Those attracted to Buddhism were not content to leave the question of what lies beyond death (or before birth) unanswered. They were deeply dissatisfied by Confucian agnosticism and Taoist fatalism regarding why we are born, where (if anywhere) we go when we die, why there is so much injustice in the world, and whether our moral and spiritual strivings mean anything in the face of death’s inevitability. The humanism of the indigenous Chinese traditions was very realistic and practical, but it tended to leave an existential void that Buddhism seemed better able to respond to with its teachings of rebirth and the process of sowing and reaping the effects of one’s causes over many lifetimes. Though imperfectly understood, at least at first, Buddhism gave people a sense of hope, responsibility, and meaning by teaching that life did not end at death and that the course of our lives is not random or the product of some arbitrary fate (whether endowed by Heaven or the Tao) but is determined by our own actions in sowing the seeds of good or ill that will come to fruition in present or future lifetimes.

Nichiren, like many other Buddhist teachers in East Asia before and after him, praises the humanistic virtues and civilized arts that the Confucians and Taoists taught, but in the end he too finds that their teachings are limited to only the present lifetime and that they do not address the debts owed from previous lives nor do they teach anything pertaining to the lives to come.

They may be called saints as far as their teachings for our present lives are concerned, but they cannot be called saints when we see that they know nothing about our previous or future lives. They are not different from ordinary men who cannot look at their backs or blind men who cannot see even their fronts. … But they are not true saints because they do not know the past and future. They cannot save the future lives of their parents, lords, and teachers. Therefore, we can say that they do not know the favors given to them by their seniors.