The Third Doctrine

I HAVE read through your letter.

In it, you report that you said, “The ninth volume of The Annotations on ‘The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra’ states, ‘Freeing oneself from the [threefold] world by means of the provisional teachings is termed an ephemeral liberation.’” To which the priest Ryōshō-bō¹ replied, “There is no such passage.” Yet (in the section that deals with the “Life Span” chapter), the ninth volume of On “The Words and Phrases” does indeed say: “From the passage ‘There is no one who emerges from the ephemeral . . . ’ to the passage ‘The ephemeral teachings of the past were expounded for the sake of the truth,’² [the meaning of the text is that] freeing oneself from the world by means of the provisional teachings is termed an ephemeral liberation. There are no people of the three vehicles who have not freed themselves from the threefold world, and no beings of the human and heavenly realms who have failed to escape the three evil paths. Yet these are both termed ephemeral liberation.”

The ninth volume of The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra reads, “There is no one who emerges from the ephemeral and yet fails to enter into the true. Therefore, we know that the ephemeral teachings of the past were expounded for the sake of the truth.”

The “Life Span” chapter states: “Good men, the Thus Come One observes how among living beings there are those who delight in inferior teachings, meager in virtue and heavy with defilement. . . . Because living beings have [different natures, . . . I preach different doctrines. . . . This, the Buddha’s work], I have never for a moment neglected.”³ T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo are commenting on this passage. In this passage of the sutra, all the teachings, from the Flower Garland Sutra, which was expounded immediately after the Buddha’s enlightenment and which combines both specific and perfect teachings,⁴ to the fourteen chapters that comprise the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra, are termed “inferior teachings.” Those who delight in them are called people “meager in virtue and heavy with defilement,” and the liberation achieved through them is shown to be an ephemeral liberation.

This being the case, concerning the Flower Garland school, which relies on the Flower Garland Sutra; the Dharma Characteristics school, which upholds the Profound Secrets Sutra; the Three Treatises school, which is based upon the Wisdom sutras; the True Word school, which relies on the Mahāvairochana Sutra; the Pure Land school, which cherishes the Meditation Sutra; and the Zen school, which upholds the Lankāvatāra Sutra, as well as all 855the other various schools, which rely on their respective sutras—even if their adherents read and recite the sutra their school relies on just as that sutra teaches, they will neither free themselves from the threefold world nor escape the three evil paths. Even less will those who term these sutras true teachings, or who claim that they surpass the Lotus Sutra! They are like people spitting at the heavens or pounding at the earth in rage.

With respect to this doctrine: After the passing of the Thus Come One, in India for more than fifteen hundred years, the Buddha’s twenty-four successors such as Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu knew of it but did not reveal it. In China for more than a thousand years, others did not know of it; only T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo gave a rough account of it. However, it seems that they did not explain its true significance. And the same was true of the Great Teacher Dengyō. Now when I, Nichiren, consider the matter, I find that, in addition to the above passage of the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra states: “If there are those who possess differing ideas concerning the three treasures, then truly you should know that these people can no longer hope to take refuge in, or rely upon, the three pure treasures. They will never gain benefit from any of the precepts, and in the end, they will fail to obtain the fruits of the voice-hearer, the cause-awakened one, or the bodhisattva.”⁵ This passage is clearly referring to [the essential point of] the “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra. It subsequently likens the “Life Span” chapter to a tree, and the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings and the theoretical teaching, to its shade.⁶ This appears again in the Nirvana Sutra. It is saying that the benefits of the five periods and eight teachings, of the teachings that are still in a certain dimension and that extend beyond,⁷ and of the Mahayana and Hinayana are all like shade, while the doctrine of the essential teaching is like a tree. It is also saying that the benefits gained from the teachings expounded before the “Life Span” chapter by those who lived during the Buddha’s lifetime are like a tree’s shade in the darkness, for such benefits were obtainable only by those who had already heard the “Life Span” chapter in prior existences.⁸

As for your opponent’s contention that disbelief does not in itself constitute slander, or his claim that those who disbelieve will not necessarily fall into hell, the fifth volume of the Lotus Sutra states, “If with regard to this sutra one should harbor doubt and fail to believe, one will fall at once into the evil paths.”⁹

On the whole, you should bear the following in mind. In contrasting the Lotus Sutra with the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings and evaluating their relative superiority and depth, the comparison between the teachings still in a certain dimension and those extending beyond may be carried out on three levels.¹⁰ Nichiren’s teaching represents the third doctrine. Though the first and second doctrines have been spoken of in the world rather vaguely, like a dream, the third has never been spoken of at all. Though T’ien-t’ai, Miao-lo, and Dengyō explained it to some extent, they did not clarify it fully. In the end, they left it for now, the Latter Day of the Law. This is the time referred to as the fifth five-hundred-year period.

However, I was given no information about this doctrinal debate. Ryōshō-bō is a person of vast learning. If he had remarked, “I am sorry to have to say this, but I am already well aware of the existence of that passage,” and had somehow managed to frustrate you, claiming that our side had been defeated, I wonder what you could have done about it. Anyway, setting aside the fact that he and his fellow priests were ignorant of that passage of commentary, his having said that it does not exist in any 856of the sixty volumes¹¹ is due to the reprimand of heaven. His offense of slandering the correct teaching became apparent when he encountered an emissary of the Lotus Sutra. Moreover, this affair of the debate surely occurred for some reason. Please find out in detail what Ōta Jirō Hyōe of Kajima, Daishin-bō, and the chief priest of the main temple¹² are saying. Matters such as these are described in detail in the sutra. The votary of the Lotus Sutra is certain to be obstructed by the devil king of the sixth heaven. Among the ten objects of meditation, this corresponds to the object of diabolical functions.¹³ It is the way of the devil to delight in obstructing good and in causing the production of evil. Concerning those whom he cannot force to perform evil acts, he is helpless and is capable only of allowing them to create good. Those who carry out the practices of the two vehicles, he hates unreservedly; he urges them to perform a lesser good. Those who carry out the practices of the bodhisattva, he hinders by encouraging in the direction of the practice of the two vehicles. And lastly, if there is someone who practices the pure and perfect teaching exclusively, he will topple that person into the perfect teaching that is combined with the specific teaching.¹⁴ You may refer to the eighth volume of Great Concentration and Insight.

You say that Ryōshō-bō further claimed that a practitioner of concentration and insight should keep the precepts. However, the ninth volume of Words and Phrases restrains practitioners of the first, second, and third [of the five stages of practice] from upholding the precepts. This is also clear from the text of the sutra itself.¹⁵ The discrepancy in Great Concentration and Insight is explained by Miao-lo in the form of questions and answers.¹⁶ See volume nine of On “The Words and Phrases.” There are two kinds of practitioners at the initial stage of rejoicing. Practitioners of keen faculties may keep the precepts, while those of dull faculties are restrained from doing so. Moreover, there are differences among the Former, Middle, and Latter Days of the Law, and differences between the practices of shōju and shakubuku. You should also take into account the Great Teacher Dengyō’s remark about a tiger in the marketplace.¹⁷

From now on, you need not hold debates in Shimōsa. Having defeated the priests Ryōshō-bō and Shinen-bō,¹⁸ were you to debate with others, it would only dilute the effect. I hear that these priests have been slandering me for some years now. These mosquitoes and gadflies, as it were, are such fools that they groundlessly revile Nichiren, who is like the lion king, when they have neither listened to nor seen him. For persons of the Tendai Lotus school to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo themselves and yet give their approval when others repeat the Nembutsu would be strange enough. Yet not only do they fail to remonstrate with them, but they criticize one who does confront the Nembutsu school, which is strange indeed! As for Daishin-bō, as I wrote you before, please strongly admonish him by letter. It would appear that he has been brought back to our faith by the ten demon daughters. It would also seem that a messenger from the devil king had possessed him, but now has parted company with him. It cannot possibly be a lie when the sutra states that “evil demons will take possession of others.”¹⁹ There is much that I would like to say, but the messenger is in a hurry, so I am writing this at night.

With my deep respect,

Nichiren

The first day of the tenth month