Part IIb – Periods in the Spread of Buddhism – Locations (India & China)
This next section of this writing by Nichiren goes through the three periods of True, Semblance, and Later Age of Degeneration and the type of Buddhism practiced in India, China, and Japan during the matching phases of propagation. Before Nichiren goes into those details he makes a very important point at the beginning. This point is, I think, most important for each of us to remember and keep in mind as we study Buddhism.
It can be a temptation for us to rely on commentaries or the writings of others as our complete understanding of important Buddhist thought. For example, I am writing this piece on a writing of Nichiren who is actually writing on the Buddhist Sutras. So in fact what I am writing is third generation or two generations removed from the actual writings of the Buddha. If my writing serves its intended purpose of making it easier to understand Nichiren that should be no means be considered to replace one’s personal study of Nichiren directly. And as Nichiren points out in the beginning here, no commentary should stand in or replace a person’s direct study and exploration of the actual Sutras. I would go so far as to say that given the choice of Nichiren versus the Sutras, we should go to the Sutras first and foremost to understand Buddhism.
There are many today who feel that because they read the writings of some leader who is commenting on Nichiren, they do not need to study Nichiren. Many of these same people have already claimed that because they study Nichiren it isn’t necessary to read or study the Sutras. This is a type of arrogant mind that Nichiren himself spoke against frequently. He does so here;
“You may ask for scriptural proofs to back up statements in later commentaries, but you may not look for proofs in later commentaries when statements in sutras are clear.”[1. Senji-sho, p. 195]
It is all right to find corroborating support for sutras in commentaries but the commentaries are not the standard for proof, and are certainly not to be a replacement for the sutras. So while this may be useful to some it should never serve as the culmination of one’s personal study of Nichiren or the Lotus Sutra. I hope you will keep this in mind and take it to your heart.
India – Age of the True Dharma
“The Age of the True Dharma began on the sixteenth of the second month, a day after the death of Sakyamuni Buddha.”[2. Senji-sho, p. 197]
In India during the time after the death of the Buddha the Lotus Sutra was not taught for a variety of reasons. Nichiren gives three reasons for this; one the people would not have understood them, two the time was not ripe, and three the immediate disciples of the Buddha were not given the responsibility to spread the Lotus Sutra.
For the first 500 years immediately after the death of the Buddha there were a sucession of teachers who had either a direct first person relationship with the Buddha, that being they were his immediate disciples, or teachers who were only a generation or two removed from the Buddha. In a way we might think of it as listening to either our father, grandfather or great-grandfather as they recount the lessons of their lives. During this time only the Hinayana teachings were taught.
This time was followed by a period when some Mahayana teachings were being introduced but not taught as a primary teaching. This first 500 or so yeas is what is “referred to in the Sutra of Great Assembly as the period of solid liberation.”[3. Senji-sho, p. 197]
During the next 500 or so years of Buddhism in India the time was occupied primarily by teachers, who first studied non-Buddhist teachings, and then, shall we say, converted to Buddhism. At first after they came to Buddhism they studied Hinayana teachings but ended up refuting them in favor of Mahayana teachings. Yet, even though they refuted the Hinayana teachings they did not delve into discerning the relative merits of the sutras within the Mahayana canon.
Finally after this thousand-year period Buddhism was in such a state of confusion that it began to decline. Fewer and fewer people were able to follow Buddhism and even suffered as they slandered the teachings because of unclear teachings, some even claiming that Hinayana was superior to Mahayana, even after previous teacher had already refuted Hinayana and asserted the superiority of the Mahayana teachings.
China – Age of Semblance Dharma
As Buddhism entered China it did so in an unorganized fashion. Sutras were brought into the country in no specific order and the Chinese as they began to follow Buddhist teachings were at a loss as to which sutras were more important relative to others. Initially Buddhism in China was most concerned with its own survival as it came into contact with and up against Taoism. In many ways you could say Chinese Buddhist at the time were more interested in surviving the persecutions against it by Taoists then they were about the fine points of doctrinal clarity within Buddhism.
Eventually though as Buddhism’s place in Chinese society became more secure there arose many divisions with a variety of schools developing, ten major ones, each then vying for a place of superiority. Nichiren points out though that they did have some unity of agreement that a general ranking of the sutras would place them in the order of; first Flower Garland Sutra, second Nirvana Sutra, and third Lotus Sutra. They pretty much agreed that all the other sutras were inferior to these three main sutras.
Finally after about 450 to 500 years after Buddhism had entered China Chih-i, later called T’ien-t’ai laid out his classification of the sutras that placed the Lotus Sutra above all the other sutras taught by the Buddha.
Nichiren brings up an interesting point in the midst of this section on Buddhism in China regarding the acquiescence of people to refute or argue against a particular view held by someone of seeming great stature or influence. He spends about three sentences on this idea but in later works he again brings this up. The point being that just because someone seems to occupy a position of great importance or rank should not be taken as a qualification of their superior knowledge. Nichiren himself repeatedly came up against this in his own efforts to teach people about the Lotus Sutra. Since people wanted to classify him as a lowly priest, somehow it was supposed to mean he was also uneducated or without knowledge. How many times do we also look at people and think that because someone does occupy a position of power or influence their ideas are less important. People of power and influence are particularly susceptible to falling into this trap, probably because it is threatening to their own position.
