People were, and continue to be, put off by Nichiren’s prophetic warnings about the dire fate Japan faced of invasion by the Mongols if the Japanese people did not turn away from the provisional teachings and uphold the Lotus Sūtra. Nichiren was well aware that people thought he was just issuing hateful threats. His motivation was the compassionate one of correcting error so that people would not have to suffer such an invasion. To Shijō Kingo he wrote:

“When I say this, the ruler of the country might think that I am issuing threats, but I do not say this out of hatred. I say this out of compassion; I hope to save them from the torment of the Hell of Incessant Suffering in future lives by enduring light retribution in this life. Great Master Zhang’an states in his Annotations on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, ‘To remove the evil of another is to be like a compassionate parent. ‘ According to this I am the mother and father of the ruler of the country and the teacher for all the living beings. ” (Hori 2010, pp. 128129 adapted)

Nichiren felt that it was compassionate and kind to speak seemingly harsh words if it would get people to reconsider their positions, avoid slander, and embrace a more authentic path, whereas it was actually cruel to say only what is agreeable to the listener. In this Nichiren is in agreement with the Buddha who had advised that one should only speak in a timely manner what is true and beneficial, regardless of whether it is agreeable or not. What is agreeable should not be spoken if it is untrue or not of any benefit. In a letter attributed to Nichiren, the writer says:

“Even though one may resort to harsh words, if such words help the person to whom they are addressed, then they are worthy to be regarded as truthful words and gentle words. Similarly, though one may use gentle words, if they harm the person to whom they are addressed, they are in fact deceptive words, harsh words. (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p. 178)

People may question whether Nichiren was really compassionate or just dogmatic and self-righteous. That is something that no one can possibly judge. Obviously, those of us who are his modern-day followers give him the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word that his motivation was compassion, and that his denunciation of other monks was rooted in his earnest desire to correct error and proclaim the True Dharma. The important thing for us is to keep in mind that when we discuss Buddhism with others, we must always make sure that we are speaking out of compassion and not some lesser and more egotistic motivation.

One issue that I would like to address first is whether Nichiren was encouraging his followers to become belligerent and fight with those who refused to believe in the Lotus Sūtra in the same way they did. The answer is that he clearly did not. In fact, he even told them not to take up arms even if provoked. In response to the persecution of Nichiren’s lay followers in the village of Atsuwara, he sent a letter called Persecution Befalling the Sage (Shōnin Gonan Ji) to his follower Shijō Kingo. In that letter he wrote: “Even if they cause a commotion by taking up arms against my followers, we should not act likewise. If any follower of mine tries to take up arms, please send me his name at once.” (Hori 2008, p. 120) Nichiren was clearly opposed to violence on the part of his followers even in the face of provocation.

Simply to proclaim the Lotus Sūtra as the Buddha’s supreme teaching is itself to take up the way of subduing because it challenges the claims of the other sūtras that certain people cannot attain buddhahood or that the Buddha is no longer present and active in our lives. In refuting the provisional teaching, Nichiren felt that he was only following the Buddha’s example. In A Letter to Buzen-kō at the Jissōji Temple (Jissōji Gosho), Nichiren wrote:

“Whenever Śākyamuni Buddha, the Buddha of Many Treasures, and various buddhas from all over the universe preach the Lotus Sūtra, they first refute the provisional teachings by revealing the true teaching in order to cut off the audience’s attachment to the provisional teachings before leading them into the true teachings. Now, if you call me, Nichiren, who refutes the provisional teachings by the true teaching, blind, is Śākyamuni Buddha, too, blind? Are Tiantai and Dengyō blind teachers? It is laughable indeed. ” (Hori 2008, pp. 187-188)

Furthermore, the method of subduing, of refuting the shortcomings of other Buddhist teachings is to be taken up at the time when the other teachings have become preferred to the Lotus Sūtra. In the past, the other teachings were laying the groundwork for what is taught in the Lotus Sūtra, but in the Latter Age of the Dharma they become themselves objects of clinging that distract from the Lotus Sūtra or even turn people away from it. When this happens the time has arrived to use the method of subduing rather than that of embracing.

Nichiren’s argument for the need to use the way of subduing is developed further in the True Way of Practicing the Teaching of the Buddha (Nyosetsu Shugyō-shō).

“All those who want to practice Buddhism should know that there are two ways of propagation, embracing and subduing. All Buddhist scriptures, sūtras and commentaries must be propagated through these two ways. However, scholars in Japan today, though they seem to have learned Buddhism in general, do not know how to meet the needs of the time. The four seasons differ from one another. It is warm in summer and cold in winter, flowers bloom in spring and trees bear fruit and nuts in autumn. How can we harvest crops in spring by planting seeds in the fall? Heavy clothes are for the cold winter, not the hot summer. A cool breeze is needed in the summer and not in the winter.

“The same could be said of Buddhism. There are times when Hinayāna teachings can be spread effectively, and times when provisional Mahāyāna teachings might be more effective. Still other times might call for the True Dharma to be disseminated for the attainment of buddhahood. The two thousand year period following the death of Śākyamuni Buddha, namely the Ages of the True Dharma and Semblance Dharma, is the time for the Hinayāna and provisional Mahāyāna teachings to be spread. The five hundred year period at the beginning of the Latter Age of the Dharma is the time exclusively for the pure, perfect, only real teaching of the Lotus Sūtra to be disseminated. This is the time when quarrels and disputes are rampant, the True Dharma is hidden and the difference between the true and provisional teachings is blurred. It is said in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: ‘Arm yourself with swords, staves, and bow and arrows when there are enemies of the True Dharma; it is no use having them when there are no enemies.’ Provisional teachings today are enemies of the True Dharma. If provisional teachings stand in your way as you try to spread the One Vehicle teaching of the Lotus Sūtra, you should thoroughly refute them. Of the two ways of propagation, this is the way of subduing of the Lotus Sūtra. Great Master Tiantai declares in his Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra, fascicle nine: ‘The Lotus Sūtra is the teaching of subduing, the denouncing of the provisional teachings. ‘ How true this is!

In Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren describes the circumstances that determine which method should be followed, making it clear that in the Latter Age of Degeneration both ways must be applied depending on the circumstances. His concern was which method to apply to Japan at that time.

“So, when the land is full of evil and ignorant people, the way of embracing should take precedence as preached in the ‘Peaceful Practices’ (fourteenth) chapter of the Lotus Sūtra. However, when there are many cunning slanderers of the True Dharma, the way of subduing should take precedence as preached in the ‘Never Despising Bodhisattva’ (twentieth) chapter.

“It is the same as using cold water when it is hot and fire when it is cold. Plants and trees are followers of the sun, so they dislike the cold moon. Bodies of water are followers of the moon, so they lose their true nature when it is hot. As there are lands of evil men as well as those of slanderers of the True Dharma in this Latter Age of Degeneration, there should be both embracing and subduing as means of spreading the True Dharma. Therefore, we have to know whether Japan today is a land of evil men or that of slanderers in order to decide which of the two ways we should use.” (Hori 2002, p.111 adapted)

Nichiren further clarifies that according to Zhiyi (538-597) and Guanding, one must be sure of the conditions of the time and choose which method to use accordingly. What is the difference between “evil and ignorant people” and “cunning slanderers of the True Dharma”? By “evil and ignorant people” Nichiren means those who are ignorant of Buddhism and who commit unwholesome bodily, verbal, and mental actions without reference to Buddhist teachings. In a letter attributed to Nichiren, the author wrote of these kinds of people: “Paradoxical as it may seem, evil people who have not the least understanding of the principle of cause and effect and who are not dedicated to any Buddha whatsoever would appear to be the ones free from error with respect to Buddhism.” (WNDI, p. 173) Slanderers, on the other hand, are those who have heard the Dharma and in fact have become Buddhists, but they choose provisional teachings over the
True Dharma taught in the Lotus Sūtra and even reject the latter.

How did Nichiren understand [Nirvāṇa Sūtra stories of people killed for slandering the Mahāyāna]? In Risshō Ankoku-ron, Nichiren stated that while King Sen’yo and King Virtuous may have killed slanderers of the Dharma in the past, since the appearance of Śākyamuni Buddha the correct method is to simply deny them offerings. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra told those stories of the previous lives of Śākyamuni Buddha in order to emphasize the gravity of slandering the True Dharma and the great virtue of defending the True Dharma but such methods are not being advocated in the present. Instead, the withholding of alms and especially state support from corrupt monks and the support and protection of true monks should now be followed. In accordance with our current laws and the wise separation of church and state, I believe this means that each of us must discern what teachings or causes we should or should not support with our time and money and that the protection of the law should extend equally to all so that there will be no question of religious persecution arising from either the government or the actions of private individuals or institutions. Every religious or spiritual teaching should be free to stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof.