First we should attend to the development of absolutism, centered on the understanding of “wonderful” in “Wonderful Dharma.” Both Daosheng and Fayun had already given “absolute” as the meaning of “wonderful,” but Zhiyi was even more thorough. In The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra he says, “Calling the sutra ‘wonderful’ means that it is ‘supreme.’ Supreme is another name for wonderful.” That is, the wonderful Dharma is the supreme and absolute truth. However, Zhiyi also made the point that there are two kinds of absoluteness: relative and absolute, and thus relatively and absolutely wonderful. Thus, when he says, “If we explicate wonderful… first in a relative way and then in an absolute way . . .” it indicates that he sees true absoluteness in a kind of absolutely wonderful.

For example, we can understand human beings to be finite and relative in contrast with God, who is infinite and absolute. But God cannot be truly absolute, as such a God is understood within the relativistic context of the dichotomy of absolute and relative—that is, his is a relative absoluteness. True absoluteness is seen where the contrast between humans and God is taken one step further. In terms of ordinary people and the Buddha, the truly absolute Buddha is such that one realizes the nonduality of extraordinary human and extraordinary Buddha and of ordinary human and ordinary Buddha. This is called “the absolutely wonderful.” It is absolute absoluteness.

There are a great many statements and writings by Tiantai Zhiyi. The most distinctive having to do with the Lotus Sutra are Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra, written in 587 when he was fifty. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, written in 593, and the ten-fascicle The Great Calming and Contemplation, written in 594. Together these books are known as “the three great works on the Lotus Sutra” or “the three great works of Tiantai.” But they were actually all dictated by Zhiyi and recorded by his disciple Guanding (561-632), and they include many of Guading’s revisions.

Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra is a commentary on the Lotus Sutra, with a kind of theory of interpretation. The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra should be regarded as doctrine and doctrinal theory based on the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. The Great Calming and Contemplation, as a system of practice based largely on the Lotus Sutra, can be regarded as the Lotus Sutra’s theory of practice. These three treatises of Tiantai gave the Lotus Sutra a highly sophisticated and systematic structure of thought and philosophy.

Tiantai Zhiyi established his own unique interpretation, which made the Lotus Sutra supreme as “the teaching that unifies all that is good” and “the comprehensive unifying teaching.” In this we can see his intention to use the Lotus Sutra to create a unifying Buddhist summa and to bring the disputes over interpretation to an end. He composed the work during the unification of the nation under the Sui dynasty (589-618). The establishment of a unified Buddhism indicated that there existed a comprehensive and unifying Buddhist view of truth, the world, and human life. Thus was born Tiantai Zhiyi’s system of thought, comprehensive and great in both form and content.

Around the beginning of the fifth century, Kumārajīva, who was born near the western boundary of China, became a centrally important figure in Chinese Buddhism. His translation and introduction of many Buddhist sutras and commentaries marked a great turning point. It would be no exaggeration to say that he contributed to a revolution in thought in the Chinese Buddhist world. There were two main points involved in this change.

The first has to do with the correction of a misunderstanding of the fundamental Buddhist idea of truth—emptiness or sunyata—that had existed up to that time. When Buddhist sutras and commentaries were still not well known in China, the idea of emptiness was understood through the medium of ideas that already existed in China, especially the idea of nothing drawn from the works of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. For example, in chapter forty of the Lao-tzu we find: “All things emerged from being, and being emerged from nothing.” Early Chinese Buddhists used the “nothing” found here to interpret the Buddhist idea of emptiness. This way of understanding Buddhism according to prior Chinese thought was later criticized for being too dependent on native terminology and structures of thought.

Even before Kumārajīva’s time Sinicized Buddhism had come under criticism. But he translated and introduced many sutras and commentaries to China, especially those that centered on explanations of emptiness, thereby making more evident the prior misunderstanding. There suddenly arose movements to correct such misunderstandings and to bring Buddhist thought into conformity with what Buddhism actually was. Sengzhao (384-414) who was first among Kumārajīva’s disciples in understanding emptiness, was the leading figure in this movement. His writings were later edited as The Treatise of Zhao. By reading this book we can understand what Sinicized Buddhism was, how Sengzhao criticized it, and how with that act of criticism, he tried to clarify the true meaning of emptiness.

The second point is that once the various sutras and commentaries had been translated and introduced, there arose a demand that they be arranged and systemized—that is, that they be doctrinally interpreted. Historically speaking, the Buddhist sutras and commentaries were developed in India. If we trace them back we can sometimes come to understand their contextual relationships and historical order. But such procedures were not known in China, and those sutras that were first discovered were introduced and studied in a disorderly way. The need for doctrinal interpretation was born out of this disorder. Such interpretation involved appraising and ordering the sutras and commentaries according to the views of various Buddhist scholars.

This kind of interpretation flourished in the fifth and sixth centuries, during the period of the Northern and Southern dynasties.

In China, the Lotus Sutra was characterized as the teaching that unifies all good, meaning that all good ideas are brought together and unified in the Lotus Sutra. Inheriting this tradition, Tiantai Zhiyi created a single great philosophy with the Lotus Sutra as its nucleus. It is no exaggeration to say that Zhiyi achieved a unification and systematization of Buddhist thought for the first time. He made use of various sutras and treatises by taking as his central idea that the Lotus Sutra itself is a synthesis of broad and profound thought. He called the inclusiveness of the sutra “opening and integrating,” and made it the key concept in his systematization of a philosophy of synthesis.

Some contemporary Buddhist scholars view the Lotus Sutra as exclusive, contentious, and sometimes even combative. This can be regarded as another of the criticisms of the Lotus Sutra. Evidence for it being exclusive is found, for example, in the incident of the “departure of the five thousand” in the second chapter, in which five thousand people who did not understand the Buddha’s teaching got up from their seats and left, and the Buddha did not stop them but called them the dregs of the assembly. Such scholars regard all of the Mahayana sutras as negative toward the Small Vehicle to some extent, but none as extremely so as the Lotus Sutra.

They also suspect that the extreme practices of martyrdom and self-sacrifice found in chapter 13 are examples of something created by a distinct social group that was exclusive, closed, and estranged from the general society. From this they try to prove the exclusivity of the Lotus Sutra. And they relate to this what they see as the exclusivity and contentiousness of Nichiren or his followers.

There are additional criticisms, but we have discussed the main ones. The interesting thing is that there were also evaluations completely to the contrary. That is, there were those who praised the Lotus Sutra for establishing the supreme and absolute unifying truth (the Wonderful Dharma of One Vehicle), for elucidating the ultimate reality of this universe (the reality of all things), and for integrating various ideas. Just as the Lotus Sutra refers to itself as “great impartial wisdom,” followers of the Small Vehicle, who had been detested because they were never to become buddhas, are acknowledged by the Lotus Sutra as future buddhas under the unifying and integrating truth of the impartial one vehicle. In this respect the Lotus Sutra was seen as being the opposite of exclusive, namely inclusive and abundantly tolerant.

Another criticism of the Lotus Sutra is that it is merely a vulgar work meant to attract stupid men and women. This is what Tenyu Hattori said. For example, in chapters 18¹ and 25 and elsewhere, the sutra preaches about the benefits to be gained in this life as a result of faith in the sutra, such as the elimination of suffering and having good fortune. “This is just inferior, shallow stuff, best laughed at, for alluring stupid men and women. It’s too inferior and shallow to think about,” he said. “Its purpose is wholly to attract stupid lay people.” Atsutane Hirata followed Hattori in this vein, remarking that chapter 25 had been highly valued for a long time, “becoming a separate sutra which ordinary Japanese people know as the Kannon Sutra,” but which “only serves to attract stupid lay men and women because it is utterly clumsy.”

There are many places in the section of the Lotus Sutra that is considered to have come third historically that emphasize the benefits to be obtained in this life, such as the wonderful powers of faith, overcoming suffering, and having good fortune. And generally speaking, in later times devotion to the Lotus Sutra became mainstream as a result of these chapters. This is why such criticisms arose. As we have already seen, the third part of the sutra was added in order to respond to the magical and esoteric Buddhist and folk religions of India. It adds to and supplements the earlier parts of the sutra and, if taken in a positive way, can be its applied part. It is not appropriate to characterize the whole sutra in that way by emphasizing the third part, though historically admiration for the Lotus Sutra in China and Japan generally rested on that part, so, in one sense, we can understand why there were such criticisms.

Notes

1. I believe this should be Chapter 19, The Merits of the Teacher of the Dharma, not Chapter 18, The Merits of a Person Who Rejoices at Hearing This Sutra.
   return

Evaluations of the Lotus Sutra have traditionally run to the two extremes. In this respect, too, the sutra is indeed a wonder. First of all, one of the most severe criticisms of the sutra is the idea that it has no content. In chapter 25 of Emerging from Meditation, Nakamoto Tominaga comments that “the Lotus Sutra praises the Buddha from beginning to end but does not have any real sutra teaching at all, and therefore should not have been called a sutra teaching from the beginning.” Moreover, “the whole of the Lotus Sutra is nothing but words of praise.” In sum, the Lotus Sutra is nothing but words of praise either for the Buddha or for itself, teaches nothing like a doctrine, and therefore cannot properly be regarded as a sutra. In his book Nakedness, Tenyu Hattori comments similarly on the Lotus Sutra, saying, “It is only a big story in the sky,” meaning that it is only a big, empty, work of fantasy.

Atsutane Hirata, who abused Buddhism in vulgar and crude ways, ridiculed the Lotus Sutra in the third volume of his Laughter Following Meditation, saying, Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma in eight fascicles and twenty-eight chapters is truly only snake oil without any really substantial medicine in it at all. If someone gets mad at me for saying this, I intend to tell him to show me the real medicine.” This criticism that the Lotus Sutra is merely snake oil devoid of content later became famous and highly regarded, and the theory that the Lotus Sutra has no real content, represented by Hirata, has since become quite common.

Actually, if one only glances through the Lotus Sutra one may get the impression that it is nothing but snake oil without real substance. We can find something like doctrines in the first half, but they are not analytical and no detailed theory is developed from them. The second half of the sutra vigorously teaches faith in the Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra does praise only itself, to put it bluntly. Nor does the Lotus Sutra say what kind of thing it itself is. So it is not unreasonable that the above criticisms arose.

But it is not the case that there has been no defense against such criticism. Tiantai Zhiyi already rejected such criticism in early times, saying that if the Lotus Sutra “does not discuss all kinds of Mahayana and Small Vehicle forms of meditation, the ten powers, fearlessness, and various standards, it is because these things have already been taught in prior sutras. It discusses fundamental principles of the Tathagata’s teachings, but not the fine details.” In other words, in previous sutras the various detailed teachings and definitions are fully worked out, while the Lotus Sutra, generalizing upon them, aims to illuminate the fundamental and ultimate principles of Buddhism. Therefore, it does not discuss minute details of doctrine. In this sense, Tiantai Zhiyi calls the Lotus Sutra “genetic and essential,” “the great cause,” “the ultimate essence,” “the essential structure of the teachings,” “the Buddha’s device for saving people,” and so forth.

Among those who were transnationalist Nichiren devotees, some were only slightly different from [Chogyu] Takayama [(1871-1902), who argues that Buddhism was a world religion and in that sense had the same viewpoint as Christianity]. They moved toward the cosmic faith taught by the Lotus Sutra and mediated by Nichiren. One such devotee was Kenji Miyazawa (1896-1933), a poet, writer of children’s stories, and agricultural scientist. Around his final year of high school, he happened to come across the book The Lotus Sutra in Chinese and Japanese by Daito Shimaji in his own house. He read it through once and was immediately thrilled by it. From then on he gradually grew more and more devoted to the Lotus Sutra and, without doing so explicitly, often incorporated its teachings into his stories. He was often explicit in his letters. For example, in a letter written just before his graduation from high school, he wrote, “Namu myoho renge kyo! Namu myoho renge kyo! I sincerely offer myself in service to the Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma, the foundation of the greatest happiness for all. When I chant ‘Praise to the Lotus Sutra’ just once, the world and I are enveloped in a wondrous light.”

[L]ooking at the Lotus Sutra from a point of view that combines the traditional perspective with that of its historical formation, we can conclude that the sutra is comprised of three factors: (1) the true (Dharma), (2) the personal (Buddha), and (3) the human (bodhisattva). That is, the unifying truth of the cosmos corresponds to the theme of the first division (the teaching of the historical Shakyamuni), the eternal personal life to that of the second division (the teaching of the Everlasting Original Shakyamuni), and human action in this world to the theme of the third division. These three factors succinctly express the title of the Lotus Sutra—Wonderful Dharma Flower Sutra (Saddharmapuṇḍarika Sutra). “Wonderful Dharma” (saddharma) means that which defines the truth. “Sutra” means the teaching of the Buddha, thus that which is related to the Buddha. And the middle term, “Flower” (puṇḍarika), signifies the bodhisattvas. The unifying truth of the cosmos is the eternally living truth of life and persons, and this is a practical truth that we ought to concretely embody in the world. This is concisely expressed in the phrase that makes up the title “Wonderful Dharma Flower Sutra,” the Lotus Sutra. Therefore, Nichiren emphasized embracing the title and reciting it.

Thus, the Lotus Sutra has three characteristic ideas. Lotus Sutra and Tiantai theory developed in distinct ways according to which of these characteristics they emphasized.