The Rug Really Tied the Room Together.http://youtu.be/_vGK008c_rA
If you want Nichiren in a nutshell, its this: The Lotus Sutra is the Rug that Ties the Room Together. Without the Rug, the room is just not complete.
SoB, I don't know how else to explain it to you. These quotes you take out of context don't mean what you purport them to mean.
The problem is that we are not on common ground of meaning. The common ground we need to be on to have a productive conversation at a minimum is that you need to understand the theoretical framework within which Nichiren was operating. This theoretical framework is largely based on Tientai - Zhiyi and Zhanran, predominantly, but also Saicho. It is also within the historical moment he was living in.
This is what Nichiren taught: without Buddhahood as a precondition, the attainment of Buddhahood is impossible. However, even with Buddhahood as a precondition, if not actualized, it does not manifest. This is actually all pretty standard Mahayana, especially Tathagatagarbha/Buddhanature Buddhism.
The question then is, how do you actualize Buddhahood? There are many teachings in the Buddhist canon that purport to lead to Buddhahood. Do they all lead to Buddhahood? Not according to the Lotus Sutra, not directly, anyway. According to the Lotus Sutra, all paths eventually lead to the Lotus Sutra, and it is only through the Lotus Sutra that Buddhahood is realized. The Lotus Sutra ties all the disparate teachings falling under the rubric of Buddhism and ties them together, like Lebowski's rug. This is why Nichiren wrote, "All the teachings that Shakyamuni Buddha expounded during his lifetime— all the eight volumes and twenty-eight chapters of the Lotus Sutra, the first four flavors of teachings that preceded the sutra, and the Nirvana Sutra that came after the Lotus— make an unbroken series of teachings like one perfect sutra."
He also wrote things like this:
Question: What about the passage in the Lotus Sutra that says, “Do not preach this sutra to persons who are without wisdom”?
Answer: When I speak of understanding capacity, I am referring to preaching by a person of wisdom. Again, one should preach only the Lotus Sutra even to those who slander the Law, so that they may establish a so-called “poison-drum relationship” with it. In this respect, one should proceed as Bodhisattva Never Disparaging did.
However, if one is speaking to persons who one knows have the capacity to become wise, then one should first instruct them in the Hinayana teachings, then instruct them in the provisional Mahayana teachings, and finally instruct them in the true Mahayana. But if speaking to those one knows to be ignorant persons of lesser capacity, then one should first instruct them in the true Mahayana teaching. In that way, whether they choose to believe in the teaching or to slander it, they will still receive the seeds of Buddhahood.
Teaching, Capacity, Country and the Time
Only after chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo sixty thousand, a hundred thousand, or even ten million times a day, may women who put their faith in the Lotus Sutra, if they still have some time to spare, now and then murmur to themselves the name of Amida or one of the other Buddhas.
The Daimoku of the Lotus Sutra
The problem, which Nichiren saw, and spoke out against harshly, were that people in his day were taking various Sutras and considering them to be complete teachings that would lead to Buddhahood. This obviously did not jive with Nichiren and his view of the Lotus Sutra. However, when these provisional teachings are read in light of the Lotus Sutra, as though they were one, single Sutra, these teachings can in the right circumstances lead to Buddhahood.
Son of Buddha wrote:
From Both the realitive and absolute viewpoints,we should abandon all that is bad.To be attached to the perfect teaching is bad,and to be attached to the other three teachings is of course even worse.
This is the full quote from Opening of the Eyes:
The Nirvana Sutra says: “[WorldHonored One, today I have learned the correct view for the first time. World- Honored One, up till today] we all have been people of mistaken views.” Miao-lo explains this by saying, “They themselves referred to the three teachings [they had practiced until that time] as mistaken views.” And Great Concentration and Insight says, “The Nirvana Sutra says, ‘Up till today we all have been people of mistaken views.’ ‘Mistaken’ is bad, is it not?” The Annotations on “Great Concentration and Insight” says: “ ‘Mistaken’ is bad. Therefore, let it be known that only the perfect teaching is good. There are two meanings involved here. First, what accords with the truth is to be accounted good, and what goes against the truth is to be accounted bad. This is the meaning from the relative viewpoint. [Second,] attachment [to this viewpoint] is bad, and transcending it is good. [This is the meaning from the absolute viewpoint.] From both the relative and absolute viewpoints, we should abandon all that is bad. To be attached to the perfect teaching is bad, and to be attached to the other [three] teachings is of course even worse.”
You are quoting Nichiren quoting Zhanran (Mialo). Again, you need to understand Tientai theory. As such, the Pre-Lotus teachings here are understood through the lens of Tientai which holds that they are valid when understood through the lens of the Lotus Sutra (Opening the Provisional to Reveal the Real).
I'm not going to argue that Nichiren did not use harsh language. But again, its the overall message.
Now its one thing to say that Honens view will lead to hell,its anouther thing entirely to say that the 18th Vow of Amitabha Buddha(Nembutsu) will lead one to hell.if Ven Nichiren has something to say bad about Honens views then state THESE VIEWS(of discarding the Lotus sutra) will lead one to hell,But dont say the Buddhas Vow that those who call his name(Nembutsu) to enter the pureland will lead them to hell.by saying this he is not attacking erroneous views of honen he is attacking the 18th vow.
The problem, apparently, was that the practice of Nembutsu in Japan at that time were synonymous with Honen's views. I don't think Nichiren had problems with Nembutsu within a Tientai framework, as Zhiyi instructed in Mohozhikuan. What he did have a problem with was the Nembutsu practice of his day which was exclusively based on Amida's vow to the exclusion of all else. People in his day believed that all of the Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings had lost efficacy, and therefore, one should ignore all other teachings and singleminedely call on Amida for rebirth in his Pure Land.
As a practical matter, Nichiren was apparently disturbed at the hope-snuffing nature of this theology which people affirmed by their constant chanting of Nembutsu. On a visceral level, it seemed wrong to him that there were teachers in Japan telling people that this life was hopeless. No matter what they did, this world would lead to hell. Nichiren just flipped it and said, teaching and practicing this hopeless teaching will lead to hell.
I for the most part don't believe all this stuff about Hell Realms and what not. I say this, however: Anyone who teaches that THIS life is categorically hopeless and that the only hope is in an afterlife should be condemned for teaching destructive ideas.
"The Lotus sutra states "now this 3fold world is all my domain,and the Living beings in it are all my children ,If this scriptural statment is correct,Shakyamuni Buddha is the father and mother,teacher and sovereign to all living beings in japan.
Amida Buddha does not possess these 3 virtues.however,you ignore the Buddha of the 3 Virtues and invoke the name of anouther Buddha(Amida) day and night(he later says this is an unfial deed)
okay first of all the Buddha tells us to praise all the Buddhas in the lotus sutra so their is nothing wrong with invoking the name of Amitabha Buddha,second all the buddhas are the SAME(one Full enlightenement) to say the Buddhas are different is to say they are discriminateing beings just like us with seperate 5 aggreagate selves.
According to the Lotus Sutra, all of the Buddhas of the Ten Directions, including Amida, are emanations of Shakyamuni Buddha. Again, Nichiren was criticizing interpretations of Pure Land teachings that posited Amida as a Buddha separate and distinct from Shakyamuni. To assert this, which teachers in his day were doing, is an implicit denial of the Lotus Sutra according to Nichiren.
Anyway, regardless, as I previously wrote, I understand there is plenty about Nichiren to take exception to. His teachings, however, are not quite what you assert them to be. That's all.