J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 94

Inclusivism and Religious Tolerance in the Lotus SËtraHiroshi Kanno

The Problem

I

N the contemporary world, where a clash of civilizations is seen as animportant menace to peace, and religious confrontation is seen as animportant cause of that clash, the problem of religious tolerance is amodern problem. Religious tolerance is a kind of attitude which a certain religion or its followers take toward other religions or their followers. Passively, it is an attitude that tries not to eliminate other religions
but at least allows their existence. Positively, it is an attitude that admits
the value of other religions to some degree. “To some degree” covers awide range, from admitting that one’s own religion has the same value
as other religions to approving partially other religions as a kind of
preparatory stage to one’s own religion. The former position, admittingthat one’s own religion has the same value as other religions, seems tocorrespond to the pluralism of John Hick and the latter position, approving other religions as a preparatory stage to one’s own religion, seems tocorrespond to the category of inclusivism.
In contrast, the position which insists that religious salvation is foundonly in one’s own religion and denies that other religions have any value
is called “exclusivism.” It is different from the pluralism and inclusivism
mentioned above. In exclusivism, there are differences in levels, ranging
from the position of trying to eliminate other religions by any means,including the use of political power and violence, to the position which
expects the selection of a religion to come to an end through verbal discussion. In which position of pluralism or inclusivism a certain religion
stands is their choice. And even if a certain religion takes an exclucivist
position, the religion is not anti-social if it does not take the position ofan extreme exclusivism that tries to eliminate other religions. If theirassertions have no persuasive power today, they might be defeated in thefree competition between religions.
However, the problem of religious tolerance is often discussed against
a background in which some people expect religions to take a more positive role in the world in order to achieve such goals as social justice,94

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 95INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

95

global peace and environmental protection, by transcending differences
between religions and sects. If various religions maintain an exclusivism
of which the typical example is past Christianity, there will be feelings
that such expectations will be frustrated.
This paper will consider how the basic position of the Lotus SËtra
should be understood in relation to the problem of religious tolerance,
using a theory of relations between religions as being exclusive, inclusive, and pluralist.1 This will enable followers of the Lotus SËtra to
deepen their understanding of the problem of religious tolerance andalso make it possible for other people to understand the Lotus SËtra.
In the first section, the attitude of Íåkyamuni Buddha, who is thestarting point of Buddhism, toward the metaphysical theories of his time
is considered and features of his view of truth are clarified. The view oftruth in the Lotus SËtra basically follows from that of the Buddha. In thesecond section, I analyze the significance of the “saddharma” of the
Lotus SËtra which followed from the Buddha’s view of truth and thenconsider how the Lotus SËtra understands the Buddhism prior to itself
by analyzing some characteristic ideas of the Lotus SËtra, assuming“integration” to be a key term. In the third section, I claim that the LotusSËtra is basically inclusive, even though it can also be said to be exclusive or pluralistic according to different interpretations. In conclusion,some proposals about inclusivism and dialogue between religions arepresented.
1. The Basic Standpoint of Íåkyamuni Buddha
Various metaphysical theories seemed to have been in serious conflict at
the time of the Buddha. He often pointed out the prejudices of teachers
who insisted that their own philosophical opinions were absolutely true,
criticized others’ opinions for being false, and disputed with each other.
And early Buddhist sutras say that the Buddha transcended various disputes, stood aloof from all delusions, and was free from prejudices.2 In
order to clarify the Buddha’s position, I will take up the issue of the“questions that the Buddha refused to answer” (avyåkaraˆa), the relatedparable of the poisoned arrow, and then the parable of the blind men andthe elephant in order to elucidate the Buddha’s view of truth.
1.1 The “Unanswered Questions” and the Parable of the Poisoned
Arrow
The “questions that the Buddha refused to answer” indicate that the
Buddha kept silent and did not give a definite solution to various metaphysical problems. As mentioned, in the Buddha’s day metaphysicalJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

96

ページ 96INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

discussions were very common and were repeated fruitlessly withoutachieving any solutions. In this situation the Buddha taught the famousparable of the poisoned arrow to a person who asked him, “Is the world
eternal, or not eternal? Is the world finite, or infinite? Are body and soul
separate, or but one? Does the perfect man exist after death or not?”That person said to the Buddha, “If the Buddha cannot answer thesequestions, I will not become your disciple.” The Buddha admonishedhim, “Your attitude looks like that of a stupid man who, hit by a poisoned arrow, says it should not be pulled out and rejects treatment
before he receives minute information about the nature of the criminal,
the material of the lethal weapon, and so on. The meaning of not
answering yes or no, is called “the unanswered.” The Buddha becamesilent before such metaphysical problems, but in contrast to this
explained the Four Noble Truths in detail.3
The reason why the Buddha did not answer metaphysical questions isindicated in the saying “It is because it is not connected with the goal, is
not fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turningaway from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge,
awakening nor to nibbåna.”4 On the other hand, the reason why the Buddha explained the Four Noble Truths is just the opposite of this. In thiscontrast of metaphysical theories and the Four Noble Truths, the practical target at which Buddhism should aim is made obvious. We will takeup this practical characteristic of Buddhism at a later point, in a discussion of the Buddha’s view of truth. According to the Buddha, it seems
that it is impossible to answer metaphysical questions correctly because
they exceed human ability. Thus if someone answers them and absolutizes his own theory, he violates the limitations of human ability,
inevitably making his mind dirty and in that way falling into the state of
attachment.5
1.2 The Blind Men and the Elephant
The parable of the blind men and the elephant looks at a situation inwhich lots of philosophers and religionists give declaratory answers to
metaphysical questions, absolutize their own opinions, deny others’
opinions, and continue fruitless disputes.
For his amusement a king brought together a lot of men who had beenborn blind, made them touch a part of an elephant, and asked them how
an elephant looked. One who had touched the elephant’s head replied,“An elephant is like a water-pot”; one who had touched the elephant’s
ear answered, “An elephant is like a winnowing-basket”; one who had
touched the elephant’s body said, “An elephant is like a storeroom”; one

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 97INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

97

who had touched the elephant’s leg said, “An elephant is like a post”;
one who had touched the elephant’s back declared, “An elephant is likea mortar”; and one who had touched the elephant’s tail replied , “An elephant is like a broom.” They each absolutized their opinions while denying others’ opinions and finally got into a fight and were hitting eachother.6
In this parable, philosophers and religious teachers other than the
Buddha are compared to blind persons who touched a part of an elephant, forming a correct assessment about the part which they had
touched. But misunderstanding the whole, they generalized their partial
view. In other words, we can say that they did not cognize the entire
reality of the elephant, despite the fact that they accurately discerned its
parts.
The problem is, which is the Buddha’s position? Is he like one of theblind persons or like a king who see the whole of the elephant? In orderto properly know a part as a part, it is necessary to have a viewpoint thattranscends the part. However, this does not mean that we are unable torecognize a part as a part unless we cognize the whole. The Buddha
deeply perceived the fact that philosophers spend their days engaged inendless disputes precisely because their discussions are unable to avoid
being trapped in relatively.7
Is it possible to have a position on earth where the whole of the truth
can be seen? As the Buddha did not answer metaphysical questions, I
think it is not possible to see the whole of the truth in the sense which
would contrast with the standpoint of the blind who see only a part of
the truth.8 Even though there is the expression “seeing the truth” whichis to be discussed at a later point, I think the truth which the Buddha
sees is not “the whole” in the contrast between the part and the whole.9
1.3 The Buddha’s View of Truth
The Buddha became a Buddha by awakening to dhamma (in Påli, i.e.,dharma in Sanskrit). What is the difference between awakening todhamma and recognition of the whole truth? The dhamma awakened toby the Buddha is neither a “whole truth” which is relative to a “partial
truth,” nor is it metaphysical in nature, but something very real which
can be experienced. Concerning this, the Mahåparinibbåna-suttantastates, [The disciple] “is possessed of faith in the Truth—believing theTruth to have been proclaimed by the Exalted One, of advantage in thisworld, passing not away, welcoming all, leading to salvation, and to beattained to by the wise, each one for himself.”10 This shows that the truthof Buddhism is real and can be experienced by anyone. The originalJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

98

ページ 98INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

word corresponding to “wellcoming all,” “ehi-passiko” means literally“come and see.” The idea that everyone can come and can see the truth
actually shows the Buddhist view of truth very well.
Moreover, the idea that Mahåparinibbåna-suttanta refers to both “Be
ye a refuge to yourselves” and “Hold fast as a refuge to the Truth”11 isbased on the relationship between dhamma and self, the idea that dhamma infiltrates the self and is realized in the self. In other words, taking
refuge in the self is just taking refuge in the self where dhamma is realized. Therefore, taking refuge in the self and in dhamma do not conflict,rather it shows the intimate relation of the two. This point seems to becommon with the subjective meaning of dharma in the later Lotus SËtra.
In short, the Buddha did not participate in metaphysical discussions in
his day, and took a stance in which he recognized and realized dhamma.
This recognition and realization of dhamma is not the recognition of thewhole of the truth, but brings a realistic benefit to anyone by eradicating
earthly desires and bringing them peace of mind.
2. The basic standpoint of the Lotus SËtra
As the Lotus SËtra does not focus on the relation to religions other than
Buddhism, references to other religions are hardly seen in the LotusSËtra.12 The Lotus SËtra probably was established on the basis of certain
critical perspectives and newly formed ideas with respect to a Buddhist
world that had developed in various different ways after its initial founding by the Buddha. Then, how did the Lotus SËtra comprehend the Buddhism before itself? I think that in terms of time and space, the LotusSËtra clearly aimed to integrate various Buddhas into the one BuddhaÍåkyamuni, and also to consolidate the various teachings of Íåkyamuni
Buddha into the “one Buddha vehicle.” This was a new view of the Buddha and view of the teachings particular to the Lotus SËtra. And we canseek for grounds supporting the new view in the “saddharma” of the
Lotus SËtra which directly followed from the Buddha’s view of truth. In
this section, first I consider the “saddharma” of the Lotus SËtra and second the thought of the Lotus SËtra, assuming “integration” to be a key
term.
2.1 The “saddharma” of the Lotus SËtra
With regard to the fundamental enlightenment of the Buddha, early
Buddhist sutras express the idea that the Buddha awakens to “dharma”
and respects it. The modifying term which is added before “dharma” is“sat” (correct), to make “saddharma.” The Lotus SËtra (Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra) adopted the term “saddharma” as a part of its title to referJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 99INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

99

to a fundamental point of the Buddha’s enlightenment. This word “saddharma” was respectively translated into “zhengfa 正 法 ” by Dharmarak∑a and into “miaofa 妙法” by Kumåraj¥va.
What, then, is the understanding of this “saddharma” in the LotusSËtra? The opening of the Skillful Means Chapter reads:
The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable.
The door to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter.
Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend
it. What is the reason for this? A Buddha has personally attended a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million, a countless number of Buddhas and has fully carried out an immeasurable number of religious
practices. He has exerted himself bravely and vigorously, and his nameis universally known. He has realized the dharma that is profound andnever known before, and preaches it in accordance with what is appropriate, yet his intention is difficult to understand....Íåriputra, the wisdom of the Thus Come One is expansive and profound. He has [fourkinds of] immeasurable [mercy], [four kinds of] unlimited [eloquence],[ten kinds of] power, [four kinds of] fearlessness, [four kinds of] concentration [belonging to world of desire], [eight kinds of] emancipation,and [three kinds of] samådhis, and has deeply entered them beyond
measure and accomplished dharmas never before attained. Íåriputra,
the Thus Come One expounds many dharmas skillfully making various
kinds of distinctions. His words are soft and gentle and delight thehearts of the assembly. Íåriputra, to sum it up: the Buddha has fully
accomplished the dharma that is limitless, boundless, never attained
before. But stop, Íåriputra, I will say no more. Why? Because what the
Buddha has achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understanddharma, and the true characteristics of lots of dharmas can only beunderstood and shared between Buddhas. (T 9.5b26–5c. Translation
by Burton Watson, [with changes], The Lotus Sutra [New York:
Columbia University Press, 1993], pp. 23–24).

According to this citation, the Lotus SËtra renames characteristics of the
Buddha which had been acquired and understood through practices overa long time under innumerable Buddhas, as “dharmas,” and takes up
four kinds of immeasurable mercy, four kinds of unlimited eloquence,ten kinds of power, four kinds of fearlessness, four kinds of concentration, eight kinds of emancipation, and three kinds of samådhis asconcrete contents of “dharmas.” Though I omit explanation of these technical terms here, I will say that they are a classification of the abilities,
wisdoms, and stages of various meditations of the Buddha. In a word,

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

100

ページ 100

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA“dharmas” are not abstract and objective truths. They are realized
through practices by Buddhas themselves and are the Buddhas’ wisdomand spiritual stages explained as the concrete moral items listed here.
In other words, two meanings of “dharma” are shown in the LotusSËtra: an objective meaning of “dharma” that Buddhas awaken to as thetruth and a subjective meaning of “dharma” which Buddhas actualize as
characteristics making up their spiritual stage, such as wisdom and compassion.13 The objective “dharma” is said to have universality and eternity.14
In fact, according to the Lotus SËtra, not only the present BuddhaÍåkyamuni but also the past Buddhas, such as Sun Moon Bright Buddha, Great Universal Wisdom Excellence Buddha and Awesome Sound
King Buddha, preached the Lotus SËtra. The length of time when the
Lotus SËtra was preached and the number of verses of the Lotus SËtra
are described in figures that go beyond our imagination. This seems toshow that Buddhas can amplify the contents of the Lotus SËtra freely.
Then, what on earth is the Lotus SËtra which Buddhas preach in common? Living beings can become Buddhas only after they awaken to“saddharma” and the sËtra which expounds that “saddharma” in detail,I think, is none other than the Lotus SËtra.15 Because the compilers of
the Lotus SËtra had thought at least like this, they incorporated “saddharma” in the title of the Lotus SËtra. Therefore, all Buddhas in thethree-fold world commonly preach “saddharma” which they awakened
to by themselves as the ultimate teaching, and its content is expressed asnone other than the Lotus SËtra.16 We can say that the universality andthe eternity of the Lotus SËtra are symbolically shown here.
Next, there is also the universality that it is possible for anyone torealize the dharma in one’s own body as well as the universality ofobjective dharma. This is taught in the Lotus SËtra as the concept of the“one Buddha vehicle,” the idea that all living beings have equal accessto becoming a Buddha. From the viewpoint of the “one Buddha vehicle,” the Lotus SËtra is said to teach only bodhisattvas.17 In a word, allliving beings are defined as “bodhisattvas” or, in other words beings
who can be enlightened. Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, who practiced
the idea of the one Buddha vehicle, carried out the practice of paying
respect to all people as beings who can become enlightened through thebodhisattva way. The actions of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging express
an attitude that attributes the utmost dignity to all people.18 In summary,from the standpoint of humankind, the universality of “saddharma” isconnected to the “self-dignity” that one can be enlightened.

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 101

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

101

2.2 The Integration of the Lotus SËtra
First, I will consider the integration of Buddhas in terms of space. Thisidea is based on the story concerning “the three purifying transformationof the sahå world” in the Emergence of the Treasure Tower Chapter.19
Concisely speaking, as Bodhisattva Great Joy of Preaching said that hewished to see the body of Many Treasures Buddha in the Treasure
Tower which had emerged from the earth. Íåkyamuni Buddha answeredthat for that purpose, he should meet the requirement given by Many
Treasures Buddha. The requirement is that Íåkyamuni Buddha has togather all Buddhas who are his embodiments from the worlds of the ten
directions. “Embodiment Buddhas” means Buddhas who a Buddha produces by his supernormal powers. In the Lotus SËtra, embodiment Buddhas are produced and sent to the worlds of the ten directions byÍåkyamuni Buddha where they are currently preaching and teaching.
Then, Íåkyamuni Buddha purified the sahå world three times in order togather the embodiment Buddhas.
What did the Lotus SËtra intend by this drama? Mahåyåna Buddhism
admits that many Buddhas exist simultaneously. For example, in addition to Íåkyamuni Buddha in the sahå world, there are Amitåbha (orAmitåyus) Buddha in the Pure Land of Perfect Bliss in the west andMedicine Master Buddha in the Pure Lapis Lazuli World in the east.
New Buddhas developed one after another and faith in them wasdescribed in Mahåyåna sËtras composed prior to the Lotus SËtra.
Though the Lotus SËtra also admits that there are many Buddhas in
the worlds of the ten directions and accepts that idea as a Buddhist viewof the world, it has another idea as well. This was for the purpose of
establishing a strong Buddha who integrates the innumerable Buddhas
who are all over the universe and can be said to be loose without center.
The Lotus SËtra tried to have Íåkyamuni Buddha play this role of integrating innumerable Buddhas. As mentioned above, the fact that embodiment Buddhas of Íåkyamuni Buddha were gathered from the worlds ofthe ten directions can be interpreted as meaning that the innumerable
Buddhas in the worlds of the ten directions are nothing more than Buddhas embodying Íåkyamuni Buddha. This can be called a dramatic
expression of the integration of Buddhas in terms of space, which means
the integration of Buddhas in the worlds of the ten directions underÍåkyamuni Buddha.
Second, I will consider the integration of Buddhas in terms of time.
The Life Span of the Thus Come One Chapter of the Lotus SËtra teaches that Íåkyamuni Buddha became enlightened in the remote past andwill have an extremely long life span in the future. Here, Íåkyamuni

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

102

ページ 102

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

Buddha, who has a long life span in terms of both past and future andcan be said to be eternal, plays the role of integrating the past and future
Buddhas who had been mentioned from the time of early Buddhism into
himself. According to the Life Span Chapter, Íåkyamuni Buddha developed and will continue to do various things as a Buddha to save allliving beings. This means nothing less than the fact that Íåkyamuni
Buddha plays the role of past and future Buddhas. If we think like this,the idea of the “long existence of Íåkyamuni Buddha” can be interpreted
as the integration of Buddhas in terms of time.
When we notice that the Lotus SËtra attempts to integrate Buddhas interms of space and time, we also discover that the idea of the one Buddha vehicle in the Skillful Means Chapter tries to integrate the teachingsof Íåkyamuni Buddha throughout his life into the one Buddha vehicle.
This is the third integration of teachings.
In conclusion, we can say the Lotus SËtra is the sËtra that has theprominent characteristic of integrating Buddhas and teachings.
3. Inclusivism in the Lotus SËtra
The Lotus SËtra aims to integrate Buddhas and teachings throughout the
Buddhist world into Íåkyamuni Buddha, as the lord of teachings of the
Lotus SËtra, and the one Buddha vehicle, respectively. The integrationof Buddhism, accomplished through various developments centered on
the Lotus SËtra, can be called a Buddhist inclusivism. I will consider the
relation between the idea of the one Buddha vehicle which aims to integrate teachings and inclusivism.
At the most basic level, the concept 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—but also that those very same teachings become revitalized once again if we recognize their limitations as skillful teachings.
“Skillful means” has two aspects. One is to severely reject teachingsother than the Lotus SËtra and another is to revitalize them once again.
As evidence of how this works, the Lotus SËtra also explains theachievement of perfect enlightenment by voice-hearers. Destined toremain arhats in Nikåya Buddhism, when they understand the ultimate
import of the Lotus SËtra they become reborn as “true voice-hearers”
destined for Buddhahood.20 This feature of the Lotus SËtra is referred toin Chinese Buddhism by the technical term “kaihui 開會,” i.e., “exposing
limitations of skillful teachings and integrating them into the ultimate
truth,” which highlights the fact that the Lotus SËtra revives all theteachings, even those superseded in the Lotus SËtra itself. Also, all reli-

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 103

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

103

gious merits, even the most trivial of good actions such as little children
collecting sand to make a Buddha tower at play, drawing an image of
the Budddha, or just once exclaiming “Hail to the Buddha,” do not only
lead to worldly benefits but contribute directly to the attainment of Buddhahood.21 This is the idea that even “trivial good actions lead to theattainment of Buddhahood,” or “all goodness leads to the attainment of
Buddhahood.” As long as someone does the most trivial of good actionsin the name of Buddhism, they are destined for Buddhahood, which is
the ultimate purpose of Buddhism. We can regard this idea as inclusivist.
The Prophecy of Enlightenment for Five Hundred Disciples Chapter
teaches that the Arhat PËrˆa is a bodhisattva inwardly while appearing
outwardly as a voice-hearer.22 I think this idea can be interpreted as saying that the Buddha is warning against criticizing voice-hearers thoughtlessly. As this indicates the possibility of subsuming voice-hearers as
bodhisattvas, we can say it is a kind of inclusivism.
The Lotus SËtra aims to integrate Buddhism by making the LotusSËtra itself central. However, integration is not the only thing it emphasizes. Diversity actually receives similar attention. This is shown in thetechnical term “exposing limitations of skillful teachings and integratingthem into the ultimate truth.” Though the center of the integration isÍåkyamuni Buddha and the “saddharma,” the latter is more fundamental, as even Íåkyamuni Buddha becomes a Buddha only after awakening
to the “saddharma.” As discussed in the former section, the universalityof the “saddharma” means that anyone can relate to it and we realize it
as a spiritual stage of becoming a Buddha. If we locate the center of theintegration in rigid sectarian dogmatism, then the esteem of diversity
will be like pie in the sky.
Though the inclusivism of the Lotus SËtra originally limits concern towhat is inside Buddhism, the universality of the “saddharma” aims to
exceed the scope of Buddhism, insofar as the universality and the eternity of dharma was taught in early Buddhist sutras.23 The “saddharma”
does not discriminate against followers of other religions at all. In aword, the “saddharma” can be realized by anyone. Such a standpoint
will contribute to an attitude that recognizes the dignity of all people,
even if they believe in other religions. The practice of Bodhisattva Never
Disparaging seems to show this very well.
However, if we think that the specific belief and practices of Buddhism are indispensable for realizing the “saddharma,” we should saythat the Lotus SËtra is not pluralist but inclusive.24 Or, is there a possibility that the method of realizing the “saddharma” is opened widely alsoJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

104

ページ 104

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

to the methods of other religions and to non-religion?25 This might be a
big problem for followers of the Lotus SËtra in the future.
4. Conclusion
In the background of modern religious tolerance, there seems to be an
abandonment of insistence on a specific religion’s absoluteness. Since
insistence on the absoluteness of a specific religion’s truth is thought tobe difficult in view of cultural relativism, and insistence on the absoluteness of a specific religion’s experience is thought to be difficult in viewof mystical religious experience, it is hoped that the possibility of a joint
struggle to achieve social justice can be opened, with religions transcending or suppressing insistence on their absoluteness.26
John Hick exalts pluralism to avoid useless fighting among religionsin the real world, where many religions cannot help coexisting. Furthermore, he criticizes inclusivism for being a soft form of exclusivism.27 I
can understand very well that he cannot help diminishing inclusivism toexalt pluralism. As pluralism is a hypothesis that tries to end the fighting
among religions, I think the evaluation of pluralism should be verified
by whether the fighting among religions can be ended. The hypothesisof pluralism offers to persons of no belief and irreligion a convenient
diagram for understanding relations among religions, but it seems to bedifficult for persons who actually strongly believe in some religion toaccept. If persisting in pluralism, which is difficult for those people toaccept, is not effective in preventing harmful, useless fighting among
religions, rather than just criticizing inclusivism, groping for the possibility of an inclusivism that can control the fighting among religions
might be the more realistic method.
Even if we take the standpoint of inclusivism, conversation between
religions must be possible. I think it is possible for inclusivists to agree
that removing misunderstanding of others’ religions and promoting
mutual understanding are necessary for preventing harmful, uselessfighting among religions. And once they join in religious dialogue, theymight be able to substantially extend a potential possibility of their own
religion through dialogues in the light of other religions. In this case,even a certain kind of transformation of one’s own religion will be possible.
If someone today insists on the absoluteness of a specific religion, it
is necessary to ask what that is based on. If one insists on absolutenesswithout showing any basis for doing so, he will not be persuasive for a
lot of people. On the other hand, even if he abandons insistence on
absoluteness, or avoids it, criticism of other religions does not quiteJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 105

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

105

become taboo in actual religious dialogue. Even if it is difficult to determine how important it is to have no contradictions in a doctrinal system,
many modern people will think that one with fewer contradictions ismore desirable. Moreover, as for the relation of religions to social problems, many people will expect their positive participation to achievesocial justice and deter anti-social criminality. As for the doctrines of thereligion and the content of the religious leader’s remarks, a lot of people
will agree with the idea that they have to be verified in the actual activities of a religious group and the behavior of its followers. Anyway, it is
not necessary to regard criticism of other religions as taboo, and it isnecessary to develop more sophisticated methods of religious criticizm
that are applicable to today’s world of active religious dialogue.
In this paper, I have pointed out that the “saddharma” of the LotusSËtra followed from the Buddha’s view of truth. I have also explained
the universality of the “saddharma” and showed inclusivism to be thebasic standpoint of the Lotus SËtra, which aims to integrate Buddhism,
even though it can also be said to be exclusive or pluralistic according toother interpretations. Even though this inclusivism is criticized for beinga soft form of exclusivism by John Hick, I have pointed out that it ismore realistic to admit a certain effect to prevent harmful, useless fighting among religions. Also I have suggested that it is necessary to search
for a mature method for criticizing religions in the context of religious
dialogue.
Notes
On the religious tolerance of the Lotus SËtra, See Gene Reeves, “The Lotus Sutra
and Religious Tolerance,” in ShËkyØ to kanyØ: ishËkyØ-ibunka kan no taiwa ni mukete,edited by Takeuchi Sei’ichi and Tsukimoto Akio (Tokyo: TaimeidØ, 1993).
2
Some early Buddhist sutras which claim that the Buddha transcended various disputes, stood aloof from all delusions, and was free from prejudices are cited in Hajime
Nakamura, Genshi BukkyØ no shisØ, vol. I, (Tokyo: ShunjËsha, 1993), pp. 196–200.
However, I will not provide quotations here. I will refer to material from Nakamura’s
book when I consider the Buddha’s view of truth. I also consulted Hajime Nakamura,“Fundamental Attitudes”, in A Comparative History of Ideas (Kegan Paul International,
England, second edition, 1986), pp. 217–236, when translating my original Japanese
paper into this English version.
3
This story is included in the Majjhima-Nikåya, I, pp. 426–432. The Chinese version
is Jian yu jing (Taisho Tripitaka, vol. 1, No. 94).
4
Majjhima-Nikåya, I, p. 431; The Middle Length Sayings, vol. II, p. 101 (Translated
by I.B. Horner, P.T.S., 1994).
5
I think it is impossible to interpret the texts as meaning that the Buddha did not
answer these metaphysical problems because it was not useful to give an answer to a
beginner, even though the Buddha himself knew the answer. The Buddha declared that1

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

106

ページ 106

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

he disclosed the truth to which he awakened to his disciples. For example, there is thesaying, “I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric andesoteric doctrine; for in respect of the truths, Ónanda, the Tathågata has no such thing as
the closed fist of a teacher, who keeps some things back.” (Mahåparinibbåna-suttanta,D¥gha-Nikåya, II, p. 100; Dialogues of the Buddha, forth edition, vol. II, p. 107 (Translated by T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids, P.T.S.). However, during his entire life he did
not answer the above-mentioned metaphysical questions.
6This story is included in Udåna, VI, 4, pp. 66–69. The Chinese version is Jing mianwang jing of Yi zu jing (the Arthavarg¥ya-sËtra), vol. I (Taisho Tripitaka, vol. IV, No.
198).
7
See Sutta-nipåta 880, “If, not accepting an opponent’s doctrine, one becomes a fool,an animal of inferior intelligence, then all indeed are fools with very inferior intelligence, (for) all these (people) are indeed abiding by their (own) view.”(The Group of
Discourses, vol. II, p. 101, translated by K.R. Norman, P.T.S., 1995).
8
I think it is appropriate that Keiji Hoshikawa made “Consciousness of the limit ofhuman ability to recognize truth” the base of religious tolerance. See Noriyoshi Tamura,
Keiji Hoshikawa, and Yukiko Yamanashi, Kamigami no wakai—NijËisseiki no shËkyØ
kan taiwa (Tokyo: ShunjËsha, 2000), p. 86.
9
The remark that philosophers other than the Buddha only see a part of the truth isindicated in the saying, “Some Brahmin recluses, would you believe, are attached tothese. They contend divisively, (as did) folk who were seers of a single limb.” (Udåna,VI, 4, p. 69; The Udåna, p. 133, translated by Peter Masefield, P.T.S., 1994).
Concerning the emphasis on one single truth and the notion that the person who
knows this truth transcends controversy, see Sutta-nipåta 884, “There is only one truth;
there is no second, about which an intelligent man might dispute with an (other) intelligent man. Ascetics themselves proclaim various truths, therefore they do not say one(and the same) thing.” (The Group of Discourses, vol. II, p. 101, translated by K.R. Norman, P.T.S., 1995). Although it is not impossible to interpret this verse showing that the
Buddha recognizes the whole truth, I think the Buddha teaches a truth which has different dimensions and characteristics from that of philosophers and which is connected
directly with the achievement of the practical target of Buddhism, the elimination of suffering.
Moreover, an expression seemingly supporting the comparison between the wholetruth and part of the truth, which I am against, is shown in Theragåthå 106, “When thegoal has 100 marks and bears 100 signs, the person who sees but one part is a fool, but
he who sees 100 is clever.” (The Elders’ Verses, vol. I, p. 14, translated by K.R. Norman, P.T.S., 1995). However, this does not express a comparison between the Buddha
and other philosophers. It is no more than a metaphor which shows the Buddha’s superiority, and does not have an additional meaning that compared to fools the wise Buddha
literally recognizes the whole of the truth.
10Mahåparinibbåna-suttanta, D¥gha-Nikåya, II, p. 93; Dialogues of the Buddha, forth
edition, vol. II, p. 99, translated by T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids, P.T.S.
11Mahåparinibbåna-suttanta, D¥gha-Nikåya, II, p. 100; Dialogues of the Buddha,
forth edition, vol. II, p. 108, translated by T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids, P.T.S.
12
However, there is a teaching in the Simile and Parable Chapter of the Lotus SËtra
that we should preach the Lotus SËtra to a person who shows no intention of seeking
other sËtras than the Lotus SËtra and the writings of the non-Buddhist doctrines (cf. T
9.16b2–4). And the Peaceful Practices Chapter takes up non-Buddhists and Brahmans as

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 107

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

107

people whom we should shun (cf. T 9.37b22). Moreover, Prof. Gene Reeves suggested
that it is also good to refer to the story of King Wonderfully Adorned, who was originally a non-Buddhist and was converted by his two sons (cf. T 9.59c18).
13
Concerning my interpretation of “dharma” in the Skillful Means Chapter, see
Hiroshi Kanno, Ichinen sanzen to wa nani ka [What is the idea of three-thousand worlds
in one moment?], Tokyo, Daisanbunmei-sha, 1992, pp. 46–60.
14
Just after Íåkyamuni Buddha became fully enlightened, he thought, “It is bad tolive paying no one the honour and obedience due to a superior.” But he did not see anyone more accomplished in contemplation or the knowledge of emancipation than himself. Therefore he concluded that he would live under, pay honor to, and respect thisNorm to which he had awakened.“ And Brahmå also declared his support for this conclusion of the Buddha and pointed out that all the Buddhas in three existences respectsaddhamma. (Excerpted from Saµyutta-Nikåya, I, pp. 139–140; The Book of the Kindred Sayings, part I, p. 175–176, translated by Mrs. Rhys Davids, P.T.S., 1996). In early
Buddhist sutras, the eternity of the dharma is often referred to.
15
This “saddharma” is the truth which can be actualized as merits such as wisdomand compassion, and should be explained in a practical sense as the concept of the one
vehicle whereby everyone can become enlightened.
16
The truth which enables all living beings to become enlightened is saddharma, andin the case of actualizing that saddharma it is thought that it becomes virtues such as
wisdom and compassion.
17
See the Skillful Means Chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “The Buddhas, the Thus Come
Ones, simply teach and convert the bodhisattvas.” (T 9.7a29. Translated by B. Watson,
ibid, p. 31).
18
See Hiroshi Kanno, “The Practice of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging in the LotusSËtra and its Reception in China and Japan,” The Journal of Oriental Studies 12, 2002,
pp. 104–122.
19
See Fahua xuanyi vol.6A (T 33.751c10).
20
See the Belief and Understanding Chapter, “Now we have become voice-hearers intruth, for we will take the voice of the Buddha way and cause it to be heard by all.” (T
9.18c20–21. Translated by B. Watson, ibid, p. 94).
21
See the Skillful Means Chapter (T 9.8c11–9a27).
22
See the Prophecy of Enlightenment for Five Hundred Disciples Chapter (T9.28a17).
23
Cf. note 14.
24
The Simile and Parable Chapter enumerates severe and frightening retributions
from slandering the Lotus SËtra. (T 9.15b22–16a7). Similar expressions also appear in
the Encouragements of the Bodhisattva Universal Worthy Chapter. (T 9.62a16–23). I
have pointed out that the “saddharma” is related to “self-dignity.” If we locate the LotusSËtra in strong sectarian dogmatism, these enumerations of severe retributions might
imply radical exclusiveness. However, if we regard the Lotus SËtra as the universal“saddharma” which teaches “self-dignity,” the slandering of the Lotus SËtra might
trample down that “self-dignity.” Therefore, there might be an interpretation in which
enumerations of retributions do not necessarily imply exclusiveness but have the function of strongly motivating people to recognize their own “self-dignity.” This might be a
big problem for followers of the Lotus SËtra in the future.
25
This standpoint seems to be quite close to pluralism.
26
See John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

108

ページ 108

INCLUSIVISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN THE LOTUS SŪTRA

Pluralistic Theology of Religions, New York: Orbis Books, 1987.
27
See John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, London: Macmillan, 1985.
Note: I would like to offer my appreciation to Prof. Gene Reeves and Prof. Daniel B.
Stevenson for their assistance in proofreading this paper.