Nichiren is known primarily for his advocacy of the Lotus Sūtra as the Buddha’s highest teaching and for the practice of chanting its Odaimoku (lit. sacred title) in the form of Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō (lit. Devotion to the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma). He is also known for his denunciation of other schools of Buddhism. This denunciation is often summarized in the form of the “four admonitions” (J. shika no kakugen):

Pure Land Buddhism is a way leading to the Hell of Incessant Suffering; Zen Buddhism is the act of heavenly devils, who hinder the Buddhist way; Mantra (Shingon) Buddhism is an evil teaching leading to the destruction of our nation; and Discipline (Ritsu) Buddhism is a false teaching by traitors. (Hori 1992, p. 178 adapted)

It must be admitted … that to our ears [Nichiren’s] four admonitions sound very negative and sectarian. However, in reading the record of the Buddha’s last days in the Pāli Canon I believe that I have found statements corresponding to the four admonitions in the teachings of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha.

According to the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta of the Long Discourses of the Buddha, the Buddha spent his last year giving final instructions to Ānanda and his other followers to make sure that the Dharma would be taught correctly after his passing. Let’s examine them one by one.

On their last teaching tour together, Ānanda noticed how weak the Buddha had become due to old age and illness. He remarked that he was sure the Buddha would make some statement about the Sangha regarding a successor. The Buddha told him that he had no statement to make and that in fact they had already been taught all that they needed to know. He said, “I have taught the Dharma, Ānanda, making no inner and outer: the Tathāgata has no teacher’s fist in respect of doctrines.” (Walshe, p. 245

By this the Buddha meant that he had held nothing back or concealed in a closed fist. There were to be no secret teachings to be doled out by any successor. There were no further revelations. This basically undercuts the claims of any group that would claim that in order to practice Buddhism one needs not just the Buddha’s teachings but special initiations or empowerments, or to be taught special esoteric rituals. This was the essence of Nichiren’s critique of Mantra, or esoteric Buddhism: in the Lotus Sūtra we have been taught everything that we need to know, nothing is missing. Through our faith in the Lotus Sūtra we are initiated directly into buddhahood and empowered to actualize the qualities of the Buddha’s insight and virtue in our daily lives.

The Buddha then said, ”Therefore, Ānanda, you should live as islands unto yourselves, being your own refuge, with no one else as your refuge, with the Dharma as an island, with the Dharma as your refuge, with no other refuge.” (Ibid, p. 245) Here the Buddha is saying that we will find the Dharma, the true nature of things, within our own lives by putting his teachings into practice for ourselves. It is not something that will be given to us by some external savior. He says nothing here of having to die and be reborn in a pure land. Nichiren believed that to live one’s life alienated from the chance to realize the Lotus Sūtra’s teaching that this world itself is the true pure land where buddhahood is actualized would in fact lead to a hellish existence. In saying that the practice of nembutsu or calling upon Amitābha Buddha will lead to hell, Nichiren is pointing out that true refuge is found in the Dharma within our own lives here and now.

On his deathbed beneath the Sala trees, the Buddha said, “Ānanda, it may be that you will think: ‘The Teacher’s instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!’ It should not be seen like this, Ānanda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dharma and discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher.” (Ibid, p. 269-70) According to this account the Buddha did not appoint a successor or patriarch. He believed that the teachings he gave were sufficient guidance. In fact, earlier the Buddha stated that after his passing any teaching put forward as the Dharma, even those by elder monks, should be verified by comparing it to the Buddha’s actual discourses. In calling Zen the school of heavenly devils, Nichiren was criticizing what he perceived as the arrogant claims made by some Zen Masters that their own personal enlightenment superseded the Buddha’s teachings in the sūtras. The point made is that in Buddhism we have the objective criteria of the sūtras to determine what Buddhism actually teaches and we do not have to rely on middlemen. In fact, in Nichiren Buddhism it is taught that we each inherit the Dharma directly from the scrolls of the Lotus Sūtra. This is not to say that we should not seek teachers and mentors for guidance and encouragement, but it means that in the end we cannot go by hearsay. We must discern for ourselves what the Dharma is through our own reading of the sūtras and we must validate the teachings for ourselves through our own practice.

The Buddha also told Ānanda, “If they wish, the Sangha may abolish the minor rules after my passing.” (Ibid, p. 270) Unfortunately Ananda was too distraught to ask the Buddha which of the precepts were to be considered minor rules. At the first Buddhist council, it was decided to keep all the precepts in place because a) circumstances had not changed so there was no reason to change anything, b) changing them would cause the householder supporters of the Sangha to accuse them of laxness after the Buddha’s passing, c) they could not agree on which precepts could be considered minor. In Nichiren’s time the Ritsu or Discipline school championed the practice of all the precepts just as they had been laid down in fourth century BCE India. Nichiren could see that this was no longer appropriate to the time and place, and that such external observance was in any case to miss the true point of Buddhism as taught in the Lotus Sūtra. As we can see, the historical Buddha did not want Buddhism to become a religion bound up in the external observance of increasingly irrelevant rules. As Nichiren Buddhists we do not formally take precepts, but we endeavor to live in the spirit of Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō. This is actually a more demanding course than simply following a list of rules. We must be honest with ourselves, attentive to our actual circumstances, and always try to find the best way to bring the spirit of our devotion to the Lotus Sūtra’s teaching of universal and immanent buddhahood into our work, family, and other significant relationships, in fact into every aspect of our lives.

I would now like to share my own personal understanding of the ways of embracing and subduing. It seems to me that the way of embracing is the way of peacefully minding one’s own business and contemplating the Dharma in private while still being prepared and able to teach others if they ask about Buddhism in a way that will encourage them where they are in their own understanding and according to their own ability. The way of subduing is the way of public witness to the truth, and that may include denouncing corrupt or false teachings and practices that are going by the name of Buddhism. The way of subduing does not cater to limited views and understandings of Buddhism but more forthrightly challenges or even goads fellow Buddhists to aim for the ultimate realization and actualization of buddhahood. It is a way based on compassion and courage that may provoke hostility in those who do not wish to have their views challenged. The way of subduing also allows for the legitimate and lawful defense of those who speak the truth from violence and oppression.

I feel that, going by Nichiren’s criteria, the circumstances of today more often than not require the method of embracing as most people are simply ignorant about Buddhism and are not slanderers of the Lotus Sūtra, which is to say Buddhists who are trying to get people to neglect or reject the Lotus Sūtra. We are all now countries of “evil and ignorant people” who do not know enough about Buddhism to be considered slanderers.