Even a cursory glance at Saichō’s biography and writings reveals that like most of his contemporaries, Saichō considered the protection of the state to be one of Buddhism’s chief functions. Japanese scholars during the first half of the twentieth century often emphasized the nationalistic side of Saichō’s belief, largely because of the incorrect view that Saichō was the very first person to use the honorific title Dainipponkoku for Japan.

Nara Buddhism had emphasized the protection of the state. The court expected this type of service from Buddhism, and Saichō did not disappoint the court officials. His petitions emphasized that Tendai monks would perform various activities to protect the nation and guard it from calamities, as the following passage from the Kenkairon demonstrates:

Thus I clearly know that contemplation, chanting, turning and reading (the sūtras) will serve as able generals who will protect the nation. I sincerely request that the two Japanese Tendai yearly ordinands (be allowed to) receive the bodhisattva precepts and thus become the treasures of the nation. As for the Esoteric teachings (based on the Tajih Ching), permit us to establish a building in which to perform Esoteric consecrations and practices. There we shall always chant and meditate on the sūtras to guard the state, as well as perform the goma ceremony. For Mahāyāna practices, we shall establish halls for the four types of (Tendai) meditation (shishu sanmai). Allow us to turn the sūtras for the nation, and to lecture on prajn͂āpāramitā. If these proposals are approved, then the One-vehicle precepts of the Buddha will not cease (being transmitted) over the years, and the students of the Perfect (Tendai) School will flourish. One hundred bodhisattva monks will be installed on the mountain.²⁶ Eight worthies who hold the precepts will pray for rain and easily obtain results.

In return for their efforts to protect the nation, Saichō and the Tendai School received financial aid and patronage from the nobility.

Note 26: Saichō proposed that one-hundred monks be installed on Mount Hiei to constantly chant the Jen wang Ching (Sūtra on the Benevolent King) and thereby the nation from calamities. His proposal was based on a similar plan submitted to the Chinese court by Amoghavajra

Chih-i had advanced the correct interpretation of the Lotus Sūtra’s One-vehicle teaching, but the T’ien-t’ai School had been eclipsed by the popularity of the Fa-hsiang School and its Three-vehicle teachings. However, even at the height of the Fa-hsiang School’s popularity and influence, Chinese monks who were versed in Yogācāra doctrine, such as Fa-pao and Lingjun, had argued for a One-vehicle interpretation of Buddhism. Eventually, the One-vehicle teachings of Fa-tsang’s Hua-yen School and the One-vehicle Esoteric teachings of Subhakarasirpha and Vajrabodhi received the support of the state, and the Three-vehicle teachings were vanquished. As Saichō declared in the Shugo kokkaishō: “The years during which the expedient (Three-vehicle teachings flourished) have already set with the western sun. The sun of the ultimate (teaching of the One-vehicle) will rise in the east (Japan).’

Saichō dated the rise of the One-vehicle teaching in Japan with the allocation of yearly ordinands to the Tendai School in 806. The date suggests that Saichō believed that he was the messenger who had brought the new teaching to Japan and that he was responsible for defending it.

Saichō believed that Japanese Buddhism was at a crucial point in its history. The Buddha’s ultimate teaching, the One-vehicle doctrine of the Lotus Sūtra had just been recognized by the Japanese court with the allocation of Tendai yearly ordinands by Emperor Kanmu. If this teaching was to flourish it had to be further encouraged. The Fan wang precepts played a key part in Saichō’s defense of the Tendai School. Second, Japanese Buddhism had traditionally been patronized by the court, and in turn, had performed ceremonies to protect the nation and court. Saichō redefined Nara state Buddhism by establishing the autonomy of the Tendai School and increasing the number of people to whom Buddhism appealed. The Fan wang precepts played a significant role in Saichō’s efforts to reform church-state relations.

Saichō was one of the first Buddhist monks in Japan to argue that certain of his teachings were better suited to the period of the decline of Buddhism than those of his opponents. He did not, however, use the advent of mappō as the primary factor in justifying his reforms as did some monks in the late Heian and Kamakura periods. For example, Saichō never argued that the Fan wang precepts should replace the Ssu fen lü precepts precisely because it was the Period of the End of the Dharma (mappō).

Saichō justified several of his proposals by referring to predictions of the decline of Buddhism. He argued that the changed circumstances of the current age required new forms of Buddhism. In proposing that Mañjuśrī should replace Piṇḍola as elder (jōza) in the dining halls, Saichō noted that:

At the end of the Period of the Imitated Dharma (zōmatsu), the four groups violate the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna precepts and turn against the Buddha’s teachings. The Hinayāna jōza (Piṇḍola) does not have enough power (to accomplish such feats as vanquishing the karmic consequences of wrongdoings). If you do not install Mañjuśrī as jōza in the dining halls, then you ignore the Dharma in India and go against the laws of China. To whom will you turn to escape the consequences of your violations of the precepts? How will you escape the fierce flames of Avici Hell?”

Elsewhere Saichō argued that serious monks should withdraw to the mountains to meditate. After quoting a passage from the Fa mieh chin Ching, which described the complete degradation of Buddhism,
Saichō asked, “If it is known that it is the time (of the decline of Buddhism), who would not go to the mountains (in order to practice in peace)?”
Saichō: The Establishment of the Japanese Tendai School, p173

Saichō believed that many of the descriptions of the decline of the Buddha’s teaching accurately depicted the corruption among Buddhist monks in Nara. The monks of Nara vied for fame and profit, rather than exerting themselves to attain enlightenment. They jealously criticized and persecuted any monk who seriously practiced Buddhist austerities. Saichō saw himself as the persecuted monk and the Nara monks as the corrupt Buddhists described in the sütras.

Although Saichō referred to the theories describing the decline of Buddhism in three periods, he did not attempt to reconcile the discrepancies between the various accounts of the decline. Nor did he discuss the chronology of the decline of Buddhism in his writings. Saichō’s disciple Kōjō, however, included a passage in the Denjutsu isshinkaimon that did give a chronology for the decline. The Period of the True Dharma (shōbō) lasted one-thousand years, and the Period of the Imitated Dharma (zōhō) would also last one-thousand years. Thus Kōjō noted that 806, the year Emperor Kanmu granted yearly ordinands to the Tendai School, was 1747 years after the Buddha’s death. Only two-hundred years remained before the final period of decline, that of mappō. Kōjō’s mention of a significant event in Saichō’s life, the bestowal of yearly ordinands, in his chronology suggests that Saichō also accepted this time table.

Predictions of the decline of the Buddhist teaching had played an important role in Indian and Chinese Buddhism. In China these predictions had been crucial to the development of Pure Land Buddhism and the Sect of the Three Stages. Buddhists representing these movements had argued that a new age in Buddhist history required new teachings. Other Chinese monks, such as Daoxuan, had responded to the threat of a decline in Buddhism by calling upon monks to faithfully follow established Buddhist practices, especially those specified in the precepts.

In Japan the idea of a decline in Buddhist teachings and practices was familiar to Japanese monks as early as the Nara period. Particularly popular was a theory which classified the deterioration of Buddhism into three stages: the Period of the True Dharma (shōbō), the Period of the Imitated Dharma (zōhō) and the End of the Dharma (mappō).

Of the various theories concerning the length of these periods, two were particularly well-known in China and Japan. According to the first, the Period of the True Dharma lasted five-hundred years and the Period of the Imitated Dharma lasted one-thousand years. By the eighth century, the Chinese and Japanese usually dated the death of the Buddha as occurring in 949 BC,⁵ thus the Nara and Heian periods corresponded to mappō.

Note 5: During the Six Dynasties, Chinese Buddhists moved the date of the death of the Buddha back in time from the fifth century BC to 949 BC in order to counter Taoist charges that the arrival of Buddhism had caused Chinese dynasties to be short-lived and to prove that the Buddha had lived before Lao Tzu. Eventually the date of 949 BC was accepted as the date of the Buddha’s death by most Chinese. By claiming that Buddhism had arrived in China shortly after the Buddha’s death, Chinese monks could argue that Buddhism had been taught in China during the long Chou Dynasty and thus had not adversely affected the longevity of Chinese dynasties.

Saichō believed that he was living at a time in history which required radical changes in Japanese Buddhism. His proposal to base monastic practice on the Fan wang Ching was only one part of a larger plan to reform Tendai Buddhism. Saichō envisioned Mount Hiei as an institution which would dispatch monks to the provinces to spread Tendai teachings as well as training them so that they could realize enlightenment during their current lifetime (sokushin jōbutsu).

In the Hokke shūku, Saichō argued that the Lotus Sūtra was the Buddha’s ultimate teaching and that it was appropriate for the Japanese people. In the following passage, Saichō mentioned some of the factors which he believed should be considered in determining the right doctrine and practice for the Japanese people.

If we speak of the age in which we live, it is the end of the Period of the Imitated Dharma and the beginning of the Period of the End of the Dharma. If we inquire about the land in which we live, it is to the east of China (in other words, Japan). … If we ask about the people to whom this teaching is to be preached, it is to those who are born in a time of strife during the period of the five defilements (gojoku).²

These same three factors, the age in which Saichō lived, the Japanese nation, and the capabilities of the Japanese people, decisively influenced Saichō’s understanding of the role which the precepts should play in Japanese Buddhism and led him to formulate a new interpretation of the precepts for Heian period Japan.

Note 2: The five defilements (gojoku) are described in the Lotus Sūtra (Hurvitz trans., p. 31). They consist of five characteristics of an age in decline. First, the age or kalpa itself was defiled. The time was such that the other four defilements tended to come into being. Second, passions (kleśa) such as covetousness, anger and ignorance arose in people. Third, all sentient beings who lived at such a time were defiled; because of past wrongdoings, people possessed inferior faculties and had weak bodies. Fourth, people maintained wrong religious views. They believed in heterodox teachings such as in the existence of an eternal soul. Fifth, the lifespan of people gradually shortened.

Saichō’s personality was crucial to his eventual success. In his retreat to Mount Hiei, his voyage to China, his debates with Tokuitsu and his pursuit of independence for the Tendai School, Saichō exhibited a single-minded seriousness of purpose. Throughout his life he stressed the importance of strict adherence to monastic discipline. In his quest for approval of the Shijōshiki and other petitions, he repeated his request almost every year. In approving his proposals, the court recognized that there was no element of self-seeking in Saichō’s reforms. A less serious monk would probably never have succeeded in obtaining approval for such a major revision of the precepts against so much opposition.

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.