In reading the 1985 Nichiren Shu brochure O-Daimoku: The Five and Seven Characters of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo, I was taken aback at how much space was devoted to criticism of other groups who chant the Daimoku. (I consider the slap at the nembutsu fair game.)
Having been introduced to the Daimoku by Nichiren Shoshu in America (NSA) in 1989, I was aware that Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai had proclaimed Nichiren the Original Buddha. To expand my understanding now as a member of Nichiren Shu, I asked Gemini Notebook, “How does Soka Gakkai ‘defam[e] Shakyamuni Buddha as an empty husk’?” After reviewing the 80-plus sources in my Nichiren Notebook, Gemini offered this:
The criticism that Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu are “defaming Shakyamuni Buddha as an empty husk” arises from a fierce, long-standing theological dispute in Japanese Buddhism regarding the true identity of the Buddha in the Latter Day of the Law (mappō). While Nichiren Shu reveres the Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni as the supreme object of worship, Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai’s doctrinal heritage reverses this relationship, reducing the historical Buddha to an expired, spiritually empty shell. This criticism of Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu is rooted in several key doctrinal and historical points:
- The Doctrine of Nichiren Honbutsu Ron
Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai teach Nichiren honbutsu ron—the doctrine that Nichiren Daishonin is the True or Original Buddha (honbutsu) of the Latter Day of the Law. Under this framework, Shakyamuni Buddha is relegated to a secondary status, viewed as merely a provisional or historical Buddha (shakubutsu) whose role was temporarily suited only for past eras. Josei Toda, the second president of Soka Gakkai, explicitly articulated this hierarchy by stating that “Shakyamuni Buddha is not the entity of the Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, but only the one who attained enlightenment by practicing the law.” Consequently, Toda declared, “we call Nichiren Daishonin the True Buddha and Shakyamuni… simply the buddha”.- Stripping Shakyamuni of His Eternal Reality
In the “Fathoming the Lifespan” (16th) chapter of the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni Buddha reveals that he actually attained enlightenment in the inconceivably remote past and remains eternally active in our Sahā world to guide living beings. By treating Shakyamuni as “merely an historical figure in the overall spectrum of Buddhism” whose teachings have expired, Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai strip him of this cosmic, eternal presence. They reduce him to a transient, historical facade—an empty husk whose spiritual substance has been entirely transferred to Nichiren.- Contradicting Nichiren’s Own Writings and Life
Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai’s replacement of Shakyamuni with Nichiren directly contradicts Nichiren’s own documented writings and his entire life’s work.
- Nichiren’s True Intent: Nichiren spent his entire life—risking execution, starvation, and exile—urging the people of Japan to return to the basics of Buddhism, which he defined as faith in the Buddha Shakyamuni and the ultimate teachings of the Lotus Sutra.
- The “Debt” to the Father: In Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren warned that those who do not understand the eternity of Shakyamuni’s life do not know the debt they owe to their “father,” comparing sects that ignore Shakyamuni to “beasts and birds” who do not know their own parents.
For these reasons, Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu have been criticized as heretical or “non-Buddhist”. By dethroning Shakyamuni and elevating Nichiren as the supreme object of worship, these groups commit the very act of slandering and marginalizing the Buddha that Nichiren himself spent his life fighting against.
The 1985 brochure’s criticism of Other New Religious Movements put into words something that has bothered me about Rissho Kosei-kai and its devotion to one of its founders, Nikkyo Niwano. As the brochure says:
[B]y setting up their own founders as the Great Leader, they close off the path of following Nichiren Shonin—the true Great Leader. They chant while ignoring Nichiren Shonin’s way of life, which aimed to spread the Lotus Sutra, save all beings, and establish peace and happiness.
That, of course, also applies to Soka Gakkai and its deification of Daisaku Ikeda.
More problematic for me, however, was Niwano’s radically pluralistic argument that the Lotus Sutra is not a proper noun but the single, underlying truth or cosmic energy of the universe. In Niwano’s view, different cultures simply use different names for this same ultimate reality: Buddhism calls it “the Void,” Christianity calls it “God,” Judaism calls it “Yahweh,” and Islam calls it “Allah.” Therefore, he argued, all great world religions are fundamentally teaching the same truth.
Still, I am not comfortable with criticism of anyone who proclaims devotion to the Lotus Sutra by chanting the Daimoku.
In Chapter 10, the Buddha admonishes Medicine King:
“An evil man who speaks ill of me in my presence with evil intent for as long as a kalpa is not as sinful as the person who reproaches laymen or monks with even a single word of abuse for their reading and reciting the Sūtra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma.”
One can argue that the 1985 brochure is only trying to answer the question, “Why Must It Be the Daimoku of Nichiren Shu?” but to what end?
In Chapter 14, the Buddha warns Mañjuśrī:
A Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who wishes to expound this sūtra in the age of the decline of the teachings after my extinction should perform the following peaceful practices. When he expounds or reads this sūtra, he should not point out the faults of other persons or sūtras. He should not despise other teachers of the Dharma. He should not speak of the good points or bad points or the merits or demerits of others. He should not mention Śrāvakas by name when he blames them. Nor should he do so when he praises them. He should not have hostile feelings against them or dislike them. He should have this peace of mind so that he may not act against the wishes of the hearers.
Yes, Nichiren criticized others during his lifetime and specifically ignored Chapter 14’s warnings as he sought to re-establish the primacy of the Lotus Sutra in Medieval Japan. But he also understood that that was the Japan of his day and left room for the possibility of a different approach in a different land.
In Jisshō-shō, A Treatise on the Ten Chapters of the Great Concentration and Insight, Writings of Nichiren Shōnin, Doctrine 2, Page 5, he wrote:
The use of the terms “eternity, joy, self and purity” by non-Buddhists in India were wrong in meaning, but they were so good as names that the Buddha used them to name the four kinds of virtues of Nirvana in Mahāyāna Buddhism later. However, the Buddha hated these terms at first in order to get rid of the non-Buddhist ideas. Even evil is the seed of Buddhahood, and so is virtue. Although the principle of emptiness to which śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha were stuck was virtuous, not evil at all, the Buddha reproached them in order to break their adherence to it. The nembutsu today destroys the Lotus Sūtra in this country. Therefore, the nembutsu must be denied and criticized even though it is good and not wrong in meaning for the sake of the Lotus Sūtra. It is because in Buddhism there is a suitable dharma for each country.
In this country – or in any similar country where Buddhism is a minority religion – anyone who expresses devotion to the Lotus Sutra should be praised. The question of who is more correct is superfluous.






I also instructed that the images represent a racially diverse congregation. That’s an important aspect of this project and an important goal.