The Lotus SËtra and the Dialogue of Religions

Hiroshi Kanno

The Problem

I

N the contemporary world, the significance of the dialogue of civilizations and the dialogue of religions, which are the very foundation ofhuman civilization, is becoming ever greater. John Hick has advocated apluralistic approach, approving the equal value of religions in contemporary society, where it is unavoidable that many religions coexist.
Hick’s pluralism is a hypothesis designed to be a foundation for the dialogue of religions, an attempt to prevent harmful, useless fighting among
religions.
On the other hand, John Hick criticizes inclusivism for not renouncing the old exclusivist dogma.1 His pluralism can be called a certain kindof inclusivism, however, one that assumes “ultimate reality” as a central
concept. To speak metaphorically, there are a plurality of ways whichlead to the summit of a mountain. If that plurality of ways is comparedto the plurality of human religions and the summit of a mountain iscompared to the “ultimate reality” at which those religions aim, themetaphor is quickly applicable as an explanation of Hick’s concept ofpluralism.
However, what if the situation were that there is not only a single
mountain, but many peaks of various heights? We might imagine each
mountain having a unique command of its own beautiful scenery, eachwith its independent and original value. If our goal is to explain a pluralism which affirms the diversity of religions, I think that this image ismore appropriate than that of a multiple paths to the summit of a single
ultimate reality. It is in this understanding that true affirmation of thedifferences between religions originates. I personally take my own
stance in just a such pluralism.
On the other hand, many actual followers of specific religions seem to
be without any feelings of harmony with any sort of religious pluralism,
whether it is Hick’s variety or mine. I think that it is quite difficult forardent and faithful devotees of any one religion to take a pluralistic
stance. I do not at all think that such devotees are unenlightened people
139

140

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

who cannot understand pluralism, and whom we should criticize forbeing ignorant. Rather, such devotees are likely to pour out their energies into a wide variety of real achievements, in global ethics, world
peace, social justice, etc. They make very substantial contributions to
the world and their fellow humans without the least regret, and we needappreciate their efforts even though they are based on non-pluralistic
viewpoints. Therefore, I cannot avoid discounting the meaningfulness of
Hick’s pluralism for some kinds of followers. If they can share withother certain secular values, such as respect for human rights and protection of global environment, even though they fall into groups whose
inclusivism is criticized by Hick, I think they can justifiably sit at a tableof dialogue of religions along with the rest of humanity.
Keiji Hoshikawa has stated that “awareness of the limits of the humanability to recognize truth” should be the basis of religious tolerance,2 andthis position is entirely appropriate. However, the history of religions
indicates that some kinds of faith were established on entirely transcendental bases such as revelations deriving from God or the enlightenment
experiences of the founders of religions, which were entirely beyond theaccess of ordinary humans. How shall we overcome this unbridgeable
gulf? Even though to take a stance in such extreme exclusivism makes it
difficult to join the dialogue of religions, each individual may choose toaccept the transcendental component of his or her religion’s doctrines.
However, if in the dialogue of religions some people directly express tofollowers of other religions their beliefs, which accept the transcendental component of their religions, it might be difficult to expect theirunderstanding from those dialogue partners. I think rather that weshould try to communicate with others by means of ordinary spoken languages and terminology that lies within the range of our own recognition, as well as our own experiences. Anyone being able to do so, eventhose whose standpoint is exclusivist, can participate in at least certain
themes within the dialogues of religions.
As for the many of serious problems now facing the human race suchas global environmental destruction, the rapid increase in world population, and issue of food supply, etc., I think that scientific and socialpolitical methods are the most important for their solution. However,even though solutions are shown to people, national and racial chauvinism, not to mention simple human greed, sometimes renders such solutions less than easily accepted. As long as followers of religions occupy
a considerable proportion of the world population and religions provide
guidance for their followers, religions are expected to share their knowledge of the serious problems facing the human race and their solutions,THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

141

to undertake the role of teachers of such knowledge to their followers,
and in general to wield their influence broadly to solve those problems.
The dialogue of religions is in fashion at present. However, instead of
only swimming with the current of the times it is necessary for us toexcavate the meaning and the spirit of the dialogue of religions on thebasis of each of our various religious traditions. Otherwise, the dialogue
of religions is likely to become a superficial performance, and there iseven the danger of declining into an unprincipled adaptability. This
paper aims to enable followers of the Lotus SËtra to deepen their understanding of the problem of dialogue of religions as well as to make itpossible for other people to understand the Lotus SËtra.3

1. The Idea of the “One Vehicle” in the Skillful Means
Chapter of the Lotus Sūtra
The sËtras of Indian Mahåyåna Buddhism were generated one after
another over a period of about a thousand years, beginning around thefirst century before the common era (hereafter BCE). Although the passage of hundreds of years from the death of Íåkyamuni Buddha wasnecessary before the specific content of early (i.e., pre-Mahåyåna) Buddhist sËtras was finally fixed, the general dimensions of that content had
been virtually fixed since shortly after the Buddha’s lifetime.4 In contrast, Mahåyåna sËtras continued to develop new Buddhist ideas, under
the assumption that they should aim at creative religious development
based on interpreting the fundamental intention of the Buddha according
to the needs of the given age and region. Generally speaking, some criticisms of established ideas must be included in the background of any
articulation of new ideas. How did the Lotus SËtra comprehend the pasthistory of Buddhism and thereby generate its own distinctive standpoint? This problem is related to the position of the Lotus SËtra in thehistory of Indian Buddhism. There will presumably be no objection to
the suggestion that the doctrine of the Lotus SËtra most directly related
to this problem is the idea of the “one vehicle” expounded in the Skillful
Means Chapter. The concept of the “one vehicle” is also the most
famous doctrine of the Lotus SËtra. Allow me to explain its meaning by
introducing the story of the Skillful Means Chapter.
In the Introduction Chapter of the Lotus SËtra Íåkyamuni Buddha
enters into the samådhi of the place of immeasurable meanings and thenin the sequential Skillful Means Chapter he arises from that samådhi andaddresses Íåriputra. After praising the greatness of the wisdoms of the
Buddhas, he states, “The true characteristics of all the dharmas (i.e.,

142

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

supreme merits which are perfected by the Buddhas and compose theBuddhas’ spiritual stage) can only be understood and shared between
Buddhas.”5 Then, Íåriputra asks the Buddha three times to preach theteaching. When the Buddha begins to preach in response, five thousand
arrogant monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen leave the assembly, refusing to listen any longer.6 At the time the Buddha does not stop themfrom withdrawing, and he states that it was well that these persons ofoverbearing arrogance had withdrawn, so that his assembly was now
made up solely of the steadfast and truthful. He then elucidates the reason why he emerged in this world.
Íåkyamuni Buddha states that the Buddhas of three times, including
himself, emerge in the world for the purpose of accomplishing one single important task. This task is to open the door of Buddha wisdom7 toall living beings, to show the Buddha wisdom to them, to cause them toawaken to the Buddha wisdom, and to induce them to enter the path of
Buddha wisdom. In other words, the scripture clearly states that the
Buddhas emerge in the world to make all living beings become Buddhas.
To make all living beings become enlightened shows that even voicehearers and pratyekabuddhas can become Buddhas, even those who
gave up the supreme aim of becoming Buddhas and instead directed
their efforts at the lesser goals of becoming either an arhat or a pratyekabuddha.
This statement concerning the “one single great reason” is a direct
expression of the idea of the “one vehicle,” and it is one of the mostimportant religious messages of the Lotus SËtra. In the following Simile
and Parable Chapter, gods in the assembly say about this message, “In
the past at Våråˆas¥ the Buddha first turned the wheel of the Law. Now
he turns the wheel again, the wheel of the unsurpassed, the greatest Law
of all” (T no. 262, 9.12a15–17; Watson, p. 54). This statement compares
the teaching of the ‘one vehicle’ of the Lotus SËtra with the first turningof the wheel of the Law at Deer Park (M®ga-dåva) in Våråˆas¥ (modern
Benares). On that earlier occasion, the Buddha accepted Brahmå’srequest and went to Deer Park to teach the five practitioners who had
been his friends in religious training, expounding the middle way transcending self-indulgence and self-mortification, the four noble truths,
and the eightfold right path. This occasion is widely known as the first
turning of the wheel of the Law; and in contrast the preaching of the“one vehicle” in the Skillful Means Chapter of the Lotus SËtra is
described as the second turning of the wheel of the unsurpassed Law.
If the aim of the emergence of Íåkyamuni Buddha is to enable all liv-THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

143

ing beings to become enlightened, the problem develops of why the
Buddha preached the vehicles of voice-hearer and pratyekabuddha, who
aim at the goal of arhatship and pratyekabuddhahood, respectively. The
Lotus SËtra explains that before the Buddha expounded the Lotus SËtra,he taught three different types of teaching for three different types ofpractitioners, the voice-hearers, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas,
respectively. That is, the four noble truths, the twelve-fold chain of causes and conditions, and the six påramitås constituted three different setsof doctrines and practices leading to the states of arhat, pratyekabuddha,
and Buddha. Furthermore, the Lotus SËtra reveals that the Buddha’s previous assertions of the existence of three different teachings were only
expedient and not of absolute truth value. In other words, the LotusSËtra explains that the Buddha could not preach the teaching that anyone can become enlightened immediately after his own achievement of
Buddhahood, because the spiritual capacities of the voice-hearers andpratyekabuddha practitioners in his congregation at the time were dull.
He caused them to mature spiritually and educated them through use of
the lesser teachings of the vehicles of voice-hearer and pratyekabuddha,in accord with their religious abilities.
However, for the voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas themselves the
expedient nature of the teachings they received was a secret to the end,
and they remained convinced that teachings which had been given themwere true. At this stage the teachings presented by the Buddha areregarded as true by the disciples, for whom the comparison between trueand expedient does not exist at all. Next, the Lotus SËtra reveals for the
first time that the statement that there are three different teachings isitself only an expedient. Therefore, the vehicles of voice-hearer andpratyekabuddha are only expedient and provisional teachings, and thecategories of voice-hearer and pratyekabuddha do not represent permanently fixed types of practitioner. When such beings become mature andare sufficiently educated, they are said to become bodhisattvas and finally to attain Buddhahood. This teaching, which enables all living beings
to attain Buddhahood, is called the “Buddha vehicle” (Buddha-yåna)and indicates the Lotus SËtra itself. Therefore, since there is ultimately
only the Buddha vehicle, it is called “one vehicle” (eka-yåna), or also,
combining the two terms, the “one Buddha vehicle” (eka-Buddha-yåna).
This is the idea of ‘the three vehicles as expedient and the one vehicle asreal’, which in the specialized terminology of Chinese exegetical discourse becomes “elaborating the three to reveal the one” (kaisan xianyi
開三顯一).
That is how the Lotus SËtra arranges and evaluates the previous histo-

144

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

ry of Buddhism, and how from this standpoint it explains its own novel
doctrine of the “one vehicle.”

2. The Interpretation of the “One Vehicle,” and Exclusivism,
Inclusivism, and Pluralism
From the explanation just given of the idea of the “one vehicle” in the
Skillful Means Chapter, we can see that the one vehicle is related to thethree vehicles of voice-hearer, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva. Before
considering the relationship between the one vehicle and the three vehicles, let me explain the relationship between the bodhisattva vehicle as it
occurs in the three vehicles and the Buddha vehicle. According to the
Lotus SËtra, the bodhisattva vehicle indicates the Mahåyåna sËtras
before the Lotus SËtra, while the Buddha vehicle indicates the LotusSËtra itself. Historically, there appeared two different interpretations,that the bodhisattva teaching is equivalent to the Buddha vehicle andthat the Buddha vehicle is superior.8 In my understanding, the bodhisattva vehicle (great vehicle) in the three vehicles is related to the two vehicles of voice-hearer and pratyekabuddha (the lesser vehicles), while thatof Buddha transcends the polarity of the two vehicles and the bodhisattva vehicle. On this basis, the bodhisattva vehicle should not be merely
equated with the Buddha vehicle. From the standpoint of the LotusSËtra, voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas should awake to being bodhisattvas themselves, while bodhisattvas, for whom the bodhisattva
vehicle is preached, should not contest with voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas, but rather maintain a profound discernment that voice-hearers
and pratyekabuddhas are actually practicing the way of the bodhisattva.
Therefore, voice-hearers, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas, for whom
the three vehicles are preached, are states of existence which all demand
personal transformation.
By the way, even though the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism,
and pluralism, which John Hick set forth with regard to how relations
between religions are understood, are flawed to the extent that they are
only very rough frameworks, it cannot be denied that they have a certain
conceptual effectiveness.9 At this point, I will suggest the possibility ofcertain different interpretations of the one vehicle based on the expedient use of this framework. The first and second of the following interpretations appeared in the history of Buddhism, but the third is only atheoretical possibility implied by pluralism and has not appeared in history.

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

145(1) The first interpretation of the one vehicle: The three vehicles arepreached for the sake of the one vehicle as preparatory teachings tothat one vehicle; it is only at the stage where the one vehicle isexplicitly preached that the three vehicles should be abandoned as
obsolete.
In this case, only the one vehicle of the Lotus SËtra stands transcendent above all other teachings, and all those other teachings are
denied as useless. Hence this first interpretation can be described as
exclusivist.
Concretely, the Skillful Means Chapter states, “Now I, joyful andfearless, in the midst of the bodhisattvas, honestly discarding skillfulmeans, will preach only the unsurpassed way” (T no. 262,
9.10a18–19; Watson, pp. 44–45). This statement emphasizes thediscarding of all skillful means.10 Also, concerning the problem offor whom the Lotus SËtra should be preached, the exclusivist attitude toward people who prefer sËtras other than the Lotus SËtra, as
well as non-Buddhist texts, is shown in the Simile and Parable
Chapter.11(2) The second interpretation: If three vehicles insist on the ultimate
truthfulness of their own doctrines, they should be strictly criticized.
However, at the stage where the one vehicle is clearly preached, if
three vehicles recognize their own expediency their doctrines can beappreciated as teachings preparatory to the one vehicle, so that those
expedient teachings may ultimately be included in the one vehicle.
In other words, the idea of the “one Buddha vehicle” implies not
only that we should abandon all the teachings which the Buddha
expounded before the Lotus SËtra—since they are merely provisional expedients—(corresponding to the first interpretation), but alsothat those very same teachings become revitalized once again if we
recognize both their limitations and their advantages as skillfulteachings (corresponding to the second interpretation). Here “skillful means” has two aspects. One is to severely reject teachings otherthan those of the Lotus SËtra, while the other is to revitalize those
non-Lotus teachings once again. The second interpretation can be
described as inclusivist because the one vehicle includes all otherteachings.12
In a previous paper,13 I considered some of the teachings of the
Lotus SËtra relating to its inclusivism, and I claimed that the LotusSËtra is basically inclusive, even though it can also be said to be
exclusive or pluralistic according to different interpretations. Here I

146

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

will not repeat that detailed explanation, but restrict myself to merely listing the issues involved: (a) the idea that even “trivial goodactions lead to the attainment of Buddhahood;”14 (b) the Arhat PËrˆais regarded as a bodhisattva inwardly while appearing outwardly asa voice-hearer; (c) the Lotus SËtra is said to teach only bodhisattvas
and regard all living beings as bodhisattvas; (d) Bodhisattva Never
Disparaging carried out the practice of paying respect to all living
beings as future Buddhas15; and (e) on the basis of the story of theEmergence of the Treasure Tower Chapter, the Lotus SËtra integrates various Buddhas into the one Buddha Íåkyamuni in terms ofspace, and on the basis of the story of the Life Span of the Thus
Come One Chapter, it integrates various Buddhas into the one Buddha Íåkyamuni in terms of time.16(3) The third interpretation: When the one vehicle is considered as universal truth that transcends even Buddhism itself, this interpretation
may come close to pluralism. In this case the relationship between
the one vehicle and pluralism becomes the main topic, and accordingly the relationship between the one vehicle and other religions
becomes problematic, while the conflict of the one vehicle and thethree vehicles is not a problem any more. It is certainly possible to
make the interpretation that the one vehicle aims at universality, inthe sense of having transcended all the distinctions of country, race,
gender, and culture, etc. However, even though the one vehicle aims
at all living beings’ attainment of Buddhahood, it will be regarded
as a kind of the inclusivism from the standpoint of Buddhism
because its ultimate aim is expressed in the terminology of the“attainment of Buddhahood.”
Now if we describe “Buddha,” the goal at which Buddhism aims,
as an ideal state possessing human values that are more universal
than Buddhism, what does this imply? This conception may comeclose to being pluralistic.17 However, this is merely my attempt toapproximate John Hick’s standpoint, which espoused pluralism byrephrasing various expressions of salvation in different religious traditions as “the actual transformation of human life from self-centredness to Reality-centredness.”18
I think that although different interpretations remain possible, thefundamental standpoint of the Lotus SËtra is close to inclusivism. In
the history of Indian Buddhism, the Lotus SËtra tried to establish a
new Buddhist doctrine that all living beings can attain Buddhahood.
It did so by generating a novel doctrine of the one vehicle, evenTHE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

147

while recognizing the role played by previous Buddhist doctrines. If
we participate the dialogue of religions from this standpoint of the
Lotus SËtra, which attitude shall we take? Does the Lotus SËtra give
us some indicators?

3. The Lotus Sūtra and the Dialogue of Religions—The Four
Easeful Practices and “Room, Robe, and Seat of the Thus
Come One”
In Buddhist sËtras such as the Lotus SËtra, the contents are composed of
dialogues between the Buddha and his disciples. We cannot say that
there is equality in the level of enlightenment and practices given thenatural differences between a teacher and his or her students. In otherwords, the dialogue that takes place between the Buddha and his disciples is not one between individuals standing on equal footings, which is
the most important foundation of true dialogue. Therefore, in somewider sense it may be possible to learn the spirit of dialogue from theLotus SËtra, but it would be quite difficult to seek in the text for guidelines that would be applicable to the modern dialogue of religions. Nevertheless, we need to consider this problem a little further, taking up thefour easeful practices of the Easeful Practices Chapter and the “room,
robe, and seat of the Thus Come One” of the Dharma Preacher Chapter.
Even though the four easeful practices are emphases for spreading theLotus SËtra in the evil age after Íåkyamuni Buddha has entered nirvåˆa,they are worth referring to for those of us engaged in the dialogue of
religions.19 Actually, the names of the four easeful practices do notappear in the Lotus SËtra itself, and the exegetes’ usages for them differ.
According to the Fahua wenju 法華文句 of Zhiyi and Guanding 灌頂, forexample, they refer to body, mouth, mind, and vows, respectively.20
At the beginning of the Easeful Practices Chapter, Mañjußr¥ asksÍåkyamuni Buddha, “In the latter evil age, [after the Buddha has enterednirvåˆa], how should bodhisattva mahåsattvas go about preaching thissËtra?” (T262, 9.37a10; cf. Watson, p. 196). The Buddha replies, “Ifbodhisattva mahåsattvas in the latter evil age wish to preach this sËtra,they should abide by four practices” (T262, 9.37a12–13; cf. Watson, p.
196). He then proceeds to explain the meaning of these four practices,which came to be known as the four easeful practices.
The first is the easeful practice of body. We find in it the terms “locus
of practice or action” (行處) and “locus of associations” (親近處). “Locusof practice” refers to the repertoire of activities or practices appropriate
to the bodhisattva, while “locus of associations” refers to the sphere and148

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

forms of social interaction appropriate to the bodhisattva. As for the“locus of practice or action,” the sËtra states:
If a bodhisattva abides firmly on the ground of forbearance when facedwith humiliation (住忍辱地), if he or she is gentle and congenial (柔和),skilled at accommodating and bringing others into compliance (善順 ),not given to impulsiveness (不卒暴), and never alarmed in mind (心不驚 ); if, furthermore, he or she performs no [discriminatory] act withrespect to phenomena (於法無所行), but contemplates the true characterof all phenomena (觀諸法如實相); if he or she also does not act with orengage in non-discrimination (亦 不 行 不 分 別 ), then this is called thelocus of practice or action appropriate to the bodhisattva mahåsattva (Tno. 262, 9.37a14–17; Watson, p. 197).

Next, there are two categorical distinctions with respect to the “locus of
associations or interactions appropriate to the bodhisattva.” The firstseeks to delimit the sphere of social interactions, with particular attention given to behavior in unavoidable situations of social intercourse.21
The second involves thoroughgoing realization of the emptiness of existence.
The second is the easeful practice of the mouth. It shows a central
preoccupation with words and speech. As described in the sËtra,When he opens his mouth to expound or when he reads the sËtra, heshould not delight in speaking of the faults of other people or scriptures.
He should not display contempt for other teachers of the law or speak ofother people’s tastes or shortcomings. With regard to the Voice-hearers,
he should not refer to them by name and describe their faults, or namethem and praise their good points. Also he should not allow his mind to
become filled with resentment and hatred. Because he is good at cultivating this kind of peaceful mind, his listeners will not oppose his ideas.
If he is asked difficult questions, he should not reply in terms of the lawof the Lesser Vehicle. He should explain things solely in terms of theGreat Vehicle so that people will be able to acquire wisdom of allmodes [of existence] (T no. 262, 9.38a1–7; Watson, pp. 201–202).

The third is the easeful practice of mind. It concerns mental dispositions. As described in the sËtra, the bodhisattva
must not harbor a mind marked by jealousy, fawning or deceit. And hemust not be contemptuous of or revile those who study the Buddha-way
or seek out their shortcomings. “If there are monks, nuns, laymen, or
laywomen who seek to become voice-hearers, seek to become pratyek-

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

149

abuddhas, or seek the bodhisattva way, one must not trouble them bycausing them to have doubts or regrets, by saying to them, ‘You are far
removed from the way and in the end will never be able to attain wisdom of all modes [of existence]. Why? Because you are self-indulgent
and willful people who are negligent of the way!’ Also one should
never engage in frivolous debate over the various doctrines or dispute or
wrangle over them. With regard to all living beings one should think ofthem with great compassion. With regard to the Thus Come Ones, thinkof them as kindly fathers; with regard to the bodhisattvas, think of themas great teachers. Toward the great bodhisattvas of the ten directions at
all times maintain a serious mind, paying them due reverence and obeisance. To all living beings preach the Law in an equitable manner.
Because a person is heedful of the Law, that does not mean one should
vary the amount of preaching. Even to those who show a profound love
for the Law one should not on that account preach at greater length” (Tno. 262, 9.38b3–14; Watson, pp. 203–204).

The fourth is the easeful practice of vows. The sËtra states,
Toward the believers who are still in the household or those who haveleft the household they [who accept and embrace the Lotus SËtra]should cultivate a mind of great compassion, and toward those who are
not bodhisattvas they should also cultivate a mind of great compassion,and should think to themselves: These persons have made a great error.
Though the Thus Come One as a skillful means preaches the Law inaccordance with what is appropriate, they do not listen, do not know, do
not realize, do not inquire, do not believe, do not understand. But
although these persons do not inquire about, do not believe and do notunderstand this sËtra, when I have attained anuttara-samyak-saµbodhi,
wherever I happen to be, I will employ my transcendental powers andthe power of wisdom to draw them to me to cause them to abide in thisLaw (T no. 262, 9.38c5–11; Watson, p. 205).

The sËtra emphasizes that we should cultivate a mind of great compassion toward all living beings and that we should vow to save them by the
Lotus SËtra.
I think the following three lessons can be gained from the four easefulpractices as a mental attitude that advances the dialogue of religions, if
participating in the dialogue of religions from the standpoint of the
Lotus SËtra. The first is to be based on the realization of emptiness,
which is a basic ontology of Mahåyåna Buddhism. This shows that weregard our own religion and other religions not as unchangeable and150

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

fixed but as changeable and fluctuating. I think it is important for us totake an open attitude to our own transformation which might appear
through the dialogue. In Buddhism, a gentle and calm attitude to others
should be based on the realization of emptiness.
The second is to pay respect to other religions, not to excessively criticize others, and not to prefer doctrinal controversy in the dialogue of
religions. Otherwise, it will become impossible for various religions tosit at the same table of dialogue.
The third is that the dialogue of religions exists for the sake ofapproaching solutions for the serious problems of our global society,even if that progress only consists of small steps based on the cooperation of various religions, and that in the foundation of the dialogue
therefore must be our vows and dedication to compassion, which willbring peace and happiness to all of humanity.
When interpreted in this way, we find that the emphases of the Easeful Practices Chapter are shared in the “room, robe, and seat of the Thus
Come One” expounded in the Dharma Preacher Chapter.22 The Dharma
Preacher Chapter states that after the Thus Come One has enterednirvåˆa, those who wish to expound the Lotus SËtra for the four kinds offollowers should enter the Thus Come One’s room, put on the Thus
Come One’s robe, sit in the Thus Come One’s seat, and then expoundthe Lotus SËtra. The “Thus Come One’s room” is nothing less than thestate of mind that shows great pity and compassion toward all of humanity. The “Thus Come One’s robe” is the very mind that is gentle and forbearing. The “Thus Come One’s seat” is the ultimate emptiness of all
phenomena.23
In Mahåyåna Buddhism, the realization of emptiness is based on right
wisdom. As wisdom and compassion are the two main qualities of a
Buddha, we can say that bodhisattvas aiming at the attainment of Buddhahood are beings who seek to achieve wisdom and compassion.
Moreover, because various difficulties are prefigured when bodhisattvas
play active roles in the real society, forbearance becomes very necessary.
Needless to say, the foundation of this forbearance is none other than
wisdom and compassion. It is presumably common knowledge that theperfection of forbearance is included in the six påramitås (the six perfected practices of almsgiving, keeping the precepts, forbearance, assiduousness, meditation, and wisdom).

4. Conclusion
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, my own personal stance isTHE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

151

to affirm the independent value of each religion. However, considering
the importance of the dialogue of religions, we should exclude neither
inclusivists nor exclusivists, so as best to remove the obstacles to theunderstanding of one another’s religions and to promote mutual understanding. Through such dialogue it will become possible for members ofthe various religions to associate with each other for the purpose of solving the very serious problems of the modern world, and even at times toreveal hitherto unrecognized potentialities within each religion to its
adherents, thus facilitating a deepening of our own religions; on the contrary, we can rather expect that such transformations will lead to theenrichment of our own religious lives.
From the standpoint of the Lotus SËtra, the vitalization of the dialogue of religions as a method to solve the serious problems of our
globe, a task that is vitally important to contemporary society, is intimately connected to the vows and compassion of bodhisattvas. Furthermore, in our actual exchanges, we will all benefit from the realization of
emptiness and the spirit of forbearance. Even though the suggestion thatforbearance will contribute to the dialogue of religions may seem a little
strange, forbearance is very important in the removal of obstacles tomisunderstanding and the patient promotion of mutual understanding.
This is especially the case when people of various religions, who have
either had no mutual historical relationship or who have experienced
long histories of marked confrontation, are sitting at the same table toengage in dialogue. It would be possible to cite many examples frominternational conferences that would eloquently describe such situations.
In addition, it should bear noting that forbearance cannot become real
and true if it is not based on wisdom and compassion.
Finally, in the parable of the three kinds of medicinal herbs and two
kinds of trees of the Parable of Medicinal Herbs Chapter of the LotusSËtra, we also find the message that we should respect and praise differences and diversities of human beings.24 The content of this parable isvery simple. Dense clouds spreading throughout the sky send down rainequally and saturate the ground everywhere, so that each of the various
plants (the three kinds of medicinal herbs and two kinds of trees) growup according to its particular species and nature. The “three kinds of
medicinal herbs and two kinds of trees” are little, middle-sized, and big
medicinal herbs, and big and small trees. The little herbs are compared
to ordinary people and heavenly beings, and middle-sized herbs arecompared to persons of the two vehicles. Big herbs, small trees and big
trees are compared to three ranks of bodhisattvas.25
The thrust of this parable is that (1) the Buddha’s preaching is equally

152

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

available to all; (2) there is great diversity in living beings; (3) the Buddha does not immediately preach comprehensive wisdom at the beginning of his teaching career; and (4) it is ultimately in the Lotus SËtra
that the Buddha enables living beings to reach comprehensive wisdom.
The central intention of the parable is to explain the reason why the
Buddha preaches the Lotus SËtra only through the medium of manyskillful teachings, i.e., why he does not immediately preach comprehensive wisdom. That is, because the Lotus SËtra ultimately aims at
enabling living beings to reach comprehensive wisdom, the goal of thescripture is not to affirm any absolute distinctions between the natures ofvoice-hearers, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas. If we understand correctly the original meaning of this parable, can we not imagine that thisstupendous image—that all the many plants grow up energetically on
the earth each receiving sufficient rain for its own needs—symbolizes
that all mankind should coexist on this earth mutually respecting ourmany differences?
Notes
See John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (London: Macmillan, 1985), p. 33.
See Tamaru Noriyoshi, Hoshikawa Keiji, and Yamanashi Yukiko, Kamigami no
wakai—NijËisseiki no shËkyØ kan taiwa (Tokyo: ShunjËsha, 2000), p. 86.
3
See my previous paper on this topic, “Inclusivism and Religious Tolerance in the
Lotus SËtra,” in The Journal of Oriental Studies 15 (2005): 94–108.
4
It is said that the Påli canons was written down around the first century BCE in Sri
Lanka.
5
T no. 262, 9.5c10–11; Burton Watson, The Lotus Sutra (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 24. For the reader’s convenience, throughout this paper I havecited the translation by Burton Watson, albeit with minor changes. As for my interpretation of this famous sentence, see Kanno Hiroshi, “HokekyØ hØbenbon no shohØ jissØ nogengi [The Original Meaning of the true characteristics of dharmas in the Skillful
Means Chapter of the Lotus SËtra],” in Ichinen sanzen towa nani ka [What is the doctrine of “the macrocosm in a moment of thought”?] (Tokyo: Daisan bunmeisha, 1992),
pp. 46–60.
6This withdrawal of the five thousand arrogant persons suggests that, in order to listen to the Lotus SËtra, we should remove all traces of our own overbearing arrogance.
See Hiroshi Kanno, “The Modern Significance of the Lotus SËtra,” in The Journal of
Oriental Studies 14 (2004): 95–111.
7“Buddha wisdom” (fozhijian 佛知見) corresponds to the Sanskrit term “tathågatajñåna-darßana.” We may understand it as Buddha’s wisdom.
8
Concerning the parable of three carts and the burning house of the Simile and Parable Chapter, two interpretations appeared among exegetes on the Lotus SËtra in China.
In other words, there were two interpretations concerning whether or not the ox-carts thefather promised to give the children in the burning house, are identical with the great
white ox-carts he finally gave them. If the promised ox-carts are identical with the actu1
2

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

153

ally proffered great white ox-carts, there would then be three kinds of carts in all, and if
the two types of cart are different from each other, then there are four kinds. The representative exegete of the former “three kinds of carts” school was Ji 基 (632–682) from
Ci’en 慈恩 Monastery, while the representative exegetes of the “four kinds of carts”
school were Fayun 法雲 (467–529) and Zhiyi 智o (538–598). Jizang 吉藏 (549–623)
had been identified with the “three kinds of carts” school, but according to recent
research he seemed to take a free stance in which he advocated neither understanding.
Instead, given that living beings become enlightened on the basis of theories, he thought
it very important that each theory should be evaluated on the basis of its relation to living beings’ enlightenment.
9
See Nishitani KØsuke, ShËkyØ kan taiwa to genri shugi no kokufuku—shËkyØ rinri
teki tØron no tameni (Tokyo: ShinkyØ shuppansha, 2004), pp. 40–55. Nishitani insiststhat the typology of religions proposed by George A. Lindbeck, which includes cognitive-propositional, experiential-expressive, and cultural-linguistic models, is more effective than that of John Hick. See George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine—Religion
and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984).
Also see Hoshikawa Keiji, “ShËkyØ kan taiwa ni okeru ‘kyØri’ no mondai,” inGurØbaru jidai no shËkyØ kan taiwa, edited by Hoshikawa Keiji and Yamanashi Yukiko(Tokyo: TaishØ daigaku shuppankai, 2004), pp. 1–48.
10
On the contrary, “discarding skillful means” is not clearly expressed in the Sanskrit
text.
11“If a person, earnest in mind, seeks this sËtra as though he were seeking the Buddha’s relics, and having gained and gratefully accepted it, that person shows no intentionof seeking other sËtras and has never once given thought to the writings of the non-Buddhist doctrines, to a person such as this” (T no. 262, 9.16b1–4; Watson, p. 79). Also, theEaseful Practices Chapter admonishes not to approach to other followers except Buddhists such as heretics and Brahmans. See “They should not associate closely with nonBuddhists, Brahmans or Jains, or with those who compose works of secular literature orbooks extolling the heretics, nor should they be closely associated with Lokayatas or
anti-Lokayatas” (T no. 262, 9.37a19–21; Watson, p. 197). In my opinion, Nichiren(1222–1282) adopts basically the first interpretation and partially includes the second
one. As for the theoretical standpoint of Nichiren’s exclusivism, see Kanno Hiroshi,“Nyorai no tsukai—Nichiren,” in: HokekyØ shisØ shi kara manabu bukkyØ (Tokyo:DaizØ shuppan, 2003). pp. 190–206.
12
Even though Zhiyi of the Tiantai school in China adopts basically the second interpretation, he also includes a partial form of the first. The previous citation “honestly discarding skillful means, I will preach only the unsurpassed way” was quoted in Zhiyi’s
Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義 (T no. 1716, 33.681b3–5) as evidence from the sËtra evidence tothe effect that lotus blossoms falling and fruit ripening should be compared to discarding
skillful teachings and establishing the truth. I have discussed Zhiyi’s views of the LotusSËtra and clarified that it is more fitting to call him a “perfect teaching absolutist” than it
is to refer to him as a “Lotus SËtra absolutist.” See Hiroshi Kanno, “A Comparison of
Zhiyi’s and Jizang’s Views of the Lotus SËtra: Did Zhiyi, after all, Advocate a ‘Lotus
Absolutism’?,” in Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced
Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 1999, (March, 2000): pp. 125–147.
It seems that Zhanran 湛然 (711–782) played a big role to form the Lotus SËtra
absolutism of Tiantai school. I infer that as the Huayan 華嚴 school which claims the

154

THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

supremacy of a single sËtra such as the Avataµsaka SËtra, Dharma Characteristics
school which advocates the idea of the “expediency of the one vehicle and the reality ofthe three vehicles,” and the Zen school which advocates “separate transmission outside
the sËtras” were established during the period between Zhiyi and Zhanran, Zhanrancame to emphasize on the Lotus SËtra absolutism to oppose those schools. Nichiren
seemed to accept the direct influence of Zhanran.
13
See Hiroshi Kanno, “Inclusivism and Religious Tolerance in the Lotus SËtra,” loc.
cit.
14This concept appears in the Fahua wenju. Cf. T no. 1718, 34.79a24–25.
15
The practice of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging becomes something that gave living
expression to the concept of the one vehicle, namely, the idea that all sentient beings canequally attain to Buddhahood. See Hiroshi Kanno, “The Practice of Bodhisattva Never
Disparaging in the Lotus SËtra and its Reception in China and Japan,” in: The Journal of
Oriental Studies 12, 2002, pp. 104–122.
16
Ibid., pp. 50–51.
17
The “one vehicle” has never in the history of Buddhism been interpreted from thestandpoint of pluralism. The current global age, when religions cannot avoid coexisting,is a novel experience for the human race. However, the idea that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism all aim at the same ultimate truth had been popular since the end of
Tang Dynasty in China, and in addition the idea that Shintoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism all aim at the same ultimate truth was advocated by some thinkers during the Edo
period (1603–1868) in Japan.
18
See John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, loc.cit, p. 32.
19
Nichiren thought that the teaching of the Easeful Practices Chapter and that of the
Encouraging Devotion Chapter are alternative and under a special limitation concerning
the age and the region such as Japan and Kamakura era (the Latter Day of the Law),
selected the teaching of the Encouraging Devotion Chapter. However, I think that it isworth reviewing once again the value of the teaching of the Easeful Practices Chapter
under the new conditions of our modern world.
20
See the second part of the eighth fascicle of the Fahua wenju, where it states, “Master Tiantai says, ‘The compassion of calming and contemplation directs or informs thethree deeds [of body, speech, and mind] and vows’. . . . We refer to this as the easefulpractice that pertains to the deeds or actions of body. For the other [aspects of] speech,
mind, and vows it is the same” (T no. 1718, 34.119a19–27). As for interpretation of thefour easeful practices by Huisi 慧思 and other exgetes, see Hiroshi Kanno, “Huisi’s Perspective on the Lotus SËtra as Seen through the Meaning of the Course of Ease andBliss in the Lotus SËtra,” in Daniel B. Stevenson and Hiroshi Kanno, The Meaning of
the Lotus SËtra’s Course of Ease and Bliss: An Annotated Translation and Study ofNanyue Huisi’s (515–577) Fahua jing anlexing yi, 2006, Bibliotheca Philologia et
Philosophica Buddhica, vol. IX, The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, pp. 208–212.
21
In this limitation of the sphere of social interactions we find the exclusivist attitude
that followers of the Lotus SËtra should not approach to persons seeking to become
voice-hearers (cf. T no. 262, 9.37a25–26). Also, the sËtra considers certain occupations
whose representatives we should not approach, revealing discrimination against certain
kinds of occupation. I feel this represents a contradiction of the universalistic standpointof the Lotus SËtra, which should aim for the attainment of salvation by all living beings,
and I think we should admit that the Lotus SËtra, like other ancient religious texts, is notTHE LOTUS SŪTRA AND THE DIALOGUE OF RELIGIONS

155

completely free from the restrictions of thought of its own times.
22
The four easeful practices and the “room, robe, and seat of the Thus Come One”
both originally expound mental attitudes to be adopted when propagating the LotusSËtra. However, I referred to them as providing suggestive insights pertaining to the dialogue of religions. The dialogue of religions differs from the realm of propagation at all,but the locus of association between various religions aimed at the solution of serious
global problems. On the other hand, it is sometimes necessary to compete against eachother in a fashion of good will and to try to improve by learning from others so as toreveal the wisdom and energy necessary for the resolution of problems. Clearly, it
requires a serious attitude to learn from others and deepen one’s own religious views.
23
Cf. T no. 262, 9.31c21–27; Watson, p. 166.
24
The parable of the three kinds of medicinal herbs and two kinds of trees is one of
the representative seven parables of the Lotus SËtra. Of the seven, this parable is uniquein being based on the natural phenomenon of the heavy rain in India; the other six parables illustrate the doctrines of the Lotus SËtra without reference to regional conditions.
Therefore, since this parable might include aspects that are inconsistent with the overall
thought of the Lotus SËtra, we need to interpret it carefully.
25
Cf. T no. 262, 9.19a25–20b19; Watson, pp. 98–105.
Note: I would like to offer my appreciation to Prof. John R. McRae for his assistance inproofreading this paper.