Nagarjuna's tetralemma in contrast to Nichiren's interpretation of Tendai 3 Truths

[narhwal90]

I misunderstood what you were asking. I think I have it now.

The relevance of saying "You are supposed to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final" is to point out that what you are quoting is from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. Do you consider these sutras "complete and final?"

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

I would be interested to see where in the three fold sutra where Nichiren failed in to meet the requisite to assert his teachings as such. In this light the man is minimally a Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

If you investigate it as such perhaps you will have something more concrete.

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me... all this mayhem is based on Zhiyi's sutra classification, which is apparently idiosyncratic to some east asian schools so inappropriate to impose on others.

[Caoimhghín]

I misunderstood what you were asking. I think I have it now.

The relevance of saying "You are supposed to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final" is to point out that what you are quoting is from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. Do you consider these sutras "complete and final?"

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

So why and how is asking "Do you consider these sutras complete and final" "not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition?"

I am asking because I want to know if you consider the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras as "complete and final." The end and benefit would be greater understanding as to why you felt that quotation from WND (I assume) was relevant to post when you originally posted it. If there was such greater understanding, presumably then we would be able to understand what your objection is that made you say X and Y about Stone and whether or not the Kamakura Era inherited sectarian narratives of Buddhist history.

[narhwal90]

Well, sure, thats what the sutra says. BND's conduct is to be modelled, no argument there.

As to the LS, many sutras make many claims, not sure I am in a position to judge supremacy, or even if doing so is a good idea. Frankly I don't see why I need to adopt Nichiren's view without giving the question my own consideration. I have no argument with you using it as a standard of proof.. but from that perspective it lacks rigor and clarity from my standpoint. OTOH its replete with instruction for the bodhisattva, which is most interesting to me.

It isn't meant to have rigor or clarity in all places as the specifics are defined within your own life at the given moment of propagation.

That seems a really sketchy statement to make about a teaching considered to be supreme. If it is not rigorous and clear than how can it be ultimate? Charitably, I would say such a perspective could reasonably and usefully be expedient.

[FiveSkandhas]

The problem here is that Nichiren àdherants tend to argue from within the internal logic of their tradition, while most other Mahayanists argue from a broader, more ecumenical and trans-sectarian perspective.

So it's never going to work out; there is not enough common ground. It's like two people who speak different languages.

Understand that I respect Nichren and the Nichiren schools a great deal. But I take them for what they are -- highly non-ecumenical -- and consequently I recognize that arguments are useless. No point in arguing with wall-of-text Gossho quotes; might as well argue with a chatbot. Nothing personal, but I've seen too many of "these threads" end identically.

[Malcolm]

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism.

Right, because no one else thought that they might comparatively evaluate sūtras...

[Malcolm]

So it's never going to work out; there is not enough common ground. It's like two people who speak different languages.

Please recall my three axioms:

Axiom 1: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and non-Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 2: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and other Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 3: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism are best avoided.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 98#p562998

[narhwal90]

but I thought we were doing OK.. the knives are usually out by the 3rd page

[FiveSkandhas]

So it's never going to work out; there is not enough common ground. It's like two people who speak different languages.

Please recall my three axioms:

Axiom 1: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and non-Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 2: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and other Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 3: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism are best avoided.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 98#p562998

More or less, right?

I would say that as a codicil to Axiom 3, however, non-antagonistic, "exploratory" conversations with Nichiren adherants can be rewarding. Nichiren doxology and history is fascinating. They have argued among themselves as much as they have argued with everyone else, and have given rise to a richly adumbrated labyrinth of doctrine that has a beauty all its own on a purely structural level. Just as long as you can be dispassionate enough to accept the inherent limits of viable discourse. It's like an anthropological treck to venture into Nichiren-land.

[Caoimhghín]

Vis-a-vis the later rejection of Madhyamaka teachings by many in the Chán, Huáyán, and Tiāntāi schools, it looks like I'm going to be held up here for longer than thought. I'm still not at a computer and copy-pasting as well as the basic operation of changing Internet windows is harder on this phone. As a foretaste of the larger cited post, I want to point out some details in the translation from WND ("The Words of Nichiren Daishonin").

T’ien-t’ai says, “Do not presume to compare Treatise on the Middle Way [to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra].” And elsewhere he says, “Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna clearly perceived the truth in their hearts, but they did not teach it. Instead, they employed the provisional Mahayana teachings, which were suited to the times.” Miao-lo remarks, “For demolishing false opinions and establishing the truth, nothing can compare to the Lotus Sutra.” And Ts’ung-i states, “Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu cannot compare with T’ien-t’ai.”

The first thing I would like to point out is footnote 73 from the WND editors:

73: The four-phrase verse referred to is: “We speak of all things as ‘empty’ / which are dependent in origination. / They are no more than ‘existence in name only.’/ This is the Middle Way.”

This is not about the tetralemma. It is about a completely different line from the MMK.

Second, look at the [square brackets] in the translation. That is not in the root text. Venerable Zhiyi in the root text says "Do not presume to compare the Treatise on the Middle Way." It does not say "to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra." By "compare the Treatise on the Middle Way," Ven Zhiyi means to try to dispute it or sublimate it in favour of other teachings. Now we come to the disciples.

Ven Miàolè says "For demolishing false opinions and establishing the truth, nothing can compare to the Lotus Sutra." This is actually a reference to Madhyamaka itself. In the words of Venerable Gyōnen:

Question: What truth is presented in this tradition’s presentation of the truth?

Answer: There is no separate presentation of the truth outside of the demolition of error. When the demolition of error has been thoroughly exhausted, then there is nothing that can be grasped. If there is nothing that can be grasped, speech and discursive thought have nothing in which they can lodge. However it is only in opposition to the demolition of error that there is also a presentation of the truth. If this one source is not plumbed, then discriminative thoughts have not been extinguished. If even a small fraction of the truth has not been exhausted, then the ultimate truth has not been presented. If there is nothing in the source that has not been plumbed, then vain discussions are exhausted therein. If there is no truth that has not been exhausted, then the most profound way is understood. If, however, we are to rely upon words in discussing this truth, then there is nothing that will not be elucidated.

Question: If this is the case, what does it mean to say “present the truth”?

Answer: The ultimate truth is profound and ultimate, and words cannot touch it. If we say that it is existence, then we devolve into stupidity. If we say that it is nonexistence, then such is not wisdom. Subhuti was scolded and Sariputra was criticized [for holding such views]. It is neither existence nor nonexistence; it is not both existence and nonexistence together; and it is neither nonexistence nor not-nonexistence. Words and speech are cut off, and thoughts and ideas are all extinguished. It is profound; there is nowhere wherein thoughts may lodge. It is broad and vast; all supports are sundered. We do not know how we may verbalize it, but, obliged to do so, we call it “presenting the truth.”

Question: If the mind and speech are both cut off, and if both existence and nonexistence are abandoned, then this is the teaching of emptiness. What relationship does this have to the presentation of truth?

Answer: Since both existence and nonexistence have been abandoned, how can one abide in emptiness? The nature of the way of the Buddhas is truly that there is nowhere wherein one can lodge [the mind and discriminative thought]. Since both existence and nonexistence have been sundered, there is nothing that can be grasped. The purport of presenting the truth is exhausted in this.

(Venerable Gyōnen 八宗綱要 Doctrinal Essentials of the Eight Sects, translation Leo M. Prüden)

Now, whether Ven Miàolè means this to say the LS is "true Madhyamaka" and different from "normal Madhyamaka" or if he means that the LS complies with Madhyamaka is yet to be seen. Either is likely TBH.

Ven Cóngyì says "Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu cannot compare with Tiāntāi.”

I will have more quotes like this from Vens Guangding, Zhili, Zhanran, etc., when I am home. The most important quotes will be from Makashikan etc. comparing Ven Zhiyi's declaration of Ven Nāgārjuna as his great teacher compared with the subsequent patriarchs of the Tiāntāi school's later words about Madhyamaka.

[Malcolm]

Nichiren doxology and history is fascinating.

In a kind of forensic sort of way...

[tkp67]

I misunderstood what you were asking. I think I have it now.

The relevance of saying "You are supposed to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final" is to point out that what you are quoting is from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. Do you consider these sutras "complete and final?"

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

I would be interested to see where in the three fold sutra where Nichiren failed in to meet the requisite to assert his teachings as such. In this light the man is minimally a Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

If you investigate it as such perhaps you will have something more concrete.

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me... all this mayhem is based on Zhiyi's sutra classification, which is apparently idiosyncratic to some east asian schools so inappropriate to impose on others.

Yet this isn't an imposition of the three truths outside of the Nichiren forums which is why I don't see the mayhem. It also conflates the position of the sutras with the necessity to propagate the lotus based on the times and conditions of the peoples.

It can be simply argued that if Japan was not ready for the Lotus Sutra it would not have been established as it was. Being able to apply it as prescribed is the proverbial proof in the pudding.

This opens to larger dialog outside the context of this sub-topic. One thing about Nichiren is there is no one established linear path to the teaching but rather employs all of the teaching into one practice that manifests as required to fulfill it. This includes deviation to the provisional teachings.

One of the very simple proofs of the lotus and the need there of is the fact that buddhist practitioners contest the cause and effect of the teachings in other people lives based on the provisions of their own teachings. He foresaw this and put this mechanism in to correct it.

[tkp67]

I misunderstood what you were asking. I think I have it now.

The relevance of saying "You are supposed to rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final" is to point out that what you are quoting is from the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras. Do you consider these sutras "complete and final?"

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

So why and how is asking "Do you consider these sutras complete and final" "not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition?"

I am asking because I want to know if you consider the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras as "complete and final." The end and benefit would be greater understanding as to why you felt that quotation from WND (I assume) was relevant to post when you originally posted it. If there was such greater understanding, presumably then we would be able to understand what your objection is that made you say X and Y about Stone and whether or not the Kamakura Era inherited sectarian narratives of Buddhist history.

That metric is for measuring which sutra represents the buddhas highest teaching. It is not a metric to validate if they are the golden words of buddha or not. They are not contested as such by Nichiren and to suggest is not representative of his teachings.

Basically what you are positing does not makes sense from the perspective of what is being taught but more importantly how it is meant to be understood.

[tkp67]

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism.

Right, because no one else thought that they might comparatively evaluate sūtras...

What does EA comparative methodology have to do with any other system?

What thought process was triggered to even evoke such a statement because I can't understand how one lineages methodology can contest others it was not aware of at the time and aren't being contested here?

[tkp67]

So it's never going to work out; there is not enough common ground. It's like two people who speak different languages.

Please recall my three axioms:

Axiom 1: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and non-Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 2: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and other Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 3: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism are best avoided.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 98#p562998

I believe that axiom is of your own design correct?

[Caoimhghín]

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

So why and how is asking "Do you consider these sutras complete and final" "not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition?"

I am asking because I want to know if you consider the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras as "complete and final." The end and benefit would be greater understanding as to why you felt that quotation from WND (I assume) was relevant to post when you originally posted it. If there was such greater understanding, presumably then we would be able to understand what your objection is that made you say X and Y about Stone and whether or not the Kamakura Era inherited sectarian narratives of Buddhist history.

That metric is for measuring which sutra represents the buddhas highest teaching. It is not a metric to validate if they are the golden words of buddha or not. They are not contested as such by Nichiren and to suggest is not representative of his teachings.

Basically what you are positing does not makes sense from the perspective of what is being taught but more importantly how it is meant to be understood.

Now you have introduced something new into the conversation, namely whether complete and final means something is "the golden words of Buddha or not." What does this mean? Is this what you think we've been talking about?

So the Nirvana Sutra and Vimalakirti sutras being either complete and final or not complete and final allegedly "does not make sense" from the perspective of what is being taught. Well, how then? How does it not make sense from the perspective of what is being taught? The quote from Ven Nichiren of the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras is that you are supposed to "rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final." So how is asking if the Vimalakirti sutra is complete and final "positing [something that] does not makes sense from the perspective of what is being taught but more importantly how it is meant to be understood?" How?

[narhwal90]

The comparative method of evaluating sutras is a backbone of EA Buddhism. Out of that context your statement is not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition. To what end and benefit does it serve? If I understood the benefit then perhaps I would become enlightened to such.

I would be interested to see where in the three fold sutra where Nichiren failed in to meet the requisite to assert his teachings as such. In this light the man is minimally a Bodhisattva Mahasattva.

If you investigate it as such perhaps you will have something more concrete.

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me... all this mayhem is based on Zhiyi's sutra classification, which is apparently idiosyncratic to some east asian schools so inappropriate to impose on others.

Yet this isn't an imposition of the three truths outside of the Nichiren forums which is why I don't see the mayhem. It also conflates the position of the sutras with the necessity to propagate the lotus based on the times and conditions of the peoples.

It can be simply argued that if Japan was not ready for the Lotus Sutra it would not have been established as it was. Being able to apply it as prescribed is the proverbial proof in the pudding.

This opens to larger dialog outside the context of this sub-topic. One thing about Nichiren is there is no one established linear path to the teaching but rather employs all of the teaching into one practice that manifests as required to fulfill it. This includes deviation to the provisional teachings.

One of the very simple proofs of the lotus and the need there of is the fact that buddhist practitioners contest the cause and effect of the teachings in other people lives based on the provisions of their own teachings. He foresaw this and put this mechanism in to correct it.

Well the topic of this thread is the contrast between the Tientai 3 Truths and the Nagarjuna tetralemma, which I would argue is within the scope of Nichiren-land because Nichiren makes a point of tracing his doctrinal lineage back to Nagarjuna, and to some degree superseding him. The mayhem is how us Nichirens are always beating up on ourselves and others as if Nichiren's doctrine is the ultimate teaching for the modern age, in part using the 5 Periods argument as a basis for the supremacy.

Yes, actual proof matters now as much as it did in medieval Japan, and the effectiveness of Nichiren's practice is not in question. Thing is, practitioners of other schools demonstrate actual proof also. I suppose I never swallowed the triumphalism pill. As per the buddha's instruction we are not to take the word of anyone as authoritative, we are to do our own investigations.

[tkp67]

Nichiren venerates each of the teachers before him as being on eagle peak with him including Nagarjuna. He then critiques how their applied teachings don't fulfill the needs of the people at the time of his existence while using those teachers contributions as represented through the eyes of those in Japan within his lifetime. He did so through comparison to the lotus as seen through the lens of both the theoretical and then essential teachings.

Through this he applied an adaptive mantra whose adaptive mechanism was aimed at the capacity of the practitioner. His conversations manifested accordingly in the same way.

The prime objective is to observe the functions within the LS and identify them within one's own life. Not the formulation of names but awareness (recognition) of function. It is not as easy to convey in conversation as it is to observe in contemplative mediation and function does not appear with labels. Rather it is meant to be understood most expeditiously through practicing daimoku in front of a gohonzon.

Nichiren had due cause for this and because of that due cause the lotus was propagated.

Vis-a-vis the later rejection of Madhyamaka teachings by many in the Chán, Huáyán, and Tiāntāi schools, it looks like I'm going to be held up here for longer than thought. I'm still not at a computer and copy-pasting as well as the basic operation of changing Internet windows is harder on this phone. As a foretaste of the larger cited post, I want to point out some details in the translation from WND ("The Words of Nichiren Daishonin").

T’ien-t’ai says, “Do not presume to compare Treatise on the Middle Way [to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra].” And elsewhere he says, “Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna clearly perceived the truth in their hearts, but they did not teach it. Instead, they employed the provisional Mahayana teachings, which were suited to the times.” Miao-lo remarks, “For demolishing false opinions and establishing the truth, nothing can compare to the Lotus Sutra.” And Ts’ung-i states, “Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu cannot compare with T’ien-t’ai.”

The first thing I would like to point out is footnote 73 from the WND editors:

73: The four-phrase verse referred to is: “We speak of all things as ‘empty’ / which are dependent in origination. / They are no more than ‘existence in name only.’/ This is the Middle Way.”

This is not about the tetralemma. It is about a completely different line from the MMK.

Second, look at the [square brackets] in the translation. That is not in the root text. Venerable Zhiyi in the root text says "Do not presume to compare the Treatise on the Middle Way." It does not say "to the teachings of the Lotus Sutra." By "compare the Treatise on the Middle Way," Ven Zhiyi means to try to dispute it or sublimate it in favour of other teachings. Now we come to the disciples.

Ven Miàolè says "For demolishing false opinions and establishing the truth, nothing can compare to the Lotus Sutra." This is actually a reference to Madhyamaka itself. In the words of Venerable Gyōnen:

Question: What truth is presented in this tradition’s presentation of the truth?

Answer: There is no separate presentation of the truth outside of the demolition of error. When the demolition of error has been thoroughly exhausted, then there is nothing that can be grasped. If there is nothing that can be grasped, speech and discursive thought have nothing in which they can lodge. However it is only in opposition to the demolition of error that there is also a presentation of the truth. If this one source is not plumbed, then discriminative thoughts have not been extinguished. If even a small fraction of the truth has not been exhausted, then the ultimate truth has not been presented. If there is nothing in the source that has not been plumbed, then vain discussions are exhausted therein. If there is no truth that has not been exhausted, then the most profound way is understood. If, however, we are to rely upon words in discussing this truth, then there is nothing that will not be elucidated.

Question: If this is the case, what does it mean to say “present the truth”?

Answer: The ultimate truth is profound and ultimate, and words cannot touch it. If we say that it is existence, then we devolve into stupidity. If we say that it is nonexistence, then such is not wisdom. Subhuti was scolded and Sariputra was criticized [for holding such views]. It is neither existence nor nonexistence; it is not both existence and nonexistence together; and it is neither nonexistence nor not-nonexistence. Words and speech are cut off, and thoughts and ideas are all extinguished. It is profound; there is nowhere wherein thoughts may lodge. It is broad and vast; all supports are sundered. We do not know how we may verbalize it, but, obliged to do so, we call it “presenting the truth.”

Question: If the mind and speech are both cut off, and if both existence and nonexistence are abandoned, then this is the teaching of emptiness. What relationship does this have to the presentation of truth?

Answer: Since both existence and nonexistence have been abandoned, how can one abide in emptiness? The nature of the way of the Buddhas is truly that there is nowhere wherein one can lodge [the mind and discriminative thought]. Since both existence and nonexistence have been sundered, there is nothing that can be grasped. The purport of presenting the truth is exhausted in this.

(Venerable Gyōnen 八宗綱要 Doctrinal Essentials of the Eight Sects, translation Leo M. Prüden)

Now, whether Ven Miàolè means this to say the LS is "true Madhyamaka" and different from "normal Madhyamaka" or if he means that the LS complies with Madhyamaka is yet to be seen. Either is likely TBH.

Ven Cóngyì says "Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu cannot compare with Tiāntāi.”

I will have more quotes like this from Vens Guangding, Zhili, Zhanran, etc., when I am home. The most important quotes will be from Makashikan etc. comparing Ven Zhiyi's declaration of Ven Nāgārjuna as his great teacher compared with the subsequent patriarchs of the Tiāntāi school's later words about Madhyamaka.

[tkp67]

So why and how is asking "Do you consider these sutras complete and final" "not only inappropriate and unreasonably disparaging to this tradition?"

I am asking because I want to know if you consider the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras as "complete and final." The end and benefit would be greater understanding as to why you felt that quotation from WND (I assume) was relevant to post when you originally posted it. If there was such greater understanding, presumably then we would be able to understand what your objection is that made you say X and Y about Stone and whether or not the Kamakura Era inherited sectarian narratives of Buddhist history.

That metric is for measuring which sutra represents the buddhas highest teaching. It is not a metric to validate if they are the golden words of buddha or not. They are not contested as such by Nichiren and to suggest is not representative of his teachings.

Basically what you are positing does not makes sense from the perspective of what is being taught but more importantly how it is meant to be understood.

Now you have introduced something new into the conversation, namely whether complete and final means something is "the golden words of Buddha or not." What does this mean? Is this what you think we've been talking about?

So the Nirvana Sutra and Vimalakirti sutras being either complete and final or not complete and final allegedly "does not make sense" from the perspective of what is being taught. Well, how then? How does it not make sense from the perspective of what is being taught? The quote from Ven Nichiren of the Nirvana and Vimalakirti sutras is that you are supposed to "rely on sutras that are complete and final and not upon those that are not complete and final." So how is asking if the Vimalakirti sutra is complete and final "positing [something that] does not makes sense from the perspective of what is being taught but more importantly how it is meant to be understood?" How?

He didn't rank them as categorically false or true. Rather it was an evaluation of which teachings was primary and absolute.

[Malcolm]

So it's never going to work out; there is not enough common ground. It's like two people who speak different languages.

Please recall my three axioms:

Axiom 1: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and non-Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 2: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism between Nichiren Buddhists and other Nichiren Buddhists end in flame wars.

Axiom 3: All online conversations about Nichiren Buddhism are best avoided.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 98#p562998

I believe that axiom is of your own design correct?

I didn’t design them, I merely observed them.

[tkp67]

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me... all this mayhem is based on Zhiyi's sutra classification, which is apparently idiosyncratic to some east asian schools so inappropriate to impose on others.

Yet this isn't an imposition of the three truths outside of the Nichiren forums which is why I don't see the mayhem. It also conflates the position of the sutras with the necessity to propagate the lotus based on the times and conditions of the peoples.

It can be simply argued that if Japan was not ready for the Lotus Sutra it would not have been established as it was. Being able to apply it as prescribed is the proverbial proof in the pudding.

This opens to larger dialog outside the context of this sub-topic. One thing about Nichiren is there is no one established linear path to the teaching but rather employs all of the teaching into one practice that manifests as required to fulfill it. This includes deviation to the provisional teachings.

One of the very simple proofs of the lotus and the need there of is the fact that buddhist practitioners contest the cause and effect of the teachings in other people lives based on the provisions of their own teachings. He foresaw this and put this mechanism in to correct it.

Well the topic of this thread is the contrast between the Tientai 3 Truths and the Nagarjuna tetralemma, which I would argue is within the scope of Nichiren-land because Nichiren makes a point of tracing his doctrinal lineage back to Nagarjuna, and to some degree superseding him. The mayhem is how us Nichirens are always beating up on ourselves and others as if Nichiren's doctrine is the ultimate teaching for the modern age, in part using the 5 Periods argument as a basis for the supremacy.

Yes, actual proof matters now as much as it did in medieval Japan, and the effectiveness of Nichiren's practice is not in question. Thing is, practitioners of other schools demonstrate actual proof also. I suppose I never swallowed the triumphalism pill. As per the buddha's instruction we are not to take the word of anyone as authoritative, we are to do our own investigations.

What triumphalism?

The superiority of the teaching is in regards to perfected qualities and imparting them without bias.

Every time someone recoils to the thought of triumphalism they are recoiling to the illusion of their own mind that would allow them to conceive such a thing from the perspective of a sutra that represents Shakyamnui's supreme complete enlightenment.

Superior equanimity? Superior Purity? Superior boundlessness? Superior compassion?

Is there really such a thing as partial equality or are things equitable or not?

Is there really a partial purity or are things pure or impure? Is there an inferior boundlessness opposed to new and improved boundlessness with less bounds?

When one examines what they are actually getting upset about it can only exist in this thing called self and that is an important take away from this sutra.

The most ironic part about all this when looking at it from an intellectual perspective there is a logical disconnect as this is our reality as it exists now. All these traditions coexist already. They only fight in people's heads.

That was one of the points of the assembly and the opening of the eyes. To eliminate the condition that constantly arises around dharma as foreseen and experienced over the term that would have it seen as disparate opposed to being part of a chain of causation.

It opens a much deeper conversations that really deviates from the topic but all these variables are interdependent at some point. They don't exist independently and Nichiren does not reveal these inter relationships directly but often points around them.

He mentions something about the lotus that is parallel to this. Something like it contains mostly praise and spare instruction. His methodology seems reflective of this at times.