Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Nichiren Buddhism is not Dhamma (adhamma).
Where do you draw the line between Dhamma and Adhamma?
Is it a matter of what was taught by the Buddha? Is it what was recited at the 1st Buddhist Council? The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th? etc. Is it that which is in accord with the suttas?
The reason I ask is because we may reject the Lotus Sutra as an apocraphic forgery, but Theravada itself has its fair share of "thought" (loosely termed) which doubtlessly arose after the Buddha's parinibbana too.
Modern scholarship generally considers the Abhidhamma Pitaka to be a post-Buddha development, yet many Theravadins take its teaching as being "of a higher order than those contained in the agamas and the Sutta Pitaka". Assuming for the sake of argument that this scholarship is correct, is that elevation of the Abhidhamma fundamentally any different to what Nichiren has done with the elevation of the Lotus Sutra?
Any thoughts you can provide on where you feel the line should be drawn, and by what criteria, would be greatly appreciated.
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh
"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sāriputta, rare are those who understand." (A I 333, Sāriputtasutta)