One of the central teachings of the Lotus Sūtra is that during most of his life the Buddha preached expedient teachings for those with lesser faculties, but waited until the faculties of people had matured sufficiently before he preached his ultimate teaching, the Perfect teaching of the Lotus Sūtra, at the end of his life. As Saichō stated in the Hokke shūku, “The basic teaching of the One-vehicle (is not preached) until the proper time has arrived and (the audience) has the proper faculties. Only when their faculties have matured and the appropriate time has come does the Buddha preach it. Thus the Buddha waited until the Sudden faculties (tonki) of people had matured before preaching the One-vehicle Sudden Teaching.”

If a religious teaching is to be effective, it must be suited to the abilities and faculties of those to whom it is preached. If it is too profound for its listeners, they may be frightened by it and thus doubt their own abilities, or they may leave the assembly at which it is being preached. Even the earliest sūtras contain the idea that the Buddha adapted his teachings to fit the capabilities of his audience. The Buddha was often compared to a doctor who administered medicine to the sick. If the medicine (or doctrine) was not suited to their needs, it would not cure them. The Lotus Sūtra and the Hua yen Ching (Avatamsakasūtra) both contain passages which describe Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who did not have faculties sufficiently mature to understand the Buddha’s more advanced teachings. These passages played key roles in Chih-i’s systems of classification of Buddhist teachings. The Hua yen Ching was criticized because it made no allowances for the faculties of its listeners. It was thus considered an ineffective teaching for most people, leaving them as if they were ‘deaf and dumb.’ The Lotus Sūtra, in contrast, did consider the faculties of its audience. According to the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha waited until his listeners were ready to hear his ultimate teaching before preaching the Lotus Sūtra. Despite this, five-thousand people left the assembly at which the Buddha preached the Lotus Sūtra because of their “overweening pride.” On the basis of this passage, Chih-i was able to argue that the Nieh p’an Ching (Mahāparinirvāpasātra), traditionally regarded in China as the Buddha’s last sermon, had the function of saving these five-thousand monks and nuns. Chih-i thus classified the Nieh p’an Ching in the same period of the Buddha’s life as the Lotus Sūtra and noted that the Nieh p’an Ching included elements if the Perfect Teaching.

Saichō’s proposals led to government recognition of trends already present in Buddhism and thus enabled monks to approach the people even more closely. His efforts to defend the doctrinal basis for the participation of the common people in Buddhism were a crucial part of this change. In his works directed against Tokuitsu and the Hossō School, Saichō argued that all people had the Buddha-nature and could attain Buddhahood. Receiving the Fan wang ordination and adhering to the precepts were religious practices open to anyone. Anyone could receive a Fan wang ordination and anyone who had been correctly ordained could in turn confer the Fan wang precepts on others. The universal scope of the Fan wang precepts was due to the universality of the Buddha-nature.

Saichō envisaged a system in which Tendai monks would be trained for twelve years on Mount Hiei and then go to live in the provinces in order to perform good works, to preach, and to confer Fan wang ordinations. Saichō himself made two such trips: the first to Kyushu and the second to Kōzuke and Shimotsuke. On the second trip he is said to have performed ordinations. In addition, Mount Hiei was to be the center of a matrix of pagodas and temples which were to protect the emperor and the nation from harm. Observance of the Fan wang or Perfect precepts was to be a universal practice which could be used by the entire Japanese population. Thus the nation would be protected through the spread of the Perfect precepts (denkai gokoku).

Saichō tried to broaden Buddhism’s popular base in Japan. During the Nara period the court had promoted Buddhism as a religion of the elite. To a large extent, the Nara schools had not objected. In fact, the Hossō teaching that only some sentient beings possessed the seeds necessary for enlightenment contributed to these elitist attitudes. Monks were directed to stay in their temples and practice. The court believed that unrestricted contact with the populace could be subversive and thus discouraged it. The fifth article in the Sōniryō [rules regulating monks and nuns] stated:

Monks or nuns who are not residents of a monastery or temple and who set up (unauthorized) religious establishments and preach to congregations of the people shall be expelled from holy orders. Officials of provinces and districts, who are aware of such conduct but do not prohibit it shall be punished in accordance with the law. Persons desiring to beg for food must submit an application supported by the joint seals of their superiors through the provincial or district offices. The authorities may grant permission after they are satisfied that true ascetic practice is intended.

The twenty-third article read:

Monks, nuns, and others who send lay persons from house to house to exhort people with prayers and images shall be punished with one hundred days hard labor; the lay persons shall be dealt with according to the law.

The Sōniryō date from the early eighth century. In subsequent years they were supplemented by edicts under a number of emperors including Kanmu. In Saichō’s time, although the above two articles were still laws, they were largely ignored. Such sources as the Nihon ryōiki, compiled in the early ninth century, provide ample evidence that Buddhism was already spreading among the common people. The Nara monks did not choose to challenge Saichō’s plan to send Tendai monks out to the provinces to preach and assist with public works such as bridge building. They too were interested in this type of activity.

Saichō did not ask for complete autonomy for the Tendai School. Although he criticized the bureaucracy controlling the Buddhist schools, he readily accepted the principles of government control over the number of monks, government examination and certification of candidates for the order, and government issuance of identification certificates for novices and monks. The lay administrators (zoku bettō) too were appointed by the government, which could have resulted in direct government supervision of the Tendai School by laymen.

Saichō certainly could have criticized such supervision by the court as infringements on the autonomy of the Tendai School, but chose not to do so, probably because he was more concerned with the interference of Nara monks in Tendai affairs than with the possibility of interference from the court.

One of Saichō’s most important achievements in church-state relations was his clear demarcation of the areas in which monks could live and act. The testing, initiation, and ordination of prospective Tendai monks was no longer to take place in Nara and Kyoto but on Mount Hiei, where the new monks were required to spend the next twelve years. Tendai monks were to be concerned with religious, not political affairs; thus they would not give the court cause to interfere in monastic affairs.

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.