The Opening of the Eyes: Epilogue - Persuasive and Aggressive Means of Propagation Chapter XI with Commentary
Some might say that Nichiren, who claims that followers of Amida Buddha and zen buddhism will fall in the hell of incessent suffering, is belligerent and therefore, would fall into the realm of asura. Moreover, it is said in the "Peaceful Practices" (14th) chapter of the Lotus Sutra: "Do not try to expose faults of other people or of other sutras and do not despise other monks." So, they might wonder whetheror not Nichiren has been abandoned by gods because he has not been following these words of the Lotus Sutra.
In response, I would cite the following words of Mo-ho chih-kuan:
There are two opposing ways of spreading Buddhism:
the aggressive and persuasive. Such statements in
the "Peaceful Practices" chapter as "do not be critical
of others" represents the persuasive way, while such
words in the Nirvana Sutra as "arm yourselves with
swords and sticks, and behead those who break the
teaching of the Buddha" stand for the aggressive way.
Though these two ways are opposite in nature, they both
benefit the people.
Grand Master Miao-le explains this in his Chih-kuan fu-hsiang-chuan hung chueh as follows:
Reguarding the two ways of spreading Buddhaism, it is
stated in the third fascicle of the Nirvana Sutra that those
who uphold the true dharma should arm themselves with
swords and bows and arrows even if they would not be able
to uphold the Five Commandments and maintain integrity.
And they should protect the true teaching as resolutely as
did the ancient king called Sen'yo the great, who is said to
have beheaded a Brhaman on the spot when the Brahman
slandered Buddhism. The sutra also cites as an example,
an order issued by a new doctor who found that the milk-
medicine prescribed by his predecessor was doing harm
to the people. It says, 'Those who would use it should be
beheaded." These are examples of an aggressive means of
spreading Buddhism. Although various scriptures preach many
ways of spreading Buddhism, they all reduce to these two
ways in the end: the aggressive and persuasive.
In his commentary on the Lotus Sutra (Fa-hua wen-chu), Grand Master T'ien-t'ai explains the difference between the aggressive means of the Nirvana Sutra and the persuasive means of the "Peaceful Practices" chapter:
Someone asked: "The Nirvana Sutra says that those
who wish to uphold the true dharma should befriend
themselves with the king, arm themselves with bows
and arrows, and crush the enemies of the true dharma.
The 'Peaceful Practices' chapter of Lotus, however, says
that they should keep distancefrom those in power, humble
themselves, and be kind to enemies. Is there not quite a
difference between the two, the harsh way of the Nirvana
Sutra and the gentle way of the Lotus. I say in response,
"Although the Nirvana Sutra preaches mostly the aggressive
means of propagation, it also preaches the benevolence of
the bodhiisattvawho loves all the people just as one loves an
only child. So, it is not that it does not recognize 'persuasion'
as a means of propagation. Although the 'Peaceful Practices'
chapter mainly preaches the gentle means of propagation,
another chapter of the Lotus Sutra says that anyone who does
harmto the practitioner of the Lotus would have his head split
into seven pieces. Thus, this sutra also endorses the aggressive
means. In other words, each of them preaches one or the other
as the situation demands."
Grand Master Chang-an in his annotations to the Nirvana Sutra states:
Reguardless of monks or laymen, those who uphold the
dharma should not lose sight of the fundemental aim of
spreading the great teaching even at the cost of Buddhist
commandments. Upholders of the true dharma can not
be concerned with trivial matters, as it is said in the sutra
that they would not maintain dignity. In the past when the
world was at peace and the true dharma could be spread,
it was only necessary for themto keep Buddhist commandments,
not arms. Today, however, when the world is in full danger
and the true dharma is hidden, they have to keep arms, not
Buddhist commandments. Reguardless of the past or present,
if the time is full of danger, they should arm themselves: and
if at peace, they should observe the Buddhist commandments.
Thus, the means of propagationshould be chosen according to
the conditions of the time; it can not be said to be one way or
another.
As for your criticism that I, Nichiren, am belligerent, I am afraid that scholars today probably agree with you. Even my own disciples can not get rid of the same doubts as yours and act just like men of issendai despite my repeated remonstrations. So I have cited interpretations of T'ien-t'ai and Miao-le just before to guard against such criticism.
Now, two ways of propagation, the persuasive and aggressive, are incompatible as water and fire. The fire dislikes the water and the waterhates the fire. Those who prefer the persuasive tend to laugh at those who practice the aggressive and visa versa. so, when the land is full of evil and ignorant people, the persuasive means should take precedence as preached in the "Peaceful Practices" (14th) chapter of the Lotus Sutra. However, when there are many cunning slanderers of the true dharma, the aggressive means should take precedence as preached in the "Never-Despising Bodhisattva" (20th) chapter.
It is the same as using cold water when it is hot and fire when it is cold. Plants and trees are followers of the sun, so they dislike the cold moon. Bodies of waterare followers of the moon, so they lose their true nature when it is hot. As there are lands of evil men as well as those of slanderers of the true dharma in this Latter Age of the Decadent Dharma, there should be both aggressive and persuasive means of spreading the true dharma. therefore, we have to know whether Japan today is a land of evil men or that of slanderers in order to decide which of the two ways we should use.
Suppose someone asks whether or not it would be effective to carry out the aggressive means of propagation when the time requires the persuasive means and visa versa. To this question I would say it would not be effective. It is said in the Nirvana Sutra:
Bodhisattva Kasyapa inquired of the Buddha how
did His body become as indestructible as a diamond.
He responded to Kasyapa: "The Buddha has an
indestructible body by virtue of upholding the true
dharma in My past lives. Good men! In order to uphold
the true dharma, you must arm yourselves with swords
and bows and arrows even if you can not obserce the
Five Commandments and maintain your dignity. No
matter how hard you preach, unless you aggressively
defeat the evil opponents of Buddhsim, you would not
be able to save yourselves and others. You should know
that such a person is an idle man. Even if you observe
commandements and practice pure conduct, you should
know, you will not attain Buddhahood. Should a monk
upholding the true dharma aggressively defeat violators
of the Buddhist commandments, probably they all would
become angry and try to harm him. Even if he were killed,
he is worthy of being called an observant of the
commandments and savior or himself and others."
Grand Master Chang-an says that whether we should adopt the aggressive means of propagation or the persuasive means must be decided according to the conditions of the time, and therefore, we cannot say either one way or the other. Grand Master T'ien-t'ai says of this: "It all depends on the time. Sometimes resort to the aggressive means, other times use the persuasive means." For instance, we can not harvest rice by cultivating rice paddies and planting rice seeds at the end of autumn.
During the era of Kennin (1201-03) two monks named Honen and Dainichi emerged to establish the schools of the Pure Land and Zen respectively. Honen declared that in the Latter Age of the Decadent Dharma not even one out of one thousand could obtain Buddhahood by means of the Lotus Sutra, whereas Dainichi maintained that zen is the essence of Buddhism transmitted by non-literaryand non-verbal means. As these two false teachings spread all over Japan, scholars of Tendai and Shingon Buddhism are afraid of the Pure Land and Zen followers and try to cater to their whims just like a dog wagging its tail in front of its master and mice terrified by a cat. preaching in the service of kings and generals, they themselves speak of what would lead to the destruction of Buddhism and country. Such scholars of Tendai and Shingon Buddhism will fall into the realm of hungry spirits in this life and the hell of incessent suffering in future lives. Even if Tendai scholars reside in mountain forests and meditate on the "3,000 in one thought" doctrine or Shingon scholars stay in remote tranquilty to concentrate on the three mystic practices (finger signs, spell words, and meditation) without fail, how can they attain Buddhahood without knowing whether the time calls for the agressive means or the persuasive meansof propagation.?
Some people might wonder what is good about accusing those followers of the Pure Land and Zen Buddhism, making enemies of them. In response, I will cite the Nirvana Sutra:
Suppose there is a virtuous monk who does not
accuse anyone of harming Buddhism, does not
try to purge him or punish him. You should know
that such a monk is an enemy of Buddhhism. In
case the monk accuses such a man, purges, and
punishes him, such a monk is a disciple of the
Buddha who truly follows Him.
Grand Master Chang-an explains this in his annotations to the Nirvana Sutra:
Those who destroy Buddhism are enemies of Buddhism. Those heartless people who keep friendly relationships with such evil doers by overlooking their sins are their enemies. Those who are kind enough to try to correct them are the upholders of the true dharmaand true disciples of the Buddha. To prevent a friend from committing evil is really a friendly act. Therefore, one who accuses those of harming Buddhism is the Buddha's disciple.; and one who does not purge evil doers is an enemy of Buddhism.
Why did Sakyamuni Buddha, Taho Buddha, and many Buddhas in manifestation coming from all over the universe gather together in the "Appearance of a Stupa" (11th) chapter of the Lotus Sutra? It was for the purpose of making sure that the Lotus Sutra would spread forever. As we think of the intention of those Buddhas who wished to spread the Lotus sutra for the benefit of all the people in the future, their compassion seems greater than that of parents who see their only child faced with great suffering. Having no sympathy with those Buddhas, however, Honen tightly shut the gate to the Lotus Sutra so that no one in the Latter ages of the Decadent Dharma could enter it. It is a pity that Honen made them cast away the Lotus; it was just like fooling an idiotic child into throwing away his treasure.
Why shouldn't we warn our parents if we know that someone is trying to kill them? Shouldn't we prevent an evil drunken child from killing his parents? shouldn't we prevent an evil man from setting a temple on fire? should we leave our only child untreated when he is seriously ill? Those who do not discourage followers of Zen and Pure Land Buddhism in Japan are the same as those who do nothing to prevent evil acts. They are what Chang-an referred to when he sais, "Those heartless people keep friendly relationships with evil doers by overlooking their sinsare their enemies." I, Nichiren, am like a compassionate parent of everyone in Japan, whereas everyone in the Tendai school is their worst enemy. Hasn't Chang-an stated, "To prevent a friend from committing an evil act is really an act of friendship." Those who do not aspire to Buddhahood will never attain it.
Lord Sakyamuni Buddha was abused by all Brahmans as an evil man. Grand Master T'ien-t'ai was spoken ill of as "a man who destroys his own five-foot body with his three inch tongue" by the three Southern masters and Four Northern masters of Buddhism in China and Monk Tokuitsu of Japan. Grand Master dengyo was laughed at by scholar monks of Nara for not having seen the capital of T'ang China. However, these masters had nothing to be ashamed of because they were abused just for the sake of the Lotus Sutra. Praise by the ignorant should be reguarded as most dishonorable. Perhaps tendai and Shingon monks would be happy to see me, Nichiren punished by the Kamakura Shogunate, though it is pitful and strange of them.
Sakyamuni Buddha gave up his land of eternal tranquility for this world of suffering; venerable Kumarajiva traveled all the way from India to China; Grand Masster Dengyo risked his life in going to China to study buddhism; Bodhisattva Deva was killed by Brahmans; shishi Sonja was beheaded by the king; Bodhisattva Yakuo burned his elbow to offer it as a light in gratitude for the preaching of the Lotus; Prince Shotoku peeled off the skin on his finger to write in blood the title of the bonmo-kyo; when sakyamuni was a Bodhisattva, he sold his own flesh in order to make an offering; gyobo Bonji used one of his own bones to write down the true teaching. These are examples of those who spread Buddhism "in the way best suited to the situation," as Grand Master T'ien-t'ai put it. Keep in mind that Buddhism must be spread according to the times. My exile is merely a trifle in this present life, which is not lamentable at all. Instead, I feel it is a great joy as I am sure I will be rewarded with great happiness in my future lives.
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Commentary
The following is from the NBAA website. The NBAA or Nichiren Buddhist Association of America doesn't have everything right but their doctrine on Shakabuku is right on. I pointed the Sangha For Independents and Rev. Ryuei there but all they could come up with was the article is SGI bashing (because it came from me and the SGI is mentioned). How wrong are these shallow people. The article is a treatise on Shakabuku reguardless to whom it is directed, the SGI, the Nichiren Shu, the Christians or the Muslims. For this reason, I have only changed where SGI is mentioned to "this organization", "this group", or "this individual" and you can fill in the blanks, SGI, Nichiren Shu, Christian, or other. You may also freely change leader to priest.
I also have an ulterior motive for this entry: The Kempon Hokke and myself are part of a greater Sangha of believers that adhere to the same principles (at least when it comes to the teachings of shakabuku). Our views are neither radical nor reactionary. In fact, ours are the ideas propounded in the Lotus Sutra and the authentic writings and treatises of Nichiren Daishonin.
Part I Shakabuku in the Footsteps of Nichiren by Marge Kirkpatrick:
An understanding of shakubuku is critical to the correct practice of Nichiren Buddhism. It is one of the two basic ways of propagating Buddhism: the process of leading a person to the correct teaching by refuting his/her attachment to erroneous beliefs. (The second method is shoju - teaching without pointing out mistaken beliefs). Shakubuku involves a second element as well: conquering the mistaken views in one's own mind and bringing out the Buddha wisdom within. It is important to understand both points, for we must first shakubuku ourselves - confront our own doubts and misconceptions - before we can successfully shakubuku another.
Unfortunately, the practice of shakubuku is often misunderstood. Few seem to recognize that it is first and foremost an act of compassion. Shakubuku is an expression of our belief in the Buddha wisdom inherent in all things, in people's ability to tap that wisdom and, by so doing, to overcome suffering in their lives.
Shakubuku is neither aggressive nor abusive - but because it challenges people's beliefs - is often viewed as "threatening." And not just by the person being shakubukued, but by the person doing the refuting as well. For one thing, too many of us lack the faith to put our own beliefs on the line by pointing out the errors in someone else's. For another, we think it impolite or "politically incorrect" to question or challenge something (anything?) someone else says or believes. But that kind of thinking leaves us all in a muddle. What if Galileo had been afraid to say that the earth is NOT the center of the universe? Or if Darwin had lacked the courage to publish his theory of evolution?
When a scientist puts forth a new hypothesis, it is treated with healthy skepticism. Others poke and prod and turn it upside down. Numerous minds examine the hypothesis from all angles to see if it makes sense and actually works. If it passes the test of scrutiny, eventually it becomes accepted. Then all new hypotheses must fit in with it, too, or present evidence that this new piece of the puzzle actually changes the entire picture.
Nichiren believed religion, too, should be verifiable. He sought to eliminate both the "blind faith" approach and the "I like it therefore it must be true" approach to religious belief. To that end, he devised the three proofs and encouraged people to apply them to their own religious convictions. (First is documentary proof - or a written record of correct practice. Second is theoretical proof - is it consistent? Does it make sense? And finally and most important - actual proof: does it work?)
But Nichiren didn't stop there. He used his own life to test the Buddhism of the Lotus Sutra. If you read The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin you will see that his life was a grand experiment, an expression of his beliefs, and a test of their validity. You will see, too, that - like all of us - he had moments of self-doubt. But always - always his life validated his belief in the Lotus Sutra: his high life condition and abiding wisdom. His overwhelming compassion - even for those who would harm him. His persecution - as predicted in the Lotus Sutra. The timely meteor that halted his beheading. The fulfillment of his prediction of the foreign invasion of Japan. His survival and eventual pardon from two exiles. Each incident strengthened his faith; each furthered his Buddhahood.
But how do we know what worked for Nichiren will work for us? The only way, of course, is by trying it. Indeed, the only way to prove that Nichiren Buddhism actually works for anybody and everybody who practices exactly according to the Lotus Sutra is to have everybody and anybody practice exactly according to the Lotus Sutra. Obvious? Then why do so many refuse to even try shakubuku? Why have some sects gone so far as to deny not only the necessity and but even the significance of shakubuku? Are they afraid of success? Or of failure? Regardless, if we give in to fear, how can we truly be a part of Nichiren's grand experiment? How can we lift religion from the darkness of unprovable dogma into the critical light of verification?
Not convinced? Still feel more comfortable in telling yourself shakubuku is not necessary to teach Buddhism, that all you need is shoju? Know this. Nichiren is exceedingly clear on the point that in the Latter Day of the Law, confronting false doctrines and challenging slander are critical elements in our journey to Buddhahood. If you lack the courage and compassion to practice shakubuku, you will never attain enlightenment. Period. If you read Nichiren - and I mean all of Nichiren - not just a few isolated sentences or paragraphs or goshos; if you read Nichiren - you can't help but see the importance he attaches to the practice of shakubuku nor, I believe, understand why he believes it so critical. Read Nichiren, dear reader, and see for yourself.
Is Nichiren's understanding of correct practice 100% on target? I don't know. Not yet. But I do know this - so far, so good. Not only has chanting improved my life condition, but - once I got up the courage to practice shakubuku - the direction and scope of my entire life began to change. I saw beyond my imagined limits, beyond the fears and frustrations of the lower worlds. The closer I follow in Nichiren's footsteps, the stronger I become, the more manifest my Buddha wisdom, the more rewarding my life. Which is why I have the faith to keep going, to follow this path that Nichiren so lovingly laid out.
Again, dear reader, don't just take my word for it. For without action, it's all meaningless. Without action, it's no more than an interesting philosophical debate. Have the courage to follow your faith, to point out the errors in others' beliefs when confronted with them (such as their dependence on a supreme being), and see how quickly your own life corrects and blossoms. Dare to follow in the footsteps of Nichiren. You won't be disappointed.
But until you have sufficient faith that the wisdom of Shakyamuni and Nichiren is also in you and in everyone you teach, you won't have the courage to question faulty teachings. You won't have the courage to stand up for Nichiren Buddhism as more than just "another religion," but as one that actually works to end suffering. More than once I have been told, "there are many truths" as an excuse for not practicing shakubuku. But what does this saying really mean? That everything is true? That contradictory beliefs (such as our present circumstances are the result of divine whim rather than cause and effect) can be true? If that were the case, wouldn't "truth" then be meaningless?
In the final analysis, then, shakubuku is simply an act of truth finding. It's about recognizing that we come to truth from a myriad of directions and with our own circus carts of karmic hindrances. Many of us think we have a handle on the important truths of life, and to some degree, many of us probably do. But our understanding is like that of Shakyamuni's five blind men "seeing" their first elephant. One feels the tail, and says an elephant is like a snake. Another touches a leg and compares it to a stout pillar. A third grabs the tusk, and likens it to a plow…. Each, of course, thinks only he has it right and that the others are deluded.
I like this analogy a great deal. For it not only points out the difficulty in not being able to see the entire picture, but it also shows that partial truths can be more dangerous than outright fallacies. For, like the blind men, we all know what we felt/saw/heard… so why bother with anything else? Especially if it contradicts what we have already accepted. (How incredibly naïve and complacent we are in our beliefs - even if they don't work. Even if they don't make sense. Even if the world is crumbling around us because of them.)
The more I chant and study Nichiren - the more insight I gain into the Lotus Sutra - the more clearly the puzzle pieces of my life, of all life, fit together. Little by little the outline of an elephant emerges - a huge, incredible elephant - as preposterous as such an animal might sometimes seem.
But, you may say… what if, by putting our Buddhist beliefs on the line, we find out some of them are wrong? Well… what if we do? If they are, isn't that important to know? How else can we check and, if necessary, correct our path? We must have the courage to ask the tough questions - not just of our friends and those we teach, but of ourselves; the courage to challenge accepted "truth" - including our own; the courage to be willing to use our very lives as a verification of Buddhahood and as a tool for kosen rufu.
Look at the world today, my friends, and consider. Dare we not confront false beliefs? Dare we not use our lives as vehicles to end human suffering? Dare we not have the faith to follow what we claim to be our convictions? If we lack the courage and compassion to act today, dare we even think what tomorrow might bring?
This letter is written to an individual in response to comments and questions raised by him. The concept of disrupting the unity of believers is his primary concern. This letter is one in a series of correspondences over the course of years with him. The same topics kept coming up again and again, so we wrote a single letter to cover them all at once for the sake of clarity. It takes his strongest points from several letters and responds to each. Due to the length of the letter, it was broken down into topics. The original letter was broken down in the same manner as it is shown here.
In an effort to refrain from using people's names without permission, we changed the name references to:
member: M
NBAA member: NB
Arguments against utilizing shakabuku (click on a topic to go straight there):
Part 1. Causing disunity is one of the five cardinal sins.
section a: You should unite with our organization since they spread Namu-myoho-renge-kyo to people around the world.
section b: "You see, cutting yourself off from the very body of believers on the account that they do not do 'shakubuku' is an absurd reason....So you have discarded over 10 million people who practice Buddhism...." "Unless you come to the realization that you are the one who needs to change, no one in our organization is going to trust you."
Part 2. "You have taken Nichiren's personification to justify your interpretations..."
Part 3. "No one is in a position to judge what is 'the best of [other's] ability.' We can only judge our own ability...."
Part 4. "I agree 100 percent that we are in the time of Mappo and need to practice shakubuku."
Part 5. "In the case of refuting non-Buddhists, planting the seed of enlightenment is just as equal as shakubuku. And nurturing this seed to those who do embark on the journey of faith is shakubuku as well"
Part 6. "If you see a reason to refute non-Buddhists to the best of your ability, go for it."
Part 7. "No one has stopped you from doing shakubuku to non-Buddhists."
Part 8. "Your purpose of trying to enter our organizations facilities is not because of your change of heart to return to a true faith. Your intentions are still to make distorted points among our pure-hearted members."
Part 9. "We did not cast you out. You left our organization."
Dear M,
I have taken the liberty of breaking down your points and my points to make it more clear for everyone. Arguments are set up as the original points made by you or me (actually only you in this case). The counterarguments are refutations of the original argument or of the counterargument the other person made. The substantiation sections are gosho quotes that back up the argument or counterargument that the person is making right above it. Some of the counterarguments include separate points. Each point is one counterargument against the original argument made. Some sections are comments or agreements. They aren’t arguments, just comments about the argument.
1. M's Argument:
Causing disunity is one of the five cardinal sins.
NB Comment:
Yes, this is true. There is no need for you to substantiate this to me as I'm aware of the reference.
M's Argument:
You should unite with our organization since they spread Namu-myoho-renge-kyo to people around the world.
Substantiation:
"All disciples and lay supporters of Nichiren should chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo with the spirit of many in body but one in mind, transcending all differences among themselves to become as inseparable as fish and the water in which they swim. This spiritual bond is the basis for the universal transmission of the ultimate Law of life and death. Herein lies the true goal of Nichiren's propagation. When you are so united, even the great desire for widespread propagation can be fulfilled. But if any of Nichiren's disciples disrupt the unity of many in body but one in mind, they would be like warriors who destroy their own castle from within."
NB Agreement:
I quite agree with you. I have repeatedly said that I agree with it, yet you keep accusing me of ignoring it. I would like to unite with your organization, as I have repeatedly said. I don't know why you bring this up to me. Have you considered that it is your organization who is ignoring this quote in regards to us, rather than vice versa? Is it not possible that it could be your organization who is making the mistake? Can your organization not, in your mind, make mistakes? I have, indeed, attempted for years to work together with your organization. Rather, maybe you can help me figure out how to do so without giving up my own vows to do shakubuku and to insist that people follow the Law rather than the person. I have tried to have amicable relationships with Your organization and its members. I have not yelled at people or threatened them. I have never asked anyone in your organization to leave and join NBAA. In fact, the only things I have attempted to do is encourage people to chant, read the gosho, do shakubuku, and follow only the Law (as in the teachings of the Lotus Sutra). Of those, your leaders have told members of NBAA that they are formally against two of them, namely doing shakubuku and following only the Law, which is why we are not allowed to attend meetings. I cannot stop teaching those things, though, as I took a vow from which I cannot retreat.
M's Counterargument:
"You see, cutting yourself off from the very body of believers on the account that they do not do 'shakubuku' is an absurd reason....So you have discarded over 10 million people who practice Buddhism...." "Unless you come to the realization that you are the one who needs to change, no one in our organization is going to trust you."
NB Counterargument Point 1:
In response to this I must also point out that you have also said, "You do not need to apologize for doing shakubuku...." You are at once saying that it is I who needs to change, yet you say that I don't need to apologize for doing shakubuku. Do I need to apologize or not? The only way I could get back into SGI's good graces would indeed be to apologize for doing shakubuku and tell them that I will stop. One of your national-level leaders, [name removed for privacy], said that your organization is opposed to doing shakubuku to anyone other than other Nichiren Buddhist organizations. If they're opposed to it, then I would indeed have to stop doing it in order to be allowed to go back to meetings. So what is your true opinion about this matter? Should I apologize for doing shakubuku and go back to your org., or should I continue to practice according to Nichiren's example and guidance? I made my decision the day I took my vows.
NB Counterpoint Point 2:
I would not be following Nichiren's guidance myself if I stopped doing shakubuku, since I do have the ability to do shakubuku.
Substantiation:
"Teach others to the best of your ability, even if only a single sentence or phrase."
NB Counterargument Point 3:
You seem to think this one issue isn't significant, or is less significant than conforming to a Buddhist organization. However, this issue of shakubuku is of crucial importance to the practice of Buddhism -- more so than getting along with other Buddhists. Even your own organization, faced the issue of whether to follow the priests. Did they choose to overcome the differences between them and and their Priest and just get along with them in order to refrain from committing one of the five cardinal sins? When facing a serious concern about what is a correct practice of Buddhism, unity takes a back seat to seeking out the true way. You are very wrong about the importance of shakubuku. That is why I have been refuting you on this one point about shakubuku time and time again.
Substantiation:
"If, failing to understand this principle, one were to practice shoju or shakubuku at an inappropriate time, then not only would one be unable to attain Buddhahood, but one would fall into the evil paths. This is firmly laid down in the Lotus and Nirvana sutras, and is also clearly stated in the commentaries by T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo. It is, in fact, an important principle of Buddhist practice." (pg. 126)
"Some people criticize me, saying, 'Nichiren does not understand the capacities of the people of the time, but goes around preaching in a harsh manner—that is why he meets with difficulties.' Other people say, 'The practices described in the "Encouraging Devotion" chapter are for bodhisattvas who are far advanced in practice; [Nichiren ought to follow the practices of] the "Peaceful Practices" chapter, yet he fails to do so.' Others say, 'I, too, know the Lotus Sutra is supreme, but I say nothing about it.' Still others complain that I give all my attention to doctrinal teachings. I am well aware of all these criticisms against me. But I recall the case of Pien Ho, who had his legs cut off at the knee, and of Kiyomaro (Pure Man), who was dubbed Kegaremaro (Filthy Man) and almost put to death. All the people of the time laughed at them with scorn, but unlike those two men, those who laughed left no good name behind them. And all the people who level unjust criticisms at me will meet with a similar fate. The 'Encouraging Devotion' chapter says, 'There will be many ignorant people who will curse and speak ill of us.' I observe my own situation in this passage. Why should it not apply to all of you as well? 'They will attack us with swords and staves,' the passage continues. I have experienced this passage from the sutra with my own body. Why do you, my disciples, not do likewise?" (pg. 209)
Question: "How should one practice if one takes faith in the Lotus Sutra?" (pg. 125)
Answer: "Shoju is to be practiced when throughout the entire country only the Lotus Sutra has spread, and when there is not even a single misguided teacher expounding erroneous doctrines." (pg. 126)
"The methods of shoju and shakubuku are also like this. When the correct teaching alone is propagated and there are no erroneous doctrines or misguided teachers, then one may enter the deep valleys and live in quiet contentment, devoting one’s time to reciting and copying the sutra and to the practice of meditation. This is like taking up a writing brush and inkstone when the world is at peace. But when there are provisional schools or slanderers of the correct teaching in the country, then it is time to set aside other matters and devote oneself to rebuking slander." (126 & 127)
"Therefore, we must look at the world today and consider whether ours is a country in which only the correct doctrine prevails, or a country in which erroneous doctrines flourish." (pg. 127)
"One should practice only the shakubuku method of propagation, and if one has the capacity, use one’s influence and authority to destroy slander of the correct teaching, and one’s knowledge of the teachings to refute erroneous doctrines."(127)
"Question: Then it would be wrong to say that faith in any sutra or any Buddha of the expedient and provisional teachings equals faith in the Lotus Sutra. But what of those who believe only in the Lotus Sutra and carry out the five practices set forth in the sutra or follow the practices described in the 'Peaceful Practices' chapter? Could we not say that their practice accords with the Buddha’s teachings?
"Answer: Anyone who practices Buddhism should first understand the two types of practice—shoju and shakubuku....
"In this age, the provisional teachings have turned into enemies of the true teaching. When the time is right to propagate the teaching of the one vehicle, the provisional teachings become enemies. When they are a source of confusion, they must be thoroughly refuted from the standpoint of the true teaching. Of the two types of practice, this is shakubuku, the practice of the Lotus Sutra. With good reason T’ien-t’ai stated, 'The Lotus Sutra is the teaching of shakubuku, the refutation of the provisional doctrines.'
"The four peaceful practices [in the 'Peaceful Practices' chapter] correspond to shoju. To carry them out in this age would be as foolish as sowing seeds in winter and expecting to reap the harvest in spring. It is natural for a rooster to crow at dawn, but strange for him to crow at dusk. Now, when the true and the provisional teachings are utterly confused, it would be equally unnatural for one to seclude oneself in the mountain forests and carry out the peaceful practice of shoju without refuting the enemies of the Lotus Sutra. One would lose the chance to practice the Lotus Sutra.
"Now, in the Latter Day of the Law, who is carrying out the practice of shakubuku in strict accordance with the Lotus Sutra? Suppose someone, no matter who, should unrelentingly proclaim that the Lotus Sutra alone can lead people to Buddhahood, and that all other sutras, far from enabling them to attain the way, only drive them into hell. Observe what happens should that person thus try to refute the teachers and the doctrines of all the other schools. The three powerful enemies will arise without fail.
"Our teacher, the Thus Come One Shakyamuni, practiced shakubuku during the last eight years of his lifetime, the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai for more than thirty years, and the Great Teacher Dengyo for more than twenty." (pg. 394, “On Practicing the Buddha's Teachings")
"The Lotus Sutra is the teaching of shakubuku, the refutation of the provisional doctrines." (pg. 392)
“Although few people slander the Lotus Sutra with actual words of abuse, there are none who accept it. Some appear to accept the sutra, but their faith in it is not as deep as their faith in the Nembutsu or other teachings. And even those with profound faith do not reproach the enemies of the Lotus Sutra. However great good causes one may make, or even if one reads and copies the entirety of the Lotus Sutra a thousand or ten thousand times, or attains the way of perceiving three thousand realms in a single moment of life, if one fails to denounce the enemies of the Lotus Sutra, it will be impossible to attain the way.” (WND p. 78)
“The Great Teacher Nan-yueh has stated, ‘If one sees a foe of the Lotus Sutra and yet fails to censure him, one becomes a slanderer of the Law and will fall into the hell of incessant suffering.’ Even a man of great wisdom, if he sees such a person and fails to speak out, will fall into the depths of the hell of incessant suffering, and as long as that hell shall endure, he will never escape.” (pg. 1021-1022)
NB Counterargument Point 4:
Nichiren left the Tendai sect over the one issue of shakubuku.
Substantiation:
"But the men of the Tendai school [who do not refute misleading teachings] are all great enemies of the people. [As Chang-an has noted,] 'One who rids the offender of evil is acting as his parent.'" (pg. 287)
“For persons of the Tendai Lotus school to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo themselves and yet give their approval when others repeat the Nembutsu would be strange enough. Yet not only do they fail to remonstrate with them, but they criticize one who does confront the Nembutsu school, which is strange indeed!” (pg. 856)
NB Counterargument Point 5:
Nichiren didn't stop doing shakubuku even though his own disciples opposed him on this single point. In continuing to do shakubuku despite the fact that his disciples were opposing the practice, was he going against his OWN belief that his disciples should be united? Was he committing one of the five cardinal sins?
Substantiation:
"In the same way, the renegade disciples say, 'Though the priest Nichiren is our teacher, he is too forceful. We will spread the Lotus Sutra in a more peaceful way.' In so asserting, they are being as ridiculous as fireflies laughing at the sun and moon, an anthill belittling Mount Hua, wells and brooks despising the river and the ocean, or a magpie mocking a phoenix." (pg. 306)
“Among my disciples, those who think themselves well versed in Buddhism are the ones who make errors….To revere another teaching as [Nam-myoho-renge-kyo’s] equal…can only be a cause for disaster.” (pg. 903)
NB Comment:
I have already tried again and again to explain the correct concept of unity to you. You still fail to understand. You also fail to follow Nichiren's example in doing shakubuku and instead give in to the criticism of others who claim to follow the Lotus Sutra. You even fail to follow your organization's example to create their own organization in order to teach people not to follow priests. Is it possible that you cannot understand even one of these arguments due to your attachment to your org? Maybe you need to check your own intentions about this matter. I don't understand why you are scolding me for practicing shakubuku. Are you trying to convince me to stop practicing according to Nichiren's teachings and his lifetime example in order to conform to SGI's wishes? Why would you do this? Did Nichiren merely conform to others’ beliefs in order to get along with anyone? Conforming for the sake of conforming is not a correct concept of Buddhist unity. And a "Buddhist sangha" that scolds people or bans them for practicing according to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra is NOT a true Buddhist sangha anyway. So, to oppose you and your org. in this matter, no matter how many people support you from within your organization, would not cause me to violate the 5 cardinal sins.
Substantiantion:
"The question, however, is not whether one lives in the Former, the Middle, or the Latter Day of the Law, but whether one bases oneself upon the text of the true sutra. Again, the point is not who preaches a doctrine, but whether it accords with truth." (pg. 168)
“A good believer is one who does not depend upon persons of eminence or despise those of humble station; who does not rely on the backing of superiors or look down on inferiors; who, not relying on the opinions of others, upholds the Lotus Sutra among all the sutras. Such a person the Buddha has called the best of all people.” (pg. 880)
“In both secular and religious realms, as is plain to see, good persons are rare while evil persons are numerous. Why, then, do you insist upon despising the few and favoring the many? Dirt and sand are plentiful, but rice and other grains are rare. The bark of trees is available in great quantities, but hemp and silk fabrics are hard to come by. You should put the truth of the teaching before everything else; certainly you should not base your judgment on the number of adherents.” (pg. 125)
2. M's Argument:
"You have taken Nichiren's personification to justify your interpretations..."
NB Comment:
I can't understand why you would say this. I have, indeed, referred to gosho quotes as well as Nichiren's life example in order to prove that the teaching I'm practicing is the teaching that he meant for us to practice. Are you scolding me for using the gosho to make my points? I refuse to apologize for this, too. I am a disciple of Nichiren. I will remain his disciple until you can prove to me that his teachings are false. If you continue to call yourself a Nichiren Buddhist, I think that you should also base your arguments on his teachings, or refrain from calling yourself such. So far, the only way you've refuted me is using the opinions of your leaders, rather than the gosho. You are not proving that I've misinterpreted Nichiren, only that I've gone against your organization's teachings, which are inferior to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. None of your leaders have told us that we've misinterpreted Nichiren. They have, on the contrary, told us that they disagree that we should practice according to Nichiren's instructions, which is merely their own opinion. If you believe that I have misinterpreted Nichiren, you have failed to prove it. I, on the other hand, have given you gosho passage after gosho passage to prove my points. How can you read these passages, which are as plain as day, and say that I've misinterpreted them? How could anyone possibly read the words, "And even those with profound faith do not reproach the enemies of the Lotus Sutra....[i]f one fails to denounce the enemies of the Lotus Sutra, it will be impossible to attain the way,” and "The Taoists...by relying on...deities...became enemies of Shakyamuni Buddha" and interpret them to mean that we should not do shakubuku if other Nichiren Buddhists, such as you and your organization, are opposed to it? Is it my misinterpretation of these words or is it your refusal to accept Nichiren's instructions?
3. M's Argument:
"No one is in a position to judge what is 'the best of [other's] ability.' We can only judge our own ability...."
Substantiation:
"Teach others to the best of your ability, even if it is only a single sentence or phrase."
NB Counterargument Point1:
You are quite right. We shouldn't judge what others are capable of doing. That's why I believe that we should give them all of the tools to do whatever they can. Therefore, we should not scold people or discourage them from doing shakubuku, even if their practice of shakubuku brings about animosity from others. Instead, we should respect them and teach them everything we know so that they can make their own decisions about whether to do shakubuku or not. That means that we should show them in the gosho where Nichiren encourages people to do shakubuku so that they can decide to do it as well. If a person has the capacity to do shakubuku and yet fails to do it, then yes, they will be judged as failing to do what they're capable of. Only it's not me doing the judging. It's the Buddha within their own lives that will "judge" their practice by failing to respond to a lack of courage and compassion. All I do is point out that this is an important part of their Buddhist practice – a crucial part, so that they can avoid the offense of complicity in slander.
NB Counterargument Point2:
On the other side of the coin, we need to discourage people from writing articles in magazines that interfere with the cause of teaching the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra, such as the one run by the Living Buddhism magazine. This is because they are making an extremely bad cause and we should try to convince them not to do it. I think this because it is within our abilities to discourage another person from making a bad cause when we see it happening. That, too, is an act of shakubuku, but it is entirely for the other person’s sake, not out of arrogance.
(In the beginning of the substantiation section, I will substantiate that it is a bad cause to say or imply that Christianity could also be a path to attain the way. At the end I substantiate that it is acting out of compassion to try to stop a person from making that cause. Then I show that even Nichiren’s disciples are capable of slander.)
Substantiation:
“To ignore the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra and assert that other sutras stand on a par with it is to commit the worst possible slander of the Law, a major offense of the utmost gravity.” (pg. 61)
“Among my disciples, those who think themselves well versed in Buddhism are the ones who make errors. Namu-myoho-renge-kyo is the heart of the Lotus Sutra. It is like the soul of a person. To revere another teaching as its equal is to be like a consort who is married to two emperors, or who secretly commits adultery with a minister or a humble subject. It can only be a cause for disaster.” (pg. 903)
“Our seeing, hearing, and making no attempt to stop slander that, if we spoke out, could be avoided, destroys our gifts of sight and hearing, and is utterly merciless.
“Chang-an writes, ‘If one befriends another person but lacks the mercy to correct him, one is in fact his enemy.’ The consequences of a grave offense are extremely difficult to erase. The most important thing is to continually strengthen our wish to benefit others.
“Many such examples of slander are also found among Nichiren’s disciples and lay believers.” (pgs. 625-626)
4. M's Statement:
"I agree 100 percent that we are in the time of Mappo and need to practice shakubuku."
NB Comment:
Good! I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this issue. Then we can move on to discussing what we're going to do about it. Can we not?
5. SG Argument:
"In the case of refuting non-Buddhists, planting the seed of enlightenment is just as equal as shakubuku. And nurturing this seed to those who do embark on the journey of faith is shakubuku as well"
NB Comment:
Nurturing the seed of enlightenment is indeed shakubuku in this day and age, as it cannot be done by the act of shoju. You must refute people's attachment to an external deity or they will never get over it. They will just replace it with another external deity (the Gohonzon, the universe, President Ikeda, etc.) If I thought that's what you meant, I would agree. But, if that's what you really meant, a better way to phrase it would be "To do shakubuku is to nurture the seed of faith."
NB Counterargument Point 1:
I think what you really mean to say here is that merely telling someone about chanting is shakubuku and then encouraging them to chant without ever refuting their mistaken beliefs is shakubuku. In Buddhism, there is a clear distinction made between shoju and shakubuku. To ignore this distinction or fail to understand it is a grave error in the realm of Buddhism. Shakubuku means to refute mistaken beliefs. On the other hand, shoju is the practice of "Peaceful Practices" (peaceful deeds, words, thoughts, and vows). To tell someone about chanting, yet not refute their mistaken attachment to an external deity, is actually not shakubuku.
Substantiation:
"Now, in the Latter Day of the Law, who is carrying out the practice of shakubuku in strict accordance with the Lotus Sutra? Suppose someone, no matter who, should unrelentingly proclaim that the Lotus Sutra alone can lead people to Buddhahood, and that all other sutras, far from enabling them to attain the way, only drive them into hell." (pg. 394)
"The Lotus Sutra is the teaching of shakubuku, the refutation of the provisional doctrines." (pg. 392)
"If, failing to understand this principle, one were to practice shoju or shakubuku at an inappropriate time, then not only would one be unable to attain Buddhahood, but one would fall into the evil paths. This is firmly laid down in the Lotus and Nirvana sutras, and is also clearly stated in the commentaries by T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo. It is, in fact, an important principle of Buddhist practice." (pg. 126)
NB Counterargument Point 2:
You say, "In the case of refuting non-Buddhists..." implying that refuting a non-Buddhist can be done by the shoju method (which is defined as the opposite of shakubuku), unlike the case of refuting Buddhists. That means that not doing refutation is actually doing refutation in the case of non-Buddhists. Do you realize how twisted that sounds? You are saying that shoju is actually shakubuku when performed on non-Buddhists. Did you invent this concept yourself or did someone tell you this? This is merely your own personal opinion. Even if you got it from some leader, it's still a personal opinion that has no basis in Buddhist doctrine whatsoever. Please be very careful about teaching people your personal opinion or the personal opinions of others and calling them Buddhist doctrine. When you teach a Buddhist concept to someone, you should back up what you say using Buddhist doctrine. If you can't find a quote from Nichiren or the sutras to back up what you say, you should not teach it to others and call it Buddhism. If you do, you will be misleading others.
Substantiation:
"‘Rely on the Law and not upon persons.’ Even when great bodhisattvas such as Universal Worthy and Manjushri, men who have returned to the stage of near-perfect enlightenment, expound the Buddhist teachings, if they do not do so with the sutra text in hand, then one should not heed them.
"The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai states, ‘That which accords with the sutras is to be written down and made available. But put no faith in anything that in word or meaning fails to do so.’ Here we see that one should accept what is clearly stated in the text of the sutras, but discard anything that cannot be supported by the text." (pg. 109)
"A sutra says: 'Rely on the Law and not upon persons. Rely on the meaning of the teaching and not on the words. Rely on wisdom and not on discriminative thinking. Rely on sutras that are complete and final and not on those that are not complete and final.' The meaning of this passage is that one should not rely upon the words of the bodhisattvas and teachers, but should heed what was established by the Buddha." (pg. 872)
"If we merely rely upon the commentaries of various teachers and do not follow the statements of the Buddha himself, then how can we call our beliefs Buddhism? To do so would be absurd beyond description!
"Therefore, the Great Teacher Chisho stated that, if one claims that there is no division of Mahayana and Hinayana among the sutras and no distinction of partial and perfect among revelations of the truth, and therefore accepts all the words of the various teachers, then the preachings of the Buddha will have been to no purpose.
"T’ien-t’ai asserted, 'That which has a profound doctrine and accords with the sutras is to be written down and made available. But put no faith in anything that in word or meaning fails to do so.' He also said, 'All assertions that lack scriptural proof are to be branded as false.' How would you interpret such statements?" (pg. 56)
NB Counterargument Point3:
In refraining from doing shakubuku, your organizations own teaching has become erroneous. Rather than refuting erroneous views (as they should have been doing all along), they actually ADOPTED them! That’s what happens when you don’t do shakubuku. For one, your org. is committing an error in their practice with the new teaching they are expounding that Christianity is very similar to Buddhism, like with their article in the Living Buddhism, "Jesus and Shakyamuni: Teachers of Humanity." Second, they allow people to practice 5, 10, 20, even 30 years still believing in a power that exists outside of themselves! They pray to the Gohonzon like it's a god that will bring them benefit if they chant to it. You may think that this is no big deal, but it's a really big deal. We can't just go around accepting every non-Buddhist belief on the planet just because they don't call themselves Buddhists. That would be insane and totally uncaring! If you care at all, you must point out even your fellow SGI members' mistaken views.
Substantiation:
"The learned authorities in the world today suppose that there is no harm in mixing extraneous practices with the practice of the Lotus Sutra, and I, Nichiren, was once of that opinion myself. But the passage from the sutra [that I have just quoted] does not permit such a view." (pg. 1014 &1015)
"Therefore, the Great Teacher Chisho stated that, if one claims that there is no division of Mahayana and Hinayana among the sutras and no distinction of partial and perfect among revelations of the truth, and therefore accepts all the words of the various teachers, then the preachings of the Buddha will have been to no purpose." (pg. 56)
NB Counterargument Point4:
I have already supplied you with a quote proving that Shakyamuni himself did shakubuku to non-Buddhists. Not only that, the phrase "one should use Buddhism to refute them" is an instruction from Nichiren. Here's that quote again:
“In a country where non-Buddhist teachings have already spread, one should use Buddhism to refute them. For example, the Buddha appeared in India and defeated the non-Buddhists; Kashyapa Matanga and Chu Fa-lan went to China and called the Taoists to task; Prince Jogu was born in the country of Japan and put Moriya to the sword." (pg. 80)
M's Counter Argument:
"Your quoting this portion that dealt with refuting non-Buddhists is irrelevant to what you are discussing in your response.”
NB Counterargument:
I find it to be quite relevant. This passage is irrefutable proof that Nichiren never meant us to NOT do shakubuku to non-Buddhists. It also proves that Nichiren actually INSTRUCTED us TO DO shakubuku to non-Buddhists. And he clearly means the real meaning of shakubuku, not the ridiculous twisted logic you gave me above. He says “one should use Buddhism to refute them.” I’m saying that teaching to the best of our ability includes doing shakubuku to non-Buddhists, and that’s what he told us to do in the quote above. How can you say it's not relevant?
M's Counter Argument:
The main point of that gosho was intended to be that the Lotus Sutra is appropriate for Japan, due to the sequence of propagation that took place in history. This passage does not mean that we should "go around refuting non-Buddhists."
NB Counterargument:
To be more accurate, the gosho is about the five guides for propagation which were originally intended to be, well, guides, not just historical accounts. Nichiren is indeed pointing out that Japan practiced all of those other religions already, so according to the five guides, it would be inappropriate to go backward and teach a lesser teaching. Since they've already practiced all of those other teachings, he says, they therefore must already have the capacity for the Lotus Sutra. Certainly Nichiren argued that Japan, in particular, should not go backward in its progression toward finding the highest teaching. It could be argued that it's not necessary, in the Latter Day of the Law, for each individual country to practice every teaching that Japan did, but that Nichiren was just pointing out that the sequence had gone exactly as Shakyamuni predicted and now is the time for the Lotus Sutra to spread. However, the guides are still guides. I can't tell if you're implying that that all countries don't have to go through the exact same sequence as Japan did (which I would agree with), or if you're saying that we cannot use Nichiren's interpretation of the five guides and apply them to our own country because he was only concerned with applying them to Japan for his Japanese audience.
Just for perspective, let me go over the main points of the gosho. In the first guide, he says that chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and practicing the Lotus Sutra is an act of filial piety toward and appreciation of Shakyamuni. In other words, it's the way to repay our debt of gratitude to him. In the second one, he says that to not do shakubuku is to slander the Law. (Keep that in mind, because I bring it up later.) In the third one, he says that other Buddhists are actually making evil causes when they think they're making good causes, because their teachings are small good that actually wind up creating great evil. The reason they are creating great evil is because even though the practices of the other teachings bring benefit, they don't lead to enlightenment. So they stray from the teachings that lead to enlightenment in order to create small good, which is a great evil. The fourth guide says that Japan is suited to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. As a reminder, the fourth guide is actually about the capacity of the people. He's saying that Japan's capacity is suited to the Lotus Sutra. As you may be very aware, Nichiren says that the Lotus Sutra is the teaching of shakubuku. Some things you have said in the past sound as if you're saying that America, and most of the world, is not suited to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. That's a related but different topic, however. In the fifth guide, Nichiren speaks of the sequence of propagation to be used on a country given the different kinds of countries. That is where the above quote comes from. According to your organization, we fall into a country of non-Buddhists. Of course, Nichiren is specifically relating it to Japan, because that's where he lived, but that doesn't mean that the five guides should not be applied outside of Japan. What should we do when in a non-Buddhist country according to the fifth guide? That is perfectly clear. We should refute them using Buddhism. Well, the Lotus Sutra is Buddhism. Therefore, we can easily say that according to Nichiren's interpretation of the five guides, refuting non-Buddhists using the Lotus Sutra is following the fifth guideline for propagation. Furthermore, to not refute them is to actually turn against the second guide for propagation.
As I think I made clear earlier in this letter, Nichiren does think we should go around refuting erroneous teachings. Again, it is your opinion that we should exclude non-Buddhists from this. The above passage proves that it is merely your own opinion and not the opinion of Nichiren or Shakyamuni. You have yet to supply me with any proof whatsoever that Nichiren shared your opinion. I, however, have supplied proof that he did not, nor did Shakyamuni share your opinion. Yet, since you don't like the particular passage I quoted, I'll quote more to you about this topic.
Substantiation:
"This passage from the Nirvana Sutra recounts the evil words that the various non-Buddhists spoke against Shakyamuni Buddha because he refuted the scriptures preached by their original teachers, the two deities and the three ascetics....In other words, persons who show no desire to hear or believe in the Lotus Sutra or who say that it does not match their capacity, though they may not actually slander it in so many words, are all to be regarded as persons of hatred and jealousy." (pg. 206)
"Our own age is not unlike theirs. The Taoists Ch’u and Fei of China, and Moriya in Japan, by relying on the major and minor deities of their respective countries, became enemies of Shakyamuni Buddha.
"There is a difference between the Taoists and Moriya on the one hand and our contemporary priests on the other in that the former preferred gods to a Buddha while the latter have replaced one Buddha with another. However, they are alike in that they all abandoned Shakyamuni Buddha." (pg. 838)
"But in ancient times, before the Buddhist teachings were introduced to this country, people knew nothing about either the Buddha or his teachings. It was only after the battle between Moriya and Prince Jogu that some people took faith in Buddhism, though others did not.
"The situation was similar in China. After Matanga had introduced Buddhism to China, he held a debate with the Taoists. When the Taoists were defeated in debate, then for the first time there were people who put their faith in Buddhism, though there were many more who did not." (pg 514)
.