The Spirit of “On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land” Has Been Long Forgotten at Taiseki-ji

The following is a translation of a thesis by Masahiro Kobayashi, research fellow at The Institute of Oriental Philosophy in Hachioji, Tokyo. It was published in the July 1993 issue of The Daibyakurenge, the monthly study journal of the Soka Gakkai in Japan. It was first published in English in the September 1993 issue of the Seikyo Times.

Nichiren Daishonin submitted “On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land” to Hojo Tokiyori on July 16, 1260. At that time the retired regent was still the most influential member of the ruling Hojo clan. The presentation of this treatise of remonstration marked the Daishonin’s first step in challenging the oppressive power and authority of the political and religious establishments. At the same time, this treatise marked the beginning of the relentless onslaught of persecutions befalling the Daishonin.

In the face of repeated persecutions, however, the Daishonin did not retreat even a single step; he refused to lower the banner of the “people’s Buddhism.” He courageously underwent exiles and an execution attempt. As the Daishonin states in “The Selection of the Time”: “Even if it seems that, because I was born in the ruler’s domain, I follow him in my actions, I will never follow him in my heart” (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. 1, p. 579).

At the core of the Daishonin’s remonstration lay his great compassion as the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law to lead all people to enlightenment. The Daishonin declared that Buddhism exists for the people and devoted his entire life to the spread of the Mystic Law. Nikko Shonin exactly succeeded this spiritual legacy of the Daishonin.

During the Atsuhara Persecution, while the Daishonin was still alive, Nikko Shonin was already dauntlessly taking leadership to fight against the oppression, which had been instigated by Hei no Saemon, deputy chief of the Office of Military and Police Affairs, whose power at one point appeared to surpass even that of the regent. After the Daishonin’s passing, Nikko Shonin repeatedly submitted petitions of remonstration to the shogunate government in Kamakura and the Imperial court in Kyoto, along with copies of the Daishonin’s “On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land.”

Nissho, Nichiro and Nitcho, among the five senior priests who betrayed the Daishonin after his death, also submitted petitions to the sovereign. Their contents, however, significantly differ from Nikko Shonin’s. These elder priests identified themselves as T’ien-t’ai’s disciples and the Daishonin’s Buddhism as a branch sect of T’ient’ai and Dengyo. They also proclaimed Shakyamuni as an object of worship.

Furthermore, in evaluating various teachings, they merely distinguished the Lotus Sutra from the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings, failing to recognize distinctions between the essential teaching and theoretical teaching within the Lotus Sutra.

In his petition, Nichiro states, “Nichiren died in vain.” Nitcho did not even mention the daimoku. On the contrary, Nikko Shonin made it clear that the daimoku of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo had been transmitted from Shakyamuni to Bodhisattva Superior Practices, the ephemeral identity of the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law, that is, Nichiren Daishonin himself. As for a standard by which to evaluate various teachings, Nikko Shonin clarified distinctions between the essential teaching and the theoretical teaching within the Lotus Sutra.

Nichimoku, the third high priest of Head Temple Taiseki-ji, mentions the Three Great Secret Laws in his petition to the sovereign. At Taiseki-ji, successive high priests through the ninth high priest, Nichiu, continued to submit petitions to the sovereign.

Other fallacious Nichiren sects founded by the five senior priests also petitioned the national authority, although theirs can be called remonstrations in form only. As a result, Nichizo, a priest from the school established by Nichiro, received a special designation for his temple from Emperor Godaigo’s new regime in 1334. However, in his petition, Nichizo praised the Tendai sect and, in his comparative criticism of different teachings, only merely distinguished between the Lotus Sutra and the pre-Lotus Sutra teachings.

By promising to offer prayer for the prosperity of the new Imperial regime along with other Buddhist sects, Nichizo won the emperor’s favor and established a stronghold in Kyoto, which was then a national political and religious center after the collapse of the Kamakura shogunate government. The Daishonin, however, had refused to pray for the government, which was slanderous of the Law. Simply stated, Nichizo, undermining the Daishonin’s spirit, sought official sanction for his sect.

Nichizo’s action, therefore, rightfully should be called “lobbying” rather than “remonstrating” with the government authority. After Nichizo’s success, other Nichiren sects followed suit and established their bases in Kyoto by building one temple after another. By the end of the fifteenth century, various Nichiren schools established twenty-one head temples in Kyoto.

During the sixteenth century, in which warring feudal lords vied with one another for power after the decline of the Muromachi shogunate, various Nichiren schools in Kyoto were faced with the difficult choice between maintaining the integrity of their teachings or enhancing their orders. They chose to compromise with political authority to secure their own prosperity. Accepting a ban on refuting other Buddhist sects, the various Nichiren schools renounced the tradition of remonstration with national authority.

At Taiseki-ji as well, the tradition of submitting remonstrant petitions to the sovereign came to an end after Nichiu Shonin (1402-1482). From around that time, Taiseki-ji started to experience a serious lack of human resources and often underwent difficulties in appointing high priests. It also started to emphasize rituals and formalities, especially those related to funerals.

Taiseki-ji was located far from Kyoto, which was then a political and cultural center. It can be said, however, that a fundamental reason for Taiseki-ji’s decline lies in its lack of enthusiasm for propagation. Around this time, Taiseki-ji had a succession of children high priests. Eventually it started to import high priest candidates from Yoho-ji temple in Kyoto.

Yoho-ji was then one of the most prosperous among temples whose founders are associated with Nikko Shonin. Though it was considered a branch sect of the Nikko school, Yoho-ji held doctrines that varied significantly from the orthodoxy of the Daishonin’s Buddhism.

For ninety-six years, the nine successive high priests at Taiseki-ji—from Nissho (1562–1622), the fifteenth, to Nikkei (1648–1707), the twenty-third-came from Yoho-ji temple. By this time, Taiseki-ji’s desire and resources to remonstrate with the sovereign already had been exhausted.

In the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Japanese political center was moved to Edo (present-day Tokyo) with the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate government there. Taking advantage of the government’s policy to focus on the development of eastern Japan, Kuon-ji at Mount Minobu rapidly gained influence and became the head temple of most Nichiren school temples in eastern Japan, including Taiseki-ji.

As a part of its policy to control religion, the Tokugawa shogunate started making offerings of land to temples throughout Japan and issued authorization letters as proof of temples’ acceptance of such offerings. Needless to say, to receive an offering from the ruling Tokugawa clan, who were believers of the Jodo (Nembutsu) sect, goes against the Daishonin’s teaching to strictly admonish slanderers.

For having refused to accept land offerings from the shogunate, some Nichiren schools were subjected to severe oppression and, as a result, devastated. At the beginning, Taiseki-ji showed feeble, passive resistance to accepting land from the Tokugawa shogunate. In 1641, however, it accepted the offering from Tokugawa Iemitsu and received an authorization letter. Thereby Taiseki-ji was placed under government control. It started to report the status of parishioners to the government, thus functioning as a government registrar.

Taiseki-ji debased itself into becoming a shogunate agent, which, besides keeping the parish register, merely conducted funerals and other Buddhist services. When the Daishonin returned from exile on Sado Island, the Kamakura shogunate, in attempting to placate him and thus silence his criticism of the religious establishment, offered to build a temple for him. Yet the Daishonin strictly refused this offer. Taiseki-ji’s decision to be incorporated into the government system in the seventeenth century deviated far from the Daishonin’s spirit.

During the latter half of the seventeenth century, the parish system, in which Buddhist temples acted as census taking agents of the shogunate, had been established for most temples in Japan. Nisshun (1637-1691), the twenty-second high priest, who assumed his office around this time, encouraged the praise of believers who frequented temples.

Nisshun propounded that visiting a temple is an expression of a seeking mind and an act of selfless devotion. He urged priests to indoctrinate parishioners through such an assertion. The Daishonin’s courageous spirit to face persecutions at the risk of his life was somehow, over time, twisted into the zealous solicitation of temple visits.

Let us now examine the degree to which priests lived up to the spirit of selfless devotion to the Law. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many lay believers upheld the teachings of Taiseki-ji. Many converts courageously seceded from their temples of previous faith. Under the strict government control and priests’ powerful influence, leaving one’s parish meant risking persecution.

Relentless persecutions befell lay believers. Many were sentenced to death or incarceration. Some were tortured and discharged from their official positions as well as having their estates confiscated. On the contrary, priests at Taiseki-ji underwent little. Less than ten priests were actually punished. All of them, except for one priest exiled, suffered but minor punishment such as forced retirement or eviction. Despite their claim to have inherited the Daishonin’s Buddhism, priests at Taiseki-ji could not fight government oppression and shield lay believers. The priesthood’s behavior was lamentable.

As could be expected, criticism arose against priests at Taiseki-ji who had long forgotten the idea of selfless conviction in communicating the Daishonin’s Buddhism to others. In 1772, Kenju Nichiko, who had been converted to the Daishonin’s Buddhism under Nichion (1716–1774), the thirty-fifth high priest, remonstrated with Taiseki-ji and pointedly criticized its attitude.

Kenju Nichiko questioned why Taiseki-ji would not refute the Kitayama Honmon-ji temple of the Nikko school for allowing its priests to wear colored surplices. [Traditionally, priests of the Nikko school wore light gray surplices.] He also questioned why priests at Taiseki-ji extensively recited the sutra yet spent little time chanting daimoku. Furthermore, he asserted that it was wrong for Taiseki-ji to have stopped remonstrating with national authority since the time of Nichijo (?-1472), the tenth high priest, so that it could ingratiate itself with the government.

Kenju Nichiko’s criticism of Taiseki-ji became intensified especially regarding the head temple’s rejection of remonstration with the sovereign. He stated that Taiseki-ji should be a head temple [for all Nichiren schools], yet the spirit of the Daishonin and Nikko Shonin no longer dwelt there. Their spirit had been alive at Taiseki-ji through the time of Nichiu, the ninth high priest, the last one to remonstrate with the sovereign, he said.

Kenju Nichiko furthermore argued that though priests at Taiseki-ji appeared to revere the Daishonin and Nikko Shonin on the surface, they replaced the practice of refuting others’ attachment to erroneous teachings to lead them to the Law (shakubuku)—the Daishonin’s true intent—with the practice of propagation without refutation (shoju). Moreover, he claimed, priests at Taiseki-ji even harbored enmity toward those who practicedshakubuku.

Taiseki-ji considered Kenju Nichiko’s assertions as heresy. Though his assertion was not entirely without doctrinal problems, his criticism of Taiseki-ji clearly attests to its decayed conditions at that time. Many lay believers supported Kenju Nichiko, while Taiseki-ji was rocked by his reproach.

Around the same time, from the end of the eighteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century, the persecution of the Kansei era broke out. This persecution shed light on the priesthood’s nature in placing self-preservation above the spread and protection of the Law.

In the beginning of the eighteenth century, an outstanding high priest appeared at Taiseki-ji: Nichikan (1665-1726), the twenty-sixth high priest. Until then, Taiseki-ji’s doctrine had strayed far from the Daishonin’s spirit. To remove erroneous influences and clarify the Daishonin’s Buddhism, Nichikan authoredThe Six-volume Writings and established orthodox Buddhist study at Taiseki-ji. His contributions to restoring orthodoxy shine brilliantly in the priesthood’s history.

Nichikan’s restoration of Buddhist orthodoxy had a great impact on Yoho-ji temple, which had been exerting a powerful influence. The direction of influence between the two temples was now reversed and flowed in a positive direction. At Yoho-ji, through the time of Chief Priest Nikken (a contemporary of Nichikan), statues of Shakyamuni were erected as objects of worship. During the tenure of Nichiden, the next chief priest, the mandala (the Gohonzon) was regarded as an object of devotion. And this practice continued for about forty years

Major temples of other Nichiren schools in Kyoto, however, criticized Yoho-ji for changing its object of devotion without seeking approval from them. Using this as a pretext, the major Nichiren school temples lodged a complaint with the shogunate and schemed to disband Yoho-ji. This was the beginning of the persecution of the Kansei era.

Yoho-ji was completely isolated without any support in Kyoto. At this time, Yoho-ji looked to Taiseki-ji, which also regarded the Gohonzon as the object of devotion, for strong support. Yoho-ji also regarded Taiseki-ji as its head temple. In its rebuttal filed with the shogunate, Yoho-ji repeatedly referred to Taiseki-ji.

During this period, Yoho-ji temple, which was then led by Nichiju, based its doctrine almost entirely upon Nichikan’s study. Nichiju used the fivefold comparison, espoused the view that the Gohonzon embodied the oneness of Person (the Daishonin) and the Law (Nam-myoho-renge-kyo), and revered the Daishonin as the Buddha of the Latter Day. It is clear that Nichiju was deeply influenced by Nichikan.

Nichiju went so far as to state, “Taiseki-ji is a head temple of the orthodoxy, and Yoho-ji, which resembles Eagle Peak, is its major branch temple.” In this statement we are clearly told that Yoho-ji was willing to follow Taiseki-ji.

Had Taiseki-ji upheld the Daishonin’s teachings and his great desire to spread the Mystic Law and extended its support for Yoho-ji, it could have made substantial progress in kosen-rufu with the reversion of Yoho-ji, which held greatest influence amongst all temples of the Nikko school. When the shogunate questioned Taiseki-ji about its relationship to Yoho-ji, however, it insisted that there was no relation whatsoever, thus completely deserting Yoho-ji.

Forsaken by Taiseki-ji, all alone without any support, Yoho-ji priests were evicted, and some were even poisoned in prison. In these catastrophic circumstances, Yoho-ji chose to compromise with other Nichiren school temples; it reverted to its old, erroneous doctrine and once again enshrined statues of Shakyamuni.

However, many branch temples continued to regard the Gohonzon as the object of devotion and seceded from Yoho-ji. With the secession of branch temples, Yoho-ji was dealt a fatal blow. Needless to say, Yoho-ji harshly criticized Taiseki-ji. The impact of this incident continued to be felt by the two temples long after. Taiseki-ji and Yoho-ji did not stop scrambling for each other’s branch temples until after the Meiji era (1868-1912).

When Nichiju of Yoho-ji, who may well be said to have represented Nichikan’s Buddhist study to the religious circle in Kyoto, was challenged and attacked by main temples of other Nichiren schools, Taiseki-ji, afraid of the shogunate’s oppression, extended no support and refused to campaign on Yoho-ji’s behalf. Lacking the spirit to strive toward world kosen-rufu, Taiseki-ji’s sole concern was self-preservation.

In retrospect, persecution in the Kansei era presented an excellent opportunity to exalt Taiseki-ji’s doctrine, which was brought to completion by Nichikan’s painstaking efforts. Taiseki-ji, however, destroyed this opportunity with its own hand.

During the Taisho era (1912–1926) as well, Taiseki-ji continued in its acts of folly counter to Nichikan’s teachings. Half a century after the Meiji Restoration, oppressive religious control from the government, like that of the Tokugawa shogunate, no longer existed.

The times now allowed free spread of the Law. For this reason, in 1912, Taiseki-ji decided to change its name from “the Fuji school of the Nichiren sect” to “Nichiren Shoshu” (the orthodox school of Nichiren) in order to proclaim its orthodoxy and independence.

In 1922, many Nichiren schools promoted petitioning the emperor to bestow the title of “Great Teacher Rissho” upon the Daishonin. At that time, Nissho Abe, the fifty-seventh high priest of Taiseki-ji, willingly signed the joint petition along with other erroneous Nichiren schools.

At the ceremony to celebrate the emperor’s decree to bestow the title of “Great Teacher” upon the Daishonin, Nissho joined the recitation of the sutra led by the high priest of Kuon-ji temple at Mount Minobu. Nissho’s conduct clearly constitutes unforgivable complicity in slandering the Law.

To begin with, asking the emperor for the title of “Great Teacher” in itself gravely debases the Daishonin. The title of “Great Teacher” is the highest honor for priesthood bestowed by the emperor. The fact that Taiseki-ji petitioned the emperor to bestow this title upon the Daishonin meant that Taiseki-ji of its own accord attempted to drag down the Daishonin from his status as the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law and subordinate him to the ruler. This indicates that Taiseki-ji regarded the Daishonin at best as merely a wonderful, bodhisattva-like priest. Taiseki-ji’s signature on this petition amounts to its acknowledgment to other Nichiren schools that the Daishonin is not the Buddha of the Latter Day.

Taiseki-ji did not even have enough understanding of the Daishonin’s Buddhism to refuse the petition. If Taiseki-ji had declined to join the petition, its refusal in itself could have been a sufficient display of its claim to the orthodoxy of the Daishonin’s Buddhism. Taiseki-ji’s petition for the “Great Teacher Rissho” title did nothing but undermine the spirit of “establishing the correct teaching for the peace of the land.”

Repeatedly compromising with national power for the sake of self-preservation, Taiseki-ji survived through World War II. Had the Soka Gakkai not appeared in 1930, we never would have known what happened to the Daishonin’s Buddhism.

The Soka Gakkai, since its inception, has boldly proclaimed to the world that Nichiren Daishonin is the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law, and it has earnestly advanced the spread of the Daishonin’s Buddhism.

Shouldering the mission to revive the great spirit of “establishing the correct teaching for the peace of the land,” the Soka Gakkai continues to press forward. Its appearance, in light of Taiseki-ji’s history, was a necessity that must have been willed and designed by the Buddha.

Today Taiseki-ji has once again abandoned the Daishonin’s spirit. Impelled by its ancient tendency to seek its own security above all else, Taiseki-ji is about to choose to continue on as a small, unprincipled sect as it did before.

Taiseki-ji has long forgotten the spirit of “establishing the correct teaching for the peace of the land” and has repeatedly abandoned devotion to spreading the Daishonin’s Buddhism for the sake of people. In this sense, Taiseki-ji’s present course may be most appropriate to carryon its tradition.