THE words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo may be difficult to recite, while recitation of the words Namu-Amida-butsu or Namu-Yakushi-nyorai¹ may be easier. But although the number of characters in the various formulas is approximately the same, the blessings to be gained through them are vastly different.

Nevertheless, there are some teachers who among the teachings of Buddhism cannot distinguish between Hinayana and Mahayana doctrines, the provisional teachings and the true teaching, but who pretend to understand all about Buddhism. They see the passages of scripture that say that, in comparison to the names of non-Buddhist figures, a Buddha’s name is like the wish-granting jewel; and then, because there are scriptural passages that use the same simile, comparing the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra to the wish-granting jewel, they mistakenly suppose that the Nembutsu, or recitation of the name of Amida Buddha, and the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra are the same thing.

And because they think they are the same, we find persons who are held in high esteem by the world at large reciting only the name of Amida Buddha. And because they do so, all the rest of the people spend their whole lives doing so, reciting the Nembutsu sixty thousand or a hundred thousand times in one day but never once in their lives reciting the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra.

Or again there are certain persons who are thought by the world to be very wise. But although in outward appearance they are persons of wisdom, inwardly they have no real understanding of Buddhism, and therefore they assert that the Nembutsu and the Lotus Sutra are the same thing, and that when one recites the words Namu-Amida-butsu, one has in effect read the entire Lotus Sutra.³

Nowhere in all the sutras preached during the Buddha’s lifetime is there a single word or phrase to support such a view. Even if such an idea were to be found in the commentaries written by the great Buddhist teachers or eminent leaders of the past, one would have to ask whether it is an interpretation based on true observation of the mind,⁴ or simply a case of guesswork.

With regard to the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra, it is persons who in the past have already encountered a hundred thousand million living Buddhas and obtained blessing [by offering alms to them] who are thereafter able at last to hear the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo and for the first time take faith in them.⁵ When we compare the names of the non-Buddhist deities, the heavenly gods, persons of the two vehicles, or bodhisattvas, with the names of the various Buddhas, then the former are mere shards and rubble, while the latter are comparable to the wish-granting jewel. But in comparison to the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddhas’ names are all mere shards and rubble, while the daimoku is comparable to the wish-granting jewel.

For scholars of the present time to suppose that one may gain the same blessings by reciting the names of the various Buddhas as one gains by reciting the daimoku of the Lotus Sutra, and that the two actions are equal, is to suppose that shards and rubble are the same as the wish-granting jewel, that the two are equal.

Volume five of Great Concentration and Insight states: “Even those who turn their backs on the world amuse themselves with an inferior vehicle, clinging to mere branches and leaves. They are like dogs that tag after the servants [forgetting their master]. They pay honor to apes and monkeys, considering them like the god Shakra; they revere shards and rubble, looking on them as bright gems. With such ignorant and benighted persons, how can one discuss the way?”

The gist of this passage is that, though people may become weary of the world and quit the household life, retiring to the mountains and forests, giving up all thought of fame and gain, and praying only for their next existence, if they do not practice the great vehicle set forth in the Lotus Sutra but recite the names of the Buddhas who are described in the inferior vehicles of the provisional teachings, they can only be compared to perverse persons who suppose that shards and rubble are in fact bright jewels, persons who are destined to fall into a dark and evil path.

In the first volume of his Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight,” the Great Teacher Miao-lo, citing the Sutra of the Heavenly Son Abiding Goodness,⁶ makes clear the heart of the Lotus Sutra when he says, “Those who hear the Law, speak slanderously of it, and fall into hell as a result, are still superior to those who offer alms to Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges.” He means that even one who, on hearing the name of the Lotus Sutra, commits the offense of slandering it, is superior to a person who gives alms to Amida Buddha, Shakyamuni Buddha, Medicine Master Buddha, and other Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges and recites their names. Since this is so, the Nembutsu followers of our age, though they may recite the Nembutsu sixty thousand or up to one hundred thousand times, can never gain release from the sufferings of birth and death.

If one sees others listening to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, one may declare that “not even one person in a thousand” can be saved by such teachings,⁷ that they represent a “sundry practice,” and that “not a single person has ever attained Buddhahood” through them,⁸ and then thereby urge them to “abandon” and to “close” the door to the Lotus Sutra.⁹ But even if one speaks slanderously of the sutra and as a result falls into the great citadel of the hell of incessant suffering, in the end one is certain to gain release from the sufferings of birth and death [because of the connection one has formed with the Lotus Sutra]. And since that is the case, how much better it would be if now, in one’s present existence, one were to take faith in its teachings!

Question: The Nembutsu believers of the present time say that they surely have no intention of attacking the Lotus Sutra. The reason they recite the Nembutsu is so that they can quickly gain rebirth in the World of Perfect Bliss, and there devote themselves to achieving an understanding of the Lotus Sutra. Moreover, they say that the Lotus Sutra is not suited to persons like them, whose bodies are defiled by impurity, and that it fills them with awe. The Nembutsu, on the other hand, does not discriminate against those who are defiled, and that is why they recite it. How would you reply to these assertions?

Answer: For the past four or five years many persons, both wise and unwise, have expressed agreement with these arguments. But although I, Nichiren, have searched everywhere throughout the teachings set forth by the Buddha in the course of his lifetime, I cannot find any passage that would lend support to these two assertions.

The fact is that in recent years both the Nembutsu priests and the others who are regarded as distinguished Buddhist teachers noted for their wisdom, when the moment of death approached, have been unable to achieve what they had hoped for, and the reason is that they are guilty of great slander of the Law. People believe that by reciting the Nembutsu they can be reborn in the Pure Land and there gain an understanding of the Lotus Sutra. Therefore, while they are in this land of impurity, they deceive persons who devote themselves to the practice of the Lotus Sutra, causing them to discard such practice and instead to devote themselves to the Nembutsu. The fundamental slander of the Law committed by such persons is based on this argument regarding rebirth in the Pure Land.

The true cause that allows one to leave this land of impurity and gain rebirth in the Pure Land is none other than the Lotus Sutra. The Nembutsu believers base themselves on sutras preached at a time when the Buddha “had not yet revealed the truth,”¹⁰ and such sutras cannot constitute the direct cause for rebirth in the Pure Land. To suppose that one can come to understand the Lotus Sutra, which is the true cause for rebirth in the Pure Land, by studying and practicing it after one reaches the World of Perfect Bliss, and to suppose that recitation of the Nembutsu, which is not the direct cause for rebirth in the World of Perfect Bliss, is in fact the true cause for rebirth in the Pure Land, is to be guilty of gross error.

These teachings of the Pure Land are like sowing sand in the spring fields and expecting to harvest rice in the autumn, like turning away from the moon in the sky and instead fixing upon the reflection of the moon in water. These arguments are no more than a grand scheme designed to win over people’s hearts and lure them away from the Lotus Sutra.

Turning now to the second point, the assertion that the Nembutsu does not discriminate against persons who are defiled by impurity. The Reverend Shan-tao and the Honorable Hōnen, who are the teachers of all the Nembutsu practitioners, although they made a number of unreasonable pronouncements on other matters, laid down strict prohibitions with regard to this one matter. In his Teaching on Meditation Sutra, Shan-tao warns that one must never touch intoxicants, meat, or the five strong-flavored foods with one’s hands or put them in one’s mouth. If one touches them with one’s hands or places them in one’s mouth and then recites the Nembutsu, foul sores will break out on one’s hands and mouth. The Honorable Hōnen in his written invocation¹¹ states, “No one who partakes of sake, meat, or the five strong-flavored foods and then recites the Nembutsu is a disciple of mine!”

For the Nembutsu practitioners of the present time to assert that it is all right to recite the Nembutsu when one has committed acts of bodily impurity is a preposterous lie.

Objection: The Reverend Shan-tao was a teacher who had gained enlightenment through meditation, a reincarnation of Amida Buddha who could produce magically conjured Buddhas from his mouth. The Honorable Hōnen was a reincarnation of Bodhisattva Great Power¹³ who, having been born in Japan, propagated the Nembutsu here and manifested a glow of light from his head. How can you speak of such persons as perverse men? Moreover, the Reverend Shan-tao and the Honorable Hōnen had surely read the Lotus Sutra and all the other sutras as thoroughly as you have. So they must have had reasons for stating the opinions that they did.

Answer: Your objections are typical of the people of our time who suppose that these men had valid reasons for their opinions. This is due solely to the fact that, for many years now, the people have cast aside the Lotus Sutra and the writings of T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo and the others that explain the true sutra and the true doctrine and have instead been deceived by slanderers of the Law such as Shan-tao and Hōnen.

To begin with, if we are to put faith in persons who can exercise supernatural powers, then are we to put faith in non-Buddhists or the heavenly devil? Among the non-Buddhists there are said to have been those who could drink the ocean dry, or could pour the water of the Ganges River into their ear and keep it there for twelve years.¹⁴ And the devil king of the sixth heaven could imitate all the thirty-two features of a Buddha and manifest himself in the form of a Buddha in such a convincing manner that even the Venerable Ānanda could not tell whether it was the devil or the Buddha.¹⁵ Even if the supernatural powers of Shan-tao and Hōnen may be worthy of respect, they are no match for the heavenly devil or non-Buddhists. Furthermore, the Buddha in his dying instructions warned that one was not to regard such supernatural powers as of any fundamental importance.

Turning to the next point, you imply that Shan-tao and Hōnen probably read the Lotus Sutra and all the other sutras in a more thorough manner than I have. For one who is a slanderer of the Law, this may seem like a reasonable assumption.

In the years since the Buddha passed away, those living in the earlier part of the period may appear to excel in worth, while those who come after may seem inferior. But there are also cases where, although the persons of the earlier period are generally held to be men of worth, they are in fact undeserving of the name.

In the field of non-Buddhist literature, there are many examples of scholars who were held in high esteem because of their knowledge of the writings pertaining to the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors of ancient China, and the writings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and the Five Confucian Classics,¹⁶ but whose interpretations have been overthrown by later scholars. The same is true in the case of the Buddhist scriptures.

During the first five hundred years following the introduction of Buddhism to China, the country was replete with brilliant masters of the doctrine, but none could surpass Fa-yün of Kuang-che-ssu temple and Hui-kuan of Tao-ch’ang-ssu temple. The fame of these two men resounded throughout the world, and their wisdom enriched the country. But the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai Chih-che, though a man of a later period, pointed out the places where the doctrines of these earlier masters were faulty, and though his opinions were at first not heeded, eventually they gained acceptance, and people for the first time realized that, even in the doctrines propounded by the teachers of the earlier five-hundred-year period, there were points that were in error.

In the case of Japan too, during the first two hundred or more years following the introduction of Buddhism, various different interpretations were put forth, and it was impossible to determine just which was correct. But then the Great Teacher Dengyō appeared and pointed out what was erroneous in the various interpretations advanced in the preceding two-hundred-year period.

At that time the people voiced the same objections as are offered by people today. “Did the men of earlier times not read the Lotus Sutra and all the other sutras? Surely they had reasons for stating the opinions they did!” they said. But those earlier interpretations proved invalid, for in principle they ran counter to the sutra texts and in the end were refuted and set aside.

The situation is much the same today. During these last fifty or more years, the assertions of Shan-tao that “not even one person in a thousand” can be saved by the Lotus Sutra, or the four injunctions by Hōnen to “discard, close, ignore, and abandon” the Lotus Sutra, appear in the commentaries of men who are believed to be reincarnations of Amida and Great Power, and for that reason people suppose that they must be reliable and proceed to put all their faith in them.

I have accordingly quoted the passages from the Lotus Sutra that read, “In the evil age of the Latter Day of the Law if there is someone who can uphold this sutra . . . ,”¹⁷ “in the latter age hereafter, when the Law is about to perish . . . ,”¹⁸ and “they [the Buddhas] make certain that the Law will long endure”¹⁹ in order to demonstrate the error [of believing that the Lotus Sutra has lost its effectiveness]. When I do so, these people begin to doubt the one-sided doctrines of their teachers Shan-tao and Hōnen and hence cast them aside.

In effect, the situation is just as the Lotus Sutra predicted it would be in this, the “last five-hundred-year period”²⁰ after the Buddha’s passing. The Nembutsu believers have been trying to use the Nembutsu practice to overthrow the Lotus Sutra. But on the contrary, they only demonstrate thereby that the time has come for the wide propagation of the Lotus Sutra.

So that people may better understand me, however, I would like to point out the following facts. There are evil persons in the world today who keep themselves alive by killing fish, birds, deer, and other such beings. Though this is a sin, it is not one that is directly injurious to the Buddhist teachings. Nevertheless, if they do not repent of it, they will in their next existence fall into the three evil paths of existence. Again, there are persons who kill fish, birds, deer, and so forth, and sell these to others, but in the course of doing so, they may carry out acts of goodness.

These persons are doing what the world regards as evil, but in the long run may also be doing good. But when someone uses the Buddhist teachings to do harm to the Buddhist teachings, though the person who does so may not think that he is doing wrong but may merely suppose he is practicing goodness, and though those around him may likewise suppose that he is practicing goodness, contrary to his expectation, in his next life he may end up falling into the evil paths. And these days, there are Nembutsu practitioners who, because I remonstrated with them in this matter, have come to realize that in fact they are slanderers of the Law.

But the real slanderers of the Law are to be found among the priests of the Sacred Way teachings.²¹ They declare that the Nembutsu practitioners who denigrate the Lotus Sutra are acting unreasonably, but then they say that Nichiren is equally peculiar for denigrating the Nembutsu practitioners. The Nembutsu and the Lotus Sutra, they declare, are in fact a single entity, and for this reason, to read the Lotus Sutra is none other than to recite the Nembutsu, and to recite the Nembutsu is none other than to read the Lotus Sutra.

From what I hear, there are many among the priests of the Sacred Way teachings who voice such opinions. And as a result, the lay supporters of these men, accepting their view of the matter, ridicule both Nichiren and the Nembutsu practitioners.

First, only a fool would suppose that I am not aware of the following facts.

Buddhism was first introduced to China during the Yung-p’ing era [58–75] of the Later Han dynasty, and its introduction continued until the eighteenth year of the K’ai-yüan era [730] in the reign of Emperor Hsüan-tsung of the T’ang dynasty. The works were in the three categories of sutras, rules of monastic discipline, and treatises, amounting to 5,048 volumes, translated by 176 translators.

Among all these sutras, there is not a single volume or chapter of a sutra that says that Namu-Amida-butsu is the same as Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

Moreover, the name of Amida Buddha is mentioned here and there in the sutras preached during the first forty-two years of the Buddha’s preaching life, beginning with the Flower Garland Sutra and continuing up through the Wisdom sutras, with the exception of the Āgama sutras. The persons who listened to the Buddha’s lifetime preaching were already familiar by this time with the name of Amida.

But the title of the Lotus Sutra, Myoho-renge-kyo, was not mentioned until Shakyamuni Buddha’s seventy-second year, forty-two years after he first began to preach. At that time on Eagle Peak the Buddha entered into the meditation of the origin of immeasurable meanings.²² Manjushrī, replying to a question from Maitreya, said that in the distant past a Buddha named Sun Moon Bright, addressing the assembly, displayed these same auspicious portents, and that therefore the Buddha must be preparing to preach the Lotus Sutra.²³ When Manjushrī cited this example from the past, the living beings in this southern continent of Jambudvīpa for the first time heard the name of the Lotus Sutra [Myoho-renge-kyo].

From the third volume of the Lotus Sutra, we learn that Amida Buddha was one of sixteen Buddhas who attained Buddhahood in the time of Great Universal Wisdom Excellence Buddha, being one of sixteen princes who, on learning and carrying out the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, gained correct enlightenment.²⁴

When this Amida Buddha was still an ordinary mortal, it was through practicing the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo that he was able to attain Buddhahood. It is nowhere stated that he gained correct enlightenment by reciting Namu-Amida-butsu.

Myoho-renge-kyo is what opens up [and merges other sutras], and Namu-Amida-butsu is what is opened up [and merged in the Lotus Sutra]. Only someone who cannot distinguish between that which opens up and that which is opened up could assert with a knowing air that Namu-Amida-butsu and Nam-myoho-renge-kyo are the same thing.