The source of the four reliances (or “four refuges”) is the Four Refuges Sūtra (S. Catuḥpratiśaraṇa Sūtra) according to Étienne Lamotte: “The Catuḥpratiśaraṇa Sūtra posits, under the name of refuges (pratisaraṇa), four rules of textual interpretation: (1) the dharma is the refuge and not the person; (2) the spirit is the refuge and not the letter; (3) the sūtra of precise meaning is the refuge and not the sūtra of provisional meaning; (4) (direct) knowledge is the refuge and not (discursive) consciousness. As will be seen, the aim of this sūtra is not to condemn in the name of sound assessment certain methods of interpretation of the texts, but merely to ensure subordination of human authority to the spirit of the dharma, the letter to the spirit, the sūtra of provisional meaning to the sūtra of precise meaning, and discursive consciousness to direct knowledge.” (Lamotte, p. 12)

How can Nichiren insist that the Lotus Sūtra is the only sole sūtra that is difficult to receive and keep, read, recite, expound, and copy in the Latter Age after the Buddha’s passing?

In order to evaluate these claims, Nichiren refers to the first and last of the “four reliances” taught by the Buddha in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra as a guide for discerning the meaning of Buddhist teachings. The four reliances are to: “Rely on the Dharma and not upon persons; rely on the meaning and not upon the words; rely on wisdom and not upon discriminative thinking; rely on sūtras that are final and definitive and not upon those which are not final and definitive.” (see Yamamoto, p. 153)

Nichiren takes the four reliances to mean that one should not trust the word of even great bodhisattvas like Samantabhadra or Mañjuśrī unless they are preaching with the sūtras in hand. Nichiren cites Nāgārjuna (late second to early third century), Zhiyi (538-597), Saichō (767-822; also known as Dengyō), and even Enchin (814-891; aka Chishō) who all state that one should only follow commentaries that accord with what is taught in the sūtras and furthermore that one should not believe in oral transmissions. All of these teachers are considered to be patriarchs of the Tiantai/Tendai school and therefore Nichiren is showing that the interpretations of the Tiantai school can be relied upon because they follow the principles of the four reliances. Nichiren’s contention is that the other schools of Buddhism were straying from these principles, because of sectarian pride in their own particular doctrines and methods. Though it might seem ironic to those who believe that Nichiren was himself a sectarian polemicist, he wrote, “Surely, those who aspire to enlightenment should not be biased, stay away from sectarian quarrels, and not despise other people.” (Hori 2002, p. 85) Nichiren did not see himself as trying to promote his own narrow view, or even the particular views of the Tiantai school. Rather, Nichiren was trying to find in the sūtras themselves the criteria for judging the relative merits of various Buddhist teachings. He believed that he had found such a criteria in the four reliances and in the statements of the Lotus Sūtra regarding its own supremacy. Nichiren’s conviction was that in China only the Tiantai school had upheld what the sūtras actually teach, and that in Japan, only Saichō and himself had properly passed on this teaching without distorting or compromising it.

The four devils consist of the devil of the five aggregates, the devil of the defilements, the devil of death, and the devil king of the sixth heaven. The devil of the aggregates refers to the inherent insecurity, anxiety, and outright suffering which results from trying to identify with the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The devil of the defilements refers to the ways in which self-centered desires inevitably arise based upon the needs of the body and mind for nourishment, security, pleasurable stimulation, and self-aggrandizement. The devil of death refers to the dread, fear, and terror that arise in the face of the inevitable dissolution of the body and mind upon death. The devil king of the sixth heaven, or Mara, refers to those things in life that tempt us to forget about Buddhist practice and live only for worldly goals and aspirations. The devil king of the sixth heaven personifies all those people, situations, and inner impulses which tempt or threaten us to forsake Buddhism and return to the old cycle of unthinking habit, fleeting pleasures and familiar pains. One could say that the other name for the devil king of the sixth heaven is “the devil we know” who attempts to frighten or cajole us away from the unfamiliar territory of liberation back into the vicious cycle of our self-centeredness. Interestingly, the devil king of the sixth heaven is also included on the calligraphic mandala, probably to show that even he is not outside the power of the Eternal Śākyamuni Buddha, and that ultimately even the devilish functions can be turned to the realization of buddhahood.

Describing his early considerations as to whether he should risk remonstrating against slander of the Lotus Sūtra, Nichiren wrote, “If I spoke out, I realized, the three obstacles and four devils would overtake me.” (Hori 2002, p. 53; see also 106-107) The “three obstacles and four devils” (J. sanshō-shima) are described in the writings of Tiantai Zhiyi (538-597). The following passage is a good example of Nichiren’s citing of this teaching and his explanation of it:

Therefore, it is stated in the Great Calming and Contemplation, fascicle five, “As practice and understanding of ‘calming and contemplation’ progress, the three obstacles and four devils compete to interfere with the practitioner. … Do not follow them or fear them. When one follows them, one will fall into the evil realms; and if one is afraid of them, one will be unable to master the True Dharma.” This is exactly what I have experienced with my own body. Also, this should be a clear mirror for my disciples and followers to reflect upon. Please practice with reverence, thereby producing nourishment for the future practitioners of the Lotus Sūtra.

The “three obstacles” in this citation refer to defilements, evil karma, and painful retributions. The defilements are the obstacles arising from the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion; evil karma refers to the obstructions arising from wives and children; and the painful retributions are obstructions caused by the rulers of a country, parents, and others. Among the “four devils” that cause hindrances is the king of devils in the sixth heaven in the ream of desire. (Hori 2010, p.adapted)

The three obstacles and the four devils were Zhiyi’s way of cataloging all the various phenomena that can keep us from practicing Buddhism. The three obstacles consist of self-centered desires or defilements, the karma or unwholesome habits that arise from those defilements, and the painful consequences of such activity.

In Japanese Buddhism, the heavenly gods and benevolent deities (J. shoten zenjin), are the guardian deities (J. shugojin) who protect the practitioners of Buddhism. The calligraphic mandala that Nichiren inscribed to represent the “focus of devotion” (J. honzon) of the Origin Gate of the Lotus Sūtra includes representatives of different types of guardian deities. There are the four leaders of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth from chapter fifteen and who are given the specific transmission to spread the Lotus Sūtra in the Latter Age in chapter twenty-one; there are the bodhisattvas who represent the provisional teachings such as Medicine King, Beautiful Lord (S. Mañjuśrī), Universal Good (S. Samantabhadra), and Loving One (S. Maitreya); there are the two Knowledge Kings (S. vidyā-rājas) Immovable Lord (S. Acalanātha, J. Fudō) and Desire King (S. Rāgāraja; J. Aizen); there are the arhats who have received predictions of buddhahood like Śāriputra and Mahākāśyapa; there are the Vedic deities (S. deva) Brahmā, Indra, Sūrya (the sun god), Candra (the moon god), and Aruna (the morning star), and the four heavenly kings who guard the four quarters of the world; and there are even the two major Shintō gods (J. kamo Tenshō Daijiin (aka Amaterasu Ōmikami) and Hachiman (called the “Great Bodhisattva”). In addition, other beings that are not as exalted as celestial bodhisattvas or gods can also be considered guardians. In Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren specifically mentions the ten rākṣasas (vampire like women of Indian mythology) who appear in chapter twenty-six of the Lotus Sūtra. In that chapter, these rākṣasas and their mother, Hāriti (J. Kishimojin) bestow dhārāṇis for the protection of the practitioner of the Lotus Sūtra. On the calligraphic mandala, Nichiren also included the asura (a kind of titan or demon) and nāga (the dragons of Indian mythology) kings who appear in chapter one of the Lotus Sūtra among the congregation gathered to hear the Buddha’s teaching. Traditionally in Buddhism there are eight kinds of supernatural beings that are considered to be disciples of the Buddha and guardians of the Dharma. These eight are devas, nāgas, garudas (giant birds who prey on the nāgas), asuras, yakṣas (nature spirits), gandharvas (anthropomorphic equines), mahorāgas (pythons), and kiṃnaras (anthropomorphic avians). This group of eight is mentioned throughout the Lotus Sūtra. These are the beings that Nichiren is thinking of when he asks why he has not received divine protection.

Nichiren and his contemporaries accepted [the Lotus Sūtra] as a record of actual events in India at Vulture Peak. Today, we might have a little trouble accepting this testimony as valid simply because we do not view the Lotus Sūtra as a historical event or the verbatim record of a talk given by the historical Śākyamuni Buddha. Many people today may not even believe in rebirth, and so the dilemma of the two vehicles who cannot become bodhisattvas because they have cut themselves off from the cycle of birth and death may seem to be an imaginary or at least purely hypothetical problem. So what can we make of all of this if we do not accept these basic assumptions regarding the Mahāyāna sūtras as being the record of actual teachings and events or the metaphysical assumptions involved in the distinctions (or non-distinction) between the two vehicles and the One Vehicle?

I am of the opinion that those who wrote the Lotus Sūtra had themselves awakened to the highest truth that the Buddha had awakened to through their own faith and practice. They were monks (and perhaps nuns) who had awakened to a selfless compassion that went far beyond what they expected. Perhaps they had been striving to become arhats, or perhaps they were Mahāyānists who aspired to attain buddhahood in some distant time and place. In any case, when they attained awakening they realized that it cut through all their dualistic ideas, including the division between Hinayāna and Mahāyāna. They knew for themselves that all the teachings of the Buddha did not lead to lesser goals but to the very same awakening the Buddha had realized. I believe that the Lotus Sūtra is the literary expression of their insight and the supreme joy that they felt in the form of a great drama in which the Buddha reveals the One Vehicle teaching. When the sūtra says that Śāriputra “felt like dancing for joy” or that Śāriputra declares to the Buddha, “Today I have realized that I am your son, that I was born from your mouth, that I was born in [the world of] the Dharma, and that I have obtained the Dharma of the Buddha.” I hear the voice of those anonymous Mahāyāna monks (and perhaps nuns as well) voicing their joyful surprise at how they had awakened to the same truth to which the Buddha had awakened. All of the rhetorical flourishes and fantastic events of the Lotus Sūtra are by way of underscoring how momentous this awakening was, and how, for them, it surpassed any other teaching, whether Hinayāna or Mahāyāna, that they had heard. It does not worry me that the historical Buddha might not have spoken the exact words attributed to him in the Lotus Sūtra, nor do I worry that the Assembly in Space might not have literally occurred. What I think is marvelous is that more than 2,000 years ago the Buddha’s followers realized that all people were capable of attaining perfect and complete awakening of a Buddha and that all who heard the Dharma would embark upon the One Vehicle enabling them to do so. When we read, recite, ponder, and share the Lotus Sūtra I believe that we are reading, reciting, pondering and sharing the testimony of those long ago practitioners who had such a surprising and joyful awakening that surpassed every expectation and who furthermore had the conviction that their awakening was available to all people. More than two thousand years later the Lotus Sūtra enables us to share their faith, hope, and conviction regarding the true meaning of the Buddha’s teachings.

This is clearly the main point of the Trace Gate, or first half of the Lotus Sūtra. In chapter two of the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha begins the teaching of the One Vehicle. In the very first part of that chapter he speaks of the “ten suchnesses” which are the ten factors” in Zhiyi’s teaching of the “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment.” … [T]hese ten factors show what the ten realms have in common that allows them to contain one another as different states in the ongoing dynamic process of interdependent becoming. Since they contain one another, the realm of buddhahood is embraced by and embraces the other nine realms. This means that buddhahood is an integral part of all and is realizable by all. Knowing this, the Buddha used various skillful means to teach people how to realize the different goals that appealed to them, but his true intention was that all those he taught would realize their own buddhahood. After being requested to do so three times by Śāriputra, the Buddha then clarifies that the three vehicles of the śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas were taught as a form of skillful means and that in fact there is only the One Vehicle that leads all to buddhahood. From chapter two to chapter nine the One Vehicle is expounded in terms of the parable of the burning house, the parable of the wealthy man and his poor son, the simile of the herbs, and others. In chapter seven, the Buddha tells the assembly how he has been teaching them the Lotus Sūtra in his capacity as a bodhisattva as long ago as “three thousand dust mote eons.” In these chapters, the Buddha gave predictions of buddhahood to major śrāvaka disciples such as Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Mahākāśyapa, and many others, including his son Rāhula. In chapter thirteen he predicted buddhahood for his wife Yaśodharā, and his aunt Mahā-Prajāpatī who were also śrāvakas. Many of those the Buddha gave predictions too were arhats, those who had already cut off any ties to the world of birth and death and who therefore were not ever going to be reborn again. Throughout the Trace Gate the Buddha makes it very clear through plain statement, the use of parables, a past life story, and specific prophecies that even those who are following the way of the two vehicles will also attain buddhahood.