Lectures on the Sutra

The lectures on the Sutra is based on the relatively esoteric interpretation that the Nichiren Shoshu branch of the Nikko lineage has given both Nichiren's teachings and the Lotus Sutra. It is also informed by Josei Toda's personal experience in Prison. For instance, starting with Nichiu Shonin, Nichiren Shoshu has been teaching that Nichiren is the True Buddha and that Shakyamuni was a provisional Buddha., Nichiren Shoshu had heavily reinterpreted the Lotus Sutra (and some claim Nichiren himself), even claiming that Nichiren's "Lotus Sutra" refutes that of Shakyamuni and that Nichiren was teaching himself as the True Buddha of Mappo. This reading gets some support from esoteric teachings where time and space get inverted. For instance the Lotus Sutra has a passage about a boy beating his old man "father" from a past life. It also draws heavily on oral teachings (Ongi Kuden) and Gosho that now are in dispute as having been written, not by Nichiren, but by later day successors. (See My page on Literal proof). Even these possibly "apocryphal" Gosho have to be reinterpreted to justify these doctrines. For instance, Nichiren's "Hosshaku Kempon" during the Tatsunokuchi Persecution, talked about in this work, is one where afterwards he talked about himself confidently as having fulfilled the role of Jogyo Bosatsu. Yet this is interpreted as him fulfilling that role before the Hosshaku Kempon and being the True Buddha afterwards. One should study this work and then study the Gosho and what Nichiren says on the subject so one can have faith well grounded in the three proofs. If one does so, one finds these statements to contradict some of the great themes of his writings.

Toda

This lectures on the Sutra was originally preached by Toda. He could write and speak authoritatively, based on his own experiences. He really believed that he was teaching correctly. And indeed, he lectured on the sutra twice. The first time he lectured based more on Tien-tai and the commentaries, and he believed that his life fell apart for doing so and not basing his lecture on the principles taught by Nichiren Shoshu. prison understanding of ichiren Daishonin's teachings as passed down within Nichiren Shoshu.

Yet, it seems that there is disagreement on whether Nichiren actually taught the things as taught here. I investigated the disagreements and came to realize that the reason they are difficult to resolve is that the teachings that he refers to as "from the view of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism" are really from the view of the Fuji-Taisekiji Lineage, starting with Nichiu Shonin and his fellow teacher Nichiyu, writing in the Kegi Sho, who insisted that Nichiren himself was the "true Buddha" and Shakyamuni merely a provisional one. For more on this you have to visit my issues links and do a little research.

Therefore, when he says that he is using Nichiren's Lotus Sutra, not the Literal Lotus Sutra, he is also using a figurative Nichiren's Lotus Sutra, and not necessarilly one that is verbatum from Nichiren's own teachings. At least not the ones in his major treatises. Thus he is engaging in the time-tested process of creating what in Judaism would be called "midrash" or 'struggling with the text" in order to get at it's "Sot" "Sad" or secret (Myo) Mystical meaning. This lecture is thus not a verbatum teaching about the meaning of the Lotus Sutra itself, though it preserves some elements of fidelity to the original.

So whenever Toda says something to the effect of "Nichiren says this but he means that..." or "Interpreting from the point of view of true Buddhism" he is referring to the oral and written traditions of Nichiren Shoshu starting with the Kegi Sho and with Nikko Shonin's high regard for his teacher. Opposing that view are the folks who deny that Nichiren was even enlightened or attained Buddhahood, and whose founders once stated (and probably believed) that Nichiren was a simple reformer of the Tendai Sect. These people forget that the time is not the end of the "middle day" but the beginning of the Later day, and that Nichiren was teaching something radically different enough for him not to be a mere "reformer."

So I'll leave the Jury(o) out on whether Nichiren is the true Buddha, or you are a true Buddha. I think that that really depends on your behavior. I think that Nichiren was a true Buddhist, which in my mind equates, and that is enough for me. Toda was right enough to still merit studying. Although, as a human being and a proponant of his school, he seems to have been partizan on these issues. We need to study him and make up our own minds about what he says. That is the meaning of "follow Dharma" not person.