transmission dave and mark

>>>>>Historically there have been times during the history, when people pervert

the teachings by stressing that the texts themselves are enough to transmit 
Buddhism.>>>>> 

No one stresses the texts more than Nichiren. Both texts and people coexist.
Only in Zen and the Nichiren Shoshu is there asserted a mythical world existing
without texts. The root is the text. The text has existed since the infinite
past. The text is both the teacher and  the relic of the Buddha. The text is
the Dharma itself. Both an excellent doctrine and an excellent believer is
necessary for the transmission of the Buddha's teachings. The Eternal Buddha
lives today. The Gohonzon is the Eternal Buddha. The Gohonzon is a text. 

>>>>>There have also been sects, such as Zen, which have propagated ideas which
have lead to the thinking that the Sutras and texts are not important, but only self-attained 

Buddhahood or a "Mind to Mind transmission,"  which occurs "apart from the Texts," is, 

according to Zen,  the most important.>>>>> 

 
No one stresses secret transmissions or personal epiphanies more than the
Nichiren Shoshu and the SGI. Even Zen, as Nichiren asserts in the Conversation
Between a Sage and an Unenlightened Man,, bases itself on texts. The Fuji schools 
are more Zen than Zen itself, basi8ng themselves on something other texts. 

>>>>>From the viewpoint of the Daishonin and the Patriarchs of the Tien-t’ai

Sects, people confuse Specific with General and General with Specific, confuse 
Specific, "Face to Face transmission" from Patriarch to Patriarch, or High 
Priest to High Priest, with General "Mind to Mind" Transmission based on texts, 
 or "Mind to Mind transmission,"  "apart from texts" and based on particular 
peoples capacity in the realm of Self-Realization. Chih-i repeats over and 
over, and so do Chang-an and Miao-lo, that the Middle Way is correct, but 
people fail to grasp what this means and continue to be hung up on certain 
points.>>>>> 

   

Nichiren Shoshu is not even Buddhism. How much less so is it the Middle Way?
Nichiren writes: 

"With respect to this doctrine: After the passing of the Thus Come One, in
India for more than fifteen hundred years, the Buddha’s twenty-four successors,
such as Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu, knew of it but did not reveal it. In China
for more than a thousand years, others did not know of it; only T’ien-t’ai and
Miao-lo gave a rough account of it. However, it seems that they did not explain
its true significance. And the same was true of the Great Teacher Dengyo. Now
when I, Nichiren, consider the matter, I find that in addition to the above
passage of the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra states, "If there are those who
conceive differing ideas concerning the three treasures, then truly you should
know that these people can no longer hope to take refuge in or rely upon these
three pure treasures."(The Third Doctrine). 

>>>A Priest named Ganjin, who was the founder of the Japanese Ritsu sect,  had

brought Chih-i’s writings to Japan and Saicho (Dengyo) first studied these texts of 
Tien-t’ai Buddhism,  and began to teach them in Japan, founding a small temple 
called, Hiei-sanji,  at Mt. Hiei.   In 804, he went to China and studied under the 
disciples of the High Priest  Miao-lo, Tao-sui and Hsing-man, and received the 
transmission of Tien-t’ai Buddhism. He returned in 805, to Japan, to officially 
found the Tendai Sect.Dengyo’s original temple at Mt. Hiei was renamed  
Enryakuji Temple by theEmperor in 723. With the principles of  the Tien-t’ai 
sect as the true Buddhistteaching for theMiddle Day of the Law,  Dengyo had

begun petitioning the Government for the establishment of the National
Sanctuary of Mahayana Buddhism at Mt. Hiei.  For his remaining, 17 years,
against much criticism and antagonism from other sects, Dengyo continued 
his resolve. The government did finally approve this project one week
after Dengyo passed away, and finally, five year later,  Dengyo’s successor,
Gishin, had officially founded the National Sanctuary of the Mahayana Ordination 
center at Enryakuji temple. This temple was the placewhere the Daishonin did 
his most intensive study of Buddhism. The meditation which Chih-i taught was 
very widespread.  The Ch’an Sect, whichwas the ancestor of Japanese Zen,  
used Tien-t’ai meditation, even calling hima founder of Ch’an. Ch’an (Zen)  
taught a numberof contradictory teachings.  They first teach of a "mind to mind" 
transmissiondirectly from Shakyamuni  to the "28 Successors" of Ch’an (Zen), 
which is saidto be passed down apart from the Sutras.  Jumping from a slightly 
different variation of the "24Successors of Shakyamuni," including Nagarjuna, 
on to Arya-Simha, theSuccession then jumps to three additional Priests,  and 
then to Bodhidharma, called the fourth patriarch of Ch’an (Zen), but is usually 
considered the founder. 

Scholars of Buddhism generally believe that the first "4 Patriarchs of Zen,"
even including Bodhidharma were quite possibly fictitious.  There is no firm
evidence  for their actual existence.  Bodhidharma’s life was veiled in myth
and any knowledge of his actual history is questionable.   In the few works
attributed to Bodhidharma,  the practice of meditation was set forth, but there
were no in- depth teachings about actual meditation technique.  Instead, the
Shikan meditation which had become very widespread through the
Buddhist sects  in China,  was stolen by most of the other sects and
appropriated for their own purposes. This was because the Maka Shkan
was so complete a teaching,  that other explanations of meditation practice, 
paled by comparison.  The  Ch’an (Zen) sect, also used mystical riddles, 
called Koans as a centralpart of  their  meditation,  thus causing Beings to 
forget the importance ofthe Meditation on the Sutras of Buddhism, and instead 
having them focus on short poems and riddles, equating  emptiness as the 
sum total of the Buddhist teaching.  From the standpoint of Tien-t’ai Buddhism 
Ch’an (Zen) was like going backwards, away from the most profound Sutra of 
Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra, which refutes the previous views of emptiness only.  
Prior to and after the death of Miao-lo, the Ch’an Sect was rising in prominence, 
denying the texts of Buddhism in favor of the "Transmission apart from the Sutras." 
At the same time within the body of followers of the Tien-t’ai sect in later times, 
there was discord as to the principles of Specific and General and the issues of "
Texts" versus, "Face to Face Transmission.">>>>> 

Actually, you are mistaken and you are fixated with a perceived complexity of
the specific transmission which is really a simple concept. I think the reason
for this is that the Nichiren Shoshu feels themselves kindred spirits to Zen.
Could this be the reason  Nikken erected a tombstone in a Zen cemetary? The
Zen sect was already thoroughly censured by Tientai.  Nichiren writes: 

"In the Tendai school, however, there appeared a priest known as the Great
Teacher Miao-lo. Though he lived more than two hundred years after the time of
the Great Teacher T'ien-t'ai, he was extremely wise and had a clear
understanding of the teachings of T'ien-t'ai. Thus he perceived, from the heart
of T'ien-t'ai's interpretations, that the Lotus Sutra is superior to the Jimmitsu 
Sutra and the Hosso school--which had been introduced to China after
T'ien-t'ai's time--as well as to the Kegon school and the Shingon school with
its Dainichi Sutra, both schools which had first been established in China."(On
Repaying Debts of Gratitude). 

>>>>>Miao-lo had taught that the "Face to Face transmission" and the Texts of

Chih-I were identical,...>>>>> 

You have converted for a moment but only for a moment because you lack sufficient 
faith to come to a correct understanding.

>>>>>but in no way did he support the idea that either the "Face to Face Transmission" 
or the "Texts" were to be discarded.>>>>> 

 
Of course you haven't supported your contention with the actual words of Miao-lo. 
You should read The Entity of the Mystic Law. It is very clear that the Transmission 
in the Latter Day is a textual transmission.

Even were it true what you state about Miao-lo, it is undisputed that he was teaching
for the people of his day, the Middle Day of the Law and not for the Bodhisattvas of the
Earth.