When Nichiren wrote his critiques of Nembutsu, Zen, Shingon, Ritsu, and most of the other "sects" of Buddhism in his country during his day, his criticisms were on target and grounded in both the Buddhist Sutras, and the words and sayings of the teachers he criticized, themselves. He probably never recogned on the power of fundamental darkness to reverse things. However, the fact is, that the predilection to "close, discard, abandon" sutras, that he criticized in Honen Daishi's Nembutsu, and in the Zen Sect, also became a predilection of some of his own disciples. Who have justified their trampling on the Lotus Sutra with the notion that their own teachings are the "real lotus Sutra" of the Latter day of the Law, while the written Lotus Sutra was a "Shakumon" teaching to be "borrowed and refuted." Because of this, the later day Zen Sect has the chutspah to have books with lines like the following from the book1 :
Student:
Is Nichiren Shoshu a true sect of Buddhism?
Shifu:
Even at its best, Nichiren Shoshu is not traditional Buddhism, since it has displaced the historical Buddha with its founder, Nichiren Daishonin. At its worst, Nichiren Shoshu is not Buddhism at all, being a nationalistic Japanese religion that has existed for several centuries in various forms. Nichiren Dalshonin lived in the thirteenth century, when Buddhism was already thriving in Japan. He preached that only his teachings were true Buddhism, that all other sects had deviated from genuine Buddhadharma. He maintained that anyone who chanted the Buddha's name would eventually find himself in hell. He said that Ch'an practitioners were following the teachings of heavenly demons.
His intentions were to drive out all forms of Buddhism, so that only his sect remained. But he failed. His extremist behavior only served to unite the different schools of Buddhism against him, and Nichiren himself was almost executed.
Yet the one thing one learns as one studies Nichiren's writings is how much he valued the Lotus Sutra and how much his teachings are directly founded on the Lotus Sutra and the sutras in General. He did indeed claim that the Nembutsu believers were on the paths to hellish life conditions and that Ch'an practitioners were following the teachings of "demons." But one has to look carefully to see why. And it was not to simply "drive out" other forms of Buddhism, but because of the literal errors of those schools of Buddhism in slandering the Lotus Sutra specifically. How did Ch'an do that? Nichiren explains this in his Dialogue between a Sage and an Unenlightened man (also other places but I like this one)2:
There are three types of Zen, known respectively as Tathagata Zen, doctrinal Zen, and patriarchal Zen. What you are referring to is patriarchal Zen, and I would therefore like to give you a general idea of it. So listen, and understand what it is about."It speaks of transmitting something apart from the teachings. But apart from the teachings there are no principles, and apart from principles there are no teachings. Don't you understand the logic of this, that principles are none other than teachings and teachings none other than principles? This talk about the twirled flower, the faint smile, and something being entrusted to Mahakashyapa is in itself a teaching, and the four-character phrase about its being 'independent of words or writing' is likewise a teaching and a statement in words. This sort of talk has been around for a long while in both China and Japan. It may appear novel to you, but let me quote one or two passages that will clear up your misconceptions.
"Volume eleven of the Hochu states:
'If one says that we are not to hamper ourselves by the use of verbal expressions, then how, for even an instant in this saha world, can we carry on the Buddha's work? Do not the Zen followers themselves use verbal explanations when they are giving instruction to others? If one sets aside words and phrases, then there is no way to explain the meaning of emancipation, so how can anyone ever hear about it?'"Farther on, we read:
'It is said that Bodhidarma came from the west and taught the "direct pointing to the mind of man" and "perceiving one's true nature and attaining Buddhahood." But are these same concepts not found in the Flower GArland (Kegon Sutra) and in the other Mahayana sutras? Alas, how can the people of our time be so foolish! You should all put faith in the teachings of the Buddha. The Buddhas, the Tathagatas, tell no lies!'"To restate the meaning of this passage:
if one objects that we are hampering ourselves with doctrinal writings and tying ourselves down with verbal explanations, and recommends a type of religious practice that is apart from the teachings of the sutras, then by what means are we to carry on the Buddha's work and make good causes in this saha world of ours?Even the followers of Zen, who advocate these views, themselves make use of words when instructing others. In addition, when one is trying to convey an understanding of the Buddhist Way, he cannot communicate the meaning if he sets aside words and phrases. Bodhidharma came to China from the west, pointed directly to people's minds, and declared that those minds were Buddha. But this principle is enunciated in various places even in the provisional Mahayana sutras that preceded the Lotus Sutra, such as the Kegon, Daijuku and Daihannya sutras. To treat it as such a rare and wonderful thing is too ridiculous for words. Alas, how can the people of our time be so distorted in their thinking! They should put their faith in the words of truth spoken by the Tathagata of perfect enlightenment and complete reward, who embodies the principle of the Middle Way that is the true aspect of all things.
"In addition, the Great Teacher Miao-lo in the first volume of his Guketsu comments on this situation by saying,
'The people of today look with contempt on the sutra teachings and emphasize only the contemplation of truth, but they are making a great mistake, a great mistake indeed!'So we see, that for this writer to claim that it was Nichiren who discarded the sutras is sheer chutspah on his part. And to claim that Nichiren was a mere nationalist to boot, is sheer flimflammery. But he can get away with it because of the behavior of Nichiren's disciples, who turn him into something he never was and never wanted to be.
So, when the Ch'an Sect claims orthodoxy in this day and age, they forget their origins in Bodhidharma's assertion of a transmission "mind to mind" outside of the Sutra Texts. Unfortunately, some of our own later day disciples of Nichiren would like to do the same thing to Nichiren.