Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== The Theory That the Mahāyāna Was Not Taught by the Buddha ===
'''A:''' That is precisely where the problem arises. Have you ever heard of the scholarly theory being advanced in modern Buddhist circles known as “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (''Daijō hi-Bussetsu'')?<ref>“The Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (Daijō hi-bussetsu 大乗非仏説) refers to the historical-critical view that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the lifetime of the historical Buddha rather than constituting direct records of his preaching. Although the question had earlier precedents in Japan, it became a major problem for modern Japanese Buddhist scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century, notably in the work of Murakami Senshō (1851–1929). The theory posed an obvious challenge to sectarian traditions, including Nichiren Buddhism, whose authority rested upon particular Mahāyāna scriptures as the Buddha’s own teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' I can’t say I’ve never heard of it, but I don’t really know what it means. Tell me about it.

'''A:''' I’ll explain it briefly. Buddhist scriptures had broadly been classified into Mahāyāna scriptures—the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sutras'', ''Lotus Sutra'', ''Amida Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Laṅkāvatāra Sutra'', and so forth—and the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures, such as the Āgamas. Both groups had been regarded as scriptures recording sermons preached by the Buddha.

In recent times, however, scholars have argued that those Mahāyāna scriptures were not actually preached directly by the Buddha. That is what is meant by the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.”

'''B:''' Then how did those scriptures come to be composed?

'''A:''' Well, that’s because Buddhism too developed as the times changed and society and culture…

<span id="Page 266"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 266|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 266</div>

…advanced, and in order to adapt to the changing age, numerous new scriptures were composed by later disciples of the Buddha. Those became the Mahāyāna sutras. Since the Mahāyāna sutras are therefore not direct records of the Buddha’s preaching, this is called the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.” In other words, it means Buddhism as a developing tradition.<ref>“Buddhism as a developing tradition” renders hattatsu bukkyō 発達仏教, the modern conception of Buddhism as a historically developing religious tradition rather than a fixed body of doctrine delivered in its entirety by Śākyamuni. This conception allowed modern Buddhist thinkers to accept the later historical origins of the Mahāyāna sutras while continuing to regard them as legitimate developments of the Buddha’s teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' Then from the standpoint of this theory, the ''Lotus Sutra'' too is one example of this “developing Buddhism.” ''So the Lotus Sutra cannot simply be identified with the Buddha’s fundamental spirit.''<ref>Seno’o’s emphasis.</ref>

'''A:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' But in Master Nichiren’s time, the roughly seven thousand fascicles comprising the entire Buddhist canon were all regarded as direct records of the Buddha’s preaching. Given that assumption, why did Master Nichiren single out the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone and declare it to embody ''Buddhism’s fundamental spirit''?

'''A:''' Because that was how the scriptures themselves were understood to explain the matter. More particularly, this was the explanation offered by Tiantai doctrine, which formed the matrix of Japanese Buddhism. According to that teaching, the entire Buddhist canon consisted of sermons preached during the fifty years between the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment at age thirty and his entry into nirvana at age eighty. These fifty years were divided into two periods. The first forty-two years comprised all the teachings preached before the ''Lotus Sutra'', known as the pre-Lotus teachings (''nizenkyō''). The ''Lotus Sutra'', preached during the final eight years, was regarded as the true scripture in which the Buddha revealed his genuine spirit. All the earlier scriptures were judged to be expedient teachings preached in preparation for the revelation of the ''Lotus Sutra''.<ref>The Tiantai (J. Tendai) system of doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (goji hakkyō, 五時八教) organized the Buddha’s teaching career into a chronological and hierarchical sequence culminating in the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sutras. Within this scheme, the Lotus Sutra represented the fullest disclosure of the Buddha’s teaching. Nichiren inherited this framework and radicalized its elevation of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

'''B:''' Was there substantial scriptural evidence for that?

'''A:''' Yes. For example, in the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'' we find the statement, “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost.” There are many other passages that assign the ''Lotus Sutra'' supreme value. Particularly influential was the statement in the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', regarded as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Because the desires and dispositions of beings differ, various teachings were preached; these various teachings were preached through the power of expedient means. For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed.” And in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way.” These were powerful pieces of scriptural evidence. From the standpoint of Buddhist unification available at the time, the Tiantai doctrinal interpretation was therefore hardly unreasonable. There was also the scriptural proof supplied by the “Medicine King Bodhisattva” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': that in the “last five hundred years” it would be “widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa.” Tiantai likewise looked forward to the age of the Final Dharma, declaring, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide.”<ref>The text cites four key passages that provided a scriptural foundation for the Tiantai (J. Tendai) classification of doctrines (kyōhan 教判) and Nichiren’s later elevation of the Lotus Sutra: (1) “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost” (Lotus Sutra, ch. 10, “Dharma Preacher”; T 9, no. 262, 31b); (2) “For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed” (四十余年未顕真実; Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, ch. 2; T 9, no. 276, 386b); (3) “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way” (正直捨方便 但説無上道; Lotus Sutra, ch. 2, “Skillful Means”; T 9, no. 262, 10a); and (4) “In the last five hundred years, it will be widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa” (後五百歳 広宣流布; Lotus Sutra, ch. 23, “Medicine King Bodhisattva”; T 9, no. 262, 54c). The accompanying statement, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide” (後五百歳 妙道広行), is from Zhiyi’s Fahua Wenju (法華文句; T 34, no. 1718, 129a).</ref> And Dengyō Daishi, the pioneer of the Lotus Sutra in Japan, likewise expressed the same conviction and prediction.<ref>Saichō (767–822), posthumously Dengyō Daishi, founder of the Japanese Tendai school.</ref>

<span id="Page 267"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 267|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 267</div>

Now, it was within this tradition that Master Nichiren appeared. Outraged by the fragmentation and degeneration of Buddhism, he made its reform and unification the aspiration of his entire life. Moreover, his historical moment was the beginning of the age of the Final Dharma, more than two thousand years after the Buddha’s passing. There is no need to explain how powerfully the ''Lotus Sutra'' must have resonated with Nichiren’s intelligence and passionate commitment.<ref>The “Three Ages” (sanji 三時) is an East Asian Buddhist scheme describing the historical decline of the Dharma after the Buddha’s passing: the age of the True Dharma (shōbō 正法), the age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō 像法), and the age of the Final Dharma (mappō 末法), conventionally assigned durations of 1000, 1000, and 10,000 years respectively. According to a widely accepted Japanese chronology, mappō began in 1052. Drawing upon scriptural traditions concerning the decline of the Dharma, Nichiren understood his thirteenth-century age as mappō, a period of corruption in which the Lotus Sutra required urgent propagation. See Nichiren, Senji-shō 撰時抄, “Selection of the Time,” 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, pp. 1001–1058. Seno’o invokes this historical framework to emphasize Nichiren’s conviction that Buddhist practice must respond to the particular demands of its age.</ref>

'''B:''' Hearing it explained that way, there certainly seems to have been a powerful sense of historical necessity behind Nichiren’s self-understanding as “Nichiren, practitioner of the ''Lotus Sutra''.” It’s easy to see why he therefore felt compelled to reject every Buddhist school outside the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Within the limits of that doctrinal framework, there was no Buddhist spirit in the age of the Final Dharma apart from the ''Lotus Sutra''. A passage from Nichiren’s ''Hōon-shō'' (''Essay on Gratitude'') makes the situation particularly clear.<ref>Nichiren’s Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude”), composed in 1276, is one of his major writings and contains a sustained defense of the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

The various schools all rely upon their own basic sutras and treatises and claim, each in its own way, that theirs is foremost among all the scriptures. The Shingon school says, “Among all the scriptures, the ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' is first”; the other scriptures are like idle chatter. The Zen school says that sutras such as the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' are fingers pointing at the moon, while Zen itself is the moon. And so forth. We ordinary people ought to be able to trust whichever teacher we follow, revering that teacher in faith; yet Nichiren’s doubts could not be dispelled. Looking at the world, everyone may claim, “I, I,” but there is only one sovereign of a country. If there are two, the country will not be at peace; if a household has two masters, that household will surely fall into ruin. Might it not be the same with all the scriptures? Among all the sutras, must there not be one scripture that is sovereign over all the others? Yet the ten schools and seven schools each contend with one another and refuse to submit. It is as though a country had seventy or eighty sovereigns: its people could never live in peace. Wondering what was to be done, I made a single resolve: I would follow none of the eight schools or ten schools. Instead, just as the Great Master Tiantai took the scriptural texts themselves as his teacher and judged the relative superiority of the teachings preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, I would open and examine all the scriptures. In the ''Nirvana Sutra'' it is said: “Rely on the Dharma, not on persons.” “Rely on the Dharma” means to rely on all the scriptures; “not on persons” means not to rely upon teachers other than the Buddha himself, including such figures as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī and the various masters mentioned above.

The same sutra also says: “Rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning.” Here the “sutra of definitive meaning” is the Lotus Sutra, while the “sutras of provisional meaning” are the ''Avataṃsaka Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Nirvana Sutra'', and all the other sutras of the past, present, and future. But if one trusts the Buddha's final testament, then one must take the Lotus Sutra as the bright mirror through which to understand all…

<span id="Page 268"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 268|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 268</div>

…the scriptures. Hence, when we open the ''Lotus Sutra'', we find the words: “This ''Lotus Sutra'' stands highest among all the sutras,” and so on.

'''B:''' I see. That makes it quite clear. Master Nichiren’s judgment that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' is supreme” was therefore not simply his own dogmatic assertion. It was the result of his seeking the Buddha’s spirit through the scriptures themselves. In other words, after attempting as objectively and as scholarly as possible to determine Buddhism’s fundamental spirit, he concluded that it was embodied in the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Nichiren himself explained this by saying: “This is not because Nichiren is especially wise. It is simply what the time demands. In spring the flowers bloom, in autumn the fruit appears, summer is warm and winter is cold. Is this not simply what the time brings about?”

In this way he explained the historical necessity of the ''Lotus Sutra'' spreading in the age of the Final Dharma. Now, if that were the end of the matter, there would be no problem. But if we accept as true the theory I mentioned earlier—that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—then the scholarly foundation underlying this whole structure collapses. The ''Lotus Sutra'', which Master Nichiren propagated with sixty years of blood and tears, must itself be subjected to a historical reckoning.

'''B:''' So in the end it really was a matter of Master Nichiren’s inadequate understanding?

'''A:''' You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. Far from it. As a Buddhist revolutionary movement in his own age, this was the only possible path. It was an entirely defensible position.

But “time” moved on, and modern scientific research into the scriptures produced new conclusions. That is not something we should blame on Nichiren’s lack of understanding. And a man who declared that “one must first learn the time” surely would not cling sentimentally to his position when confronted by the criticism of a later age. That, at least, is what I believe.