Nichiren writes in the Ho'on Sho:
Question: Do you really proclaim that Ch'eng-kuan of the Kegon sect, Chia-hsiang of the Sanron sect, Tz'u-en of the Hosso sect, and Shan-wu-wei and the others of the Shingon sect on down to Kobo, Jikaku and Chisho are the enemies of the Buddha?
Each of the people named above was considered a sage by almost all the people of East Asia. It would seem unfair and disrespectful to call such people "enemies of the Buddha." Indeed, it is isn't until one studies the background of these sects that you realize the sheer enormity of what Nichiren is doing here. He is labeling as deceitful nearly the entire textual works of the majority of Buddhists in three countries. Why would he do this?
He answers:
Answer: This is a very important question, a matter of the gravest concern to the Buddhist Law. Yet, on examining the text of the sutra, I find that if someone should declare that there is a sutra superior to the Lotus Sutra, then, regardless of who that person may be, he cannot escape the charge of slandering the Law. Therefore, if we go by what the sutra says, then persons such as this must be regarded as enemies of the Buddha. And if out of fear I fail to point out this fact, then the distinctions of relative merit made among the various sutras will all have been made in vain.
He explains elsewhere why the Lotus Sutra is superior to the other sutras of Buddhism. (See lotustop.html for more on this). Nichiren says, that even more importantly:
If, out of awe of these great teachers of the past, I should simply point at their latter-day followers and call them enemies of the Buddha, then these latter-day followers of the various sects would say, "The assertion that the Dainichi Sutra is superior to the Lotus Sutra is not something that we ourselves invented on their own. It is the doctrine taught by the patriarchs of our sect. Though we may be no match for them in observing the precepts, in wisdom and understanding, or in status, when it comes to the doctrines that they taught, we never diverge from them in the slightest." And in that case, one would have to admit that they are guilty of no fault.
Nichiren is, in a sense, advocating literary criticism in this passage as a way to get to the truths of Buddhism. If the Lotus Sutra declares itself supreme, and later logical, historical and actual proofs affirm the supremacy of that teaching, why would anyone follow another teaching? Why because those teachings were taught by people they trust and made sense to them. They could not know all of the issues or deceptions surrounding the teachings that they adhere to. Disciples with such a pure heart are "guilty of no fault" and cannot be faulted for the errors of teachers who may be far removed in time from their own day. Nichiren knew that falsehood has to be rooted out at it's sources. It would have been unfair for him to attack the teachers of Tendai or Shingon, when they were only quoting or developing teachings created by illustrious and reverred predecessors.
We err when we attack people who are only following their teachers, without properly critiquing those teachers. If we don't look at the roots of error and follow those errors, then we are doing a major disservice to, not only our own arguments, but to our own integrity, and to the teachings of the persons we purport to be disciples of. In the Gosho the "learned Doctor Shan Wu Wei" Nichiren discusses this subject with the examples of Shan Wu Wei. In the Gosho "Letter to Horen" Nichiren uses the story of I-Lung and Wu-Lung, to illustrate the same point.
Nichiren is also teaching us something about how we should approach our Buddhist Studies. It is not "filial piety" or even proper behavior of a "disciple" to follow an incorrect teacher simply on their say so. A proper master doesn't teach his disciples that if he says the moon is made of "Swiss Cheese" they should bring crackers to eat it with, simply on his say so. Rather a proper teacher teaches his students to think and base themselves on the three proofs of literary, theoretical and actual proof. A teacher who teaches in such an authoritarian manner is actually a "bad friend" to his disciples and to his own future. This is what Nichiren is saying in these Gosho. Simply because one owes a debt of gratitude to a teacher for having taught them Buddhism doesn't valorate everything that teacher says. As Nichiren says:
Nevertheless, if I know that this assertion is false and yet, out of fear of others, I fail to say so, then I will be ignoring the stern warning of the Buddha, who said, "He should never hold back any of the teachings, even though it may cost him his life."
and:
But if one intends to repay these great debts of gratitude, he can hope to do so only if he studies and masters the Buddhist teachings, becoming a person of wisdom. If he does not, he will be like a man who attempts to lead a company of the blind over bridges and across rivers when he himself has sightless eyes. Can a ship steered by someone who cannot even tell the direction of the wind ever carry the traveling merchants to the mountains where treasure lies?
If one hopes to study and master the Buddhist teachings, then he cannot do so without devoting time to the task. And if he wants to have time to spend on the undertaking, he cannot continue to wait on his parents, his teachers, and his sovereign. Until he attains the road that leads to emancipation, he should not defer to the wishes and feelings of his parents and teachers, no matter how reasonable they may be.
Nichiren offered his "head" to the Buddha at Tatsunokuchi Beach. He meant this quite literally. That he survived long enough to die of illness at an advanced age is remarkable. He writes:
What am I to do? If I speak up, I face fearful opposition from the world at large. But if I am silent, I can hardly escape the condemnation of failing to heed the Buddha's stern warning. Forward or backward, my way is blocked.
Yet perhaps it is only to be expected. For, as the Lotus Sutra states,"Since hatred and jealousy toward this sutra abound even during the lifetime of the Buddha, how much worse will it be in the world after his passing?" Again elsewhere, "The people will be full of hostility, and it will be extremely difficult to believe."
For us to attack anyone personally, for incorrect teachings, without getting to the bottom of the origin of those teachings, is a mistake. Nichiren Shoshu claims a lineage back to Nichiren Himself, and much of that lineage is oral. If we are to criticize Nikken Shonin for teaching misleading teachings we have to look back and also critique Nichiu,Nichikan.html, and others. Yet, we cannot honestly say that any of these people consciously set out to mislead or deceive people, with the possible exception of Nichiu Shonin. When Nichiren critiqued Jikaku Daishi and Honen Daishi, he did so knowing full well that his "refutation" wouldn't be accepted by the Tendai Sect.
That he did so anyway is one of the things we should consider carefully. What he is teaching us in an attitude towards religious truth that doesn't hold in awe even great teachers who journeyed to China, but instead bases itself firmly on the Wisdom of the Sutras. Just as Jikaku Daishi made mistakes without being aware that they were errors, so any teacher can make or compound errors, And so the correct approach to Buddhism is to critically approach the teachings of our own school even before attempting to "refute" those of others. That doesn't mean "rejecting" later teachings. But it does mean insisting on honesty and accuracy, and not putting later day commentaries before their sources.
Footnotes and links
Full text is at:http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/RepayingDebtsGratitude.htm
Return to index