I am currently thinking of constructing a two part reply to the debate at hand.
Firstly I shall do as the others have and respond directly to individual points.
Secondly, as I am representing the Nichiren perspective, I shall elucidate some principles of that school.
Nichiren has very specific reasons for taking the relatively extreme views he takes, and without understanding his historical context and intentions he is a very difficult figure to comprehend.
One must always understand the intentions of Buddhist texts; no matter how dense the abstractions, or how strange the metaphors if one understands the intention one will be guided to enlightenment. If one does not, then one will be trapped in samsara's dualism.
Firstly I shall do as the others have and respond directly to individual points.
Secondly, as I am representing the Nichiren perspective, I shall elucidate some principles of that school.
Nichiren has very specific reasons for taking the relatively extreme views he takes, and without understanding his historical context and intentions he is a very difficult figure to comprehend.
One must always understand the intentions of Buddhist texts; no matter how dense the abstractions, or how strange the metaphors if one understands the intention one will be guided to enlightenment. If one does not, then one will be trapped in samsara's dualism.