The two methods of embracing and subduing are said by Nichiren to be as incompatible as fire and water. ”The way of embracing is as different from the way of subduing as water is from fire. Fire dislikes water. Water hates fire. Those who embrace laugh at those who subdue. Those who subdue feel sorry for those who embrace.” (Murano 2000, p. 122 adapted). Nichiren quotes Guanding (562-632) as saying of Buddhist monks that in regard to the two methods of propagation: ”When the world is not peaceful, they should carry staves. When the world is peaceful, they should observe the precepts. They should choose one or the other according to the needs of the time. They should not constantly cling to either of the two.” (Murano 2000, p. 122 adapted) A choice is set up between the two contrasting methods. But how different, really, are the ways of embracing and subduing? Guandin’s statement underscores the matter of the precepts – those who follow the way of embracing will follow the precepts including the precepts against killing and fighting, whereas those who follow the way of subduing are to set aside the precepts and take up arms to defend themselves. From examining the passages cited in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra that are said to exemplify the ways of embracing and subduing it would appear that during a time when embracing is the correct method the laymen should follow the five precepts and the monastics should follow the monastic precepts and avoid violence of any kind. In addition, the monastics should stay away from people in power, refrain from criticizing others, practice meditation in seclusion, and only teach when approached by those respectfully seeking the Dharma. On the other hand, during a time when subduing is the correct method, the laypeople should set aside the five precepts (the first of which prohibits killing and violence) and take up arms to defend the True Dharma and the monastics who uphold it, while the true monastics are allowed to keep company with those who can defend them and, according to Guanding, even take up staves themselves. In addition, the true monastics should publicly roar the lion’s roar by actively preaching the Dharma, denouncing false teachings and corruption in the Sangha, and expound the universality of buddha-nature even to those who refuse to listen and may even react violently. The watery method of embracing is therefore the way of seclusion, meditation, and non-violence; whereas the fiery method of subduing is the way of publicly preaching the True Dharma to those who may be violently opposed to it and it allows for the taking up of arms for defense. These two ways would indeed seem to be contradictory.

The ways of embracing and subduing, however, are not entirely opposed. They both have the same aim: the expounding of the True Dharma. They are both based on the compassionate motivation to teach people that all beings are capable of realizing buddhahood. The exemplar of the way of subduing in

The Buddha rejected the view that everything is the result of karma on several occasions. In one such instance the wanderer Sivaka asks the Buddha about this:

“Master Gautama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gautama say about this?”

“Some feelings, Sivaka, arise here originating from bile disorders: that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.

“Some feelings, Sivaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders … originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance [of the three] … produced by change in climate … produced by careless behavior … caused by assault … produced as the result of karma: how some feelings arise here produced as the result of karma one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.” (Bodhi 2000, pp. 1278-1279)

In his reply to Sivaka, the Buddha asserts a variety of other causes and conditions besides karma that contribute to what is experienced in the present. In his book, Exploring Karma & Rebirth, Nagapriya explains the later analysis of this discourse in the commentarial tradition and how it places karma in the larger context of several different types of causality:

“While the schema outlined in the Moliyasivaka Sutta is a bit obscure, Buddhist scholastic philosophy (known as Abhidhamma) classified five modes – technically known as niyamas – of dependent origination. These modes are (1) physical inorganic (utu-niyama), (2) biological (bija-niyama), (3) non-volitional mental (mano- or cittaniyama), (4) ethical (kamma- or karma-niyama), and (5) spiritual (dhamma- or dharma-niyama).

“Examination of these niyamas can give us a better understanding of the scope and importance of Karma in human life. The utu-niyama embraces natural laws such as those of physics and chemistry. For example, when seeking an explanation for the occurrence of an earthquake we may be served better by the theory of plate tectonics than by the theory of Karma. The bija -niyama governs the physical organic order, including the laws of biology. For example, if I catch a cold it would seem more sensible to explain this by supposing the presence of a virus rather than by supposing ‘moral’ causes. The mano- or citta-niyama governs the laws of the mind and to some extent relates to psychology. The phenomenon of shock or post-traumatic stress may, for example, be best explained under this heading. The karma-niyama governs the sphere of volitional human conduct (including body, speech, and mind). In practice, it does not seem easy to separate the non-volitional and volitional mental spheres. The exact meaning of dharma-niyama and what it governs is not clear. A traditional account links it to miraculous events in the Buddha’s life, but it can also be thought of as the principle that underlies spiritual evolution. Seen in this way, the dharma-niyama explains the process by which we can transcend our selfishness, hatred, and ignorance and achieve generosity, compassion, and understanding. In traditional terms, it explains how it is that we can break free from the determining influence of Karma and rebirth and so put a stop on the wheel of perpetual re-becoming. It underlies the dynamics of spiritual development.

“A further way of thinking about the dharma-niyama is to see it as the ‘undeserved’ compassionate influence that someone may exert on our life. In other words, it is the impact of the saint on the world. The saint does not act towards others in accordance with their karma but deals compassionately with everyone, regardless of merit. (Nagapriya, pp. 36-38)

The Buddha’s general theory of dependent origination is as follows: “When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.” (Bodhi 2000, p. 575) This means that all things come to be only due to causes and conditions and have no inherent existence in and of themselves. These causes and conditions operate according to these five niyamas or categories of natural law, of which the law of karma is only one of the five, and all five interact with each other in order to bring about life as we experience it. As Nagapriya so eloquently explains:

“The five niyama analysis of experience shows that Karma is just one application of the general principle of dependent origination and, therefore, many circumstances and outcomes are likely to be governed by conditions only very indirectly related to Karma itself. But we should beware of seeing these different orders of conditionality as completely discrete. In reality, they are not five distinct orders of conditionality. This is only a map of what happens. Every experience comprises a vast network of conditions; our previous moral conduct will often have a bearing on our present experience, but in many situations non-moral factors may well exert a more decisive influence. The teaching of the five niyamas thus presents a more complex and subtle account of why things happen as they do than the crude view of Karma criticized above. We need also to remember that the actions of other people may be more decisive in any given situation that our own karmic stream; it may be their evil or their goodness that causes us to suffer or benefit, rather than our own.” (Nagapriya, p. 39)

Each situation we are faced with in life is brought about by many forces, in each present moment it us up to us to determine whether we will act in that situation in a wholesome or unwholesome way – mentally, verbally, and physically. We have the freedom to make a good cause or a bad cause in relation to whatever situation we are faced with. In each moment, our mental, verbal, and physical actions will change the way we relate to, interact with, and experience the situation for better or worse. The causes we freely make will also have an effect on the future, whether they come to fruition later in life or in some future life. While not all is determined by karma, karma is our own particular responsibility and a decisive factor in shaping the course of our lives.

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.

Before Zhiyi there had been a lot of debate about the true meaning of the Buddha’s teachings due to the contradictions found between the various sūtras and commentaries coming from India. Starting in the late fifth century, various attempts were made to reconcile the many teachings that were being translated. By Zhiyi’s time there were the so-called three schools of the south and seven schools of the north that each presented a different system for classifying the sūtras. These were not schools in the sense of sects or monastic orders, but rather differing schools of thought propounded by different monks. These schools arranged the sūtras into such categories as sudden, gradual, and indeterminate. Many of these schools favored the Flower Garland Sūtra or the Nirvāṇa Sūtra as the ultimate teaching of the Buddha.

Zhiyi critiqued these systems and presented his own system in the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra of the five flavors and eight teachings that showed how the teaching and practice of the other sūtras all led up to the Lotus Sūtra as the definitive expression of the Buddha’s ultimate teaching. This is what Nichiren is referring to in the following passage of the Kaimoku-shō:

The Buddhist texts, however, created three sects in South China and seven sects in North China. The controversies among them were furious. In the end, they were defeated by [T’ien-t’ai] Chih-che in the Ch’en (Chi) and Sui (Zui) dynasties. Accordingly, the priests of the ten sects stopped quarreling and resumed their mission to save the people. (Murano 2000, p. 16)

By introducing the bodhisattva vehicle with its six perfections, expounding the teaching of the emptiness of all dharmas, and providing the assurance that all beings have the buddha-nature the Mahāyāna sūtras advanced beyond the limited aspirations and world view of the Hinayāna teachings. According to Nichiren and his Tiantai predecessors, however, the Mahāyāna sūtras other than the Lotus Sūtra are only a provisional form of Mahāyāna with two important shortcomings.

The Flower Garland Sūtra, Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, and the Mahāvairocana Sūtra conceal not only the possibility of attaining buddhahood by adherents of the two vehicles but also Śākyamuni Buddha’s attainment of buddhahood in the remotest past. These sūtras have two faults. First, they still preserve the differences between the three vehicles; therefore, their teachings are merely expedient. They do not reveal the teaching of the three thousand worlds in one thought moment expounded in the first fourteen chapters of the Lotus Sūtra. Second they hold that Śākyamuni Buddha attained Buddhahood during his life in this world. (Murano 2000, p. 32 adapted)