Translator's Introduction

The Ketchi Shō—Notes on the Knowledge of Determination (決智鈔)—is a text composed by Zonkaku in response to a debate with adherents of the Nichiren school. According to the Seiten introduction to the text,1 the title refers to rendering a determined decision on which of the two teachings—those of the Sūtra of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma (妙法蓮華経 Myōhōrenge Kyō; popularly referred to in English as the Lotus Sūtra, by which I shall refer to it in this introduction) or the nembutsu—most effectively embodies the Dharma-gate of the One Vehicle of Buddha-knowledge in the final age of Dharma decline (末法 mappō).

A few words on the background to this text are in order. The Ketchi Shō was composed in 1338 (Ryakuō 1 / Engen 3), when Zonkaku was forty-nine years old, following a doctrinal debate (対決 taiketsu) with adherents of the Nichiren school held in Bingo Province (modern-day Hiroshima Prefecture) in the third lunar month of that year. The debate took place at the residence of the provincial governor (守護 shugo) of Bingo, and was convened at the instigation of the Nichiren school, whose method of “remonstrance” (諫暁 kangyō; the practice of petitioning public authorities to condemn rival teachings as heretical) had intensified considerably during the 1330s and 1340s, following the example of figures such as Nichiya 日家 (1298–1374), who filed a complaint with the head of the metropolitan police of Kyoto in 1344.2

The community that was summoned to this confrontation was the Shinshū congregation centred on Kōshōji (光照寺) in the district of Sanna (山南; present-day Numakuma-chō, Fukuyama City, Hiroshima Prefecture), a community that traced its lineage to the missionary figure Meikō (明光), who had come west from the Kanto region and established Kōshōji as one of the earliest Shinshū temples in western Japan. According to the Zonkaku Ichigoki, when Ryōgen first visited the Ōtani mausoleum in 1320, he identified his own teacher as “Ryōen of Kamakura”—a figure associated in modern scholarship with this same Meikō—and described him as belonging to the eastern Arakami lineage.3 Meikō is accordingly regarded as a founding figure of Jōdo Shinshū propagation in Bingo and Iwami (modern-day Shimane Prefecture), and the community that bore his name comprised the institutional base from which emerged both the 1338 debate and the composition of the Ketchi Shō.4

The Nichiren school’s hostility to Pure Land teaching had deep roots. Nichiren himself singled out Hōnen’s Senjaku Shū as the primary object of his attack in the Risshō Ankoku Ron (1260), and his antipathy toward the nembutsu was well known. The Shinshū community, however, faced an awkward lacuna on the other side: Shinran had never formulated an explicit position on the Lotus Sūtra, and does not once directly cite the Lotus Sūtra in any of his writings—an omission all the more striking given that the Kyōgyōshinshō draws on some sixty canonical sources.5 The adherents of the Sanna Kōshōji accordingly called upon Zonkaku to represent them; a challenge which he readily accepted—reportedly under the pseudonym “Goichi,” presumably out of a sense of caution with respect to personal reprisals. According to the Zonkaku Ichigoki, the debate turned in favour of the Shinshū adherents, whose position was strengthened in the region. That no independent corroboration of this episode exists has led some Nichiren school scholars to question whether the debate occurred at all, though they have not furnished convincing evidence against it.6 Arising directly out of this encounter, at the request of members of the Kōshōji community, Zonkaku composed two works: the Ketchi Shō and its companion text, the Hokke Mondō 法華問答 (“Questions and Answers on the Lotus Sūtra”). Two further works were prepared for the same community, among them the Busen Shō 歩船鈔, which situates Shinshū within the full range of Buddhist doctrines and schools.

The encounter at Bingo was one episode in a sustained pattern of competitive propagation in the western provinces, where both the Nichiren school and the various Shinshū lineages were simultaneously expanding westward from their Kanto bases. The proximity of these movements made conflict structurally predictable. For the Nichiren school, the method of shakubuku (折伏)—aggressive propagation through confrontation—that Nichiren had commended made clash with rival communities not merely possible but, in a sense, programmatic. For the Shinshū side, Zonkaku had already been engaged in extensive teaching activity throughout western Japan, and his involvement in the Bingo debate was of a piece with the broader educational and institutional work that characterised his career from the 1320s onward.

Two traditions exist regarding who requested the Ketchi Shō. A catalogue held at the main Honganji temple names Kyōkū (慶空) of Sanna in Bingo as the requester; a separate catalogue held at Shinshūji in Osaka names Meikō Shōnin (明光上人). According to the Seiten introduction, Jakuei’s Kankōroku (1721) provides the fullest account, recording that both the Ketchi Shō and the Busen Shō were composed at Kyōkū’s request immediately following the debate; this is the attribution generally accepted in contemporary scholarship. The text survives with a scribe’s colophon dated to the fourteenth day of the second lunar month of the twenty-sixth year of the Ōei era (1419)—eighty-one years after the text’s composition—recording the completion of a copy from a “secret manuscript” (hibon 祕本). A second colophon at the end of the manuscript, corresponding to a continuation of the questions and answers (questions 10 to 22) not present in some transmissions, bears the same date, raising the possibility that the text circulated in two distinct parts before being assembled into its present form.

The Ketchi Shō consists of a prologue followed by twenty-two questions and answers. This sets out the theoretical framework within which the entire discussion takes place. Broadly surveying all the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime, it divides them into two gates following the classification established by Daochuo (562–645) on the basis of Nāgārjuna’s earlier twofold distinction; namely, the gate of difficult practice and the gate of easy practice. The former represents the Path of Sages (聖道門 shōdōmon)—which teaches the direct realisation of Dharma-nature in one’s present body through self-power cultivation—and the latter is the Pure Land path (浄土門 jōdomon), which encourages birth in the Realm of Ultimate Bliss through the recitation of Amida’s Name, reliance on Other Power of the Primal Vow, and the subsequent realisation of non-arising.7 This framework is explicitly adapted to the present age. Citing the five five-hundred-year periods taught in the Great Collection Sūtra, Zonkaku situates his readers in the fifth and final period, an age in which “quarrels and disputes are entrenched,” arguing that the nembutsu is the teaching that accords with both the time and the capacities of those who find themselves in it.

The twenty-two questions and answers in this work fall naturally into six sections. The first (questions 1–9) addresses the Nichiren school’s core contention that the Lotus Sūtra is the sole true and real teaching and that the nembutsu is either a provisional skilful means or, in its sharpest formulation, the karma that leads to Avīci hell. Against this, Zonkaku unreservedly acknowledges the pre-eminence of the Lotus Sūtra within the Path of Sages, but argues that the two gates are complementary rather than adversarial: for those possessing superior faculties and discernment, the Lotus Sūtra is indeed the foremost teaching; for ordinary beings in this final age (i.e., those of dull comprehension, heavy karmic obstructions, and inferior aptitude for the advanced practices demanded by the Lotus Sūtra) the nembutsu is the sole means to liberation. This section reaches its climax in the argument that the Lotus Sūtra’s own text points towards birth in the Pure Land. For example, the “Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter,” addressed to women afflicted by the five obstructions in the final five hundred years, enjoins them to “immediately go to the Land of Bliss in the presence of Amida Buddha.” Even on the Lotus Sūtra’s own terms, Zonkaku concludes, the ultimate benefit is none other than birth in the Pure Land.

The second section (questions 10 to 14) turns to the question of the temporal relationship between the Pure Land sūtras and the Lotus Sūtra. Specifically, whether the former—having been preached before the latter—are thereby reduced to a provisional status in light of the statement we find in the Lotus that “the truth has not yet been revealed.” Zonkaku dismisses this argument on two grounds: firstly, by producing textual evidence that the Contemplation Sūtra was, in fact, preached either simultaneously with, or after, the Lotus; and secondly, by challenging the Tendai classification of the “five periods” as being sectarian rather than universally binding, and affirming instead the Pure Land school’s own doctrinal classification as derived from Nāgārjuna, Daochuo, and Shandao.

The third section (questions 15 to 17) addresses the most difficult question of the text: whether the Lotus and the nembutsu are, at the deepest level, a single Dharma. Zonkaku distinguishes a gate of distinction (分別門 bunbetsumon) from a gate of integration (開会門 ekaimon). In the former, the two teachings differ at every level: the true characteristic approach as distinct to reciting the Name; the teaching based on principle as opposed to the phenomenal teaching; buddhahood in contrast to ‘birth’; benefiting sages instead of ordinary beings; difficult practice versus easy practice; self-power and Other Power. In the gate of integration, however, both are expressions of a single Buddha-wisdom that is embodied by the One Vehicle; accordingly, the distinctions of the first gate are shown to be ultimately non-dual. Seven pieces of textual evidence are then adduced to show that every word and phrase of the Lotus implicitly contains the nembutsu: the “Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter” itself; parallel passages on the profundity of Buddha-wisdom in the Lotus and Larger Pure Land Sūtra; the ‘Buddha of Great Power’ passage in the “Skilful Means Chapter,” interpreted as a covert reference to Amida; Tiantai Zhiyi’s identification of Avalokiteśvara with the Sublime Dharma; parallel passages on Śākyamuni’s foundational practice in the “Never Disparaging Chapter” and the Amida Sūtra; the ‘White Lotus’ (Skt. puṇḍarīka) etymology shared by the two teachings; and the claim that the two gates of “origin and trace” in the Lotus are themselves expressions of Amida’s threefold nature.8

The fourth section (questions 18 to 21) defends the Pure Land teaching’s impeccable Mahāyāna credentials. Drawing on the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Pure Land (along with Tanluan’s commentary), and Shandao’s Profound Meaning Section, Zonkaku establishes that the Contemplation Sūtra belongs to the bodhisattva-piṭaka and constitutes the sudden teaching (頓教 tongyō) of the One Vehicle. He turns on its head the objection that “sudden” cannot apply to a practice extending over one to seven days, as against the single-thought-moment of the Tendai ideal. Precisely because sudden awakening remains unachievable in this life, even for such Tiantai masters as Nanyue Huisi and Zhiyi—both of whom aspired for birth in the Pure Land as their final resort—the nembutsu of Other Power constitutes, paradoxically, the sudden teaching within the sudden teachings, transcending all self-power approaches by horizontally severing the four floods9 and directly entering Amida’s realm of nirvāṇa.

The fifth and final section (question 22) addresses what is, in some ways, the most fundamental challenge: whether birth in the Pure Land itself represents an escape from saṃsāra at all, or merely another form of conditioned existence. Zonkaku’s response draws on Tanluan’s commentary on Vasubandhu’s Treatise to establish the doctrine that “birth is itself non-arising” (生即無生 shō soku mushō; more literally, the pun of this phrase can be expressed by translating it as “birth is itself non-birth”). In other words, what is aspired to is not a false birth in the three realms of transmigration, but realizing the unconditioned Dharma-nature itself, thanks to the untainted virtue of Amida Tathāgata’s primal vow (本願 hongan). The section closes with a sequence of identities—birth equals non-arising, non-arising equals Dharma-nature, Dharma-nature equals tranquil cessation, tranquil cessation equals the true characteristic, the true characteristic equals suchness, suchness equals nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa equals the Dharma-body, the Dharma-body equals the Tathāgata—before concluding with an exhortation to its readers (who are called “ordinary household-dwelling beings possessed of obtuse faculties,”) to single-mindedly aspire for the Pure Land and to practise nembutsu with wholehearted devotion.

According to Kumano Kōyō, a distinctive feature of Zonkaku’s argumentative style throughout the Ketchi Shō is the rhetorical technique known as “to grant and then withdraw” (与奪 yodatsu). Zonkaku first acknowledges the opposing position in its strongest form (for example, the Lotus Sūtra is indeed the foremost teaching; the Path of Sages is certainly the direct path to buddhahood; Nichiren’s charges against the nembutsu reflect positions that have textual support) and only then, from a different perspective, demonstrates the superiority or practical necessity of the nembutsu for beings of the present age. This makes the text an unusually generous piece of polemic: it does not dismiss the Nichiren school’s arguments but, rather, absorbs them into a larger framework in which their validity is acknowledged on one level while being transcended at another. This same technique can be found across Zonkaku’s other works from this period (including the Jōdo Shinnyō Shō, as well as the earlier Nyonin Ōjō Kikigaki), and may be regarded as characteristic of his rhetorical style more broadly.10

For readers approaching the Ketchi Shō alongside the Nyonin Ōjō Kikigaki (Vol. I, chapter 5), it is worth mentioning that both texts emerge from the close relationship between Zonkaku and Ryōgen of the Jōdo Shinshū Bukkōji-lineage. The Nyonin Ōjō Kikigaki was composed some eighteen years earlier, at Ryōgen’s request (in either 1320 or 1324), and already shows Zonkaku engaging with the Nichiren school’s arguments in a different register: specifically, the claim that the Lotus Sūtra uniquely opens the path of salvation for women through the paradigm of the Nāga Princess, a claim that Zonkaku’s defence of Amida Buddha’s thirty-fifth vow implicitly contests. By 1338, Ryōgen’s followers in western Japan were well established enough, and the Nichiren school’s challenge sufficiently pressing, for the confrontation at Bingo to be provoked. The Ketchi Shō may thus be read as the systematic public working-out of a doctrinal response that had been developing, in pastoral and polemic form, across the two preceding decades of Zonkaku’s engagement with the communities of that region.

Regarding scholarship devoted to the Ketchi Shō, besides a recent overview article by Tanaka Ryōsuke,11 an earlier contribution by Takada Mimei focuses specifically on Zonkaku’s treatment of the doctrine of the Buddha’s original intent for appearing in the world (出世本懐 shussei no honkai) and his view of practices other than the nembutsu in relation to the Lotus.12 Finally, Ducor’s biography of Zonkaku remains the fullest treatment in any Western language of the historical circumstances surrounding the composition of this text.13

Fascicle 1

I. Prologue: Buddha-Nature, the Two Gates, and the Time of the Latter Dharma

[672] When one surveys broadly all the half and full teachings of the one lifetime,1 there are none that do not serve as a gate for the liberation of sentient beings. Although what sundry sūtras teach might differ, the essential point held in common is attaining the stage of awakening to bodhi; and although what is discussed by various schools may be divergent, the crux is held to be the revelation of the wondrous principle of mind-nature. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: “Mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings: these three are without distinction,”2 and, in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states, “All sentient beings universally possess Buddha-nature.” Therefore, our own mind is itself the Buddha. Although it is said that the Buddha should not be sought outside one’s mind, ever since beings came to be enveloped by the darkness of ignorance and affliction—by means of a single illusory moment of delusion, the eye of Buddha-nature has long been blinded, as they wander through the darkness of saṃsāra.3

The Treatise on Consciousness-Only, in shedding light on the characteristics of the ignorance and darkness of sentient beings, states: “Not yet having attained true awakening, one dwells constantly in a dream. Therefore, the Buddha speaks of this state as the long night of saṃsāra.”4

For ordinary beings wandering in such delusion: even if they hear that “afflictions are themselves bodhi,”5 because they have not penetrated that principle, the afflictions remain simply afflictions and become the cause of transgression, while bodhi remains simply bodhi—which does not at all accord with right view. Even if they try to contemplate how saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa, because they do not attain that realisation, saṃsāra remains simply saṃsāra, and they transmigrate through the six realms, while nirvāṇa remains simply nirvāṇa, and Buddha-nature is not yet apparent. For this reason, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: “Shrouded by ignorance, one cannot discern of Buddha-nature.”6 Based on that sūtra passage, Preceptor Shanda, has judged that “Because it is thickly concealed by defilements and obstructions, beings’ pure essence has no means to appear clearly.”7

The buddhas of the three times, having compassion on this state of affairs, have appeared in the world one after another; and as the principal teaching of the one lifetime, Śākyamuni Tathāgata, in order to cause that Buddha-nature to be manifested, appeared in this world of the five degenerations,8 proclaimed awakening at the eight junctures,9 and expounded the teachings of both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles.

Although those teaching-gates branch into many paths, if one defers to the doctrinal divisions of Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva, there are two paths: the path of difficult practice and that of easy practice.10 The Meditation Master Daochuo named these two paths the two gates of the Path of Sages and the Pure Land.11 The gate of the Path of Sages shows the gate of direct progress to buddhahood, teaching that one should manifest the principle of Dharma-nature in one’s present body; whereas, the gate of the Pure Land encourages the path of birth in the next life, instructing that one should attain the realisation of non-arising in the Land of Peace and Provision.12

Within the gate of the Path of Sages, [teachings] which especially illuminate the gate of how “sentient beings are identical to buddhas” and reveal the principle of the permanence of true nature are the Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma, the Nirvāṇa, and others. Those who hear the profound principles of those various sūtras receive benefit each according to their capacity,13 which went without saying for the time the Buddha was in the world. Regarding sentient beings after his nirvāṇa, people long ago of superior capacity cultivated practice according to the teachings he left behind, and were thus able to become awakened. Even if one were to speak of the capacities of those in the final age, if there are people of sharp faculties who practise and train according to the teachings, it is not that they will lack the ability to receive benefit. The various schools have divided from one another, and although that which they establish differs in each case, because they are all paths entered through cultivation by self-power, they are broadly called the gate of the Path of Sages.

As for what is called the gate of the Pure Land, relying upon the three Pure Land sūtras, it promises the attainment of birth in another land. This is solely [673] because one aspires and recites the Name of Amida. Riding on the Other Power of the Primal Vow one is, in due course, born in the Land of Ultimate Bliss, there to realise the principle of the suchness of Dharma-nature, and to arrive at the rank of the unexcelled fruit of buddhahood.

Even though the one lifetime consists in the teachings of a single Buddha, the reason for establishing two gateways is [as follows]. During the Buddha’s lifetime, beings could all obtain benefit right where they were sitting by relying on the efficacy of listening to the sūtras, and also received prophecies of their future attainment of buddhahood. However, sentient beings of the latter age commit evil and are ordinary beings of dull faculties and heavy obstructions. Because it is difficult for them to attain realisation in their current bodies, and because those beings cannot endure the cultivation of the gate of the Path of Sages, the one path of easy practice is now established to show the way to birth [in the Pure Land] through Other Power.

Accordingly, the Contemplation Sūtra explains the capacity for birth through nembutsu, stating in one place that “The Tathāgata now, for the sake of all sentient beings in the future, who are harmed by the afflictions (as if they were robbers),14 will speak of pure acts,”15 and elsewhere it remarks that “for the sake of all beings in the future who wish to escape suffering, he makes known this method for contemplating the ground.” Explaining this according to the capacity of Vaidehī, one burdened by the five obstructions,16 he manifests the broad salvation of ordinary beings who are ever-drowning after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. After the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, there are three time periods: the True, Semblance, and Latter Dharma ages.17 

During the thousand-year period of the True Dharma, teaching, practice, and realisation were fully present. Cultivating the practice according to the teaching, led to many people attaining realisation, and the excellent benefits of the Buddha-Dharma did not diminish—almost without any difference compared to the Buddha’s own lifetime. During the thousand-year period of the Semblance Dharma, although teaching and practice were still available, realisation was absent. During the ten-thousand-year period of the Latter Dharma, only the teaching exists, and practice and realisation are absent. This is because the five degenerations flourish, the evil karma of sentient beings increases. Their thoughts and minds are weak and frail, and so their cultivation of the Buddha-Dharma cannot progress.

Considering the time period of the current era, if [674] we rely on the explanation that the True Dharma lasts for a thousand years, then more than two hundred years have passed since the beginning of the Latter Dharma. If we rely on the explanation that the True Dharma lasts for five hundred years, then more than seven hundred years have passed since the beginning of the Latter Dharma.18 Regardless of which interpretation one follows, it goes without saying that we have already entered the Latter Dharma.

Because we are in the fifth of the five five-hundred-year periods taught in the Great Collection Sūtra, it is the time when “quarrels and disputes are entrenched.”19 Being “harmed by the robbers,” as described in the Contemplation Sūtra, corresponds exactly to conditions in the present. Therefore, in accordance with the teaching that conforms to the characteristics of the time and the capacity, I recommend this gate of the nembutsu for birth. This is because it is the true and real teaching of the Tathāgata and the Dharma teaching that is confirmed by all the buddhas.

II. The White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma and the Pure Land: A Question of Capacity

Q1. Is the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma not the sole true teaching?

Someone asks: 

The cultivation of the path to buddhahood is for the sake of transcending saṃsāra. However, if one seeks liberation through the provisional teachings of skilful means, that benefit cannot be obtained. One must seek the true and real fruit of buddhahood through the true and real teaching. That true and real teaching is the One Dharma of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma. All other teachings are not true and real.

The reason for this is that the text of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma Sūtra states: “In the buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle; there is neither a second nor a third, except when the Buddha speaks through skilful means.”20 It also says: “In order to teach the Buddha-wisdom, the buddhas appear in the world. Only this one thing is real; the other two are not true.” Furthermore, it states: “Though they show various paths, in reality, they are for the sake of the Buddha Vehicle,” and “The buddhas appear in the world only for the sake of one great matter.”

Thus, it is revealed that aside from the One Vehicle of the Sublime Dharma, all other teachings are not true and real but are all teachings of skilful means. Only this one Dharma is the original intent for which the buddhas appear in the world and the direct path for sentient beings to attain buddhahood. This is emphasised by praising the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma [675] as the first among the “three teachings,”21 by: (i) explaining the “ten allegories”22 to describe the sūtra’s supreme excellence; (2) using the allegory of digging on a high plateau23 to show that people who practise the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma are close to the path to buddhahood; and (3) borrowing the allegory of the jewel in the topknot24 to clarify that the Sublime Dharma is the most sublime.

Not only that, but Devadatta of the five offences received a prophecy that he would be Devarāja Tathāgata. The eight-year-old Nāga Princess also attained awakening in the Vimalā World.25 These all were unprecedented in the Buddha’s one lifetime; all other teachings fall short of it. Now, having been fortunately born into an age where this One Vehicle [of the Lotus Sūtra] is widespread, if one fails to take up, bear, read, and recite it, and instead clings solely to the teachings of skilful means and prays for rebirth with the nembutsu, is this not truly a grave error?

Response:

Among the various sūtras, that the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma is pre-eminent is clear from its text. This is precisely because the explanatory characteristics of the two gates of origin and trace surpass the preceding teachings.26 The true intent of the “trace gate” lies in revealing the true characteristic, while the true intent of the “origin gate” lies in revealing the Tathāgata’s immeasurable lifespan.

Speaking for a moment concerning the trace gate, the true characteristic is what the [Lotus] Sūtra teaches as the “true characteristic of all dharmas.” According to Tiantai [Zhiyi],27 this “true characteristic” means that the natures and characteristics of the ten realms, the ten suchnesses, and the three thousand realms reside in a single thought-moment of sentient beings,28 which is inconceivable. Therefore, buddhas and sentient beings are without distinction, and afflictions and bodhi are non-dual. This is also stated as, “All dharmas from their origin are always themselves characterised by tranquil cessation,”29 and also taught as, “This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the characteristic of words and speech is tranquil cessation.”30 [676] This is precisely the Buddha-nature of sentient beings.

Because the Buddha appears in the world to reveal this principle, it is called his original intent for appearing in the world, and it is called the foremost teaching. This is Buddha-knowledge, this is the One Vehicle, this is the true characteristic, this is tranquil cessation. Outside of this single principle, there is absolutely no other essence functioning as a dharma. Therefore, it is said that “There is no Dharma of the two vehicles nor Dharma of the three vehicles,” and it also is said that “All the rest are untrue.” That the two vehicles of spoiled seeds produce the sprouts and stems of attaining buddhahood is due to this reason.31 The saying that “All sentient beings enter the path to buddhahood”32 is also due to this reason. The attainment of buddhahood by Devadatta and the Nāga Princess are entirely due to this path of the One Vehicle of Buddha-knowledge.

However, when viewing this from the Pure Land school’s perspective, although the benefits obtained are various, they belong to the Path of Sages among the two gates, the path of entering the cultivation of self-power. Therefore, in the trace gate, the śrāvakas of the three rounds of teachings in the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma,33 on realising the principle of the true characteristic of all dharmas, received prophecies of the proclamation of awakening at the eight junctures; and, in the origin gate, bodhisattvas as numerous as motes of dust, on hearing the teaching of the Buddha’s long and extensive lifespan, obtained the benefit of advancing on the path and reducing the number of births needed until buddhahood.34 After the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, because sentient beings of inferior faculties find it difficult to reach that level of capacity—and because it is difficult for them to realise the profound principle of Dharma-nature here—they are encouraged to: (i) entrust themselves to the strong condition of the Buddha’s Vow; (ii) be born in Amida’s Pure Land; and (iii) awaken to the realisation of non-arising there.

Because followers of the Buddha during his lifetime generally possessed sharp faculties, they naturally attained realisation and received benefits. Because ordinary beings of the latter age are nescient and have dull faculties—even though the Dharma is extraordinary—it is an unaccomplishable practice for those of shallow capacities; thus, they still find it difficult to escape from saṃsāra. [677] What becomes the essential path of emancipation for such inferior beings is simply the single practice of the nembutsu. Before [turning to] this [single practice], the various sūtras of the Buddha’s one lifetime all return to the single gate of the nembutsu, and this is also called the “One Vehicle of the nembutsu.”

The Contemplation Sūtra, at the beginning of its introductory section, lists and expounds upon the time, the Buddha, the place, and the assembly of the various sūtras, and Preceptor Shandao, interpreting this passage as the “Preface Before the Teaching,”35 captures this meaning [of the nembutsu being the One Vehicle]. Alternatively, calling it the “sudden teaching of the ocean of the One Vehicle,”36 or interpreting it as the “sudden teaching of the treasury of bodhi,”37 also carries this meaning.

Ultimately, within the two gates of the Buddha’s one lifetime of teachings, regarding the direct progression to attaining buddhahood and the manifestation of the path of sudden awakening in this very body, the various gates are further divided. Although they debate the true and the provisional among themselves, to speak first from the perspective of Tendai, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma is considered the ultimate [vehicle]. This is because, having passed through the preparation of the four flavours,38 it reveals the ultimate truth of the perfect One, and, revealing the skilful means of the three vehicles, it unites them into the one Buddha Vehicle. In this case, the teachings of his one lifetime all have a reason to unite in the Lotus Sūtra.

To demonstrate the path of sequential birth and the ordinary beings’ emancipation from saṃsāra, the nembutsu is considered the most essential. This is because it does not recommend the contemplative practices of “phenomena and principle,” but only employs the easy practice of reciting the Name. In this case, there is the meaning that all teachings return to the nembutsu. This meaning is captured by the statement in the Praise of the Pratyutpanna that “The teaching gates of various skilful means that were expounded are not single; they are solely for us ordinary beings with inverted views. If one is able to practise according to the teachings, then through every gate one will see the Buddha and attain birth in the Pure Land.”

Therefore, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma also39 (having concluded the benefits according to capacities in the right doctrine section), in the “Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter” of the propagation section, points to the time of the final five hundred years, and directs it toward the capacities of women with the five obstructions and three obediences,40 expounding that they will “immediately go to the Land of Bliss, [678] into the presence of Amida Buddha.” This reveals the form in which even the benefits of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma and the benefits of direct progression to attaining buddhahood for beings who do evil after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa ultimately return and enter into birth in the Pure Land.

Q2. Do Devadatta and the Nāga Princess not prove that the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma benefits inferior beings?

Someone asks:

It cannot be that, during the Buddha’s lifetime, those targeted by the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma were of superior faculties. Benefiting those of lower capacities in particular is the supreme benefit of this sūtra. The so-called attainment of buddhahood by Devadatta and the Nāga Princess are proof of this. Why should one say that it does not extend to those of inferior faculties?

Response:

When viewed from the perspective of the Pure Land school, the beings that attained benefits during the Buddha’s lifetime are all known to be beings of sharp faculties. Therefore, those two persons also cannot be said to be beings of dull faculties. The reason for this is that Devadatta recited, from memory, sixty thousand of the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma, and possessed thirty of the thirty-two marks.41 Therefore, he should certainly be called a being of superior faculties. Regarding the Nāga Princess, because the sūtra expounds that “Her age is eight years, and she has wisdom and sharp faculties,”42 she cannot be called one of dull roots.

Furthermore, there are instances where it appears that the beings during the Buddha’s lifetime were mostly provisional manifestations.43 If one relies on that interpretation, even if it is said that they received benefits, they could not be true benefits. It is only the Dharma by which beings of inferior faculties after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa—sentient beings with deep and grave evil obstructions—truly escape saṃsāra that should be called the true and real Dharma: and this is, namely, the nembutsu.

Q3. Is the appeal to "provisional manifestations" not arbitrary?

Someone asks:

That the beings during the Buddha’s lifetime must mostly be provisional manifestations is difficult to conceive. Even if they were provisional manifestations, their demonstrating the behaviour of those with inferior capacities is because the sūtra must have benefit for [those with inferior capacities]. Why [679] then should one say that they are provisional manifestations, thus rendering the power of the [Lotus] Sūtra non-existent? Furthermore, the mere notion that they must be provisional manifestations beggars belief. Is there evidence for this?

Response:

From the outset, it is not my intention to establish the present doctrine solely by means of the principle of provisional manifestations. During the Buddha’s lifetime, beings were of superior capacity, and after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, they are of inferior capacity; there is no discrepancy in understanding it thus. Furthermore, since there is also the teaching concerning those those who require provisional means of instruction,44 I am stating the principle that, according to that teaching, there may also be the implication that the real is of no benefit for them.45 Therefore, the two meanings of provisional manifestations and the real must be understood according to the specific circumstances.

Next, with respect to the perspective of provisional manifestations, the Abhisamaya Sūtra states: “The respective stages of the three vehicles arise from the Buddha-stage.”46 Then the path of destroying delusions and the introductory practices of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas appears not to be ultimate. Accordingly, the commentary of the Great Master Miaole47 also states: “In the Sūtra of the Inconceivable State of Tathāgatas, it explains that, ‘Śāriputra and the other five hundred śrāvakas are all bodhisattvas of the highest rank from other lands.’”48 If we follow this commentary, it means that the “five hundred śrāvakas” refers to the śrāvakas who received the prophecy of awakening in the three rounds of teaching in the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma, all of whom are understood to have been provisional manifestations.

Furthermore, Great Master Tiantai says: “Devadatta was the Bodhisattva Piṅgala, a good knowledgeable friend from prior lifetimes,”49 and Miaole, following this, states: “Regarding the phrase ‘Devadatta was the Bodhisattva Piṅgala’—it is for this reason that in the Great Sūtra50 it says, ‘There is no possibility that Devadatta was truly an evil person who fell into the Avīci hell.’”51 From these passages, one should know that they were provisional manifestations.

Q4. Is the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma not intended precisely for those after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa?

Someone asks:

For now, let us set aside the distinctions between sharp and dull faculties and the provisional and real teachings intended for those living during the Buddha’s lifetime. This White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma [680] is primarily intended to bestow its benefits upon those living after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. Specifically, proof of this can be found in passages such as these in the “Chapter of the Jewelled Pagoda,” which states: “Those who can read and uphold this sūtra in a future age are true children of the Buddha, dwelling in the stage of pure wholesomeness,”52 and the “Chapter on Supernormal Powers,” which states: “After my parinirvāṇa, one should take up and bear this sūtra; such a person, definitely without any doubts, will attain buddhahood.”53 Furthermore, since Great Master Tiantai also explained that “in the last five-hundred-year period, the Sublime Dharma will spread far and wide,”54 the present time is exactly when these benefits should be at their peak. How then could one practise this and not attain the fruit of buddhahood?

Response:

The passage “definitely without any doubts” and the teaching of “dwelling in the stage of pure wholesomeness” are truly reliable and should indeed be believed. However, if  one who is able to expound does not reach that level, they must not expound it lightly. The one who is able to listen, too, must not be capable if they are of shallow wisdom.

The reason for this is that, when we look at the passage in the “Chapter on Allegories,”55 in one place it says, “This White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma Sūtra is expounded for those of profound wisdom. Those of shallow understanding, hearing [this sūtra], will be confused and not understand,” and in another place it explains, “Ordinary beings of shallow understanding are deeply attached to the five desires, and hearing [this sūtra], cannot understand. Also, do not expound it to them.” Far from even conceiving of profound wisdom, they might not even have shallow wisdom. To expound this for those of inferior capacity goes against the prohibitions of the Buddha’s teachings. The person who expounds it incurs an offence, and the person who listens will have no benefit.

The reason it is prohibited in this way is that, because [this teaching] is the extremely profound and ultimate Dharma, those of shallow understanding, upon hearing it, will commit slander. If they commit slander, they will fall into evil realms. For this reason, revealing the karmic retribution for that offence, in one place it says, “If a person disbelieves and slanders this sūtra, then they cut off their seeds of buddhahood in all worlds,”56 and, in another, it expounds that [681] “Seeing those who read, recite, write, or bear the sūtra, they despise, hate, and envy them, harbouring grudges and resentment. When that person’s life ends, they will enter Avīci hell for a full kalpa; when the kalpa is exhausted, they will be born there again,”57 and it presents various other painful retributions. Those who are able to expound and those who are able to listen, it is understood, must not act recklessly.

Furthermore, in the “Chapter on the Dharma Reciter,”58 the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma reveals that the person who expounds it should abide by the rules of the robe, the seat, and the room: “Whichever son of good family or daughter of good family desires, after the Tathāgata’s parinirvāṇa, to expound this White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma Sūtra for the fourfold assembly, how should they expound it? These sons of good family and daughters of good family should enter the Tathāgata’s room, put on the Tathāgata’s robe, sit on the Tathāgata’s seat, and then they should broadly expound this sūtra for the fourfold assembly. The Tathāgata’s room is great compassion among all sentient beings. The Tathāgata’s robe is the gentle and forbearing mind. The Tathāgata’s seat is the emptiness of all dharmas. Abiding securely in this way, then, with a mind free of indolence, for the sake of the bodhisattvas and the fourfold assembly, they should expound this Lotus Sūtra widely.” This is the passage.

Therefore, since it is difficult to abide by these rules, they must not expound it lightly. If one must not expound it, to listen and arouse faith, and to take up, bear, read, and recite it, must also be difficult.

Generally speaking, in the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma, there are practices of phenomena and principle.59 The practice of principle means deeply knowing the essence of the mutual integration of the three truths,60 and penetrating the principle of the true characteristic of all dharmas. The practice of phenomena means the five kinds of practice: (1) taking up and bearing, (2) reading and reciting, (3) explaining, (4) copying, and (5) making offerings.61 Both the practices of phenomena and principle are difficult to expound and difficult to listen to. Truly, if there is a person of compassion and forbearance who meets the level of being able to expound it, and expounds it, and if there is a person of profound wisdom who can listen and believe, and their capacities and responses accord, and they practise as it is expounded, there should be no doubt that they will attain buddhahood. This is what is meant by, [682] “This person, regarding buddhahood, will definitely have no doubts.” Therefore, because the benefit of sudden awakening in this very body is unachievable for ordinary beings, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma also ultimately culminates in the benefit of immediate birth in the Land of Peace and Bliss. That meaning is as I have stated earlier.

Q5. Is the nembutsu the karma that leads one to  Avīci hell?

Someone asks:

Among the practitioners of the Lotus, some say that the nembutsu is the karma leading to Avīci. Even within the present [Lotus] Sūtra, or in other sūtras, is there a passage that preaches this meaning?

Response:

This question is entirely misguided. The ancestral master, in establishing the four practices regarding the practice of the nembutsu, included the uninterrupted practice—whose name in Chinese, mugen, is the same as that of Avīci hell.62 If the question is referring to that, then it is so. If, however, what you currently suspect is that it is the karma leading to Avīci hell, then what kind of practice could possibly be a practice that becomes the karma leading one to the three lower realms? Such a thing is not yet understood.

Generally speaking, the eighty thousand teachings of the Buddha’s one lifetime are all the preachings of the one Buddha Śākyamuni, and there is none that is not essential for the liberation of sentient beings. Regarding this, although within the teachings there are disputes over the provisional and the true, and there are distinctions in debate over the speed of attaining liberation, the practices of phenomena and principle are all gates for the salvation of the multitudes of beings. Among them, the nembutsu is the merit of supreme and great benefit and the true cause for the birth of ordinary beings. The teachings of the various sūtras likewise contain many passages that praise its excellent benefits, and the ancestral masters of our own and other schools have together extolled the benefits of the nembutsu. Truly, this is the supreme True Dharma of the Mahāyāna, and the Name of the non-arising Buddha-knowledge. Using what is precisely the cause for birth, how could one conversely call it the karma that leads to Avīci? Ultimately, those who would say that the nembutsu is the karma leading to hell should promptly produce the passage [683] that proves this [view].

Q6. Do not the passages on slander in the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma condemn nembutsu practitioners?

Someone asks:

Regarding this matter, within the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma Sūtra,63 there are passages to consider. One states, “The ignorant are confused and deluded, and do not receive the teaching. I know that these sentient beings have never cultivated wholesome roots, are firmly attached to the five desires, and, owing to foolish desire, produce afflictions. By the causes and conditions of various desires, they fall into the three lower realms.” Or again, when it teaches that “The unwholesome people of the future, upon hearing the Buddha teach the One Vehicle, will be confused and deluded, and will not receive the teaching; destroying the Dharma, they will fall into the lower realms.” An additional passage would be in the “Chapter on Allegories” that was brought up earlier. [In all these passages], the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma is what they slander, and these are precisely the teachings that preach the karmic retribution for it.

The reason for this is that the practitioners of the nembutsu establish the doctrine of exclusive practice64 and, since they do not believe in the benefits of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma—and because this fault amounts to slandering the Dharma—we understand that they will certainly receive the karma that leads to birth in the Avīci hell. What is the meaning of this doctrine?

Response:

These passages do not teach about nembutsu practitioners at all. If there is a passage that teaches that the practice of the nembutsu is the karmic cause for falling into hell, it should be produced. If not, there is no need to even reach a reconciliation. The present passages merely raise the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma and mention the karmic retribution for slandering it. Therefore, no matter who that person may be, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma is what such a person would be slandering. Yet nembutsu practitioners, generally speaking, do not slander other teachings. Why would they single out the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma to slander it?

As previously stated, the original intent of Śākyamuni’s appearance in the world lies in teaching the true characteristic, and this is not something being stated for the first time. However, because it is difficult for us—possessed of dull faculties in the final age—to accomplish [Dharma] practices, taking refuge in the nembutsu of easy practice and desiring to depart from saṃsāra [684] is to evaluate our own capacities. This is by no means to make light of the teachings. 

This is because, first and foremost, the Buddha’s Primal Vow established the recitation of the one Buddha’s Name as the practice of the Pure Land gate—that is to maintain the doctrine of the [Pure Land] teaching. Because the nembutsu and the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma are, together, the True Dharma of the Buddha’s wisdom and the One Vehicle, we believe them to be a single Dharma. However, for sages, it is said that the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma clarifies the wonderful principle of the true characteristic of all dharmas; for ordinary beings, it is said that the nembutsu encourages birth in the other world [of the Pure Land] after casting off this body. For this reason, knowing that they are a single Dharma with different names, and also taking the side allotted to those of ordinary capacity, one practises the nembutsu.

Q7. Does "immediate birth in the Land of Bliss" confirm the power of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma rather than that of the nembutsu?

Someone asks:

Relying on the exhortation that we should “immediately go to the Land of Peace and Bliss” in the “Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter,”65 it cannot be so that the benefit of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma reverts to the nembutsu. The reason for this is that because that chapter teaches that  “If there is a woman who hears this sūtra and practises according to its preaching,” it is the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s power that enables the acquisition of the benefit of directly being born there. It does not teach that one attains rebirth by practising the nembutsu. Consequently, Miaole also interprets this, stating, “Herein, it only says that attaining the hearing of this sūtra, and practising according to its teaching is exactly the cause for [birth in] the Pure Land. One need not further point to the Contemplation Sūtra and so forth.”66 Therefore, regarding the benefit conferred by the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma, how could it be said that it reverts to the nembutsu?

Response:

The White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma expounds on the attainment of buddhahood [directly], and the nembutsu encourages birth [in the Pure Land first]. However, to the śrāvakas of the three rounds, [the Buddha] bestowed the prediction of buddhahood, and to the women of the five obstructions after his parinirvāṇa, he disclosed the benefit of birth; so, it is clear that the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s benefit also reverts to birth in the West for the sake of ordinary beings. [685]

However, regarding the objection that the cause of rebirth is not the nembutsu, [one must know that] within the Pure Land gate, there are two gates: rebirth through various practices and rebirth through the nembutsu.67 Now the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s teaching reveals the gate of rebirth through various practices from among these. This is exactly what is taught in the Contemplation Sūtra as one of the three merits: [namely,] the practice of reading and reciting the Mahāyāna [sūtras].68 Therefore, among the three gates of meditative practices, distracted practices, and the Universal Vow,69 meditative and distracted practices are the skilful means capable of revealing, and the nembutsu is the truth that is revealed; so that White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s practice of reading and reciting the Mahāyāna [sūtras] (corroborated by the Contemplation Sūtra), must ultimately revert to birth [in the Pure Land] through the nembutsu.

Therefore, a woman who practises according to the teaching of rebirth through reading and recitation of Mahāyāna sūtras as well, if she does not rely upon the power of Amida’s Name and Vow—understanding that for a thousand kalpas, ten thousand kalpas, or kalpas equal to the sands of the Ganges she would ultimately not be able to transform her female body—it is nonetheless implied that [such practices] contain the meaning of rebirth through the nembutsu. How much more so, furthermore, when one knows that the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma and the nembutsu are a single Dharma; in which case this sūtra’s benefit, reverting to immediate birth in the Land of Peace and Bliss, is understood to be entirely reasonable.

Q8. Is Amida in the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma the same Buddha as in the Pure Land sūtras?

Someone asks:

The Amida spoken of in the “Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter” and the Amida in whom nembutsu practitioners take refuge are different buddhas. The reason for this is that the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s Amida emerges from the “Allegory of the Phantom City Chapter.” If it is according to that text, as one of the sixteen princes of Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū Buddha, [Amida] thus met that buddha, renounced the world, and attained buddhahood. The Two-Fascicle Sūtra,70 however, teaches that he met Lokeśvararāja Buddha, awakened bodhicitta, and established the forty-eight vows. Furthermore, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s teaching is set kalpas as numerous as the grains of sand in three thousand Gaṅgā Rivers ago, while the Pure Land school’s teaching suggests that he attained [686] buddhahood ten kalpas ago. They must certainly be different buddhas.

Based on this, Great Master Miaole, in interpreting the body and land of the “Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter,” stated, “Directly observing this land, the four lands are complete. Therefore, this buddha’s body is exactly the three bodies.”71 How could it be said that they are a single buddha?

Response:

The Pure Land school’s Amida and the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma’s Amida cannot possibly be different. The Pure Land school teaches that, because all buddhas are one buddha, the buddhas are all of a single essence.72 Because “all emerge from the Realm of Utmost Bliss of Amitāyus,”73 the buddhas emerge from Amida. Therefore, the buddhas and bodhisattvas such as Śākyamuni, Bhaiṣajyaguru, Avalokiteśvara, and Maitreya are all known to be the single buddha Amida. Regarding a single buddha of the same name—even if it is said to be the position of other schools—why would one forcibly hold the thought of separate entities? That one is also named Amida, and this one is also named Amida. That one’s land is also called Peace and Bliss, and this one’s land is also called Peace and Bliss. That one is also taught as being in the West, and this one is also taught as being in the West. By what principle should they be understood as different buddhas?

Our own school’s ancestral masters have also understood them to be the same entity. The former sages of various schools also did not interpret them as different buddhas. First of all, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma being the foundation of his teachings, Great Master Miaole, on the one hand declared: “That which is praised by the various teachings is mostly Amida,”74 and explained further six reasons why [there are a variety of appearances of the one Buddha], explaining that it is “Because the teachings’ explanations are many, the capacities of beings [differ], it gathers in sentient beings, it causes one to focus exclusively [on the one Buddha], past karmic connections are thick, and it is based on the majority.”75 If they are understood as different buddhas, the interpretive meanings of saying “mostly Amida” and saying “because the teachings’ explanations are many,” and so forth, would all be negated.

However, as to the point that their awakening of bodhicitta was each [687] different, and that the time of their attaining buddhahood also differed: the Great Sage’s manifestation activities are not limited to the single buddha, Amida. The existence of differing meanings in the preachings of various sūtras is entirely because he accorded with [beings’ diverse] capacities. First of all, in speaking of this regarding the Teaching Lord Śākyamuni: the transforming activities of his one lifetime today are those of the buddha who left the palace at nineteen, attained buddhahood at thirty, and entered nirvāṇa at eighty;76 however, when we rely on the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma, his “trace transformation” took place past kalpas more numerous than the grains of sand in three thousand Gaṅgā rivers, while his true attainment was in the antiquity of kalpas more numerous than the grains of sand in five hundred Gaṅgā rivers. These are all the beneficial functions of the three bodies, and if known in light of the differences of the two gates, there is no contradiction. From the perspective of any school, these are not understood to be different buddhas, and so neither can Amida Tathāgata be thought of as such. Althogugh such expresses as “ten kalpas since attaining buddhahood” and saying “kalpas more numerous than the grains of sand in three thousand Gaṅgā rivers” may differ, they are both about trace transformations.

As for the aspect of the true attainment of the origin gate, the Pratyutpanna Sūtra teaches this. That sūtra says, “The buddhas of the three times attain perfect and complete awakening in reliance upon the Amida Samādhi.”77 This explanation is exactly right! Next, because Miaole interprets this with Tiantai’s essence, the non-duality of the four lands, and establishes the meaning of the mutual identity of the three bodies, his interpretation is certainly a valid: “How could one seek eternal tranquillity apart from Gayā?78 The Sahā world does not exist separately from the light of silent illumination.”79 It is just as he says. For the Pure Land school, because pointing to a direction and establishing characteristics is taken as paramount,80 one must not overlook the fact that this meaning exists therein, even though it is not expressed in Miaole’s words. Ultimately, our Sahā world and the Realm of Peace and Bliss must be one.

Q9. Does not the Innumerable Meanings Sūtra render the Pure Land teaching provisional?

Someone asks:

Although the established doctrines have multiple layers, these are merely the considered judgments of scholars. The explanations of human teachers should be accepted or rejected depending on the circumstances. When we directly compare sūtras with each other—since the Innumerable Meanings Sūtra [688] clearly states that “For over forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth”81—we come to see that the Pure Land teachings precede the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma Sūtra, and thus they are merely skilful means. Therefore, when Tiantai categorises the five periods of teaching,82 the three principal Pure Land sūtras are classified within the vaipulya period. As for the fact that these are teachings of skilful means, why should there be any room for dispute?

Response:

This has been repeatedly explained previously. In the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma,83 it states: “Except for what the Buddha speaks through skilful means,”84 and “The other two are not authentic.”85 This text of the Innumerable Meanings Sūtra should be understood as having the same intent. If we speak from the perspective of directly attaining buddhahood, it is said that because the teachings of the one lifetime ultimately return to the true characteristic of all dharmas and converge in the One Buddha Vehicle, “the truth has not yet been revealed.” This is what is explained within the teachings of the Path of Sages for the sages. However, because “Those with sharp faculties all receive benefit, while those of dull faculties and no wisdom find it difficult to open to awakening,”86 for ordinary beings, only the gate of the nembutsu is the true and real path to liberation. For this reason, since the efficacy of the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma also ultimately leads to rebirth in the Land of Peace and Bliss, it should be understood that “the truth has not yet been revealed” does not refer to the nembutsu Dharma. 

Furthermore, regarding the argument that the three Pure Land scriptures must be provisional because they belong to the vaipulya period, this criticism is extremely reckless. The reason for this is that the establishment of the “five teaching periods” is specifically the doctrinal taxonomy of the one Tendai school. Other schools do not adhere to this. Namely, the two teachings of Shingon, the five teachings of Kegon, the two piṭakas of Sanlun, and the three periods of Hossō87—each has established different views according to its own sect. In the Pure Land school, we distinguish between the two paths of difficult practice and easy practice [689] based on the doctrinal judgements of Nāgārjuna. In line with the intent of Meditation Master Daochuo, we define the two gateways of the Path of Sages and the Pure Land. Furthermore, based on Master Shandao’s explanations, we differentiate the two piṭakas of the śrāvakas and the bodhisattvas and establish the two teachings of the “gradual” and the “sudden.”

Therefore, when considered in terms of the “two paths” and the “two gateways,” because they differ in regard to difficult practice and easy practice, attainment of buddhahood and birth, and rejection and establishment, the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma and nembutsu are simply distinct in their benefits. However, when considered in terms of the “two piṭakas” and the “two teachings,” both are categorised as belonging to the “bodhisattva-piṭaka,” and both are of the “sudden teaching.” This is because, although the Path of Sages and the Pure Land differ, they are equally the ultimate sudden teachings of the Mahāyāna, and both share the same essence of the One Vehicle of Buddha-knowledge.

On the fourteenth day of the second lunar month in the year of the Earth Pig, the twenty-sixth year of the Ōei Era (1419). The transcription from the secret manuscript is hereby completed.