The Lotus Sutra is a Hellenistic work from the first century at the very earliest, probably the second century. That's why it shares an intolerant worldview with Christianity, which also has roots in that same time/place. You're right - there were other sutras taught - I believe the Nirvana sutra is later, but I'd need to check on that.
In the Lotus Sutra, you find the apocalyptic thought common to the Near East and thereabouts from about 2nd Century BCE up on into medieval times. See "Latter Day Of The Law" and "age of kosen rufu" and all the rest of that. Why would the Buddha set out a body of "80,000 teachings" (meaning a whole bunch) so that there would be something that every person could relate to, and then, 500 years later, somehow posthumously "authorize" a "highest teaching" (that designation in itself is non-Buddhist, as it shows attachment and delusion, that one teaching could somehow be arbitrarily and essentially "higher" than others). Compare what you know of the SGI and the Lotus Sutra to these quotes from the Buddha (a couple are paraphrased):
Quote
Winning gives birth to hostility. Losing, one lies down in pain. The calmed lie down with ease, having set winning and losing aside.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
The Lotus Sutra's essence is authoritarian - "This sutra is foremost and the only acceptable one because it says so itself." That is completely contrary to the spirit of Shakyamuni Buddha, who never taught that he had the ONLY way. He just stated that he had *A* way.
Here is a passage on what constitutes a good teaching that I think will be helpful at this point:
Quote
However, ultimately no truth for the Maadhyamika is "absolutely true." All truths are essentially pragmatic in character and eventually have to be abandoned.
Whether they are true is based on whether they can make one clinging or non-clinging. Their truth-values are their effectiveness as a means (upaaya) to salvation. The Twofold Truth is like a medicine;it is used to eliminate all extreme views and metaphysical speculations. In order to refute the annihilationist, the Buddha may say that existence is real. And for the sake of rejecting the eternalist, he may claim that existence is unreal.[34] As long as the Buddha's teachings are able to help people to remove attachments, they can be accepted as "truths."
After all extremes and attachments are banished from the mind, the so-called truths are no longer needed and hence are not "truths" any more. One should be "empty" of all truths and lean on nothing. To understand the "empty" nature of all truths one should realize, according to Chi-tsang, that "the refutation of erroneous views is the illumination of right view." The so-called refutation of erroneous views, in a philosophical context, is a declaration that all metaphysical views are erroneous and ought to be rejected. To assert that all theories are erroneous views neither entails nor implies that one has to have any "view". For the Maadhyamikas the refutation of erroneous views and the illumination of right views are not two separate things or acts but the same. A right view is not a view in itself; rather, it is the absence of views. If a right view is held in place of an erroneous one, the right view itself would become one-sided and would require refutation. The point the Maadhyamikas want to accentuate, expressed in contemporary terms, is that
one should refute all metaphysical views, and to do so does not require the presentation of another metaphysical view, but simply forgetting or ignoring all metaphysics./b]
Like "emptiness," the words such as "right" and "wrong" or "erroneous" are really empty terms without reference to any definite entities or things. The so-called right view is actually as empty as the wrong view. It is cited as right "only when there is neither affirmation nor negation." If possible, one should not use the term. But
We are forced to use the word 'right' (chiang ming cheng) in order to put an end to wrong. Once wrong has been ended, then neither does right remain. Therefore the mind is attached to nothing.
To obtain ultimate enlightenment, one has to go beyond "right" and "wrong," or "true" and "false," and see the empty nature of all things. To realize this is praj~naa (true wisdom).
It should be noted that to obtain the ultimate liberation from ignorance and delusions one does not have to go through three levels or the infinite stages of the gradual progression; for one can achieve enlightenment instantly. Emptiness is like a medicine: some people may have to take the medicine many times before their diseases are cured, but others may take it just once and be instantly healed. Also no matter how one obtains salvation, he should know that, as with medicine, emptiness is of use to him only so long as he is ill, but not when he is well again. Once one gets enlightenment, emptiness should be discarded. [www.thezensite.com]
The fundamental doctrines of Buddhism - emptiness, impermanence, dependent origination, attachment as the source of suffering, among others - lead us to the inescapable conclusion that, at some point, the practitioner must leave Buddhism behind in order to proceed along his path without attachments to anything. We can think of the Buddha's purpose as teaching people how to think and perceive, so that they are not deluded, because then they will become able to make good decisions and proper choices. At that point, they no longer need the instruction of Buddhism, any more than someone who has graduated from college needs to install himself permanently in a little chair in a 2nd grade classroom.
That first section states that a teaching can only be considered "true" if it enables people to become non-clinging. So that whole "chant no matter what" and "chant until the last moment of your life" etc. etc. demonstrates a false teaching that PROMOTES clinging rather than eradicating it.
And on the subject of arranged marriages, the mass marriages of the Moonies tend to have very low divorce rates, about half the rate of the Baby Boom cohort: [
www.religioustolerance.org] Of course, one must wonder where these figures are coming from - if it's from the Moonies themselves (which I suspect it is), then they have every incentive to portray the outcomes far more favorably than they actually are. Kind of like this claim by the Christians:
[qutoe]The slogan: "The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent". 8 Emphasis ours]. Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Council on the Family said that for "...born-again Christian couples who marry...in the church after having received premarital counseling...and attend church regularly and pray daily together..." experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages -- or 0.00256 percent.[/quote]
^ That's the delusion. The reality is that the most devout Christians have the HIGHEST divorce rates of all - far higher than "liberal" Christians, agnostics, and even athiests!