By definition, a hagiography is an idealizing or idolizing biography. It’s not history. Threads of truth and threads of imagination are woven into a tapestry and pinned to the wall to encourage the faithful. But if the faithful recognize the hagiography for what it is, how are we to react?

Nichiren Shōnin offers a history Saichō, the Grand Master Dengyō, in his Ankoku-ron Gokanyurai, The Reason for Submitting the “Risshō Ankoku-ron” (Writings of Nichiren Shōnin, Doctrine 1, Pages 147-148):

The line of Japanese sovereigns, beginning with the seven generations of heavenly deities and five generations of terrestrial deities, is supposed to be followed by one hundred generations of human emperors (hyakuō). During the reign of the thirtieth human emperor, Emperor Kimmei, Buddhism was introduced for the first time from the country of Paekche on the Korean Peninsula to Japan. It has been over 260 years since then to the reign of Emperor Kammu, a reign of more than fifty sovereigns. During this period all the scriptures of Buddhism, as well as the six schools of Buddhism in Nara (Kusha, Jōjitsu, Ritsu, Sanron, Hossō and Kegon Schools) were introduced to Japan. Tendai and Shingon schools, however, were not.

“During the reign of Emperor Kammu, a poor monk, Saichō, a disciple of Venerable Gyōhyō of the Yamashinadera (Kōfukuji) Temple in Nara, lived. He was later called Grand Master Dengyō. Saichō studied thoroughly the doctrines of the six schools of Nara, which had been transmitted to Japan earlier, and Zen Buddhism without finding them satisfactory. Later he read the T’ien-t’ai school’s writings transmitted to Japan by Venerable Chien-chên (Ganjin) of T’ang China forty years or so earlier during the reign of Emperor Shōmu, and was awakened to the profound meaning of Buddhism.

Thereupon Saichō founded the Enryakuji Temple on Mt. Hiei in the fourth year of the Enryaku Period (785) in order to pray for peace and tranquility of the country. Taking refuge in the temple, Emperor Kammu named it the “Temple of the Imperial Guardian Star.” He gave up faith in the six schools of Nara, putting sole faith in the “perfect” Tendai School.

In the thirteenth year of the same Enryaku Period (794), the imperial capital was moved from Nagaoka to the newly founded city of Heian (Kyoto). On the nineteenth of the first month in the twenty-first year of the same period (802), the Emperor ordered fourteen scholars of the six schools of Nara, such as Gonsō and Chōyō, from seven great temples in the southern capital (Nara), to meet with Saichō in the Takao-dera Temple for debate. The brilliant scholars of the six schools could not answer even one question, keeping their mouths shut tightly.

The doctrine of five teachings of the Flower Garland (Kegon) Sect, the three-period teaching of the Dharma Characteristics (Hossō) Sect and the doctrines of two storehouses and three periods of the Three Discourses (Sanron) Sect were all refuted by Saichō. Not only were their doctrines destroyed but it also became clear that they were all slanderers of the True Dharma. Ten days later, on the twenty-ninth of the same month, an imperial edict was issued censuring the fourteen scholars of the six schools of Nara, who respectfully submitted a letter of apology to the emperor.

Again in Senji-shō, Selecting the Right time: A Tract by Nichiren, the Buddha’s Disciple (Writings of Nichiren Shōnin, Doctrine 1, Page 202-203), Nichiren Shōnin writes:

[D]uring the reign of Emperor Kammu, the fiftieth emperor, 800 years after the beginning of the Age of the Semblance Dharma, a monk called Saichō appeared, who was later known as Grand Master Dengyo. At first, he studied the six schools of Buddhism (Sanron, Hossō, Kegon, Kusha, Jōjitsu, and Ritsu) as well as Zen Buddhism from such masters as Bishop Gyōhyō. Meanwhile, he himself established the Kokushōji Temple (later renamed the Enryakuji Temple) on Mt. Hiei, where he checked basic sūtras and commentaries of the six schools against the interpretations by scholars of those schools. He found many discrepancies between interpretations of scholars and their basic sūtras and commentaries. Moreover, they produced so many false opinions that he felt that all those who believed in them would fall into the three evil realms (hell, realm of hungry souls, and that of beasts).

Besides, Saichō found that those scholars of the six schools each boastfully claimed mastery of the true teaching of the Lotus Sūtra without actually mastering it. He tormented himself thinking: “If I point this out, there will be disputes; if I keep silent, I will be going against the Buddha’s warning.” Fearful of the Buddha’s warning, he finally appealed to Emperor Kammu, who was astonished and ordered the scholars of the six schools to meet Saichō in debate. At the beginning their banner of self-pride waved as high as a mountain and their evil thoughts were more vicious than poisonous snakes. However, they finally had to surrender to Saichō in front of the Emperor, and the six schools and seven temples all became his disciples.

“A Buddhist Kaleidoscope: Essays on the Lotus Sutra,” published in 2002, includes an article by Nikkyō Niwano (1906-1999), the founder of Risshō Kōsei-kai. Niwano’s essay, “The Threefold Lotus Sutra: An Introduction,” was originally published in Japanese as part of Shinshaku Hokke Sambu-kyō (New Commentary on the Threefold Lotus Sutra) and translated into English for this book.

In discussing the history of Buddhism in Japan in his essay, Niwano writes:

Saichō established a temple called Ichijōshikan-in (later known as Komponchū-dō, the center of the Enryaku-ji temple complex) on Mount Hiei and made it his center for spreading the True Dharma, that is, the Lotus Sutra. His impressive learning and virtue earned him the trust of Emperor Kammu (781-806), who had moved the capital from Nara to Kyoto (then known as Heian-kyō) in 794, thus ushering in the long Heian period (794-1185). The emperor’s favor led to a dramatic increase in Saichō’s following, and the new Tendai sect flourished.

But the eminent priests of the Nara schools of Buddhism did not look kindly on Saichō’s popularity. How uncomfortable it must have made them to see this young man of only thirty or so gaining strength and support—and that in a new place rather than the traditional center of Japanese Buddhism, the old capital of Nara. Their opposition gradually became more overt, finally taking the form of political action. People who felt that this antagonism should not be allowed to fester any longer obtained the court’s permission for a debate between Saichō and representatives of the Nara schools on their positions and beliefs.

The debate was held at the temple Takaosan-ji (present-day Jingo-ji), in Kyoto, with Saichō facing more than ten leading Buddhist scholars of Nara. The entire party of Nara priests was won over by Saichō’s exposition of the wonderful teachings of the Lotus Sutra and conceded defeat. The excellent character of the Nara priests is evinced by the fact that after returning to the old capital they had representatives of the seven Nara schools send a letter to the emperor declaring that they had been made to realize the great worth of the Lotus Sutra. Their respect for the truth and their ability to humble themselves and acknowledge their error are admirable indeed.

With all of that history in mind, I was more than surprised to find nothing about a debate with the leaders of the Nara temples, let alone their defeat and surrender to Saichō’s Tendai school, in Paul Groner’s Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School.

Groner’s book, originally published in 1984 and reissued in 2000 with a new preface, is a footnote-filled scholarly look at Saichō’s effort to carve out a home for his new school in the state machinery that governed Buddhism in that period.

While there is no dramatic showdown at Takaosan-ji where the Nara establishment is soundly defeated, Groner details Saichō’s efforts to gain recognition for his school.

After Saichō submitted his works [to the emperor], the accuracy of his quotations from other texts was verified by the assistant director of the Bureau of Books and Drawings, Tamazukuri. Finding them correct, he forwarded them to the Sōgō (Offce of Monastic Affairs). The Eizan Daishiden reports that the Sōgō was completely overwhelmed by Saichō’s arguments and unable to reply. In fact, Gomyō had already decided to fight Saichō’s proposals through the normal channels, challenging them in the Sōgō and Genbaryō, rather than engaging in a public debate.

Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School, p156-157


While Saichō’s arguments can be said to have won this “debate,” it wasn’t until after his death that the fruits of that victory could be harvested.

On the fourth day of the sixth month of 822, Saichō died. His most influential lay patrons, Minister of the Right (udaijin) Fujiwara no Fuyutsugu, Vice Councilor (chūnagon) Yoshimine no Yasuyo, Provisional Vice Councilor (gonchūnagon) Fujiwara no Mimori, and Vice Controller of the Left (sachūben) Ōtomo no Kunimichi, submitted a petition to the Emperor requesting approval of the Shijōshiki (Regulations in Four Articles). Seven days after he died, Saichō’s request was granted. …

Saichō’s death had presented Fuyutsugu and Saichō’s other supporters with a chance to press for approval of the Shijōshiki. In addition, it had presented the court with an opportunity to grant Saichō’s request as a token of its grief at his passing. Thus the court was able to honor Saichō without allowing the Tendai School an undue advantage over the Nara schools. Approval of Saichō’s requests during his lifetime would have been the equivalent of court recognition of Tendai superiority.

Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School, p162-163


Just to check the history, I purchased a copy of John Stevens’ The Marathon Monks of Mount Hiei, which includes a lengthy history of Saichō’s efforts to establish the Tendai school in Japan. His version matched Groner’s. Success in creating a new school, but no debate, no public defeat on the Nara schools.

Personally I find the history of Saichō’s bureaucratic battle very inspiring. The victory may not have been as clean as the hagiography, but it can still encourage the faithful.