Download Introduction - Gatwick Airport Chaplaincy

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1. The Nara Buddhist Schools ....................................................................................................................... 3
Nara Buddhist Schools ...............................................................................................................................................................3
Later Schools .............................................................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2. Kamakura Regime (1185-1336) ................................................................................................................ 8
Chapter 3. Religious Nationalism or Ethnocentrism................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 4: The Regalia ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 5: Buddhism and Finance ........................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 6: Burial Rites and Temple Funding ............................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 7: Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 8: Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Introduction
Recently my son asked why Nichiren Daishonin was rude about other schools in 13th Century Japan. It
reminded me that the first time I heard this comment was in the days when the world wide web was still a
novelty, during arguments with other Nichiren sects on the Alt.Religion.Buddhism.Nichiren newsgroup. The
question still surfaces persistently: recently in a slim pamphlet called The Japanese Achievement, Hugh
Cortazzi described Nichiren as “a polemical and intolerant preacher…more like an old testament prophet”
and that “Nichiren called Kobo Daishi ‘the greatest liar in Japan’ and condemned Nembutsu as a ‘hellish
practice’.” Other former members have expressed similar concerns to me.
There is no doubt that Nichiren could be intolerant and undiplomatic - he was persecuted as "a madman and
a public nuisance"1 but simply complaining about his criticism of other sects without understanding the
historical and cultural context is likely to lead to serious misunderstanding. At best, it is poor scholarship. His
comment about the “hellishness” of Nembutsu for example, was a quote from the Lotus Sutra itself, not a
random insult. Nichiren was certainly aware of this perception and poses the rhetorical question "Why do
you [Nichiren] alone spew forth such evil words about other people?" to which he typically answered "I,
Nichiren, am not condemning others, I am only pointing out the questionable places in their doctrines. If they
want to get angry at me, then let them!"2
This is primarily a problem for Westerners who started practicing Buddhism without the historical and cultural
context that Japanese Buddhists take for granted. Even during the often vicious infighting between SGI and
the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood following the excommunication of SGI in 1992, members in Western
countries found it difficult to understand the motivation for the behaviours being alleged on both sides of the
dispute. There were detailed explanations of events from the temple capitulation to the Shinto talisman in
WWII to the timeline for "Operation C" but little about the historical context.
The term “Funeral Buddhism”, for example, is explained in The Untold History of the Fuji School as an
aspect of Danto in the 17th Century, but the problem of a priesthood totally dependent on court sponsorship
and the revenue from funeral rites and reliquaries starts as early as the 9 th Century in Japan and much
earlier in India and China. The Untold History also fails to mention the work largely responsible for the term
“Funeral Buddhism”, the iconic Soshiki bukkyo (Funeral Buddhism) by Tamamuro Taijo, which would have
helped to clarify much of the social background for specific grievances, e.g. Danto administration, the sale of
Toba grave markers and other mortuary rites.
This is not a critique of the Untold History, which looks specifically at the Fuji School. But it points to the lack
of broader contextual information which would help those without a Japanese cultural and social background
understand why things happened as they did.
This essay is a non-academic attempt to look at the historical background for the Daishonin’s actions and
teaching, to relate it to the political and economic conditions in which Buddhism evolved in Japan, and to
look at some of the statements attributed to Nichiren in this context. Specific issues from external critics are:
1) Nichiren was unusually intransigent and intolerant. Were provocative statements attributed to him
actually his? If so, was there a reason for it? Was the reason doctrinal or political?
2) What does Nichiren’s strictness say about the Fuji school compared to other Buddhist traditions,
both Nara and 'New'?
3) Recent scholarship shows that the Lotus Sutra was not authored by or verifiably based on
Shakyamuni's teachings. Was Nichiren wrong to accept T'ien T'ai's opinion on the primacy of the
Lotus Sutra? Are the descendants of the Fuji School wrong to continue this incorrect exclusionary
view?
4) Why does the Fuji school exclude Zazen silent meditation practices.
5) Why does the Fuji School slander the other five senior priests and respect only Nikko Shonin and
his lineage?
1
Mark T Unno, "The Body of Time and the Discourse of Precepts", in Discourses p.127
2
Letter to Shomitsu-bo, WND I, p.109/866
6) Nichiren made the Lotus Sutra in general and the Gohonzon in particular the objects of worship
when it should have been Shakyamuni Buddha. Why?
7) Why does the Fuji School insist that Nichiren is the Buddha for the Latter Day of the Law?
Some of these questions require historical context to reach a meaningful answer. This article aims to provide
a sense of cultural and historical background which will hopefully help to reveal the circumstances in which
Nichiren pursued his goal of a Buddhism founded on the one vehicle of the dharma. This is a brief summary,
since any comprehensive review would require at least several volumes. We are largely focused on the
period leading up to and including the Kamakura shogunate, the time of Nichiren’s mission.
Questions about the authenticity of the Lotus Sutra are more a matter of philosophical enquiry than history. It
is tempting to say that Shakyamuni is the only credible Buddhist authority, so only teachings which can be
traced back to him with a reasonable degree of certainty deserve respect. However it is well known that
Shakyamuni’s teachings were verbal and transmitted only verbally for several decades after his death, so
the best available evidence is usually based on indirect evidence of age and textual consistencies. From
this, we can establish that the Agama sutras were almost certainly in existence during Shakyamuni’s
lifetime, but not positively that they were Shakyamuni’s teachings. It might be more accurate to say that the
Shakyamuni who authored the Agama sutras is probably also a single historical personality. Shakyamuni the
personality is obscured by Shakyamuni the author of the sutras, and we have only anecdotal tales (Jataka)
which in many cases are conflicting, fictional or heavily influenced by later cultural adhesions but tell us little
about Shakyamuni the author, who is knowable from the sutras.
Following the Agama sutras there is a period in which teaching relates to the foundation of a monastic
religion, a prescriptive approach including rules of conduct (Vinayas) which is conservative and seems to
reflect cultural influences defining the roles and responsibilities of Bikkus and Bikkunis.
Problems generally arise concerning the authenticity of later, Mahayana sutras. There is no historical
evidence that these were originally taught by ‘Shakyamuni’ although as written texts they are probably older
than previously thought.3 However this misses the point: just as the Agama scrolls identify the Buddha who
revealed those teachings, so the Mahayana texts identify the Buddha who taught the Mahayana approach.
Even if there were confirmed DNA evidence linking a text to Shakyamuni the historical personality it would
not help. The criterion for validity is that the teaching is effective in leading the student or disciple to
enlightenment, not that it has provenance. If Shakyamuni had dictated a laundry list to Ananda, even if it
could be proved to have come from Shakyamuni it would still be a laundry list.
The ontological fallacy is that there is an original which by virtue of its primacy is genuine and valuable while
other works are derivative and non-original imitations, therefore less valuable. The Agama sutras are, as far
as we can tell, first- or second-order derivatives, recreations of teachings from Ananda’s apparently
inexhaustible memory, memorized, recited, passed on and eventually written down. At this point we may be
able to see traces of the author through the text in the form of patterns of speech, consistencies of wording
and thematic concepts. But there may be significant inaccuracies due to lapses of memory among disciples
and bikkhus, inconsistencies of recitation etc. How do we validate the teaching?
We believe that Shakyamuni was a superlative teacher, so the most valid teaching will be the one which was
most effective. But suppose that optimal version was one which had been revised by Ananda based on
versions of the sutras? Indeed, how do we know that key teachings such as Turning the Wheel of the
Dharma were only preached once? Or like Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” were these preached,
polished and preached again by Shakyamuni and later by his followers? Our enlightenment depends on the
efficacy of the sutras, not on their author or authors. A valid sutra is therefore one which invokes an effective
teaching. Its lineage – its proximity to the historical Shakyamuni – may support it but it cannot be the sole, or
even the primary, consideration.
From this point of view it is worth remarking that Nichiren’s dedication to the Lotus Sutra as the primary
Mahayana teaching did not depend on its self-professed authorship by Shakyamuni. In The Life of Nichiren
3
Scholarship based on recently discovered Tibetan scrolls shows that Sanskrit texts were not necessarily later than Prakrit versions
and in many cases were contemporary or earlier.
Daishonin, Yasuji Kirimura says “When Rencho was certain that the Lotus Sutra was the only sutra which
contained the truth he had previously realized in front of the Bodhisattva Kokuzo, he returned to Mt.
Kiyosumi.”4 Previously, the young monk Rencho had studied extensively5 among Jodo and Zen, at Mt. Hiei,
Onjo-ji, Mt. Koya, in Kyoto, at the Hachiman shrine at Tsurugaoka and elsewhere. “At first, he ranked the
Tendai Hokke and Shingon sects as equal in proclaiming the supreme law of the universe to which he had
been awakened.”6 But the three primary Shingon sutras were based on Mahavairocana Buddha, not
Shakyamuni Buddha. Nichiren also considered the Zen schools, where enlightenment proceeded not from
sutras but from introspection. So the question of whether a historical personality named Shakyamuni, who
was probably the same figure as the author of the Agama sutras, was also the author directly or indirectly of
the Mahayana teachings and specifically of the Lotus Sutra, was simply not of fundamental importance to
Nichiren.
Despite this, Nichiren at times relies on Tien-T’ai’s ranking of the sutras and the wording of the Lotus Sutra
itself to assert its primacy during debate.
4
Yasuji Kirimura, The Life of Nichiren Daishonin, Nichiren Shoshu International Centre, 1991, p.13
Nichiren Daishonin, “On Refuting Ryokan and other priests”, Gosho Zenshu p.1293
6 Kirimura, Op. Cit, p.13
5
Chapter 1. Early Japanese Buddhist Schools
We need to start in Medieval Japan. According to the Liang Shu, a Chinese historical record, Buddhism was
brought to Kansai in Fusang (Japan) in 467 by five monks from the Kabul region of Ghandara. Buddhism
was sponsored by the imperial court from the outset and was not a popular religion so much as a scholarly
occupation with a ritual role to pray for peace and prosperity for the state and imperial court, which
sponsored it. Monasteries were originally non-sectarian repositories of knowledge more like universities than
places dedicated to the exclusive practice of a particular school or faith. Although temples were associated
with distinct traditions they remained collegial, so that even in Nichiren Daishonin’s time it was possible to
study sutras in several locations. The role of temples changed over time and by the end of the Kamakura
era (1185) they had become militarized, often with their own armies of warrior monks. Major monasteries
also had their own proprietary provinces which provided financial support.
The schools founded during the Nara era (Ritsu, Jojitsu, Kusha, Sanron, Hosso and Kegon) arrived from
China or Korea and established a continuity of Buddhist dharma from India to Japan. They were intimately
involved in imperial affairs. "Nara Buddhism was marked by strong court-clergy relations and by lavish state
spending on Buddhist temples, images, and texts. It did not show much doctrinal innovation, and was largely
devoted to state functions and academic study. During this period, the six sects competed for prominence
and patronage with the Japanese imperial court, and Buddhism remained confined largely to the nobility and
imperial family."7 Also called "old Buddhism" (kyu bukkyo) these with Zen and Shingon8 were introduced in
the Nara (719-784) and Hieian (794-1185) periods around the movement of the capital to Kyoto in 794.
Certainly the various shrines, temples, Shinto priests, Buddhist monks and their secular supporters were
capable of exerting political, economic and military power to pressure secular authorities. 9 This included
‘divine demonstrations’ - protests called Goso involving warrior monks. Not all temples were licenced to
perform Goso. Enryakuji, the most active temple with some 3000 monks, was notable in this respect and
fought not only with secular authorities but even at times with Onjoji, a competitor temple of the same Tendai
sect. Enryakuji was the source of hundreds of Goso intended to intimidate the Kyoto government, at times
collaborating with other temples on common goals.
Kofukuji, the second most influential Nara temple, made the mistake of allying itself successfully with the
Fujiwara clan and ultimately lost influence as the Fujiwaras did. So for example Kakuken, an influential and
charismatic monk, was born into one of the highest-ranking Fujiwara families in the capital. Kakuken lived
during the Genpei wars during which Todaiji, Kofukuji and Enryakuji were burned down.
School
Alignment
Founder
*Ritsu
Vinaya
Nara Buddhist Schools
Ganjin (+688-763) Hokkeji
Introduced 753, rely on Vinaya (monastic rules in
Saidaiji
Tripitaka).
Jokei*Jojitsu Satyasiddhi,
Theravada
*Kusha
7
Abhidharma
(Vasubhandu)
Temples
Not established as Gangoji
an independent
entity
Origins
“Although a distinct school in China, the Jōjitsu school in
Japan was a scholastic branch that was never organized
as an independent sect. It was instead considered a part
of the Sanron tradition.”
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/six-nara-schoolsseven-nara-temples.html
Introduced 8thC, follows Abidatsuma-kusha-ron by
Vasubandhu. Background Sarvastivadan. Not established
as an independent school, considered a sub-division of
Hossō sect
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/six-nara-schools-seven-nara-temples.html.
Thus becoming the “eight sects”.
9 M.S. Adolphson, The Gates of Power, University of Hawai’i Press, 2000; p.2
8
School
Alignment
Founder
Temples
Origins
*Sanron
Madhyamika
Mahayana
Ekan
Gangoji
Horyuji
Based on Nagarjuna, Dependent Origination, not much
known about introduction to Japan by Korean monk Ekan
in 675. Academically influential but not organized as a
school.
Dossho
Yakushiji,
Kofokuji
Introduced 654, Based on Vasubhandu, Consciousness
only school. Kofukuji was the tutelary temple of the
Fujiwara clan and influenced the imperial government
sometimes using aggression (goso and military actions).
Adolphson says Kofukuji was responsible for 70 Goso 10
and frequently united with Enryakuji.
*Hosso
Mahayana
(Yogacara)
Gomyo in 830 reports to the imperial court that the country
and court of Japan is Mahayana and superior to other
countries. This may reflect the fact that as the leading
proponent of the Nara schools funding is tight after the
court's move to Kyoto.
Kofukuji was substantially destroyed in 1180 by Taira
Shigehara after supporting Go-Shirakawa's failed effort to
restore imperial power. Major proponent was Jokei, who
also launched a precept revival movement that led to the
Shingon-Ritsu movement of Eison and Ninsho. Hosso
revered Miroku (Maitreya), the core of Indian Yogacara.
The monastery was non-exclusive, and from 1202 to 1280
the abbot was Enni (aka Bennen), a Zen master learned in
Tendai and esoteric teachings.
*Kegon
Hua-yen
Mahayana
Bodhisena,
Gyonen, Myoe
Todaiji
Flower Garland school Introduced 736, relies on the
Avatamsaka Sutra. Declined after the capital was moved
to Kyoto. Tao-hsuan, who arrived in Japan around +736,
is also credited with disseminating Kegon teachings and
having a remarkable voice for chanting the Buddhist
prayers -- it was he who chanted the dhāranī (magical
incantations) at the dedication ceremony of the Great
Buddha of Tōdaiji. Indeed, scholars believe he played a
major role in the early development of Buddhist chanting
in Japan. Tao Hsuan’s main disciple, Gyōhyō (+722-797),
was Saichō’s teacher and preceptor. Saichō later founded
the Tendai sect.
Todaiji was substantially destroyed in 1180 by Taira
Shigehara after supporting Go-Shirakawa's failed effort to
restore imperial power. Gyonen (1240-1321) is not Tendai
but borrows from Kakuken and contributes over 1200
works to the opus including the first detailed works on
Indian Buddhist history.
Myoe was an eccentric but well-read precept scholar who
among other things cut off his ear to resemble a low caste
criminal (hinin-beggar).
Later Schools
Esoteric:
10
Adolphson, Op.Cit. p.6
School
Alignment
Tendai
Founder
Temples
Origins
Saicho (aka
Dengyo Daishi)
Enryakuji (Mt “The primary text of Tiantai is Lotus Sutra but when
Hiei) Onjoji Saichō established his school in Japan in 807 he
incorporated the study and practice of Vajrayana as
well.”11 Saicho, a student of Tao Hsuan’s main disciple,
Gyōhyō, of the Hosso school, was "the first person to use
the term Sangoku and... to justify his doctrinal and
institutional ambitions on the basis of a theory of historical
degeneration."12
Saicho asserted that the Japanese people were finally
ready to absorb the single vehicle teaching of the Lotus
Sutra. The Tendai chief abbot Annen extended Saicho's
position to claim that Japan is the purest Mahayana
country in the world. Annen is also responsible for
recentering Tendai on Tantric Vajrayana and denying that
everything has buddha-nature.
Tendai can be confused with the True Word school
founded by Kukai because after it's founding as the Tendai
Lotus school by Dengyo, the later head priest Kukai
reinterpreted it in the light of the Mahavairochana Sutra as
the Tendai True Word school. Nichiren disputed this
repeatedly13 and forcefully. His criticisms of Tendai relate
to Kukai’s interpretation
Eneyaku-ji had during the Kamakura period up to 30,000
monks and armed retainers.
Shingon
Tantric
Kukai (postDaianji
True Word school. Kukai/Kobo travelled to China with
humous name
Nembutsuji Saicho (Dengyo) in 804 but studied esoteric Buddhism.
Kobo Daishi), 774- (Adashino, Returned and spread Shingon from 806. Part Vajrayana,
835AD
nr Kyoto)
part Mahavairocana. Recite Nembutsu. Incorporated
Kongobuji Kami/Shinto elements into Buddhism. Nichiren is critical –
(Mt. Koya) see On Repaying Debts of Gratitude. Payne notes that
aka Koyasan the three primary sutra sources for Shingon are all
Mahavairocana and not derived from Shakyamuni, and
that Shingon was based on Indian esoteric, non-Buddhist
Tantric traditions e.g. from the Vajrayogini cult.14
Pure Land:
Jodoshu,
Jodo
11
Genshin, Honen
Nembutsu, Pure Land, founded by Honen in 1175. Relies
on Infinite Life (Muryoju) sutra and prayers for the
intercession of Amida Buddha. Honen asserts that Saicho
believed that nenbutsu works regardless of whether one
maintains the precepts. Honen was opposed particularly
by Jokei, who appealed to the court in 1205 on behalf of
the eight established schools to censure Honen's senju
nenbutsu teaching. Nichiren severely criticized Honen’s
views, particularly the Senchaku Shu, in which Honen
called both T’ien T’ai and Shingon a “pack of robbers”.
Wikipedia,
Blum, Discourse and Ideology in Medieval Japan, Payne and Leighton, eds., Routledge, London, 2006, p.34
13 For example, "On the Relative Superiority of the Lotus Sutra and the True Word Teachings", WND II, p.274; "The Bodies and
Minds of Ordinary Beings", WND I, p. 171; "Letter to Shomitsu-bo", WND I, p.109/866
14 Richard K Payne, "Awakening and Language", Discourses p.83
12
School
Jodo
Shinshu
Alignment
Founder
Temples
Origins
Shinran
New Pure Land, Founded by Shinran in 1224. Shinran, a
disciple of Honen, is often considered the founder of Pure
Land in Japan. The Pure Land sect became very powerful
when it was adopted by the ancestors of Tokugawa
Ieyasu, Japan’s first shogun. Pure Land was most popular
between 1150 and 1250 and strongly implies that clergy
no longer need to live by the monastic precepts of the
'dharma semblance' age.
Rinzai Zen
Eisai (1141-1215)
This flavour of Zen was introduced by Eisai in 1191. Relies
on Prajnaparamita sutra incl. the Heart sutra. Eisai studied
at Enryakuji.
Soto Zen
Dogen (12001253)
Zen:
Nichiren:
15
Eiheji temple Intr. By Dogen in 1227. Dogen studied under Eisai.
(Fukui
prefecture
Not arrived but pronounced in 1253. Following Nichiren’s
death it split into a variety of denominations. Aside from
Gosho, Nichiren is attributed with numerous writings
including the Risshokan-jo which disputes the Zen notion
of "wordless transmission" based on Kanjin meditation as
superior to the Lotus Sutra. JI Stone states "There is no
doubt that Nichiren thought contemplation, or faith, should
be grounded in the Lotus Sutra text, and he dismissed Zen
claims to represent a 'wordless transmission' as a
dangerous absurdity."15 In one tract attributed to Nichiren
he says "If calming and contemplation is not grounded in
the Lotus Sutra, then the Tendai shikan becomes
equivalent to the Daruma-shu's diabolical and false
teaching of a separate transmission outside the scripture."
Tendai was generally divided on the subject of wordless
transmission, with one school (Danna) opposed to it and
the other (Eshin) split between Hiei scholars and provincial
scholars in the East. This was not only doctrinally
incompatible with Nichiren's position that only the Lotus
presents the essential teaching, it also caused conflict
because both Nichiren-shu and Kanto Tendai were NRMs
in the Eastern provinces and competing for patronage and
support among the same classes.16
J.I. Stone, "Not Mere Written Words", Discourse and Ideology in Medieval Japan, Payne and Leighton, eds., Routledge, London,
2006. p.173
16 Stone, Ibid, p.178
Chapter 2. Kamakura Regime (1185-1336)
Nichiren lived in an unusual period of Japanese history, between the Heian empire and the establishment of
the Muromachi Shogunate in 1336. The Kamakura period, dating from 1185, has traditionally been viewed
as a period of radical change, including change of the prevailing religious culture 17.There is some argument
over whether newer Buddhist schools (Shingon, Jodoshu, Jodo Shinshu, Tendai after Saicho/Dengyo
Daishi, Ritsu Zen and Nichiren) were radically different, a kind of Protestant Reformation based on the idea
of Mappo and a recentering on Shakyamuni Buddha, or a more evolutionary change consistent with
previous belief and ritual18. Certainly the Nara temples lost influence as government moved from Nara to
Kyoto, and the Kamakura Shogunate consolidated its power in Kamakura, abandoning the old court in
Kyoto. The newer schools were also able to motivate support much more widely than the 'old' Nara schools.
Buddhism was itself not always or even often practiced to a high standard. Ordained monks were only
required to know passages from the Lotus Sutra and do a three-year novitiate, a requirement so erratically
enforced that Emperor Kamu demanded a formal exam in 734. Kamu also twice (785 and 799) issued edicts
prohibiting monks and nuns from practicing black magic in the mountains to harm their enemies. 19
During the Kamakura regime traditional imperial bureaucracy and authority persisted from the Heian period
despite the ascendancy of a military ruling class, the Bakufu. This oversimplifies matters, because the
Kamakura administration was “a limited judicial government”.20 despite being able to mobilize sufficient
influence to banish three retired emperors, a reigning emperor and a crown prince in 1221 (the Jokyu War).
The administration chafed under court policy constraints and loudly complained about senior courtiers'
(shokei) ability to stifle discussion of policy matters about which they knew little. In one memorable
exchange, Hino Suketomo “ridiculed Saionji Sanehira [of the powerful Saionji family] for praising an old
monk as being 'awe inspiring' with the quip 'he is old, that is all' and later gave Sanehira a decrepit dog with
the comment 'what an awe-inspiring figure he makes'.”21
The bakufu was constrained by its dependence on a shogun or “barbarian subduing generalissimo”. The
Kamakura bakufu did not have sufficient status to communicate directly with the court in Kyoto and had to
send messages to the trusted Saionji family who sent them on to the emperor. An emperor like Go-Saga
could juggle the bakufu, the administrators and the courtiers to achieve progress. Go-Saga, for example,
instituted 'demon room' meetings at the palace at which select administrators could debate policy in a less
precedent-bound environment, a form of governmental brainstorming which also cemented administrator
support for the emperor.
But there was another vested power which historians have tended to ignore. The retired emperor Shirakawa
(1053-1129) reputedly said “the flow of the Kamo River, the roll of the dice and the mountain monks [of
Enryakuji] are things I cannot control.” Although it appeared that power had passed to the shogunate the
imperial court in Kyoto continued to assert itself through retired emperors like Shirakawa and their family and
retainers - the senior retired emperor (chiten no kimi) possessed sovereign authority. The situation was
further confused by the political manipulation and influence of the major temples. Nor was the relationship
one-directional or, in the case of the major temples, even primarily religious or doctrinal:
“In particular, it was the emergence of new, populist sects, such as the Nichiren and Jodo Shinshu (True
Pure Land) sects that changed the religious and political context. These sects offered new, simplified
ways of achieving spiritual blessing, which challenged the complex and elitist rituals of the established
schools. In characterizing Enryakuji’s and Kofokuji’s aggressive responses and ensuing rivalries with the
new sects, scholars have tended to stress doctrinal issues. But this opposition was not caused entirely by
theological concerns. Indeed, even though disputes often centred on interpretations of Buddhism, the
monks were less concerned with dogmatism than with maintaining their status and privileges. For
example, when Enryakuji monks petitioned against Honen in 1204, followed by a more aggressive
petition from Kofukuji the following year, they simply tried to make him and his followers preach other
fundamental Buddhist ideas in addition to Amidism…Eventually the leaders of Enryakuji even ordered its
monks and estate officials to pursue the Amida believers and burn down their buildings. This progression
17
Ruppert, Discourse and Ideology in Medieval Japan, Payne and Leighton, eds., Routledge, London, 2006; p.1
18
Ruppert, Discourse, Op.Cit., p.13
19
Cambridge History of Japan, p.460
20
TD Conlon, From Sovereign to Symbol, p.33
TD Conlon, Symbol , Op. Cit., p. 37
21
indicates that the kenmon temples’ concern was…with increased competition for patronage from a sect
that offered a simple and inexpensive way to salvation.” 22
By the fourteenth century, “temples commanded forces comparable to the most accomplished warrior
leaders and were therefore not only essential allies or enemies in virtually all military and political battles, but
also forces that by themselves could challenge most armies."23
The resulting complex web of authority and control, often called the Kenmon or “Gates of Power” 24,
remained in place for two centuries, throughout the Kamakura shogunate and Nichiren’s life. It became even
more complicated during the ‘Two Courts’ Nanbokucho period when temple support for the Northern and
Southern courts and supporting bakufu families oscillated depending on patronage. In the 1330s, the clergy
on Mt. Koya managed to obtain support exempting temple land from war taxes, confirming possession of
estates including Kukai’s original temple domain etc. “In the end, Koyasan benefitted immensely from the
clergy’s ability to solicit bribes from both sides.” 25
This confusing, changeable, unpredictable patchwork may have contributed to the popular sense of Mappo,
the disintegration and chaos in society caused by the final decline of the Buddhist dharma. This was not
entirely new with the Kamakura era: in one view "there essentially is no time, at least no historical time,
when Buddhism in Japan is not tainted with some notion of it being in decline"26 But as a fundamental
aspect of Japanese Buddhist thought, mappo comes into its own with the Kamakura period.
Different schools early in the Kamakura era tended to respond to mappo differently, but almost all
responded characteristically. "Pure Land figures such as Honen looked almost exclusively to birth in the
Pure Land"27 - some even by suicide. Jien (Tendai) privately followed Pure Land although publicly calling for
a return of Tendai influence. Dogen (Zen) denied mappo from a safe distance in the mountains. Myoe (a
famous monk ordained in both Kegon and Shingon traditions after studying at Jingo-ji (Shingon) and Todai-ji
(Kegon) and becoming abbot of Kozan-ji) called for a return to the precepts. Nichiren "railed against his
corrupt contemporaries and fought for radical reform, but he was persecuted and exiled as a madman and a
public nuisance."28
This parallels another sea change, the development of an independent Japanese culture. The dawning of
the Kamakura period is also the dawning of acceptance of written Japanese as an appropriate means of
expression for religious discourse. "This process begins with wasan and the story-telling of the Sanboe
kotoba in the mid-Heian period but only reaches the level of doctrinal or philosophical expression in the
Kamakura, most notably in the Shobogenzo and the numerous writings of Honen's disciples." Blum notes
that this directly links Buddhist history to Japanese history. 29 MS Adolphson goes further:
"By [the eleventh century] a doctrine that supported the interdependent relationship between the imperial
court and Buddhism developed. It is known as obo-buppo soi (the interdependence of the Imperial Law and
the Buddhist Law), representing the idea that the state and Buddhism were dependent on each other as the
wings of a bird or the two wheels of a cart. Tangible evidence for this ideological concept, which also
includes the idea that the Shinto gods (kami) are vital in protecting the Buddhist deities and institutions,
exists from the mid-eleventh century both in religious sources and in documents of a more secular
character."30
This is interesting because of the many echoes in Nichiren's Gosho, indeed on the dai-Gohonzon itself, and
because it makes it clear that the Daishonin's viewpoint was consistent with that of other Buddhist schools. It
contradicts claims that Nichiren was unusually nationalistic or militaristic. Japan was, in short, in a
remarkably turbulent period in terms of culture, military power, political influence and religious innovation
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
M.S. Adolphson, The Gates of Power, University of Hawai’i Press, 2000. pp.289-290.
Adolphson, p.302
Adolphson, Op.Cit.
Adolphson, Op.Cit., p.305
"The Sangoku-Mappo Construct", Mark L Blum, Discourse Op Cit p. 33.
Mark T Unno, "The Body of Time and the Discourse of Precepts", Discourses p.127)
Unno, Discourses, Op Cit, p.127
"The Sangoku-Mappo Construct", Mark L Blum, Discourse Op Cit p. 34
MS Adolphson, The Gates of Power, Op. Cit., p. 15
Chapter 3. Religious Nationalism and Ethnocentrism
The recognition of Japanese philosophical and religious discourse sets the stage for a revision of Sangoku,
the 'three countries' concept in which Japan is the ultimate receiver of Buddhism derived from India and
China. Where the Nara schools looked West to China for their inspiration, a newer vision saw Japan not as
derivative but as the spiritual home of Mahayana, a literally divine country. It also allowed a reinterpretation
of the idea of Mappo, the age of final decline of the dharma, into something quite different, even
transcendent.
"... Something is new in the Kamakura period. People are mobilized by religious impulses in a way not
seen before, there are new forms of religious expression even if they are deeply dependent on preexisting rhetoric, new institutions are created, and these new forms of religion continue to develop to
where they eclipse what came before them."31
Blum sees three approaches to Japanese ethnocentrism based on Sueki's classification of three ways that
Kamakua thinkers attempted to deal with "the national sense of alienation from the source of Buddhist truth"
due to Sangoku and Mappo:
1) Recognize it but assert that diligent practice will still lead to liberation (Jokei, Dogen) – the Nara school
approach. Dogen (Zen) officially agreed and Myoe (both Kegon and Shingon) argued for a return of the
traditional precepts.
2) Accept the situation as existentially impossible but seek other means that the buddhas have provided,
e.g. Amida or Jizo incarnated in others (Shinran)
3) Accept the situation as precisely intended to set the stage for a new evolutionary phase (Nichiren).
Nichiren views his own role as crucial to Japan's identity as the place of realization of the Lotus Sutra, so his
vision is particularly historical32 and reflected in Nichiren's name - Nichi from sun, meaning Amaterasu, Ren
from the lotus.
The new emphasis on native Japanese theological literature also parallels a shift of emphasis from relic
veneration to the veneration of literature as reliquary artefact. Reliquaries and patterns of offering and
veneration dated from the era of Asoka33. Jataka (tales of the Buddha’s former lives) often contained
references to self-sacrifice. “These stupas and associated veneration allowed the creation of merit which
could be transferred to the dead, a concept traceable as far back as Nagasena’s Questions of Milander
promising “the acquisition of a variety of benefits” which also indicates that the concept of Merit was present
in early Buddhism.”34
It also allowed the creation of cash which could be transferred to the living:
“The visibility of the stupa, as a monumental ‘centre’ for communal veneration…testified to [the ruler’s]
material devotion to Buddhism, illustrating their power and promoting their authority… The clerical
community gained through …the generous offerings granted the stupas.”35
In fact, scholars such as Tomomatsu Entai note that the entire Buddhist Sangha was refocused on stupa
revenue after Shakyamuni’s death: “The worship, distribution, collection and theft of relics were potentially
means of reinforcing or subverting hierarchical relationships.” 36
Ruppert notes that stupas, as both property of the temple community as a whole and the manifest presence
of the living Buddha, provided a means sanctioned by Jatakas by which loans and other financial uses could
be made compatible with the Vinayas of all major traditions - Theravadan, Sarvastivadan and Mahayana -
31
32
Blum, Op. Cit. p.47
Blum, Op Cit, p.48
33
Jaqui Stone, "Deathbed Ritual Practices" in Discourse
34
Brian D. Ruppert, Jewel in the Ashes, Harvard East Asian Monographs 188, p.7
35
Ruppert, Op.Cit., p.4
Ruppert, Op.Cit., p.12
36
as long as profits were directed to furthering worship of the stupa. This practice was incorporated into
Chinese Buddhism and thence into Japanese temples and the institutionalization of relic donations by the
court during important rituals such as the Buddha Relics Offering (ichidai ichido busshari) which also
confirmed the legitimacy of imperial rule. "The construction of Buddha-relic stupas for the relics offering was
a rite developed by the court to renew relations with shrines of the realm." 37 This was managed by the three
major temples at the Shingon chapel in the imperial palace. "The synthesis of kami worship (jingi suhai) and
Buddhism focused on the person of the emperor, drawing on the perceived similarities between relics and
the sacred treasures (jinpo) of native traditions."38 The esoteric Shingon traditions further developed this
connection to the Amaterasu medallion as described later.
Relic veneration was the popular form of Buddhist worship at a time when scripture was generally
inaccessible. Fabio Rambelli demonstrates that texts handed down from the Heian and Kamakura were
often unreliable:39 The entire Shobo Genzo was deprecated by the Soto Zen establishment before the
Shogunate in 1700. A well-known stanza describing women's karmic inferiority to men ("Women are
messengers from hell...") ascribed to the Nirvana sutra or the Flower Garland sutra cannot be found in
either. Texts were not readily available or accessible:
"Access to texts was controlled by long and complicated initiatory training and procedures known as oral
transmission.(Kuden). Underlying the logic of kuden is the idea that access to a certain text is not
necessarily a step to the acquisition of information and knowledge; often, on the contrary, it merely
sanctioned that acquisition. In this sense, receiving a text was not an encouragement to read more, but the
certification that one had read enough."40 so statements ascribed to Nichiren must be considered doubtful
until verified.
Kuden in the Kamakura period was a ritual for the oral transmission of secret knowledge, an aspect of kanjo,
which was considered the correct means of sanctioning the transmission of hidden meaning. Why medieval
Japan developed this approach is unknown but it appears to have started with esoteric Buddhist initiation
rituals, particularly Shingon.41 "Initiation rituals, with their strict regulations, functioned as devices to control
access to and the proliferation of meaning and knowledge." 42
By contrast, Nichiren lectured frequently on the Lotus Sutra and other topics while at Minobu and Nikko
Shonin recorded and organized these as the Ongi Kuden in 1278, the year before the inscription of the Dai
Gohonzon. Nichiren authorized its transmission. As Daisaku Ikeda observes, Nichiren is unique in his
understanding of who is worthy to receive his teaching: "He is saying that all beings in the ten worlds of
existence have from the beginning been Buddhas. One might suppose that this is a statement of mere
abstract principle. But Nichiren goes on to say, "Now Nichiren and his followers, those who chant Nammyoho-renge-kyo, are the original lord of teachings of the Life Span chapter." Thus, in a simple and
straightforward pronouncement, he states the principle that ordinary people are identical with the Buddha.
This view of human beings is one of the most outstanding characteristics of Orally Transmitted Teachings."43
As we see from Rambelli's paper, it is also totally out of keeping with the common attitude and practice of
other established Buddhist schools of Nichiren's time which viewed kuden as a means to restrict knowledge
and thereby discriminate between the ordinary people and the privileged few, as is the practice of bestowing
the Gohonzon, equally a talisman and secret teaching, on all SGI members.
The increasing importance of written sutras does not mean that relics as important signifiers became extinct.
In fact, the belief in Japan as a supernatural country with primacy among Mahayana countries continued to
develop as the imperial regalia became endowed with transcendent powers and Shingon cemented its
influence over the imperial court. To some extent, these were indistinguishable, as with the jeweled stupa of
Usagu Mirokuji which was scheduled to be built in 933 but could not be completed because "the 200 copies
of the Lotus Sutra to be deposited in the stupa had been destroyed in a great fire in the Kanpyo era". 44
Charlotte Eubanks in Miracles of Book and Body describes this as an aspect of the development of
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ruppert p.45
Ruppert p.48
Fabio Rambelli, "Texts, Talismans and Jewels" in Discourses, Op.Cit., p.54
Rambelli, Ibid. p.55
Rambelli, Ibid, p.69
Rambelli, Ibid, p.70
Daisaku Ikeda, forward to Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, Soka Gakkai, 2004. p. xiii.
Ruppert p.67
Mahayana Buddhism that resembled a "cult of the book" which "distinguished itself by establishing cultic
centres organized not around stupas but rather around written sutra texts that were recited, worshipped,
honoured and circumambulated."45
45
Miracles of Book and Body, Charlotte Eubanks, University of California Press, 2011. p.21 and passim.
Chapter 4: The Regalia
The regalia were originally objects of value which only later took on significance as part of a ritual-bound
culture in which “monarchs and nobles felt an obligation to provide order in the cosmos, and by extension
their realm, through correct enactment of rituals, which were intended for divine rather than public
consumption.”46
Codified ritual orginally incorporated worship of kami, native anima, and Buddhism was integrated to pacify
wayward spirits. Kukai, founder of Japanese Shingon, established the Mantra Hall in the palace and the
Latter Seventh Day rite, an “enormously complex ritual entailing a week of lectures on the Golden Light
Excellent King sutra. The ritual revolved around the offering of a Wish-Fulfilling Jewel which was one of the
regalia of a Universal Golden Wheel-Turning King.”
The emphasis on ritual meant that Shingon ritual determined political legitimacy throughout much of the
Kamakura and subsequent century. Shingon temples and priesthood had enormous influence and wealth.
Given Nichiren's opposition to Shingon teachings it is scarcely surprising that he was persecuted. People
like Hae no Saemon would have no anxiety about reprisals from their superiors, quite the opposite. Conlon
argues that “Shingon became the dominant power block among religious institutions in Japan, gaining
significance comparable to that of the Vatican in Europe, for the head of To-ji who occupied the apex of the
Shingon hierarchy could initiate and fund Shingon, Tendai and Zen prayers...” 47
Originally the regalia were a collection of objects with value but no particular significance, including a sword,
a mirror, a jewel, a small wooden throne and two Chinese lutes named Genjo and Suzuka among an
undefined number of other items. The imperial palace was however prone to fires, having suffered no fewer
than 25 blazes between 960 and 1140. Most of the original regalia, including the mirror, were destroyed in
the 960 fire. The Juntoku emperor claimed that the mirror “miraculously survived the flames of 960 by flying
in the heavens and landing in a nearby cherry tree”. 48
By the 1300s it was believed that viewing the regalia caused madness. The regalia came to occupy a central
role in both ritual and the legitimacy of imperial succession. Kitabatake Chikafusa believed that “the divine
spirit of our country lies in the legitimate passage of the emperorship to the descendants of a single family.
Transmission of the regalia through the generations is as fixed as the sun, moon and stars in the heaven.
The mirror is the body of the sun, the jewel possesses the essence of the moon, and the sword has the
substance of the stars.“49 The regalia are thus connected to the Buddhist gods Nitten, Gatten and Myojoten
which are also inscribed on the Gohonzon of Nichiren Daishonin, and to the Ise shrine of Amaterasu.
Amaterasu was one of the fundamental mandalas of Shingon Buddhism (mandala of the Womb Realm). The
Reikiki text "tries to prove that Japan is the primordial topos...an important element [of which] is the
"heavenly talisman" of the Reikiki."50 At a time when it was popular to represent Japan as special and
different, even divine, the presence of the heavenly talisman known as the "Writ of Mahavairocana
Tathagata" provided protection from invasion: "The Keiran shuyoshu states: 'Our country is at the centre of
the universe. Because of the protection accorded by Dainichi and the various deities it will never be attacked
by any foreign country.' "51 In one account (Muju's Shasekishu) "it is Ise's goddess, Amaterasu, who is
looking for the sacred spell...Medieval authors, heavily influenced by esoteric Buddhism, interpreted the onepronged Vajra as a transformation of the tathata realm; it becomes a divine wind which condenses in gods
(Kami) and in the spirit of human beings."
Conlan citing Kurodo Toshio comments that “according to the Shingon episteme, the 'inner experience' or
'enlightenment' (naisho) of buddhas and the nature of deities (kami) were thought to be identical while their
external appearances and rituals differed.”52
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
TD Conlan, Op.Cit., p.18
TD Conlan, Op.Cit., p.29
TD Conlan, Op.Cit., p.61
Jinno shotoki, p.60.
Rambelli, p.61
Rambelli, Op.Cit., p.62
TD Conlan, Op.Cit., p.65
There are interesting parallels in the story of the origin of the Reikiki text establishing the Amaterasu
talisman: ‘A beautiful woman emerged from the pond in the Shinsen'en and went to the imperial palace,
where she transmitted the talisman as part of the Reikiki to Emperor Daigo’. The other chapters of the
Reikiki contain the sayings of the dragon deity and Kobo Daishi, or Dengyo Daishi, or Gyoki. This dragon
woman offers a jewel to the emperor which is also a text about Shinto, a tantric vraj which has "sword" as a
secret meaning, and a description of Shingon shinto ritual. A passage in the Nihon Shokei (720) says that
Amaterasu presented a curved jewel, a mirror and a sword to Ninigi, the progenitor of Japan's imperial line.
The identification of the regalia, the Amaterasu talisman and the nation was reinforced by Shingon doctrine
and ritual in the 1300s, which depicted central Japan as a mandala based on the diamond and womb
mandalas. The basis for this existed in esoteric Shingon in Nichiren's time.
The regalia were seen as protection for the country and the imperial house: “As the eleventh century
progressed, both Tendai and Shingon rituals for the protection of the state became conceived as physically
protecting the reigning monarch.”53 This was supported by a doctrine that regarded the effectiveness of ritual
as the criterion for its legitimacy. This led to the institution of protector monks (Gojiso) and charismatic
monks (Geza). “The term “Geza” which commonly appears in documents from the late tenth century
onwards, came to denote skilled monks 'whose prayers have results'.” 54 This explains why Nichiren
Daishonin would be willing to engage in a contest to bring rainfall with other leading priests: effectiveness
was proof and rain rituals were “important matters of state”. 55 It also explains why winning such a
competition would provoke the other schools to fury, as indeed happened after the competition with High
Priest Ryokan in 1271 described by Nichiren in The Letter of Petition from Yorimoto, WND 803. Nichiren
says that Ryokan’s response to losing was to petition the authorities to behead Nichiren.
Nichiren’s view on the importance of kami, particularly Amaterasu, is well-known. Amaterasu, as Nitten, the
sun god, appears on the Gohonzon with other kami, in a subordinate role to Nam myoho renge kyo. Nichiren
frequently criticized Kobo, most comprehensively in The Doctrine of Attaining Buddhahood
in One’s Present Form, WND 1052, and On Prayer, WND 348, in which he roundly criticizes the efforts of
Kobo and Annen to place the Mahavairocana sutras on a higher level than the Lotus Sutra:
“Moreover, Kōbō writes, “The Buddhist teachers of China vied with one another to steal the ghee.” The
meaning of this statement is that the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai and others stole the ghee of the True Word
teachings and called it the ghee of the Lotus Sutra. This statement is the most important point.
When the Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai applied the simile of ghee to the Lotus Sutra, basing himself on a
passage in the Nirvana Sutra,56 he declared that among all the sutras the Lotus Sutra is worthy to be
compared to ghee. The True Word teaching was introduced to China from India two hundred years or
more after the time of T’ien-t’ai. How then could T’ien-t’ai possibly have stolen the ghee of the True Word
teaching and called it the ghee of the Lotus Sutra?” – On Prayer, WND p.348
Although the correct relationship between temple or sect and state was a matter of dispute, it was for
Nichiren never in question that such a relationship should exist. The Daishonin's primary treatise on this was
the Rissho Ankoku Ron, or "Correct Teaching for Establishing the Peace of the Land", which he presented
to retired regent Hojo Tokiyori in 1260. This was not about the separation of powers, but rather about
institutionalizing a relationship based on a correct understanding of the primacy of the Lotus Sutra.
The Western notion of separation of secular and ecclesiastical power never existed in Japan:
"To the contrary...rulership in the late Heian and Kamakura eras...was characterized by a division of
responsibilities and a sharing of privileges among several elites...the spiritual protection for this polity,
which was united and symbolized by the emperor, was provided by the Buddhist-Shinto monastic
centres. It was not a specific doctrine but rather the ceremonies and ideological representations that
supplied the ideological symbolism and reinforcement the noble elites needed...." 57
53
54
55
56
57
TD Conlan, Op.Cit., p.79
TD Conlan, Op.Cit., p.80
Cambridge History of Japan, p.536
http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/38
Adolphson, Op. Cit., p.347
There was no single 'established' church - even when Shingon was in the ascendancy the other temples and
schools were supported to varying degrees and employed to further factional plans. Similarly, there was no
need to dissolve the monasteries to recover their wealth.
Chapter 5: Buddhism and Finance
We have seen how Japanese Buddhism evolved by Nichiren's time into an imperial power broker as part of
the Gates of Power (Kenmon) system. We have also seen how, especially in the more esoteric schools
such as Shingon and Tendai, Shinto elements such as the imperial regalia were developed and incorporated
to support a sense of national identity which allowed Japan to move out from under China’s shadow. And we
mentioned the importance of relics and stupas in the interplay of visible secular power and temple wealth.
Temples were funded in three principal ways:



Donations associated with relics and stupas
Income from gifted estates
Income from funerary services
The more influential temples often possessed immense estates which were until the Kamakura era typically
administered by the donating sponsor. However this wealth was not always reliable, as in the Hakusanji
Incident in 1176 when a dispute arose between Enryakuji and retired emperor Go-Shirakawa during which
an escalating complaint about Go-Shirakawa's retainers led to 'divine protests' which disrupted Kyoto, an
attempt to exile Tendai Head Priest Myoun, and confiscation of all 39 of Enryakuji's estates. These were
returned the following year by Taira no Kiyamori58 not by the retired emperor.
During the Kamakura era transition, the administration of temple estates became more direct, by local
temple managers. Later, during the Muromachi and Ashikaga Shogunates, estate income declined as the
Kenmon system was increasingly disregarded and villages began to form alliances rebelling against their old
central proprietors, often with Bakufu support. The newer Buddhist schools, particularly Nichiren, Zen and
True Pure Land, were part of this process while older schools, including Tendai, responded violently for
reasons which were at least as much about sponsorship and influence as doctrine.
This left mortuary rites as a major, and later nearly exclusive, source of temple income.
58
As part of an evolving power struggle between the Taira warrior clan and the imperial court.
Chapter 6: Burial Rites and Temple Funding
Chapter 7: Appendices
1. The priesthood caused problems in 1951. Toda said priest Jiko Kasahara had claimed that Buddha
is nothing but the shadow of the Shinto god. In 1952, despite assurances from the head temple that
Jiko had been expelled from the priesthood when in fact he had not, Jiko appeared at a head temple
meeting celebrating the 700th anniversary of NMRK.
2. SG initiated the project of collecting and publishing the Gosho, something the Nichiren Shoshu
priesthood had never bothered with. The head temple refused to support the project. Retired High
Priest Nichiko Hori however dissented and edited the work.
3. “Soryo”, the word for priest, comes from “sangha”. It includes all Buddhist practitioners. Nichiren did
not give priests a higher spiritual status. Ordinary members study and teach, performing all the
‘priestly’ functions.
4. Reality and wisdom: Reality is the True Nature of All Phenomena, wisdom is the clear vision to see
that nature. The Lotus Sutra fuses the two, Shakyamuni sits beside Taho Buddha. “When this
wisdom exists – when the ‘water of wisdom’ fills the ‘riverbed of reality’ – it is known as the fusion of
reality and wisdom.” – Background notes on The Essentials for Attaining Buddhahood, WND p. 748.
5. The idea of inheritance of a spiritual legacy was a metaphor based on the idea of sangha as family.
This was extended in Chinese Buddhism to the point that "The sense of lineage and genealogy
inherent in Chinese family structure eventually emerged in the monasteries, so much so that no East
Asian sect of Buddhism lacked a full outline of inheritance and legacy...a firmly established custom."
("Metaphor and Theory of Cultural Change", Dale S Wright, in Discourse Op. Cit p. 27.
6. The five 'senior priests' after Nichiren's death came to describe themselves as followers of the
Tendai school and even allowed junior priests to receive the precepts at Mt Hiei. 59
7. Curious: the "preaching of the Lotus sermon promised in the first chapter never takes place. The text
is about a discourse which is never delivered; it is a lengthy preface without a book." (G and W
Tanabe quoted in "The Lotus Sutra as Source", Taign dan Leighton, Discourses, p.198)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. What did Nichiren actually say?
About True Word school (On Repaying Debts of Gratitude, MW I, p.706.
“We come now to the disciple of the Administrator of Priests Gonsōof Iwabuchi named Kūkai, known in later
ages as the Great Teacher Kōbō. On the twelfth day of the fifth month in the twenty-third year of Enryaku, he
set out for T’ang China. After arriving there, he met the Reverend Hui-kuo, whose teacher belonged to the
third generation of the True Word lineage beginning with the Tripitaka masters Shan-wu-wei and Chin-kangchih. From Hui-kuo he received the transmission of the two True Word mandalas.39 He returned to Japan
on the twenty-second day of the tenth month in the second year of Daido (807).
It was then the reign of Emperor Heizei, Emperor Kammu having passed away a short time
before. Kōbō was granted an audience with Emperor Heizei, who placed great confidence in him and
embraced his teachings, valuing them above all. Not long after, Emperor Heizei ceded the throne to
Emperor Saga, with whom Kōbō likewise ingratiated himself. The Great Teacher Dengyō passed away on
the p.706fourth day of the sixth month in the thirteenth year of Kōnin (822), during the reign of Emperor
Saga.
59
Untold History of the Fuji School, Soka Gakkai, 2000, p.7
From the fourteenth year of the same era, Kōbō served as teacher to the sovereign. He established the True
Word school [Shingon], was given supervision of the temple known as Tō-ji, and was referred to as the
supreme priest of the True Word. Thus the True Word, the eighth school of Buddhism in Japan, had its start.
Kōbō commented as follows on the relative merit of the teachings of the Buddha’s lifetime: “First is
the Mahāvairochana Sutra of the True Word school, second is the Flower Garland Sutra, and third are the
Lotus and Nirvana sutras.
“In comparison to the sutras of the Āgama, Correct and Equal, and Wisdom periods, the Lotus is a true
sutra, but from the point of view of the Flower Garland and Mahāvairochana sutras, it is a doctrine of childish
theory.
“Though Shakyamuni was a Buddha, in comparison to the Thus Come One Mahāvairochana, he was still in
the region of darkness. Mahāvairochana is as exalted as an emperor; Shakyamuni, by comparison, is as
lowly as a subjugated barbarian.
“The Great Teacher T’ien-t’ai is a thief. He stole the ghee of the True Word and claimed that the Lotus
Sutra is ghee.”
This is the sort of thing that Kōbō wrote. As a result, though people may previously have believed that the
Lotus is the greatest of all sutras, after hearing of the Great Teacher Kōbō, they no longer regarded it as
worthy of notice.
I will set aside the erroneous doctrines propounded by non-Buddhists in India. But these pronouncements
of Kōbō are certainly worse than those put forward by the priests of northern and southern China who
declared that, in comparison to the Nirvana Sutra, the Lotus Sutra is a work of distorted views. They go even
farther than the assertions of those members of the Flower Garland school who stated that, in comparison to
the Flower Garland Sutra, the Lotus Sutra represents the “branch teachings.” One is reminded of that Great
Arrogant Brahman of India who fashioned a tall dais with the deities Maheshvara, Nārāyana, and Vishnu,
along with Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, as the four legs to support it, and then climbed up on
it and preached his fallacious doctrines.
2. Timeline
467
Buddhism arrives in Japan from what is now Afghanistan
654
Founding of the Hosso School and Kofokuji temple
710
Capital moves from Asuka to Nara
719
Nara era
774
Founding of Shingon School by Kobo Daishi and Kongobuji temple
784
Capital moves to Nagaoka-kyō to escape unruly and
uncontrollable Buddhist temple factions
794
Hieian era, imperial court moves again, to Kyoto (Heian-kyo)
807
Founding of Tendai School and Enryakuji temple
1156
Hōgen Rebellion (1156–1158) between Go-Shirakawa and retired
emperor Sutoku which also created conflict between the Taira and
Minamato clans.
1160
Heiji Rebellion – fighting between Taira and Minamoto clans
leading to the defeat of Yoshitomo by Taira no Kiyamori.
1180
Genpei War between Minamoto and Taira clan warriors leading to
the destruction of the Taira clan in 1185.
1185
Kamakura Era
1191
Founding of Rinzai Zen school
1192
Yoritomo consolidates his administration into the first bakufu
government based in Kamakura and becomes first Shogun. He
decisively crushes the Fujiwara clan. The imperial court remains in
Kyoto as a largely ceremonial and ritual body.
1221
Jokyu Rebellion between the forces of Retired Emperor Go-Toba
and those of the Hōjō clan, regents of the Kamakura shogunate,
whom the retired emperor was trying to overthrow. Go-Toba’s
allies consisted primarily of members of the Taira clan and other
enemies of the Minamoto (victors in the Genpei War and clan of
the Kamakura Shoguns).
1253
Invocation of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
1274
The Mongols try to invade Japan but are repelled by "kamikaze”
(Divine Wind) in both 1274 and 1281. The Japanese economy is
crippled by the expense of preparing for a third invasion.
1278
Inscription of Dai Gohonzon
1336
Muromachi Shogunate established at Kamakura after Kemmu
Restoration and defeat of Go-Daigo’s forces by Ashikaga Takauji
and the bakufu. The imperial supporters consolidated their
resistance as the Southern Court at Kyoto. Following this dispute
(largely about succession) the Ashikagas ruled until 1573.
1603
Tokugawa Shogunate moves the capital to Edo
1635
Period of isolation
1854
Admiral Perry forces the Shogun to sign a treaty of peace and
amity, reopening international trade at gunpoint.
3. Arguments about Nichiren's approach to the Lotus Sutra
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1038582
This contains rebuttals of a number of Zen etc. criticisms including the notion that the Lotus had nothing to
do with Shakyamuni.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's a more aggressive exchange:
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43861/13296949/What_does_Nichiren_Shu_say_of_the_Sok
a_Gakkai?pg=5
e.g.:
Daisaku Ikeda has also stated, "Lies and prejudices promote war, and war in turn promotes lies and
prejudices." while all the while waging war against the Nichiren Shoshu, the Nichiren Shu, and the Kempon
Hokke and contrary to Nichiren Daishonin, conducting and promoting wide open dialogue and prayer
meetings with the Brahmins, Muslims, and Christians. Is this the reason the SGI is stagnant and the
Kempon Hokke, for example is rapidly expanding, especially in India, conforming exactly to the will of
Nichiren Daishonin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. Nichiren’s Critique of the Senchaku Shu Part 1: Honen’s Slanderous Recommendations
This section is almost entirely quoted from Ryuei Michael McCormick, publicly posted at:
http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2009/09/04/the-direct-way-to-the-wonderful-truth/ in 2009.
After reviewing Honen’s Senchaku Shu, Nichiren launches into his own critique of that work. He points out
that Honen has lumped together all the sutras, teachings, and practices of Buddhism outside of the Triple
Pure Land Sutras and recommended that they be “abandoned, closed, set aside, and cast away.” Looking
back over the passages from the Augustine and Tessho translation of the Senchaku Shu, Nichiren’s fourword summary of Honen’s intent seems to be justified. Honen does indeed say to “reject” and “set aside” the
Holy Path that would include the teaching and practice of the Lotus Sutra; to “cast aside” and “abandon” the
Miscellaneous practices which would again include the teaching and practice of the Lotus Sutra. Honen also
asserts that the Buddha “closed” the gateway to all teachings and practices other than the nembutsu. So it
would appear that Honen does indeed use the phrases that Nichiren accuses him of using in reference to
the entire Buddhist canon and the teachings and practices of Buddhism outside the exclusive practice of
nembutsu. To add insult to injury, Honen even brands the scholars and teachers of other schools of
Buddhism who would disagree with this approach as a “band of robbers” in his interpretation of Shan-tao’s
parable of the white path.
In the Shugo Kokka Ron, Nichiren remarks that the distinctions between the holy way and the Pure Land
way, and between the way difficult to practice and the way easy to practice, and between the correct and
miscellaneous practices taught by the Pure Land patriarchs in India and China did not include the Lotus
Sutra, Nirvana Sutra or even the esoteric teachings of Shingon in their categorization of the Buddha’s
teachings. In this passage of the Rissho Ankoku Ron, Nichiren makes it a point to say that the Lotus Sutra
and Shingon sutras were included by Honen in these categories with the implication that they should not
have been. As we saw in the above review of Senchaku Shu, Honen stated that he believed the categories
of holy way, difficult to practice way, and miscellaneous practice definitely included all sutras other than the
Triple Pure Land Sutras including the Lotus Sutra and esoteric sutras even if the previous Pure Land
patriarchs had not specified this. So it would seem that Honen was introducing a new twist to the Pure Land
teachings of his predecessors that would exalt the vocal nembutsu at the expense of the Tendai and
Shingon schools that had become the pillars of Japan’s religious establishment and the arbiters of orthodoxy
and orthopraxis. Nichiren, who at this point in his career seems to be calling people back to Tendai
orthodoxy, does not hesitate to point out the radical nature of what Honen was advocating.
Nichiren, however, does not stop with Honen’s extreme recommendations and denigration of other Buddhist
teachers. Nichiren even calls into question the scriptural interpretations of T’an-luan, Tao-ch’o, and Shan-tao
that Honen relied upon by calling them “false interpretations.” By referring to the interpretations of the
Chinese Pure Land patriarchs as false, Nichiren calls into question the validity of the categories themselves,
and not just whether or not they should include the Lotus Sutra, Nirvana Sutra and esoteric sutras of
Shingon. Nichiren does not spell out exactly why these categories or illegitimate. Perhaps Nichiren viewed
the Pure Land categories as illegitimate because they contradicted the T’ien-t’ai categories of sutra
classification; but this begs the question as to the legitimacy of the T’ien-t’ai systems, such as the five
periods of the Buddha’s teaching, that Nichiren relied upon in his assertion that the Lotus Sutra is supreme
among all the sutras. Nichiren will return to this issue of the proper classification of the sutras later in Rissho
Ankoku Ron, and so this question will be dealt with then.
Instead of comparing and contrasting the T’ien-t’ai and Pure Land divisions of the canon, Nichiren appealed
directly to the sutras. This is in keeping with the four standards for judging the relative merits and profundity
of Buddhist teachings that Nichiren believed Shakyamuni Buddha set forth in the Nirvana Sutra: “Rely on the
Dharma and not upon persons; rely on the meaning and not upon the words; rely on wisdom and not upon
discriminative thinking; rely on sutras that are final and definitive and not upon those which are not final and
definitive.” The first statement, “Rely on the Dharma and not upon persons,” Nichiren took to mean, “Rely
directly on the teachings of the Buddha (Dharma) and not upon the commentaries of later persons.” With
this in mind, Nichiren bypassed all commentarial traditions and went right back to the primary sources of the
Buddhist tradition – the sutras.
The first sutra passage that Nichiren looks at is the 18th vow of Amitabha Buddha as given in the Sutra of
the Buddha of Infinite Life. It has already been pointed out that the 18th vow contains an exclusionary clause
that specifically excludes those “who abuse the Wonderful Dharma” from being reborn in the Pure Land.
Nichiren took this to mean that anyone who abuses the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Sutra would
be excluded. Nichiren follows with a passage from the third chapter of the Lotus Sutra that asserts that not
only will anyone who slanders the Lotus Sutra not enter the Pure Land; they will instead fall into the Avichi
hell, a hell of unceasing torment wherein one is bound to spend millennia until the unwholesome karma of
slandering the Dharma is expiated.
We should probably pause here and consider what “abusing” or “slandering” the Dharma could possibly
mean. The answer is actually provided in the very passage from the Lotus Sutra that Nichiren cites only a
part of. The whole passage reads:
Those who do not believe this sutra
But slander it,
Will destroy the seeds of Buddhahood
Of all living beings of the world.
Some will scowl at this sutra
And doubt it,
Listen! I will tell you
How they will be punished.
In my lifetime or after my extinction
Some will slander this sutra,
And despise the person who reads or recites
Or copies or keeps this sutra.
They will hate him,
Look at him with jealousy,
And harbor enmity against him.
Listen I will tell you how they will be punished.
When their present lives end,
They will fall into the Avichi Hell.
They will live there for a kalpa,
And have their rebirth in the same hell.
This rebirth of theirs will be repeated
For innumerable kalpas.60
So it would appear that slander or abuse refers to looking down upon the sutra and doubting it, or despising,
hating, being jealous of, and bearing enmity towards those who uphold the sutra. In chapter 13 after the 20line verse describing the future enemies of the practitioners of the Lotus Sutra, it states that they will accuse
the practitioners of having “made up the sutra by themselves” and of “expounding the teaching of heretics.”
60
The Lotus Sutra, p. 81
It also says: “They will speak ill of us, or frown at us, or drive us out of the monasteries from time to time.” (p.
208, Ibid) In chapter 20, Bodhisattva Never Despise’s assurances of the future buddhahood of all he meets
is disbelieved and he is both verbally and even physically abused in just the way that chapter 13 describes.
In his letter the Ken Hobo-sho (A Clarification of Slandering the True Dharma) Nichiren relies upon the
definitions of T’ien-t’ai and Vasubandhu in responding to the question, “What does slandering the Dharma
mean exactly?” Nichiren writes:
Grand Master T’ien-t’ai explains in his Commentary on the Brahma Net Sutra, “the term slander means to go
against.” We may say slandering the True Dharma means to go against the teaching of the Buddha.
Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Buddha-nature preaches, “Hate means to go against principle.” It means that
to slander the True Dharma equals to cause people to abandon it. (WNS: D3, p. 115)
It is Nichiren’s contention that Honen’s recommendation that all the sutras, including the Lotus Sutra, be
“abandoned, closed, set aside, and cast away” in favor of nembutsu and that those who would argue against
this view are “a band of robbers” constitutes exactly the kind of abuse and slander that both the Sutra of the
Buddha of Infinite Life and the Lotus Sutra are warning against. Honen’s exclusive nembutsu, therefore, is
going against both the Lotus Sutra and even the Triple Pure Land Sutras themselves.
Nichiren and his contemporaries believed that the sutras were the actual words of Shakyamuni Buddha. So
if one sutra says that you cannot be reborn in the Pure Land if you slander the Wonderful Dharma and
another says that you will fall into the Avichi Hell for doing so then that was all that needed to be said.
Furthermore, the Pure Land and the Avichi Hell were taken to be actual places where one could be reborn,
though they were also understood more metaphorically as well. But since most modern Buddhist do not
believe that these sutras were verbatim discourses of the Buddha and many do not believe in literal heavens
and hells and some seriously question even the doctrine of rebirth, it must be asked what possible meaning
any of this has for us.
As discussed earlier, the Mahayana sutras were the inspired products of later followers of the Buddha who
felt that it would be better to express the true intent of the Buddha’s teachings through myth, poetry, and
paradox. So the question is – what was really intended by these passages in Triple Pure Land Sutras and by
the Lotus Sutra?
The Triple Pure Land Sutras express a Mahayana development of an early pre-Mahayana practice called
buddhanusmrti, or “recollection of the Buddha.” This practice, common to all forms of Buddhism, involves
the recollection of the Buddha’s meritorious qualities and even physical features in order to arouse devotion
and make merit that could help one to attain enlightenment.
The concept of a pure land wherein conditions were conducive for the attainment of buddhahood may also
have been a Mahayana development of the earlier idea that a Buddhist, whether lay or ordained, who
attained the stage of “non-returner” through their practice would be reborn in the very highest of the heavens
of the realm of form called the “pure abodes” wherein they would proceed to cut off any remaining cognitive
and emotional fetters and attain nirvana. In addition, Mahayana developments concerning celestial buddhas,
bodhisattva vows, and the bodhisattva’s transference of merit for the sake of sentient beings all came
together with the practice of recollecting the qualities and merits of a buddha. All of this resulted in the
inspiring myth of a bodhisattva who makes vows to create the best of all possible pure lands for the sake of
all beings and that upon becoming a buddha he enables all those calling him to mind to be reborn there and
attain buddhahood.
What was even better, because the focus was on a celestial buddha residing in another realm, this buddha,
Amitabha Buddha, could even be considered an active presence in the lives of his devotees, unlike
Shakyamuni Buddha who had entered parinirvana. A devotee of Amitabha Buddha could then be
considered to be taking refuge in and recollecting a living Buddha. All of this was a way to encourage those
who wished to embark upon the Mahayana path to raise their aspirations, have faith that their efforts would
be aided by celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas, and to constantly recollect the merits and characteristics of
a buddha. In this way they could be assured that their practices would come to fruition, if not in this lifetime
than most certainly in the next.
The Triple Pure Land Sutras are not, however, recommending that the rest of the Dharma be neglected in
favor of rebirth in the Pure Land, and in fact the whole purpose of rebirth in the Pure Land is so that one can
awaken to the Wonderful Dharma. The exclusionary clause makes it clear that the 18th vow was not
conceived as a loophole by which one could avoid the Dharma and automatically become a buddha through
the practice of another on one’s behalf.
The Lotus Sutra’s main themes concern the One Vehicle whereby even those who would seem to be
excluded from attaining buddhahood are promised its attainment and the revelation that Shakyamuni
Buddha had in fact been the Buddha since the primordial past even before his awakening beneath the Bodhi
Tree. Women, evildoers like Devadatta, and those disciples who were believed to have become arhats who
would no longer return to the world after their passing, are all told that they will in fact return to the world and
attain buddhahood. This was in seeming contradiction to the earlier teaching that only a very few could
aspire to and attain buddhahood.
The revelation of the attainment of buddhahood in the remote past means that even during the Buddha’s
innumerable past lifetimes as an ordinary human being, or an animal, or some other form of sentient being
striving to attain buddhahood the Buddha had been a buddha all along. And now even though the Buddha is
going to appear to pass away for good, he asserts that he will still be present. In light of these two themes,
buddhahood should be understood as inclusive of all beings, all time, and all space. It is a constant and
active presence even when it is not apparent or seems to be absent in the lives of those who strive for it.
Throughout the Lotus Sutra these ideas are put forward as the fullest expression of the Dharma and to
embrace them with faith and joy is to embrace the Wonderful Dharma and to reject them is to reject the
Wonderful Dharma. The Wonderful Dharma is held to be even more worthy of respect and offerings than the
Buddha himself because it is through the Wonderful Dharma that one attains buddhahood. It is for this
reason that rejection means a total alienation from what is truly of value in life, and therefore leads to rebirth
in hell. It is for this reason that a single moment of faith and rejoicing in the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus
Sutra is said to bring unequalled merit, rivaled only by the merit brought by the perfection of wisdom itself
which is none other than buddhahood itself.
So it would seem that the most important thing is to revere the Wonderful Dharma and to awaken to its full
significance. The Triple Pure Land Sutras make a point of excluding any who would slander it, and the Lotus
Sutra describes the vast demerit incurred or merit made by those who slander or praise it respectively.
Whether the Buddha directly taught these sutras or not, and whether or not there are literal rebirths in a Pure
Land or an Avichi Hell, the point seems to be that we create our own misery to the extent that we deny the
Wonderful Dharma whereas we can attain awakening through upholding the Wonderful Dharma. And what
is this Wonderful Dharma? It is not simply a formula, text, or even a creed that one must believe without
evidence. It is none other than the true nature of all existence, the reality of all things. This is what all
buddhas awaken to, praise, and point out to all sentient beings using many skillful methods so that they too
may realize that they are buddhas as well.
The Triple Pure Land Sutras’ intent is to provide people with a way to be reborn in a Pure Land where they
can then awaken to the Wonderful Dharma. The Lotus Sutra directly expounds the fullness of the Wonderful
Dharma that can be encountered here and now in terms of the One Vehicle and the unborn and deathless
nature of buddhahood. So does it make sense to embrace the indirect way of hoping to encounter the
Wonderful Dharma only after death while excluding the possibility of taking faith in and rejoicing in the
Wonderful Dharma here and now? Does it make sense to claim that the Triple Pure Land Sutras should be
used to turn people away from the expounding of the Wonderful Dharma in the Lotus Sutra? That would not
seem to be the intent of the Triple Pure Land Sutras. This is what Nichiren was trying to point out in his
critique of Honen’s Senchaku Shu. That the Pure Land teachings should not be used to overshadow the
direct expression of the Wonderful Dharma is a critique that I believe still holds up today. 61
5. The Lotus Sutra and Life
The Buddha is life itself. Toda spent three months in prison chanting and reading before finding the 12-line
verse in chapter 1 of the Sutra of Infinite Meaning which contains 34 negative descriptions of the Buddha’s
entity, when he realized that Buddha is life itself. See also "On Attaining Buddhahood in this Lifetime", p.4
“Life is neither existence nor non-existence”.
The Flower Garland Sutra contains a description of the dharma as something uncannily similar to DNA, a
concept which at least provides a metaphor for meditation. The
61
Ryuei Michael McCormick, © 2004. Publicly posted at: http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2009/09/04/the-direct-way-to-
the-wonderful-truth/ in 2009.
Chapter 8: Bibliography
M.S. Adolphson, The Gates of Power, University of Hawai’i Press, 2000