Lotus Sutra will disappear before the Nembutsu. Are such persons not the enemy of Shakyamuni, Many Treasures, and the other Buddhas?
Concerning the third group of enemies of the Lotus Sutra, the sutra says: “Or there will be forest-dwelling monks wearing clothing of patched rags and living in retirement . . . they will preach the Law to white-robed laymen and will be respected and revered by the world as though they were arhats who possess the six transcendental powers.” And the sixvolume Parinirvana Sutra states: “There are also icchantikas who resemble arhats but who commit evil deeds. There are also arhats who resemble icchantikas but display merciful hearts. The icchantikas who look like arhats spend their time slandering the correct and equal sutras to the populace. The arhats who look like icchantikas, on the other hand, are critical of the voice-hearers and go about preaching the correct and equal sutras. They address the populace, saying, ‘You and I are all bodhisattvas. Why? Because each living being possesses the Buddha nature.’ But the populace will probably call such men icchantikas.”
The Nirvana Sutra says: “After I have passed away . . . [After the Former Day of the Law has ended and] the Middle Day of the Law has begun, there will be monks who will give the appearance of abiding by the rules of monastic discipline. But they will scarcely ever read or recite the sutras, and instead will crave all kinds of food and drink to nourish their bodies. Though they wear the clothes of a monk, they will go about searching for alms like so many huntsmen who, narrowing their eyes, stalk softly. They will be like a cat on the prowl for mice. And they will constantly reiterate these words, ‘I have attained arhatship!’ Outwardly they will seem to be wise and good, but within they will harbor
greed and jealousy. [And when they are asked to preach the teachings, they will say nothing,] like Brahmans who have taken a vow of silence. They are not true monks—they merely have the appearance of monks. Consumed by their erroneous views, they slander the correct teaching.”
Miao-lo writes, concerning people of this type: “The third [group] is the most formidable of all. This is because the second and third ones are increasingly harder to recognize for what they really are.” And Tung-ch’un states: “The third part that begins, ‘Or there will be forest-dwelling monks,’ deals with members of the clergy who [pretend to be sages and use their positions so that they can] act as leaders of all the other evil people.”
As for these “members of the clergy who act as leaders of all the other evil people”—where in Japan at the present time should we look for them? On Mount Hiei? In Onjo-ji [in Otsu]? In To-ji [in Kyoto]? In the temples of Nara? In Kennin-ji [in Kyoto] or Jufuku-ji and Kencho-ji [in Kamakura]?? We must examine this carefully. Do the words refer to the monks of Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei who wear helmets on their heads and are dressed in armor? Do they refer to the monks of Onjo-ji who wear suits of mail on their fivefold bodies of the Law198 and carry weapons? But these men do not resemble the monks “wearing clothing of patched rags and living in retirement” that are described in the sutra, nor do they seem to be the type who are “respected and revered by the world as though they were arhats who possess the six transcendental powers.” They are not like the men of the third group who [Miao-lo said] are “increasingly harder to recognize.” It would appear, therefore, that the words refer to men such as Shoichi of Kyoto and Ryokan of Kamakura. [Even if they are identified as such,] they should not hate
