Back to basics: When did Shakyamuni Buddha live? SGI says 3,000 years ago, not 2,500 as historians claim

Why? Because in order for Nichiren to be who he claimed to be, the timeline had to be changed. The Buddha Shakyamuni had to be moved back. That's the entire reason - simply changing the facts to make it work:

Since this discussion seems to be continuing, let me point out a few important facts. Nichiren Buddhism is based almost entirely upon bad history and myth. There is no evidence to support the notion that the historical Buddha taught any of the Mahayana sutras, let alone the Lotus Sutra. Across the board, modern scholars agree that the LS and other Mahayana sutras were composed by Buddhists many centuries after the historical Buddha’s passing. This fact does not negate the worth of the sutras, but rather puts them in proper perspective.

The timeline for when the Buddha supposedly taught the Mahayana sutras is completely phony. It is based largely on a concept called the Eight Teachings by Chih-I (T’ien-t’ai). However, modern scholarship has revealed that Chih-I never taught this and was not attributed to him under several centuries after his passing. There is no documentary evidence whatsoever to support the idea that some sutras are “provisional” and therefore lacking in truth or value.

The SGI and Nichiren Shoshu hold that the historical Buddha lived about 3000 years ago. However even the SGI’s Mr. Ikeda has admitted in his writings that this is unlikely. Most scholars put the historical Buddha at about 2500 BCE. This is significant because it destroys a major assertion concerning the Latter Day of the Law, “a time period supposed to begin 2,000 years after Sakyamuni Buddha’s passing and last for “10,000 years”, which according to our modern understanding would not have commenced until around 1500 CE.

#Thus, Nichiren (1222-1282 CE) could not be the True Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law, because he did not live in the Latter Day of the Law.

The whole concept of Mappo, the Latter Day of the Law, is a myth, and one that was not widely spread until the 5th century CE in China. Although there is a vague reference to such a time period in the Lotus Sutra, the keyword is vague.

The idea that one Buddhist sutra or that one teaching or mode of practice is superior to all other is preposterous. This kind of thinking is not part of the future of Buddhism in the West. Those who wish to stand on this sort of dogma and perpetuate these myths are, if you will pardon the expression, the real “slanderers of Dharma,” because what they are really doing is leading people away from the truth. David