotus and other sutras. The Honorable Hōnen urged people to ‘discard, close, ignore, and abandon’ the Lotus Sutra in favor of the Nembutsu, and also likened the votaries of the Lotus Sutra to ‘a band of robbers.’⁸ And the Zen school declares itself to represent ‘a separate transmission outside the sutras, independent of words or writing.’⁹

“Shakyamuni, the lord of teachings, said of the Lotus Sutra, ‘The World-Honored One has long expounded his doctrines and now must reveal the truth.’¹⁰ And Many Treasures Buddha declared, ‘The Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law . . . all that you [Shakyamuni] have expounded is the truth!’¹¹ The sutra also states that the Buddhas of the ten directions, who were emanations of Shakyamuni, extended their tongues to the Brahmā heaven.¹²

“The Great Teacher Kōbō wrote that the Lotus Sutra is a doctrine of childish theory. Yet Shakyamuni Buddha, Many Treasures Buddha, and the Buddhas of the ten directions unanimously declared that all its teachings are true. Which of all these statements are we to believe?

“The Reverend Shan-tao and the Honorable Hōnen said of the Lotus Sutra that not even one person in a thousand can be saved by it, and that one should ‘discard, close, ignore, and abandon’ it. However, Shakyamuni Buddha, Many Treasures Buddha, and the Buddhas of the ten directions who are emanations of Shakyamuni assert that, of those who hear the Lotus Sutra, ‘not a one will fail to attain Buddhahood,’¹³ and that all will achieve the Buddha way. Shakyamuni, Many Treasures, and all the other Buddhas are in their statements as far apart from the Reverend Shan-tao and the Honorable Hōnen as fire and water, or clouds and mud.

“Which of them are we to believe? Which are we to reject?

“In particular, of the forty-eight vows of the monk Dharma Treasury mentioned in the Two-Volumed Sutra, which both Shan-tao and Hōnen revere, the eighteenth one states that, if he attains Buddhahood, only those who commit the five cardinal sins and those who slander the correct teaching will be excluded [from salvation]. Surely this means that, even if Amida Buddha’s original vow is true and enables one to attain rebirth in his Pure Land, those who slander the correct teaching are excluded from rebirth in the land of Amida Buddha?

“Now the second volume of the Lotus Sutra reads, ‘If a person fails to have faith [but instead slanders this sutra] . . . When his life comes to an end he will enter the Avīchi hell.’¹⁴ If these scriptural passages are true, then how can Shan-tao and Hōnen, who both regarded the Nembutsu school as representing the essence of Buddhism, escape falling into the great citadel of the Avīchi hell? And if these two priests fall into hell, there can be no doubt that the scholars, disciples, and lay believers who follow in their footsteps will also as a matter of course fall into the evil paths. These are the matters that perplex me. What is your opinion, the Honorable Ryūzō?” In this manner, Sammi-kō posed his question.

 

Notes

3. This and the following quotation summarize Kōbō’s views as expressed in his Treatise on the Ten Stages of the Mind, Precious Key to the Secret Treasury, and Comparison of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism. Ghee means the finest clarified butter, or the last of the five flavors (milk, cream, curdled milk, butter, and ghee). Ghee is used as a metaphor for the highest of all the sutras.

4. On the basis of the Profound Secrets Sutra, the Dharma Characteristics school divides people into five categories called the five natures. “Those sentient beings without the nature of enlightenment” is one of these five. See five natures in Glossary.

5. The Flower Garland school divides the perfect teaching, the highest of the five teachings, into the root teaching and the branch teachings, and asserts that the Flower Garland Sutra is the root and the Lotus Sutra, the branches.

6. Views from Ch’eng-kuan’s Profound Discourse on the Flower Garland Teachings. “The sudden teaching” means those teachings in which the Buddha directly expounded his enlightenment without preparatory instruction. “The gradual teaching” means those teachings that the Buddha expounded to gradually elevate the people’s capacity. Ch’eng-kuan asserted that the Flower Garland Sutra represented the perfect teaching within the sudden teaching, and that the Lotus Sutra represented the perfect teaching within the gradual teaching.

7. Views from Shan-tao’s Praising Rebirth in the Pure Land.

8. Views from Hōnen’s Nembutsu Chosen above All.

9. The Zen school asserted that the essence of Buddhism was transmitted from mind to mind, claiming that the Buddha’s enlightenment was transferred in this way to Mahākāshyapa and then to each successive Zen patriarch.

10. Lotus Sutra, chap. 2.

11. Ibid., chap. 11.

12. Ibid., chap. 21.

13. Ibid., chap. 2.

14. Ibid., chap. 3.

 

Lecture

This chapter describes the questions posed by Sanmi-bo to Ryuzo-bo during the Kuwagayatsu Debate.

Sanmi-bo had been watching for an opportunity to debate Ryuzo-bo. This was because he had traveled all the way to Kuwagayatsu with the intent to refute Ryuzo-bo’s erroneous teachings in front of a gathering crowd, and furthermore, to dispel the illusions of the common people who were bewildered about the Buddhist teachings. Seizing upon Ryuzo-bo’s invitation—”Anyone who has doubts about Buddhism should feel free to ask questions”—Sanmi-bo stepped forward to begin his questioning.

His questions directly addressed the contemporary social crises and the chaotic reality of the religious community at that time. He raised the most crucial and fundamental question for any practitioner: what kind of religion is the correct one to believe in? With this, he sharply demanded Ryuzo-bo’s view.

At that time, society was continuously ravaged by the three calamities and seven disasters, and the number of deaths was increasing dramatically. Witnessing these fatalities right before their eyes, everyone was forced to deeply confront the harsh reality of the impermanence of life. In a world dominated by this sense of impermanence and eschatological angst (the Latter Day of the Law mindset), people’s hearts desperately yearned and waited for the appearance of a great religion—one that, like a powerful sun, could break through the dark night of their lives and society.

In reality, however, the religions that should have served as the foundation for people’s actions and spiritual pillars were in utter chaos, split into eight or ten different schools. Furthermore, each school and sect rejected the others, claiming that their own was the supreme religion and refusing to yield an inch.

Therefore, from the standpoint of a seeker pursuing the Buddhist way, and on behalf of the common people wishing for happiness, Sanmi-bo asked Ryuzo-bo what kind of religion one should believe in to match the capacity of the era of the Latter Day of the Law. Of course, Sanmi-bo himself already knew perfectly well what constituted the correct religion and what constituted a false one. Thus, his true intention was likely to refute the false teacher Ryuzo-bo for the purpose of guiding the entire audience to the Mystic Law.

Sanmi-bo then demonstrated just how vital the choice of religion is by using the example of the Nembutsu (Pure Land) school, which was widely pervasive in society at the time. He warned that, when judged against the Lotus Sutra and even the Sutra of Two Volumes (on which they themselves relied), the founder of the Nembutsu school had undoubtedly fallen into the Avici hell at the end of his life. Consequently, he cautioned, there was no room for doubt that his disciples and lay patrons would follow the exact same principle and fall into the Avici hell as well.

The implications of this question contain a truly vital problem. That is, if someone practices a religion without confirming whether it is genuinely worthy of belief, they are bound to follow the exact same path to ruin as its founder. For instance, it is like boarding a vehicle without checking its destination, only to realize later that it is heading in a completely wrong direction. This represents a strict principle of the Law: even if one enters the world of Buddhism seeking happiness, making an error in the choice of Buddhist teaching will ultimately invite misfortune into one’s life. If a religion is fundamentally mistaken, no matter how earnestly a person lives their life, it will distort their life force and force them to walk a path of unhappiness.

It is just as a ship navigating the vast ocean indispensably requires a compass. Therefore, for human beings, nothing is more essential than seeking out a powerful religion that can serve as an immovable and steadfast axis for their actions.

 

 

Chapter3(The Kuwagayatsu Debate (2): Revealing the Practice of the True Teacher)

The Honorable Ryūzō answered, “How could I doubt the worthies and learned men of antiquity? Ordinary priests such as myself believe them with profound reverence.” Then Sammi-kō retorted, saying: “These words do not impress me as those of a wise man. Everyone believes in those Buddhist teachers who were revered in their own time. But the Buddha enjoins us in the Nirvana Sutra as his final instruction, ‘Rely on the Law and not upon persons.’ The Buddha taught us to rely on the sutras if the Buddhist teachers should be in error. You say those teachers could not possibly be in error, but between the Buddha’s golden words and your personal opinion, I am committed to the former.”

The Honorable Ryūzō asked, “When you speak of the many errors of the Buddhist teachers, to which teachers do you refer?” Sammi-kō answered, “I refer to the doctrines of the Great Teacher Kōbō and the Honorable Hōnen, whom I mentioned before.” The Honorable Ryūzō exclaimed, “That is impossible! I would not dare discuss the Buddhist teachers of our nation. The people in this audience all follow them, and if angered, will surely create an uproar. That would be a fearsome thing.”

Then Sammi-kō said: “Because you asked me to specify which teachers were in error, I mentioned those whose teachings contradict the sutras and treatises.¹⁵ But now you suddenly have reservations and refuse to discuss the matter. I think that you merely perceive your own dilemma. In matters of doctrine, to fear others or stand in awe of society’s opinion and not expound the true meaning of the scriptural passages in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching is the height of foolishness. You do not appear to be a wise or honorable priest. As a teacher of the Law, how can you not speak out when evil doctrines spread throughout the land, when the people fall into the evil paths and the country stands on the brink of ruin? That is why the Lotus Sutra reads, ‘We care nothing for our bodies or lives,’¹⁶ and the Nirvana Sutra says, ‘. . . even though it costs him his life.’¹⁷ If you are a true sage, how can you begrudge your life in fear of the world or of other people?

“Even in non-Buddhist literature we find mention of a man named Kuan Lung-feng, who was beheaded, and of the worthy Pi Kan, who had his chest torn open. But because Kuan Lung-feng remonstrated with King Chieh of the Hsia dynasty and Pi Kan admonished King Chou of the Yin dynasty, their names have been handed down in history as those of worthies.

“The Buddhist scriptures tell us that Bodhisattva Never Disparaging was beaten with sticks and staves, the Venerable Āryasimha was beheaded, the priest Chu Tao-sheng was banished to a mountain in Su-chou, and the Tripitaka Master Fa-tao was branded on the face and exiled to the area south of the Yangtze River. Yet was it not because they propagated the correct teaching that they gained the name of sages?”

Then the Honorable Ryūzō replied, “Such people cannot possibly appear in the latter age. We are the sort who fear society and dread the opinions of others. Even though you speak so boldly, I doubt that you actually live up to your words.”

Sammi-kō retorted: “How can you possibly know another’s mind? Let me tell you that I am a disciple of the Sage Nichiren, who is now widely known throughout the country. Although the sage, my teacher, is a priest in the latter age, unlike the eminent priests of our day, he neither seeks invitations nor flatters people, nor has he earned the slightest bad reputation in secular matters.

“He simply declares, in light of the sutras, that because the evil teachings of such schools as the True Word, Zen, and Pure Land as well as their slanderous priests fill this country, and everyone from the ruler on down to the general populace has taken faith in them, the people have all become archenemies of the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha. In this life they will be forsaken by the gods of heaven and earth, and suffer invasion by a foreign country, and in the next life they will fall into the great citadel of the Avīchi hell.

“He has said that if he declares such a thing he will incur great enmity, but that if he does not he cannot escape the Buddha’s condemnation. The Nirvana Sutra says, ‘If even a good monk sees someone destroying the teaching and disregards him, failing to reproach him, to oust him, or to punish him for his offense, then you should realize that that monk is betraying the Buddha’s teaching.’ Realizing that, if in fear of the world’s opinion he did not speak out, he would fall into the evil paths, my teacher has risked his life for more than two decades, from the Kenchō era¹⁸ through this third year of the Kenji era (1277), without slackening in the least. Therefore, he has undergone countless persecutions at the hands of individuals, and twice he has even incurred the ruler’s wrath.¹⁹ I myself was one of those who accompanied him when the wrath of the authorities fell upon him on the twelfth day of the ninth month in the eighth year of the Bun’ei era (1271),²⁰ and I was considered equally guilty and came close to being beheaded myself. Despite all this, do you still say that I hold my own life dear?”

 

Notes

15. “Treatises” here indicates the works of great bodhisattvas such as Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu.

16. Lotus Sutra, chap. 13.

17. The entire passage appears on page 810.

18. Nichiren Daishonin first proclaimed the teaching of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo in the fifth year of Kenchō (1253).

19. This refers to the Izu Exile in 1261, and to the Tatsunokuchi Persecution in 1271 and the Sado Exile that immediately followed it.

20. This refers to the Tatsunokuchi Persecution.

 

Lecture

This chapter depicts the fierce exchange of questions and answers between Sammi-bo and Ryuzo-bo during the Kuwagayatsu Debate.

In the previous chapter, Sammi-bo asked how one should navigate the confusion within the religious world to find the correct faith. He also addressed the tragic fates of the founders of the Nembutsu sect, cross-referencing their plight with the Sokan-kyo (their foundational sutra) and the text of the Lotus Sutra. He then pressed Ryuzo-bo on whether the disciples and lay followers of the Nembutsu sect would inevitably suffer the same fate.

As previously mentioned, Ryuzo-bo was a monk highly revered by people of all social strata in Kamakura, to the point of being venerated as the reincarnation of Shakyamuni Buddha. Furthermore, his reputation in debate was unparalleled, with rumors claiming no one could match him. Therefore, the entire audience listened with bated breath, eager to see what kind of answer he would provide to Sammi-bo’s question. Naturally, Sammi-bo himself expected a sharp, formidable reply from a monk of such high renown.

In reality, however, contrary to everyone’s expectations, Ryuzo-bo’s response was utterly superficial and hollow. He possessed no understanding of which religion was the true and appropriate one for the Latter Day of the Law, nor did he have the knowledge or textual authority to address the ultimate fate of Nembutsu believers. Consequently, he failed to provide a convincing answer not only to Sammi-bo but to the entire audience. His response inevitably resorted to commonplace, platitudinous remarks backed merely by his institutional authority: “How could we ever doubt the wise sages of antiquity? Ryuzo and others humbly look up to them and believe in them.”

Thus, Sammi-bo was compelled to point out Ryuzo-bo’s error in relying on human teachers (jinshi) like Kobo and Honen to make judgments on Buddhism. He had to begin by teaching the proper standard: that one must discern the true, time-appropriate Buddhist Law based strictly on the golden words of the Buddha.

Yet, Ryuzo-bo was not a conscientious monk who would immediately repent upon being corrected regarding the true standard of searching for the true Law. Instead, he coolly pandered to the masses out of fear, stating that he wished to withhold his answers regarding the country’s master teachers. In short, Ryuzo-bo relied on his position of authority for self-preservation, readily catering to public sentiment and relegating the Buddhist Law to a secondary concern.

Consequently, Sammi-bo ended up challenging Ryuzo-bo on what the fundamental attitude of a religious practitioner toward propagation ought to be. He emphasized that a true practitioner of Buddhism must be a courageous person who propagates the Law even at the risk of their own life ( shishin guhou), without fearing society or others. He further cited sutra passages and precedents of those who practiced this life-risking propagation to confront Ryuzo-bo’s stance.

Even so, Ryuzo-bo did not awaken in the slightest from his delusions. Instead, he brazenly asserted that those who propagate the Law at the risk of their lives could not possibly exist in the Latter Day of the Law.

Seeing no other choice, Sammi-bo finally revealed his own identity. He described the continuous, life-risking propagation that his mentor, Nichiren Daishonin, had carried out for over twenty years since the founding of his teachings. He related how, during the Tatsunokuchi Persecution, he himself was among those accompanying the Daishonin, nearly being beheaded under the same charges. By sharing this, Sammi-bo turned the tables on Ryuzo-bo, proving that he was indeed one of those living practitioners who propagated the Law at the risk of his life.

Rely on the Law, Not on the Person

This is a passage from the Nirvana Sutra. It is one of the “Four Reliances” (hō no shie), which are the principles that a guide or leader who benefits living beings after the Buddha’s passing must absolutely adhere to. The meaning of this passage is that one must not evaluate or judge the correctness of the teachings based on the words of erroneous master teachers, but must instead make the Buddha’s teachings the sole ultimate reliance.

Sammi-bo cited this passage not only to correct Ryuzo-bo’s error but to establish an indispensable criterion—the baseline condition for continuing the debate—and to confirm that their discussion must unfold with the Buddha’s own words as the absolute authority.

Ryuzo-bo’s response—epitomized by his statement, “How could we ever doubt the wise sages of antiquity?”—exposed his dismissive attitude toward the Law and his absolute reliance on human figures. This was a superficial display of authority designed to intimidate. It is a tragic irony that a religious practitioner, who ought to speak strictly from the standpoint of the Law, instead revealed the fragile authoritarianism and self-preservation that humans so easily fall into when they lose sight of the Law.

Why, then, did Ryuzo-bo forget the Law and emphasize human figures in his reply? Needless to say, it was because he did not comprehend the distinct roles and positions of “the person” and “the Law.” At the same time, we can see his arrogant attitude in trying to justify his position in front of a packed audience by using the majestic authority of historical figures as a shield. In other words, his arrogance—a representative trait of human negativity—surfaced, leading him to put people at the forefront while disregarding the Law. This mindset is precisely the breeding ground for authoritarianism and self-preservation.

Furthermore, the stance of minimizing the Law and absolute-izing individuals easily gives rise to a weak tendency to compromise whenever convenient. A classic example of this was when Sammi-bo pointed out that the erroneous master teachers he referred to were none other than Kobo Daishi and Honen Shonin; Ryuzo-bo immediately backed down, stating he wished to refrain from further discussion on the matter.

At the time, when explaining or debating Buddhist doctrines, most people relied heavily on the words of master teachers and commentators. The Daishonin, however, insisted that judgments must first be made based on the original source—the sutras—and fought against the various sects on this ground. His disciple, Sammi-bo, maintained this very principle when entering the debate with Ryuzo-bo.

While the phrase “Rely on the Law, not on the person” has been applied here to Ryuzo-bo, this passage serves as a rigorous guidance and warning when applied to true practitioners of Buddhism. This is because the mistake Ryuzo-bo made is a universal formula that applies to people in general who are ignorant of the Law. Most people who do not know Buddhism rarely understand or judge it by delving directly into the Law itself; instead, they judge Buddhism through the concrete, daily behavior of the people who practice it. Therefore, those who truly practice Buddhism must engrave this deeply into their hearts and conduct activities worthy of a true embodiment of the Law.

On the True Mission of a Practitioner

“In matters of doctrine, to fear others or stand in awe of society’s opinion and not expound the true meaning of the scriptural passages in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching is the height of foolishness. You do not appear to be a wise or honorable priest. As a teacher of the Law, how can you not speak out when evil doctrines spread throughout the land, when the people fall into the evil paths and the country stands on the brink of ruin?“

This passage admonishes Ryuzo-bo by illustrating the true way a priest should be.

As mentioned earlier, Ryuzo-bo not only failed to give any satisfactory answer to Sammi-bo’s doubts concerning the Buddhist teachings, but as soon as Sammi-bo pointed out his reliance on erroneous master teachers, he attempted to evade the debate entirely out of self-preservation and fear of the audience. No matter how skillfully one dresses up their words or how high a reputation they enjoy in society, a person’s true nature is exposed when they are backed into a corner. Ultimately, this exposed Ryuzo-bo’s superficiality and ignorance toward religion itself, as well as his utter lack of qualification as a practitioner.

This is because religion, by its very nature, does not exist merely to offer emotional solace or preach morality; its primary purpose is to expound the Law, which serves as the fundamental standard for human beings living in this harsh reality. The life of religion lies in the human revolution achieved through this Law. Therefore, rather than standing idly by when witnessing the suffering of the masses or a society filled with anxiety and chaos, a religious practitioner’s mission and purpose lie in genuinely committing themselves to resolving these human sufferings.

Thus, the Daishonin declares that Ryuzo-bo’s behavior—forgetting the primary mission and purpose of a religious practitioner and desperately clinging to self-preservation—is truly the height of folly, and that he cannot be deemed a wise person or a holy priest.

What, then, specifically constitutes a “wise person”—a true priest? In short, it is a leader of Buddhism who possesses both wisdom and courage (chiyuu kenbi).

According to the passage, “When you see evil teachings spreading throughout the world, leading people into the evil paths and threatening to ruin the nation, how can a true priest fail to remonstrate against it?” a true leader must have the wisdom to recognize that the spread of evil laws is the root cause of human unhappiness, combined with the practical courage to actively remonstrate (kangyo) against the source of that unhappiness rather than merely possessing passive knowledge. In other words, a true priest and a wise person do not just know things conceptually or verbally; they elevate their knowledge into concrete, active movements. The ultimate teacher who embodied this was Nichiren Daishonin, as detailed extensively in the latter half of this chapter.

 

 

Chapter4(The Kuwagayatsu Debate (3): Conclusion of the Debate)

As Ryūzō-bō closed his mouth and turned pale, Sammi-kō persisted: “With such paltry wisdom it is unwarranted for you to declare that you will dispel the people’s doubts. The monks Shore of Suffering and Superior Intent thought they knew the correct teaching and intended to save the people, but they fell into the hell of incessant suffering along with their disciples and lay believers. If you, with your limited knowledge of Buddhist doctrines, preach in an attempt to save people, then surely you and your followers will fall into the hell of incessant suffering. You had better reconsider such preaching from this day forth. I had not felt that I should speak in this way; but I, too, cannot be exempted from the Buddha’s warning that, if one sees a misguided priest sending others into hell with his evil teachings and fails to reproach that priest and expose his errors, then one is oneself betraying the Buddha’s teaching. Moreover, I feel pity that all those, both high and low, who listen to your preaching will fall into the evil paths. Therefore, I am speaking out in this way. Is not a person of wisdom one who admonishes the ruler when the country is endangered or corrects others’ mistaken views? But in your case, no matter what error you may see, you will no doubt refuse to correct it for fear of society’s reaction. Because of this, I am powerless to help you. Even if I had Manjushrī’s wisdom and Pūrna’s eloquence, they would be wasted on you.” So saying, Sammi-kō rose to leave; but the members of the audience, rejoicing, joined their palms together and implored him to stay and teach them the Buddhist doctrines for a little while. However, Sammi-kō left.

I have no further details to add, so you may surmise what really happened. How could a person who believes in the Lotus Sutra and aspires to the Buddha way possibly contemplate misbehavior or deliberately use foul language when the Buddhist teaching is being expounded? However, I leave this to your judgment.

Having declared myself to be a follower of the Sage Nichiren, I returned home and reported to you exactly what had happened during the debate. Moreover, no one was present on that occasion whom I did not know. What you heard must have been the fabrication of those who harbor jealousy against me. If you quickly summon them to face me in your presence, the truth of the matter will be brought to light.

 

Lecture

This chapter consists of the final scene of the Kuwagayatsu Debate, alongside the defense against the criticisms levied against Shijo Kingo regarding the debate.

First, the first half describes Sammi-bo completely refuting Ryuzo-bo with flawless logic, cornering him to the point where he could never preach again, thus dealing the decisive blow. He declared: “If you preach to save so many people with your current understanding of the Buddhist teachings, both master and disciples will surely fall into the Avici hell. From this day forward, you must reconsider giving such sermons.” Furthermore, Sammi-bo’s sharp refutation did not merely break Ryuzo-bo down from the perspectives of theory and actual proof. He shattered his arguments based on the fundamental principles of Buddhism and a spirit of compassion for the salvation of the populace.

Next, the second half addresses the claim that the doctrinal debate was driven by emotional arguments and unreasonable violence. However, the truth is that it was carried out as an expression of the irrepressible spirit to refute heresy and reveal the truth, held by Sammi-bo and Shijo Kingo as Buddhist practitioners. Moreover, the debate was conducted with the discernment, courtesy, and common sense befitting true practitioners of the Buddhist path. Therefore, this section asserts that there is no basis for the criticisms and slanders against the debate.

“Is not a person of wisdom one who admonishes the ruler when the country is endangered or corrects others’ mistaken views? “

This passage clarifies the true meaning of a “wise man” (chisha). Immediately following this, it continues: “Even if there are errors, if one refuses to admonish because they fear the world…” This reprimands the timid heart and weak-willed attitude of Ryuzo-bo, who, being excessively cautious, feared public opinion and failed to correct errors. From the standpoint of social justice and human ethics, this passage declares that those who admonish evil and stop distorted views are the ones who are truly wise.

Therefore, a “wise man” referred to here does not simply mean someone with intellectual knowledge or abundant talent. Nor does it refer to an intellectual who withdraws into the mountains and forests to live in solitude and indulge in speculation without taking action. A true wise man is a person of wisdom and courage who, with the rigorous eyes of Buddhism, thoroughly understands the law of cause and effect spanning the three existences of past, present, and future, and who admonishes errors and strikes down distorted views with correct arguments and correct views in society and human relationships. Furthermore, such a person is a leader who harbors a deep love for humanity within, and based on profound insight, intuitive wisdom, and judgment cultivated through the Correct Law, tirelessly guides human society in a happy direction. One who feels the sufferings of the afflicted people as acutely as if they were their own, leaps into the vortex of suffering, and saves each individual while getting covered in mud—such a practitioner is truly worthy of being called a wise man.

Looking at it this way, the “wise man” described here is completely synonymous with the “priest” (hoshi) mentioned in the previous chapter, of whom it was said: “When one sees that false teachings are spreading throughout the world, leading people into evil paths and destined to ruin the nation, how can a priest fail to speak out and admonish?” It is also synonymous with the “saint” (shonin), of whom it was said: “If he were a true saint, why would he spare his own life and fear the world or other people? … It is only by spreading the Correct Law that one earns the name of a saint.”

Reflecting on this, the reason Sammi-bo was able to thoroughly refute his opponent until the very end with such an attitude full of conviction was solely because he possessed an invaluable wise man as his mentor. That is, Nichiren Daishonin was the sole wise man, who had fought against oppressive authority and shattered distorted wisdom for over twenty years since the establishment of his teachings. It was because Sammi-bo knew the actual proof of his mentor and had shown that proof alongside him. Therein lay the power that could triumph over a million words of rhetorical eloquence.

 

 

Chapter5(The Refutation of Ryokan)

In your official letter you also state, “I revere the elder of Gokuraku-ji temple as the World-Honored One reborn,” but this I cannot accept. The reason is that, if what the sutra states is true, the Sage Nichiren is the envoy of the Thus Come One who attained enlightenment in the remote past, the manifestation of Bodhisattva Superior Practices, the votary of the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra, and the great leader in the fifth five-hundred-year period [following the Buddha’s passing]. In an attempt to have this sage executed, the Honorable Ryōkan submitted a letter of petition to the authorities proposing that he be beheaded; but for some reason the execution was not carried out, and he was instead exiled far away to Sado Island. Was this not the doing of the Honorable Ryōkan? I am sending you a copy of his petition together with this letter.

Even though the priest Ryōkan preaches day and night on each of the six days of purification²¹ against killing even a blade of grass, he actually proposed that the priest who propagates the correct teaching of the Lotus Sutra be beheaded. Has he not contradicted his own words? Is the priest Ryōkan himself not possessed by the heavenly devil?

Let me explain how this situation came about. Whenever the priest Ryōkan preached, he would lament: “I am endeavoring to help all people in Japan become ‘observers of the precepts’²² and to have them uphold the eight precepts so that an end can be put to all the killings in this country and the drunkenness in the entire land; but Nichiren’s slander has prevented me from achieving my desire.” Hearing of this, the Sage Nichiren declared, “Somehow I must overturn the delusion of his great p.808arrogance and save him from the agonies of the hell of incessant suffering.” Hearing this, I, Yorimoto, and his other disciples all anxiously advised him, saying, “Even though you speak out of profound compassion as a champion of the Lotus Sutra, since the Honorable Ryōkan is revered throughout Japan, especially by the samurai in Kamakura, perhaps you should refrain from making strong statements.”

 

Notes

21. The six days of purification are six days each month on which lay followers purify body and mind by observing the eight precepts (see Glossary). They are the 8th, 14th, 15th, 23rd, 29th, and 30th days of the month.

22. The “observers of the precepts” refers here to those who observe the eight precepts, that is, followers of Ryōkan’s Precepts school.

 

Lecture

Up until the previous chapter, the author had explained the actions of Yorimoto through the details of the Kuwagayatsu Debate in order to clear his lord’s misunderstanding, while simultaneously appealing to the lord to investigate the true facts of the matter.

However, when reflecting on the fact that the lord demanded Yorimoto submit a kishomon (a written oath) vowing to renounce his faith in the Lotus Sutra, it becomes readily apparent that the incident of the Kuwagayatsu Debate could not be the direct cause for writing such an official decree (kudashibumi). This is because the matter of the debate should have been settled and resolved once the truth was clarified and Yorimoto’s immediate actions were vindicated. Why, then, did the problem complicate to such an extent, creating a rift in the master-disciple relationship so deep that it forced a choice between submitting the written oath or facing the confiscation of his estate and banishment?

The conflict did not stem from a clash over court service, but rather from a confrontation over religious faith. That is to say, the lord was a devout follower of Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji temple, whereas his retainer, Yorimoto, was a renowned and stalwart believer of Nichiren Daishonin. This confrontation began when Yorimoto attempted to remonstrate with his lord to convert to his faith (shakubuku). This took place in the autumn of Bun’ei 11 (1274), when the Daishonin was pardoned from his exile to Sado Island, as documented in the writing “On the Retainer’s Attainment of Buddhahood” (Shukun mimiire kono homon men-to-dozai-ji). In addition, friction between Yorimoto and his colleagues intensified day by day, causing the master-disciple relationship to steadily deteriorate, until the Kuwagayatsu Debate brought the situation to an irreversible crisis. Therefore, this chapter and the next are dedicated to breaking down the contradictions in the deeds of Ryuzo-bo’s mentor, Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji temple—whom the lord profoundly revered—thereby urging the lord to reach a deeper understanding of the truth. This chapter in particular describes how erroneous public reputation can be, exposes Ryokan’s blatant self-contradictions (jigo-soi), and declares that far from being a reincarnation of Shakyamuni Buddha, he was a heretical priest possessed by the heavenly devil (tenma). The reasons for this assertion are elaborated in the latter half of this chapter and continue into the next.

Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji was a priest of the Ritsu (Precepts) school who became a disciple of Eison. He traveled throughout various provinces, dedicating himself primarily to charitable works. Upon arriving in Kamakura, he gained the devotion of Hojo Tokiyori in Hirocho 1 (1261). Furthermore, receiving the generous patronage of Shigetoki and his son Naritoki, he became the founder of Gokuraku-ji temple in Bun’ei 4 (1267). Since then, Ryokan devoted his energies to social welfare and public works, such as building roads, constructing bridges, establishing hospitals, and setting up barriers to collect customs dues (sekimai). To the common people who were ignorant of Buddhism, such activities likely made him appear to be a living Buddha. These actions must have also appeared favorable to the administrators of the government. In modern assessments of Ryokan, he is often described as a highly capable, politically minded administrator driven by utilitarianism.

Incidentally, the lord, Lord Ema, was also among those who deeply revered Ryokan. This is evident from the fact that he referred to him as the “Elder of Gokuraku-ji” (Gokuraku-ji no Choro) in his official decree. The term “Elder” (Choro) was not used merely as an honorific for an elderly person; it was employed as a title for an eminent priest of supreme Buddhist virtue, which underscores the depth and warmth of the lord’s devotion. In any case, Ryokan’s day-and-night preaching and charitable activities were ultimately nothing more than acts of self-promotion designed to make himself appear as a holy man who strictly observed the two hundred and fifty precepts. Furthermore, it was a clever means to ingratiate himself with the shogunate, and his true essence was consumed by a desire for fame and authority. In other words, Ryokan was not a priest who had accumulated rigorous study of the Buddhist teachings themselves and gained fame through his wisdom and virtue. Rather, he had built his status up to that point by using charitable works to win favor with the shogunate. The most prominent example of this can be seen in his confrontation with Nichiren Daishonin. Ryokan never sought a direct, face-to-face debate with the Daishonin. Instead of confronting him in the public arena of religion through doctrinal debate (hōron), he cunningly altered his tactics, utilizing various underhanded schemes to manipulate the authorities of the shogunate from behind the scenes in an attempt to eliminate the Daishonin, as can be observed in various writings.

In “The Actions of the Votary of the Lotus Sutra” (Shuju On-furumai Gosho), it states: “[While the regent’s government could not come to any conclusion,] the priests of the Nembutsu, the observers of the precepts, and the True Word priests, who realized they could not rival me in wisdom, sent petitions to the government.”(WND-1, p.765)  Furthermore, in “Condolences on a Deceased Husband,” it is written: “So the Sage Ryōkan of Gokuraku-ji temple, that “living Buddha,” hurries with petitions to the government offices to bring charges against me”(WND-2, p.777) Ultimately, Ryokan succeeded in manipulating Hei no Saemon-no-jo. Hei no Saemon-no-jo was a powerful figure in the shogunate at the time, wielding immense control over military and police powers. Here, Ryokan and Hei no Saemon-no-jo conspired together, leading to the direct persecution of Nichiren Daishonin. The peak of this persecution was the Tatsunokuchi Persecution, followed by his exile to the remote island of Sado. This is precisely what is referred to in this chapter where it states: “You wrote a petition calling for the decapitation of the priest who is the envoy of the eternal Buddha, the manifestation of Bodhisattva Superior Practices, the votary of the essential law of the Lotus Sutra, and the great leader of the fifth five-hundred-year period, thus seeking to execute him. Yet, by some twist of fate, the death penalty was halted and he was exiled to the remote island of Sado instead. Was this not the doing of Ryokan?”

Subsequently, while Ryokan preached day and night that “one must not harm even a blade of green grass,” thus advocating the precept against killing, he was simultaneously plotting behind the scenes to have Nichiren Daishonin executed. This conduct represents a complete self-contradiction, and by exposing this, the text vividly unmasks Ryokan’s true identity as a priest possessed by the “heavenly devil” who destroys human life. Finally, the text touches upon the background of how Ryokan plotted to eliminate Nichiren Daishonin and actually carried out those actions, which would ultimately lead to the historic contest for rain in Bun’ei 8 (1271).

 

 

Chapter6(Further Refutation of Ryokan-bo)

Then, at the time of the great drought, the government ordered the priest Ryōkan to perform a ceremony for rain on the eighteenth day of the sixth month in the eighth year of the Bun’ei era (1271), cyclical sign kanoto-hitsuji, in order to save the people. Hearing this news, the Sage Nichiren said, “Although prayers for rain are a trifling matter, perhaps I should take this opportunity to demonstrate to everyone the power of the Law that I embrace.” He sent a message to the priest Ryōkan, saying: “If the Honorable Ryōkan brings about rainfall within seven days, I, Nichiren, will stop teaching that the Nembutsu leads to the hell of incessant suffering and become his disciple, observing the two hundred and fifty precepts. But if no rain falls, that will show clearly that the Honorable Ryōkan is deliberately confusing and misleading others, though he appears to be observing the precepts. In ancient times there were many instances in which the supremacy of one teaching over another was determined through prayers for rain, such as the challenge between Gomyō and the Great Teacher Dengyō,²³ or between Shubin and Kōbō.”²⁴

The Sage Nichiren sent this message to the priest Ryōkan through the intermediaries, the priest Suō-bō and the lay priest Irusawa, who are Nembutsu believers. In addition to being Nembutsu believers, this priest and lay priest are Ryōkan’s disciples and do not yet believe in Nichiren’s teaching. So the Sage Nichiren said to them, “We will decide whose teachings are correct through this prayer for rain. If it rains within seven days, you can believe that you will be reborn in the Pure Land by virtue of the eight precepts and the Nembutsu, which you already uphold. But if it does not rain, you should place your faith in the Lotus Sutra alone.” Delighted to hear this, the two delivered the message to the priest Ryōkan at Gokuraku-ji temple.

With tears of joy, the priest Ryōkan, along with more than 120 of his disciples, offered prayers, the sweat of their faces rising up in steam and their voices resounding to the heavens. They chanted the Nembutsu, the Prayer for Rain Sutra,²⁵ and the Lotus Sutra, and the priest Ryōkan preached on the eight precepts in an effort to produce rainfall within seven days. When no sign of rain appeared after four or five days, he grew frantic and summoned hundreds of his disciples from Tahō-ji temple²⁶ to join him, exhausting all his powers of prayer. But within seven days not a drop of rain fell.

At that time, the Sage Nichiren sent a messenger to him on no less than three occasions, saying, “A wanton woman called Izumi Shikibu and a priest named Nōin²⁷ who broke the precepts were each able to cause rain immediately with just a thirty-one-syllable poem that made little sense and was full of excess flourishes. Why is it, then, that the Honorable Ryōkan—who observes all the precepts and rules, has mastered the Lotus and True Word doctrines, and is renowned as the foremost in compassion—cannot produce rainfall within seven days, even when assisted by hundreds of his followers? Consider this: if one cannot cross a moat ten feet wide, can one cross a moat that is twenty or thirty feet wide? If you cannot bring about rainfall, which is easy, how can you attain rebirth in the pure land and achieve Buddhahood, which is difficult?

“Accordingly you should from this point on revise your prejudiced views, which lead you to hate Nichiren. If you fear for your next life, come to me immediately as you have promised. I will teach you the Law that causes rain to fall and the path that leads to Buddhahood. Have you not failed to produce rain within seven days? The drought intensifies and the eight winds²⁸ blow all the more violently, while the people’s grief grows deeper and deeper. Stop your prayers immediately.” When the messenger conveyed the Sage Nichiren’s message word for word at the hour of the monkey (3:00–5:00 p.m.) on the seventh day, the priest Ryōkan wept, and his disciples and lay believers also cried aloud in their chagrin.

When the Sage Nichiren incurred the wrath of the government authorities and was asked about this matter, he told the story as it really happened. So he said: “If the priest Ryōkan had had any sense of shame, he would have disappeared from public view and retired to a mountain forest. Or if he had become my disciple as he had promised, then he would have shown at least a little seeking spirit. But in actuality, he made endless false accusations against me in an attempt to have me executed. Is this the conduct of a noble priest?” I, Yorimoto, also personally observed the situation. Where other affairs are concerned, I would not dare to address my lord in this fashion, but in this matter alone, however I may consider it, I find I cannot remain silent.

 

Notes

23. Gomyō (750–834) was a priest of the Dharma Characteristics school. According to The Record of the Precepts of the One Mind, in 818, when people were enduring the hardships of a great drought, Dengyō, in response to Emperor Saga’s command, offered prayers employing the Lotus, Golden Light, and Benevolent Kings sutras. On the third day rain began to fall. Gomyo prayed for rain with his forty disciples using only the Benevolent Kings Sutra, and rain did not fall until the fifth day.

24. Shubin was a ninth-century priest of the True Word school. In 823 he was given Sai-ji (West Temple) by Emperor Saga, while Kōbō was given Tō-ji (East Temple). In the spring of 824, during a drought, Shubin competed with Kōbō in praying for rain. He brought about rainfall on the seventh day, while Kōbō could not make rain fall even after twenty-one days.

25. This sutra, translated by Pu-k’ung, details the ritual of the prayer for rain and the proper conduct to be observed by the one performing it.

26. A temple, no longer extant, in Kamakura. In light of the text, it would appear to have been a large temple and under the supervision of Ryōkan.

27. Izumi Shikibu (b. c. 976), a court lady-in-waiting, and Nōin (b. 988), a poet-priest, whose works include poems that express prayers for rain.

28. Eight kinds of gales including rainstorms, tornados, and storms. Explanations vary according to the source, but in any event they indicate actual violent weather conditions. When Ryōkan offered his prayers, no rain fell; instead, destructive winds arose.

 

Lecture

In the previous chapter, it was stated that Ryokan, who was revered by society and even called the rebirth of Shakyamuni, was actually a demonic monk who would not hesitate to drive people to their deaths to fulfill his own ambitions.

In this chapter, through the specific details of the rainmaking contest of the Bunei era—which can be considered the direct cause of Ryokan driving Nichiren Daishonin toward execution and exile—the Daishonin further exposes Ryokan’s true nature in a concrete manner, urging the lord to reconsider his devotion to Ryokan.

In Bunei 8 (1271), a severe drought began in the spring, and even after entering the rainy season, there was no sign of rain at all. As part of its countermeasures, the Kamakura shogunate ordered Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji temple to perform a “ritual for rain.”

The Pride and the Challenge

As indicated by the passage, “He always proclaims that he can make rain fall at will” (0349-16), Ryokan was highly confident in his rainmaking rituals alongside his charitable activities. Therefore, he readily accepted the shogunate’s order and did not hesitate to boast proudly, saying, “I shall perform the ritual for rain and save all people.”

Nichiren Daishonin, who had long been deeply concerned about defeating Ryokan’s deception and arrogance to save the populace suffering in the agony of the Avici hell, challenged Ryokan to a rainmaking contest, taking the stance that: “Although this matter seems small, I would like to use this opportunity to show the validation of Nichiren’s teachings to everyone.”

Of course, although it was a contest to make rain, it was nonetheless a spiritual battle upon which religious figures staked their lives. The people’s growing yearning for rain naturally turned into an intense interest in this contest. Therefore, despite being a match for rain, this confrontation carried a weight truly comparable to a public debate.

The Conditions of the Contest

The Daishonin sent a message to Ryokan through two of Ryokan’s disciples who were Nembutsu practitioners, Suo-bo and the Lay Priest Irisawa, stating:

” He sent a message to the priest Ryōkan, saying: “If the Honorable Ryōkan brings about rainfall within seven days, I, Nichiren, will stop teaching that the Nembutsu leads to the hell of incessant suffering and become his disciple, observing the two hundred and fifty precepts. But if no rain falls, that will show clearly that the Honorable Ryōkan is deliberately confusing and misleading others, though he appears to be observing the precepts. In ancient times there were many instances in which the supremacy of one teaching over another was determined through prayers for rain, such as the challenge between Gomyō and the Great Teacher Dengyō, or between Shubin and Kōbō.””

He also sent word:

“If it rains within seven days, you can believe that you will be reborn in the Pure Land by virtue of the eight precepts and the Nembutsu, which you already uphold. But if it does not rain, you should place your faith in the Lotus Sutra alone.”

The Outcome of the Prayer

Upon hearing this, Ryokan wept with joy. He and more than 120 disciples prayed desperately to make it rain within seven days, but when after four or five days there was still no sign of rain, Ryokan hastily requested reinforcements of several hundred disciples from Taho-ji temple. They exerted all their power to pray for rain, but because it was a prayer based on erroneous teachings, not a single drop of rain fell by the promised seventh day.

The outcome of the contest was absolutely clear. The desperate prayers of the monks of erroneous teachings not only failed to bring rain, but on the contrary, the drought worsened, gale-force winds blew violently, and the grief of the populace only deepened.

Nichiren Daishonin’s Refutation and the Aftermath

In the midst of Ryokan’s prayers for rain, the Daishonin sent messengers three times to thoroughly refute him. He declared that even if Ryokan was praised by society as a strict observer of the precepts and monastic rules, a master of the profound meanings of the Lotus and Shingon sutras, and the foremost in compassion, if he could not actually make a single drop of rain fall, he was inferior even to Izumi Shikibu, a sensual woman who caused rain with a 31-syllable poem, or the precept-breaking monk Nōin Hōshi. The Daishonin stringently questioned how Ryokan, who could not even bring rain, could possibly achieve rebirth or enlightenment.

Utterly defeated in the rainmaking contest, Ryokan broke his promise with the Daishonin. Instead, he plotted to eliminate the Daishonin, spreading endless slanderous rumors to high-ranking shogunate officials in an attempt to have the Daishonin executed. Yorimoto petitioned his lord, stating that he could not revere such a man as a noble monk.

 

 

Chapter7(On Ryuzo-bo)

You state in your official letter, “After meeting the priest Ryūzō and the elder of Gokuraku-ji temple, I look up to them as I would to Shakyamuni or Amida Buddha.” Addressing this statement, too, with the utmost respect, I must point out that, while in Kyoto, the priest Ryūzō was feeding morning and evening on human flesh; and when this became known, the priests of Enryaku-ji temple on Mount Hiei rose up against him, saying, “The world has entered the latter age, and evil demons are rampant throughout the country. We must subdue them with the power of the Mountain King.”²⁹ They burned down his dwelling and intended to punish him, but he quickly escaped, and no one knew of his whereabouts. At this point he suddenly appeared in Kamakura and was again eating human flesh, causing right-minded people to tremble in fear. Nevertheless, you say you respect him as a Buddha or a bodhisattva. How can I, as your retainer, refrain from pointing out my lord’s error? I wonder what the levelheaded people in our clan think about this matter.

 

Notes

29. A deity said to be the guardian god of Mount Hiei and the Tendai school.

 

Lecture

In this chapter, addressing Lord Ema, who revered Ryuzō-bo as if he were Shakyamuni Buddha or Amida Buddha, the Daishonin raises the atrocity of Ryuzō-bo’s cannibalism. He admonishes Lord Ema for his blind belief, emphasizing that it is utterly preposterous to worship and revere such a man as a Buddha or Bodhisattva.

About Ryuzō-bo

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, “revered as if he were Shakyamuni or Amida,” Ryuzō-bo was worshiped to such an extent that his reputation rivaled that of Ryokan of Gokuraku-ji temple. However, people of conscience harbored a deep dread regarding his private life, which defied all human morality. This can be understood from the passage in this chapter that notes: “When it happened in Kamakura that he ate human flesh, people of feeling were struck with terror.”

Who, then, was this monk named Ryuzō-bo? Originally, Ryuzō-bo was a monk residing within the temple complex of Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei. His birth, upbringing, and exact clerical standing were all unknown. The only fact that was entirely clear was that he would secretly descend into the capital of Kyoto to scavenge the bodies of those who had starved to death, habitually consuming human flesh day and night.

Exposure and Banishing from Mount Hiei

Upon discovering this, the monks of Mount Hiei rigorously investigated Ryuzō-bo’s conduct. An entry dated April 27 in the first year of Kenji (1275) in the Tendai Zasu Ki (Chronicle of the Tendai Chief Abbot) describes the event as follows:

“The monks of Mount Hiei descended in a crowd and assembled at Tōkō-ji temple. They dispatched official agents and Inugami-bito (low-ranking shrine laborers) to burn down the residence of Ryuzō-shonin, and the Inugami-bito and others demolished his quarters in Nakayama.”

This chapter similarly describes the event:

“In the capital, it was exposed that he was making human flesh and bones his daily food morning and evening. Consequently, the monks of Mount Hiei rose up, declaring that in this latter age, an evil demon had appeared in the land. Resolving to punish him through the power of Sannō (the guardian deity of Mount Hiei), they burned down his residence and sought to execute him…”

Flight to Kamakura and the Daishonin’s Refutation

Having barely escaped from Kyoto with his life, Ryuzō-bo fled and appeared in the city of Kamakura. It appears that even after entering Kamakura, he continued to consume human flesh in secrecy.

Despite these horrifying atrocities, the public blindly respected Ryuzō-bo as a “shonin” (venerable priest) and trusted him implicitly. The Daishonin stringently points out this grave error and thoroughly refutes their delusion.

 

 

Chapter8(Remonstrating with One’s Lord)

In the same letter you also state, “To defer to one’s lord or parents, whether they are right or wrong, is exemplary conduct according with the will of Buddhas and gods and also with social propriety.” As this matter is of the utmost importance, I will refrain from expressing my own opinion and instead cite authoritative works [of sages and worthies]. The Classic of Filial Piety states, “[In a case of moral wrong,] a son must admonish his father, and a minister must admonish his lord.” Cheng Hsüan³⁰ says, “If a lord or a father behaves unjustly and his minister or son fails to remonstrate with him, then the state or the family will come to ruin.” The New Narrations³¹ states, “If one fails to remonstrate against one’s ruler’s tyranny, one is not a loyal minister. If one fails to speak out for fear of death, one is not a man of courage.”

The Great Teacher Dengyō states, “In general, where unrighteousness is concerned, a son must admonish his father, and a minister must admonish his lord. Truly one should know this: As is the case with lord and minister, or with father and son, so it is with teacher and disciple. A disciple must speak out when his teacher goes astray.”³² The Lotus Sutra states, “We care nothing for our bodies or lives but are anxious only for the unsurpassed way.” The Nirvana Sutra reads, “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.” The Great Teacher Chang-an says, “‘[A royal envoy . . . would rather], even though it costs him his life, in the end conceal none of the words of his ruler’ means that one’s body is insignificant while the Law is supreme. One should give one’s life in order to propagate the Law.”³³ He also states, “One who destroys or brings confusion to the Buddha’s teachings is betraying them. If one befriends another person but lacks the mercy to correct him, one is in fact his enemy. But one who reprimands and corrects an offender . . . rids the offender of evil is acting as his parent.”³⁴ My fellow samurai may think that I, Yorimoto, am lacking in propriety toward you, but in all other worldly affairs, I will resolutely heed the words of my lord and my parents.

 

Notes

30. Cheng Hsüan (127–200) was a scholar of the Later Han dynasty, who wrote commentaries on The Classic of Filial Piety, Analects, and other texts.

31. A collection of the anecdotes that appeared from the Spring and Autumn period through the Former Han dynasty. Written by Liu Hsiang (77–6 b.c.e.), it consists of ten fascicles.

32. An Essay on the Protection of the Nation.

33. The Annotations on the Nirvana Sutra.

34. Ibid.

 

Lecture

Introduction and the Duty of Remonstration

This chapter discusses the fundamental spirit of loyalty and filial piety. According to the official letter (kudashijō), the way of a subject or child is to obey their lord or parent in all matters. In response to this, the Daishonin states that while obeying one’s lord or parent is a natural obligation, if they fall into error, it is the true duty of a subject or child to remonstrate with them. On the contrary, he explains—citing passages from the Classic of Filial Piety and other texts—that failing to remonstrate will lead to the ruin of the family and the decline of the nation, and therefore one must rectify the errors of their lord or parent.

The Confucian morality that expounds the path of relations between lord and subject, or parent and child, is often prone to be viewed as a feudalistic and rigid ideology. However, if we look at its original spirit, we can see that it is extremely liberal and even modern in nature.

Separation of Secular Matters and Buddhism

At present, Shijo Kingo is not making an issue of his lord or parent committing a secular error; rather, he is rectifying an error concerning Buddhism—an error concerning life itself. This can be understood from the final line of this chapter, which states: “In secular matters, you should follow the orders of your parents and your sovereign without question.”

This implies the unspoken meaning that while one must absolutely obey their commands in worldly affairs, when it comes to Buddhism, one cannot comply even with the sovereign’s orders. To refuse compliance in matters of Buddhism means nothing less than maintaining personal freedom regarding the realm of the human spirit, such as thought and religious belief.

Timeless Ethics: Two Key Insights

In any case, this chapter contains numerous insights into inherent human ethics that transcend eras, societies, and social systems.

First, one must not blindly follow their lord or parent, but rather support and protect them while being compliant. To achieve this, if the lord or parent commits an injustice, one must remonstrate with them; this is the true meaning of protecting one’s lord or parent.

Second, one must stand with the resolve to maintain social justice, hold fast to one’s convictions, and protect the Mystic Law, even at the cost of sacrificing one’s precious life. This may seem contrary to Buddhism, which is supposed to value life above all else, but in reality, there is no contradiction. This is because the Mystic Law is the fundamental power that renders life most supreme and dignified. If one were to protect their own body by sacrificing the Mystic Law, their physical body might be preserved, but the Mystic Law that adorns their life from within would be lost. Only the physical frame would remain, stripped of the reality that makes the self truly dignified.

Conversely, by fully protecting the Mystic Law, one’s precious life will consequently shine brilliantly through the power of Buddhism, allowing life to achieve its ultimate dignity. Therefore, it is taught that maintaining the precious spirit of Buddhism—even if it means staking one’s irreplaceable life—is the true guidepost for humanity.

 

 

Chapter9(Remonstrance from the Perspective of Buddhist Teachings)

I can only lament when I see my lord, to whom I am so profoundly indebted, being deceived by those who embrace evil teachings and in danger of falling into the evil paths. Because King Ajātashatru took Devadatta and the six non-Buddhist teachers as his mentors and opposed Shakyamuni Buddha, all the people of the kingdom of Magadha became enemies of Buddhism, and the 580,000 clansmen of the king also opposed the Buddha’s disciples. Among them, only Minister Jīvaka was the Buddha’s disciple. The great king disapproved of his minister’s devotion to the Buddha just as my lord disapproves of me, Yorimoto. But in the end he discarded the erroneous doctrines of the other six ministers and took faith in the correct teaching that Jīvaka espoused. Perhaps, in the same way, I will save you in the end.

When I speak this way, you may wonder how I dare to compare you to Ajātashatru, who committed the five cardinal sins. But it is clear in the light of the sutra that your offense is a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand times graver than his, though I hesitate to say such a thing.

The Lotus Sutra states, “Now this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are all my children.”³⁵ If this scriptural statement is correct, Shakyamuni Buddha is the father and mother, teacher and sovereign to all living beings in Japan. Amida Buddha does not possess these three virtues. However, you ignore the Buddha of the three virtues and invoke the name of another Buddha [Amida] day and night, morning and evening, sixty thousand or eighty thousand times a day. Is this not an unfilial deed? It was the Thus Come One Shakyamuni himself who originally taught that Amida had vowed to save all people; but in the end he regretted it and said, “I am the only person [who can rescue and protect others].” After that, he never again taught that there are two or three Buddhas who can save the people. No one has two fathers or two mothers. What sutra says that Amida is the father of this country? What treatise indicates him as its mother?

The teachings of Nembutsu, such as the Meditation Sutra, were expounded provisionally in preparation for the Lotus Sutra. They are like the scaffolding used when building a pagoda. Some think that, because the Nembutsu teachings and the Lotus Sutra are both a part of Buddhism, they differ only in that one was expounded earlier and one later; but these people are laboring under a profound misconception. They are like someone foolish enough to prize the scaffolding even after the pagoda has been completed, or like someone who says that the stars are brighter than the sun. Concerning such persons, the sutra states, “Though I teach and instruct them, they do not believe or accept my teachings . . . When his life comes to an end he will enter the Avīchi hell.”³⁶

All the inhabitants of Japan at present are people who reject Shakyamuni Buddha while invoking the name of Amida Buddha, who discard the Lotus Sutra and believe in the Meditation and other sutras. Or they are lay men and women who make offerings to these slanderers, or the renowned priests and even the ruler of the country who revere as wise men those who in fact commit the five or seven cardinal sins³⁷ or the eight offenses. Of such people, the sutra states that they “will keep repeating this cycle [of rebirth in the Avīchi hell] for a countless number of kalpas.”³⁸

Being aware to some small degree of these errors, I have ventured to bring them to your attention. Among those in service, despite their differences in rank, there is none who does not honor his lord, each according to his station. If, knowing that my lord will fare badly in both this life and the next, I were to remain silent in fear of my fellow samurai or of the world at large, then would I not be guilty of complicity in your offense?

 

Notes

35. Lotus Sutra, chap. 3. This passage indicates the virtues of sovereign and parent. A passage at the end of this paragraph, “I am the only person who can rescue and protect others,” indicates the virtue of teacher.

36. Ibid.

37. According to The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight,” the seven cardinal sins are the five cardinal sins (see Glossary) plus the offenses of killing a monk of high virtue and killing a teacher.

38. Lotus Sutra, chap. 3.

 

Lecture

This chapter, citing the example of Minister Jiva, who admonished and saved King Ajatashatru, compares their relationship to that of Lord Ema and Shijo Kingo, and admonishes Lord Ema to abandon his adherence to the Nembutsu faith (the belief in Amida Buddha), which constitutes a grave slander of the Correct Law. Furthermore, it states that the retainers who fail to admonish their lord—even as he is about to fall into suffering across both the present and future existences—are themselves guilty of the same offense (the complicity in slander).

“When I speak this way, you may wonder how I dare to compare you to Ajātashatru, who committed the five cardinal sins. But it is clear in the light of the sutra that your offense is a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand times graver than his, though I hesitate to say such a thing.“

Lord Ema might become infuriated, wondering if his retainer is comparing him to the notoriously wicked King Ajatashatru. However, the Daishonin definitively concludes based on the sutras that Lord Ema’s offense is, in truth, millions of times graver. Why, then, did the Daishonin state that his sin is even deeper than that of King Ajatashatru? The sin committed by King Ajatashatru was the five cardinal sins. In contrast, Lord Ema is committing the sin of slandering the Correct Law (slander of the Law) by believing in Amida Buddha. While those who commit the five cardinal sins remain in the Avichi hell for the duration of one kalpa, the sutras clearly state that the punishment for slandering the Correct Law lasts for “countless kalpas.” Herein lies the strictness of Buddhism and the dreadfulness of slandering the Law. It can be said that the Daishonin dared to strictly reprove Lord Ema’s error in order to inform him, who was ignorant of Buddhism, of its true reality.

On the Three Virtues of Sovereign, Teacher, and Parent

 The passage reads, “Now this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are all my children.“ According to this text, the Buddha Shakyamuni, the lord of teachings, is the parent, the teacher, and the sovereign of all living beings in the nation of Japan.

A Buddha is invariably endowed with the three virtues (sovereign, teacher, and parent). First, regarding the three virtues of the Buddha of the theoretical teaching (Shakumon), Chapter Three of the Lotus Sutra (“Simile and Parable”) states: “Now this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are all my children. But now this place is rife with many burning afflictions, and I alone am capable of saving and protecting them.” “All my domain” manifests the virtue of the sovereign; “all my children” manifests the virtue of the parent; and “I alone am capable of saving and protecting them” manifests the virtue of the teacher. Together, they represent the three virtues of the Buddha. Next, regarding the three virtues of the Buddha of the essential teaching (Honmon), they are found in the “Life Span” (Juryo) chapter: the phrase “I make this land peaceful and secure” corresponds to the virtue of the sovereign, “I am constantly preaching the Law to instruct and convert them” corresponds to the virtue of the teacher, and “I am the father of this world” corresponds to the virtue of the parent.

Turning to the present day of the Latter Day of the Law, who corresponds to the Buddha endowed with these three virtues? The true Buddha who answers this question is neither the Amida Buddha who resides in the Western Pure Land, nor the historical Shakyamuni Buddha who was born in India. It is Nichiren Daishonin, an ordinary mortal of the Latter Day of the Law, who is the true Buddha.

By the way, what kind of functions and workings do the three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent refer to? As already indicated in the lecture on The Opening of the Eyes (Part One), the virtue of the sovereign is the power and function to protect one’s dependents; the virtue of the teacher is the power to guide them; and the virtue of the parent is the function to love and care for them.

The three virtues of sovereign, teacher, and parent are neither a revival of an ancient style nor remnants of feudal ethics. They are essential functions indispensable for human beings to receive life in this world, form a society, and lead their lives. Without the power to protect one’s dependents, one cannot build, protect, or nurture the living space in which they reside; indeed, even survival itself would be threatened. Furthermore, if the power to guide one’s dependents—which everyone possesses to a greater or lesser degree—were entirely absent, society would be in danger of running toward evil rather than good, and toward unhappiness rather than happiness. A society built only by individuals living in isolation, a mob of people, would fall into a state of anarchy and fail to even function as a society. Moreover, if the function to love and care for dependents were lost, storms of mercilessness and coldheartedness would visit human society, creating a tragic and cruel world of hell.

The “sovereign” in the virtue of the sovereign corresponds to society itself today. Therefore, the virtue of the sovereign is not the act of receiving benefits from society, but the function of trying to bestow benefits upon society—the working of a person standing on a broad perspective. The actions of a person who always places the happiness of the people as the first priority are the very working of the virtue of the sovereign.

A person with the virtue of the teacher acts like a lighthouse, providing hope and a clear light for the path ahead to those sailing vaguely through the voyage of life. This does not necessarily point to those holding professions such as politicians or educators, nor does it refer to philosophers or ideologues. Even if unnamed or uncrowned, a person who resolutely and confidently guides others along the path of true life is the one endowed with the virtue of the teacher. A mentor in life, a leader who opens human eyes to the truth, is called a person of the virtue of the teacher.

The virtue of the parent is expressed as the attribute of a strict father or a compassionate mother, but furthermore, it refers to a person who saves others from unhappiness and feels all sufferings as their own. A person who does not consider others and thinks only of their own self-interest can never be said to possess the virtue of the parent. A person who functions to cherish and nurture both themselves and others so that they can lead a humanly rich life is the one endowed with the virtue of the parent.

Nichiren Daishonin is the person who perfectly embodies all of these three virtues just as they are. Therefore, there is no doubt that in the bodies of those who accept and uphold the Gohonzon manifested by the Daishonin, and exert themselves in faith and practice, the blood of the same three virtues as the Daishonin pulses and leaps with vitality. Those who embody and practice actions filled with the three virtues in their own lives and in society are the true practitioners of the faith of the Mystical Law.

A Grave Misconception: Refuting Erroneous Views of Buddhism

“they differ only in that one was expounded earlier and one later; but these people are laboring under a profound misconception.“

This passage refutes the undiscriminating view of Buddhism that all doctrines can lead to enlightenment regardless of which sutra is followed, based solely on the idea that they share the same origin and conclusion, ignoring the differences between what was preached earlier or later. This way of thinking has been traditionally practiced since ancient times and continues to form the bedrock of the Japanese view of Buddhism even today. However, this seems to be spoken merely as an excuse for abandoning judgment, without any actual investigation or comparison of the contents of Buddhist scriptures or the doctrines of each school. If one were to strictly investigate and compare those contents, it would be vividly clear how irresponsible such a statement truly is.

 

 

Chapter10(Concluding the Remonstrance)

No one can deny that the Nakatsukasa of two generations, my father and myself, have dedicated our lives in service to our lords. When your father³⁹ incurred the wrath of the authorities, his hundreds of retainers all shifted their allegiance; among them, my late father Yorikazu alone remained faithful to the end, accompanying him into exile to the province of Izu. Shortly before the battle that took place in Kamakura on the twelfth day of the second month in the eleventh year of the Bun’ei era,⁴⁰ I, Yorimoto, was in the province of Izu, but no sooner had I received word at the hour of the monkey on the tenth day than I hastened alone over the Hakone pass and joined with seven others who vowed before you to put an end to their lives. But the world at length grew calm again, and my lord now lives in peace. Since that time, you have included me among those who enjoy your trust in all matters, whether trifling or significant. How, then, could I estrange myself from you? I would obediently follow you even into the next life. If I should attain Buddhahood, I would save my lord as well, and if you were to attain Buddhahood, I expect you would do the same for me.

So I listened to the sermons of various priests and inquired into which teaching leads to Buddhahood. And I came to believe that, according to the teaching of the Lotus Sutra, the Sage Nichiren is the sovereign of the threefold world, the father and mother of all living beings, and the emissary of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni—Bodhisattva Superior Practices.

 

Notes

39. “Your father” here is thought to refer to Ema Mitsutoki. Nakatsukasa Yorikazu, Yorimoto’s father, served Ema Mitsutoki. After Yorikazu’s death, Yorimoto served both Mitsutoki, who had by that time become a lay priest, and his son Chikatoki, to whom this letter is addressed. In 1246 Mitsutoki came under suspicion of plotting a rebellion against the regent Hōjō Tokiyori and was exiled to Ema in Izu.

40. Reference is to an unsuccessful attempt by Hōjō Tokisuke, an elder half brother of the regent Hōjō Tokimune, to seize power. It actually occurred in the ninth year of Bun’ei (1272). “The eleventh year of the Bun’ei era (1274)” (the year of invasion by the Mongol forces) is probably an error. Among the chief conspirators in the rebellion were Ema Mitsutoki’s younger brothers, Noritoki and Tokiaki, who plotted to have Hōjō Tokisuke assume the regency. These two, along with Tokisuke, were eventually executed for their part in this affair. Their nephew, Ema Chikatoki, was the lord of the Ema clan at the time of the attempted coup and fell under suspicion of complicity. It would appear that Chikatoki’s faithful retainers vowed to commit suicide should their lord be executed.

 

Lecture

This chapter constitutes the conclusion of the remonstrance addressed to the lord. The Shijo clan had served the Ema clan for generations. However, their relationship became strained over matters of faith, and compounded by the slanders of Yorimoto’s colleagues, a rift opened between the lord, Ema Chikatoki, and Yorimoto. The Kuwagayatsu Debate further widened the gap between the two.

Therefore, in this section of the chapter, Yorimoto demonstrates his sincere devotion through historical facts, showing how the Shijo clan had served the Ema household during times of critical crisis when its very survival was at stake. This passage declares that Shijo Yorimoto harbors no duplicity toward his master, and that he offers this remonstrance solely out of his earnest desire for the lord’s attainment of Buddhahood, wishing for nothing but his lord’s enlightenment in both the present and future existences.

Examining the historical events that appear in this chapter, “the displeasure of the late lord” refers to the incident of 1246 (the fourth year of the Kangen era). At that time, a rumor circulated that a rebellion was brewing in Kamakura. Within the Hojo clan, there was a plot to reinstate the former Shogun, Yoritsune, who had been ousted from his position. Mitsutoki was among the ringleaders of this conspiracy, and as a consequence, he entered the priesthood and was exiled to the province of Izu. At this critical juncture, while almost all of Mitsutoki’s retainers abandoned him and departed, Kingo’s father, Yorikazu, alone accompanied his lord to the place of exile.

Next, the text mentions “the battle in Kamakura on the twelfth day of the second month in the eleventh year of Bunei,” but this is presumably a clerical error made during transcription; the actual event was the “Tokisuke Rebellion” that occurred in the second month of the ninth year of Bunei (1272). On this occasion, Noritoki and Tokiaki, who were Mitsutoki’s younger brothers, became the leaders of the plot, attempting to install Tokimune’s elder brother, Tokisuke, into the position of regent. However, the plot was uncovered, and Noritoki, Tokiaki, and Tokisuke were all executed.

In the Ema family, although Mitsutoki’s son, Chikatoki, was the head of the clan, Noritoki and Tokiaki were Chikatoki’s uncles. For this reason, the loyal retainers of the clan were prepared to commit suicide if their lord were to be executed. This situation can be inferred from the expression in the Gosho, “among the eight persons who were prepared to commit suicide in his presence.” The Ema clan was truly like a flickering flame before the wind, on the very brink of ruin.

Later, the regent’s suspicions were cleared, and the Ema clan was able to lead peaceful and secure days. Yorimoto explains his innermost feelings, stating that the reason he has maintained an unswerving loyalty inherited from his father’s generation and why he began to follow the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin is entirely because he desires to follow his lord into future existences and ensure his lord’s attainment of Buddhahood.

 

 

Chapter11(Revealing the Root Cause of Calamities and Celestial Anomalies)

More than four hundred years have now passed since the evil teaching called the True Word school was introduced to Japan. The Great Teacher Dengyō brought it from China in the twenty-fourth year of the Enryaku era (805), but he considered it undesirable for this country, and therefore did not allow it to be designated as a school in its own right, defining it merely as an expedient teaching of the Tendai Lotus school. Later, when the Great Teacher Dengyō had passed away, the Great Teacher Kōbō, not to be outdone by him, took advantage of the opportunity to establish the True Word teaching as an independent school, but Enryaku-ji temple on Mount Hiei would not accept it. However, Jikaku and Chishō were of limited insight, and although they lived on Mount Hiei, their hearts inclined toward Kōbō of Tō-ji temple. Perhaps for this reason, they turned against their teacher Dengyō and for the first time established the True Word school at Enryaku-ji. This marked the beginning of our country’s ruin.

For the more than three hundred years that followed, some insisted on the superiority of the True Word teaching over the Lotus Sutra; others, on the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over the True Word teaching; and still others, on the equality of both teachings. As the dispute continued unresolved, the imperial rule remained unaffected and did not come to an end. However, in the time of the Retired Emperor Goshirakawa, the seventy-seventh sovereign, the chief priest of the Tendai school, Myōun, became exclusively committed to the True Word teaching and was killed by Yoshinaka.⁴¹ This is an example of the passage that states, “Their heads will split into seven pieces.”⁴²

Then, in the time of the Retired Emperor of Oki, the eighty-second sovereign, the Zen and Nembutsu schools appeared and spread throughout the land, as had the great evil True Word teaching. So the vows made by the Sun Goddess and the god Hachiman to protect one hundred sovereigns throughout one hundred reigns were broken, and the imperial authority came to an end.⁴³ Through the workings of the Sun Goddess and the god Hachiman, affairs of state then came to be entrusted to the Acting Administrator Yoshitoki of the Kanto region.⁴⁴

These three evil teachings spread to Kanto, where they gained support within the ruling clan to a surprising degree. Therefore, the two heavenly lords Brahmā and Shakra, the gods of the sun and moon, and the four heavenly kings were enraged and admonished the rulers by means of unprecedented disturbances in the heavens and calamities on earth. When their admonitions went unheeded, they commanded a neighboring country to punish those who slandered the Lotus Sutra. The Sun Goddess and the god Hachiman were powerless to help. The Sage Nichiren alone was aware of all this.

Such being the strictness of the Lotus Sutra, I have set aside all trivial concerns and served you devotedly until this day in my desire to lead my lord to enlightenment. Are not those who accuse me falsely thereby disloyal to you? If I were to leave the clan and abandon you now, you would immediately fall into the hell of incessant suffering. Then, even if I myself were to attain Buddhahood, I could only grieve, feeling that I had done so in vain.

 

Notes

41. Yoshinaka is Minamoto no Yoshinaka (1154–1184). Also known as Kiso Yoshinaka. A general of the Minamoto clan. He beheaded Myōun, the fifty-fifth and fifty-seventh chief priest of Enryaku-ji, when he attacked Mount Hiei during the struggle between the Minamoto and the Taira clans.

42. Lotus Sutra, chap. 26.

43. During the Jōkyū Disturbance of 1221, the imperial forces were defeated in an attempt to overthrow the shogunate government based in Kamakura. This defeat strengthened the Kamakura government’s hold upon the nation and effectively broke the power of imperial rule. The Retired Emperor Gotoba, who had planned the attempted overthrow, was exiled by the regent Hōjō Yoshitoki to Oki, an island in the Sea of Japan.

44. Hōjō Yoshitoki (1163–1224) was the regent of the Kamakura shogunate during the Jōkyū Disturbance. The Kamakura shogunate made Kanto (eastern Japan) its base, while the imperial court was located in Kyoto in the western part of the country.

 

Lecture

This passage demonstrates how the evil teachings of the Shingon sect have corrupted the nation of Japan since the Heian period, and furthermore, how the spread of Zen and Nembutsu since the beginning of the Kamakura period has plunged the entire country into a state of critical peril. It declares that Nichiren Daishonin is the only person who recognizes the root cause of these disasters, and that those who slander his follower, Shijo Kingo, are disloyal to their lord. It goes so far as to assert that if Shijo Kingo were to leave the Ema family, his lord would instantly fall into the Avichi hell.

Even as times change, this principle represents the great spirit that must be kept deep within the hearts of all followers of Nichiren Daishonin and passed down through generations. In other words, one must possess the clear awareness that “I am here in this society to serve as a vital pillar to prevent the people and society from falling into the depths of suffering,” and this awareness must be backed by actual practice within society. Such a person can truly be called a genuine disciple of Nichiren Daishonin and a practitioner of the Great Law.

“The Sage Nichiren alone was aware of all this.“

In this passage, through the voice of Yorimoto, the Daishonin like a lion’s roar declares that he alone is the one who has recognized the root cause of the happiness and unhappiness of human life and society.

What, then, is this root cause that Nichiren Daishonin alone recognized? It is the proposition that ideology and religion possess qualities of good and evil, correctness and error, and that these qualities are directly reflected within the life of the human beings who believe in them, thereby governing their happiness and unhappiness.

However, we must understand here that the true significance of Nichiren Daishonin does not lie merely in knowing the root cause of happiness and unhappiness. His ultimate, grand purpose was the establishment of the Gohonzon—the object of devotion for all humankind—to save the people throughout the ten thousand years of the Latter Day of the Law and the endless future, and he revealed the source of happiness and unhappiness as a prerequisite for this purpose.

This is akin to a physician who first examines a patient to diagnose the cause of an illness before administering the appropriate treatment. A physician’s mission is to cure the ailments of the body. The Buddha’s mission is to cure the ailments of the mind—that is, to resolve the fundamental sufferings of human life. In other words, we must understand that this lion’s roar of Nichiren Daishonin is a declaration that inherently contains the manifestation of the Gohonzon, the ultimate entity for enabling the people to enjoy true happiness. It is a declaration that brings the illness of ordinary mortals—the root of unhappiness—into sharp focus prior to the inscription of the Gohonzon; failing to recognize this would be to omit the most vital, finishing touch.

 

 

Chapter12(Refusing to submit a written oath)

As for the Hinayana precepts,⁴⁵ the two hundred and fifty precepts were expounded for the heavenly gods by the great arhat Pūrna, but the layman Vimalakīrti reprimanded him, saying, “You should not place impure food in a jeweled vessel.”⁴⁶ Angulimāla reproached Manjushrī, saying, “You will never realize the truth of emptiness expounded in the Mahayana teachings through [Hinayana] practices, which are as insignificant as mosquitoes and gadflies.”⁴⁷ Manjushrī later set forth seventeen flaws in the Hinayana precepts,⁴⁸ and the Thus Come One likewise repudiated them with the eight analogies.⁴⁹ The Great Teacher Dengyō denounced them as donkey’s milk and likened them to a toad.⁵⁰ The later disciples of Ganjin⁵¹ accused the Great Teacher Dengyō of calumny and appealed directly to Emperor Saga, but because what Dengyō had said is clearly indicated in the sutras, their efforts were to no avail. The petition submitted to the emperor by the schools of Nara proved futile, and the great ordination platform [for conferring the Mahayana precepts] was erected at Enryaku-ji temple on Mount Hiei. Thus the Hinayana precepts have already long since been discarded. Even if I, Yorimoto, should compare the priest Ryōkan to a mosquito, a gadfly, or a toad, because such assertions are clearly based on the sutras, you would have no reason to find fault with me.

Now it is unimaginably grievous to me that you would order me to submit a written oath [discarding my faith in the Lotus Sutra]. If I, Yorimoto, were to follow the trend of the times, which goes against the Buddhist teachings, and write such an oath, you would immediately incur the punishment of the Lotus Sutra. When the Sage Nichiren, the envoy of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni, was exiled because of the false charges leveled against him by the priest Ryōkan, fighting broke out within one hundred days,⁵² just as he had predicted, and a great number of warriors perished. Among them were the scions of the Nagoe clan.⁵³ Is not the priest Ryōkan solely to blame for their deaths? And if you now pay heed to the views of Ryūzō and Ryōkan and force me to write this oath, will you not be equally guilty?

I am not sure whether those who slander me are simply ignorant of this causal principle, or whether they are intentionally trying to do you harm. In any event, I urge you to summon those who are plotting to use me in order to provoke some major incident, and have them confront me in your presence.

With my deep respect.

 

The twenty-fifth day of the sixth month in the third year of Kenji (1277), cyclical sign hinoto-ushi

 

Submitted by Shijō Nakatsukasa-no-jō Yorimoto.

 

Notes

45. The Hinayana precepts are divided into several categories, such as the five precepts, the eight precepts (both being for lay believers), the ten precepts for both male and female novices of the Buddhist Order, the two hundred and fifty precepts for fully ordained monks, and the five hundred precepts for fully ordained nuns. Ryōkan, whom Lord Ema revered, took great pride in observing the two hundred and fifty precepts.

46. Vimalakīrti Sutra. This means that one should not exhort those of superior capacity to observe the Hinayana precepts. It also refers to the inferiority of the Hinayana in comparison to the Mahayana teachings.

47. Presumably a rephrasing of a passage in the Angulimāla Sutra.

48. The “seventeen flaws” refers to the reasons why the Hinayana precepts are inferior to the Mahayana precepts, according to the Pure Monastic Rules Sutra. For example, the Hinayana precepts reflect abhorrence of the threefold world, the realm inhabited by unenlightened beings, while the Mahayana precepts do not; the Hinayana precepts show disdain for benefits, while the Mahayana precepts encompass them all.

49. Comparisons by which Shakyamuni Buddha emphasized the superiority of the Mahayana precepts over the Hinayana, according to the Pure Monastic Rules Sutra. For example, the Hinayana precepts practiced by voice-hearers do not even produce benefit as small as the print of a cow’s hoof, while the Mahayana precepts upheld by bodhisattvas produce benefit as vast as the ocean.

50. Donkey’s milk is said to be too distasteful to drink, while cow’s milk (the Mahayana precepts) appeases people’s thirst and nurtures life. With this metaphor, Dengyō indicates that the Hinayana precepts do not lead to enlightenment. In addition, he employs the simile of a toad to denounce the blindness of attachment to the Hinayana precepts, using an analogy similar to “a frog in a well.” Jikaku cites these analogies in his Treatise Clarifying and Praising the Mahayana Precepts.

51. This refers to the leaders of the six schools of Nara, who upheld the Hinayana precepts that the Chinese Precepts priest Ganjin (688–763) had established in Japan.

52. The rebellion led by Hōjō Tokisuke in the second month of 1272. See also n. 40.

53. The scions of the Nagoe clan refer to Tokiaki and Noritoki, who were Ema Mitsutoki’s younger brothers and Chikatoki’s uncles. Since Tomotoki, the father of Mitsutoki, lived at Nagoe in Kamakura, his clan was called the Nagoe clan.

 

Lecture

This chapter constitutes the final part of Yorimoto’s petition, in which he firmly refuses his lord’s demand to submit a written oath. In the preceding section, Yorimoto cites Buddhist sutras to explain why he speaks ill of Ryokan, specifically attacking the Hinayana and Ritsu teachings to which Ryokan adheres. In the latter section, he explains his refusal to submit the written oath based on the historical precedent of the Nagoe clan members, and expounds upon this through the rigorous Buddhist principle of cause and effect.

As we have examined in the fifth chapter of these lectures, we have already clarified the true nature of Gokuraku-ji Ryokan. Here, however, the focus is not on Ryokan’s personal character, but rather a refutation from the standpoint of doctrine, targeting the Hinayana and Ritsu teachings he follows.

The passage in which the Vimalakirti Sutra describes Vimalakirti rebuking Purna serves as a refutation of Ryokan’s preaching, which teaches the Hinayana doctrines to people in the Latter Day of the Law. Furthermore, the passage where Angulimala rebukes Manjushri points out that as long as one remains attached to Hinayana teachings, one cannot grasp the philosophy of emptiness (sunyata) of the Mahayana, which is the fundamental thought underlying the Buddha’s preaching. The seventeen faults of Manjushri described in the Shojo Bini Kyo (Vinaya Sutra), as well as the eight types of metaphors used by Shakyamuni Buddha, demonstrate that there is an immeasurable difference, like that between heaven and earth, between the benefits accrued by those who practice Hinayana and those who practice Mahayana. It further states that while Hinayana precepts are teachings biased toward self-benefit, Mahayana precepts are teachings of altruism that not only encompass one’s own practice but also work broadly to save all living beings.

Next, Dengyo Daishi’s metaphor of “donkey milk” succinctly states that Hinayana precepts are not teachings that lead sentient beings to Buddhahood. This can be understood by noting that while cow’s milk nourishes life and quenches the thirst of those who are parched, donkey milk is foul-tasting and unfit for consumption. Furthermore, the metaphor of the “toad”—well-known through the proverb “a frog in a well knows nothing of the great ocean”—demonstrates that Hinayana precepts are not a religion opened widely for the sake of society, but rather a “closed” religion.

Moreover, these Hinayana precepts served their purpose only until the establishment of the Mahayana precepts. In Japan, with Dengyo Daishi’s establishment of the Mahayana ordination platform at Mount Hiei, the Hinayana precepts of the southern capital (Nanto) were effectively discarded. Therefore, Yorimoto argues that Ryokan’s insistence on preaching the Hinayana precepts is a profound anachronism, which serves as a core reason for his refutation of Ryokan.

Next, Yorimoto addresses the written oath, which was his lord’s primary concern. He begins by expressing his deep personal sorrow as a retainer that the Kuwagayatsu Debate led to his lord’s displeasure and the subsequent demand for a written oath—an outcome he had never anticipated. He then states the reason for refusing to submit the oath: in light of Buddhist principles, he does not write the oath because he wishes to prevent his lord from following in the footsteps of the Nagoe clan members. This “Nagoe precedent” refers to Nagoe Tokiaki and Noritoki, who met violent deaths during the Tokisuke Rebellion in the second month of 1272. This February Incident was the very manifestation of the “rebellion within one’s own domain” that Nichiren Daishonin had predicted on the tenth day of the ninth month of the previous year: “Within one hundred days, one year, three years, or seven years after the [Daishonin’s] exile and threat of execution, the ‘rebellion within one’s own domain’ will occur, and this clan will begin to destroy itself.” Yorimoto thereby indicates to his lord that the root cause of the Nagoe members’ violent deaths was none other than Gokuraku-ji Ryokan himself. For his lord, this was a stern warning that the demand for the written oath would lead him to repeat the tragedy of the Nagoe clan. This is because his lord’s devotion to Ryokan was deep, and the primary instigators behind the demand for the written oath were Ryokan and Ryuzobo.

Finally, he concludes the petition by requesting that his lord summon the individuals who are plotting to stir up trouble in his name, and that he be allowed to confront them in his lord’s presence.