In Nichiren’s teaching, it is the bodhisattvas of the earth who play the lead roles in spreading the Lotus Sūtra in the Final Dharma age. But he recognized Samantabhadra [Universal Sage] as a protector and, in one letter written from exile to Sado Island, referred to him as manifesting through two of his most supportive lay followers, the samurai Shinjō Kingo and his wife, Nichigen-nyo: “You were both born of ordinary status, and you live in Kamakura [the seat of Bakufu authority], yet you trust in the Lotus Sūtra without fearing others’ gaze and without begrudging your lives. This is no ordinary matter… . Surely this is what the Lotus Sūtra means where it says that those living in Jambudvipa who believe in this sūtra do so by the power of the bodhisattva Samantabhadra.”

As suggested in the long passage from Nichiren cited above, Samantabadhra is often depicted iconographically as Śākyamuni Buddha’s attendant on the right, with Mañjuśrī attending him on the left. Where Mañjuśrī represents wisdom and realization, Samantabhadra represents teaching and practice. The Lotus Sūtra begins with Mañjuśrī playing a role in preparing the assembly to receive Śākyamuni’s preaching of the sūtra just before his final nirvāṇa; it concludes with Samantabadhra vowing to protect those who uphold the sūtra after he has departed. On Nichiren’s mandala, the names of Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra appear as representatives of bodhisattvas from other worlds and of the trace teaching.

Nichiren regarded King Śubhavyūha [King Wonderful-Adornment] as an example of an “evil man” attaining buddhahood through the power of the Lotus Sūtra. He often referenced this chapter in letters to his followers to stress the importance of family relations in promoting faith and to assuage the anxieties they sometimes felt about the postmortem fate of their deceased parents or children. One example occurs in a letter to his follower Jōren-bō, whose father had been a follower of Hōnen’s Pure Land teaching. Jōren-bō was presumably anxious about what karmic retribution his father would incur in his next life. Indeed, Nichiren says, those who support teachers who slander the dharma, such as Hōnen and other Pure Land teachers, must fall into the Avici hell. In this case, however, the father will surely be saved by the son’s devotion. He writes: “A ruler’s mind is broadened by his minister, and parents’ pain is eased by their children. Maudgalyāyana saved his mother from the sufferings of the realm of hungry ghosts, and the sons Vimalagarbha and Vimalanetra persuaded their father to rectify his false views. … The merit that you have acquired by embracing the Lotus Sūtra will become your father’s strength.”

Nichiren acknowledged the tradition that held Zhiyi’s teacher Huisi to have been an embodiment of Avalokiteśvara in this world. However, Huisi had lived during the Semblance Dharma age, and Nichiren represents him as spreading only the trace teaching of the Lotus Sūtra. He saw Avalokiteśvara, like Mañjuśrī, Bhaiṣajyarāja, and Samantabhadra, as bodhisattvas of the pre-Lotus Sūtra and trace teachings. “Since they were not bearers Myōhō-renge-kyō], they were perhaps unequal to propagating it in the Final Dharma age,” he suggested.

For Nichiren, these two bodhisattvas, Gadgadasvara [Wonderful-Voice Bodhisattva] and Avalokiteśvara [World-Voice-Perceiver Bodhisattva], fell into the category of bodhisattvas who were followers of the provisional teachings and the trace teaching of the Lotus Sūtra and who had been active in the True and Semblance Dharma ages, but whose time had now passed. Neither figures prominently in his writings.

Chapters Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Five describe how specific bodhisattvas display their powers in the world to benefit sentient beings. As noted earlier, at one point in its compilation history, the Lotus Sūtra probably concluded with Chapter Twenty-Two, “Entrustment.” These three subsequent chapters represent a later stratum of the text, added as devotion to the bodhisattvas in question was gradually assimilated to the Lotus. From Nichiren’s standpoint, the bodhisattvas appearing in these chapters had received only the general transmission described in the “Entrustment” chapter. Either they had come from other worlds, or they were followers of Śākyamuni in his provisional guise as the Buddha of the trace teaching or shakumon portion of the sūtra. Thus, their work was chiefly confined to the True and Semblance Dharma ages. Yet, as we see, Nichiren drew on these chapters to make points about the Lotus Sūtra and its practice in the Final Dharma age.

In [Chapters 21 and 22], Śākyamuni Buddha entrusts the teachings of the Lotus Sūtra for propagation in the future. To make clear the momentousness of the occasion, he first displays his awe-inspiring transcendent powers. According to Zhanran, of the ten powers described, the first five — from Śākyamuni and all other buddhas extending their tongues to the heavens of Brahmā to the buddha worlds of the ten directions quaking in six ways — were intended for beings in his lifetime. The remaining supernatural events — from all beings in those worlds beholding the buddhas present on their lion thrones at the Lotus assembly to the worlds of the ten directions becoming pellucid, as though they were one buddha land (284) — were intended for beings of the future.

Though he acknowledged this reading, Nichiren concluded that ultimately the entire display was directed to the future, when the four leaders of the bodhisattvas of the earth would appear in order to spread the five characters Myōhō-renge-kyō. He also assimilated these extraordinary happenings to contemporary portents: “The quaking of the earth in the ‘Introduction’ chapter was limited to a single world system, but in the ‘Transcendent Powers’ chapter the lands of the various buddhas all shook violently, quaking in six different ways. The [earthquakes and other] omens of our own time are just like this. The great omens of the ‘Transcendent Powers’ chapter portend that the essence of the Lotus Sūtra will spread widely after the Buddha’s nirvāṇa, when the two thousand years of the True Dharma and Semblance Dharma ages have passed and the Final Dharma age has begun.”

[T]he Lotus Sūtra itself does not contain the words “buddha nature,” a concept developed in later Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. For that reason, some early Chinese exegetes argued that the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, and not the Lotus, represented the Buddha’s highest teaching. In contrast, the “three great masters of the Sui dynasty” – Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Jizang – drew on the Sadāparibhūta chapter to argue that the idea of innate buddha nature is fully present in the Lotus Sūtra, even though that specific phrase does not occur there.

In referring … to the passage on the purification of the mind indicated in the “Benefits Obtained” chapter, Nichiren writes that “the true path lies in the realities of this world.” Like Zhiyi, he denied any notion of a two-tiered hierarchy between the realm of deluded beings and the realm of the Buddha’s enlightenment: one entails the experience of suffering, and the other, the experience of inner stability and joy, but the distinction between them lies solely in whether or not one embraces the Lotus Sūtra. Elsewhere, … Nichiren draws on the mutual inclusion of mind and all phenomena to assert that our own actions are what make this world a hell or a buddha land. Here, however, he draws a slightly different inference: there is no buddha-dharma to be achieved apart from one’s everyday reality. One’s ordinary affairs, whatever they maybe, form the arena of practice, and by faith in the Lotus Sūtra, one can bring to bear the wisdom and compassion of the dharma to negotiate all worldly matters.

When Buddhism was transmitted to China, the Mahāyāna concept of all things as empty of fixed, independent existence and therefore mutually interpenetrating and nondual seemed to echo indigenous Chinese notions of a holistic cosmos in which all things are interrelated. This stance proved congenial to early Chinese Buddhist thinkers. But how exactly was the ultimate principle (Ch. li, J. ri) — whether conceptualized as emptiness, mind, or suchness — related to the concrete phenomena or actualities (shi, ji) of our experience? Some teachers conceived of principle in terms of an originally pure and undifferentiated “one mind” that, refracted through deluded perception, gives rise to the phenomenal world, with its distinctions of self and other, true and false, subject and object, good and evil, and so forth. To use a famous metaphor, the mind is originally like still water that accurately mirrors all things. When stirred by the wind of ignorance, waves appear, and the water begins to reflect things in a distorted way, producing the notion of self and other as substantially real entities and thus giving rise to attachment, suffering, and continued rebirth in saṃsāra. Liberation lies in discerning that the differentiated phenomena of the world are in their essence no different from the one mind and thus originally pure. From this perspective, the purpose of Buddhist practice is to dispel delusion and return the mind to its original clarity. This idea developed especially within the Huayan (J. Kegon) and Chan (Zen) traditions.

This model explains principle and phenomena as nondual, but it does not value them equally. The one mind is original, pure, and true, while concrete phenomena are ultimately unreal, arising only as the one mind is filtered through human ignorance. From that perspective, the ordinary elements of daily experience remain at a second-tier level as the epiphenomena of a defiled consciousness. Zhiyi termed this perspective the “realm of the conceivable” — understandable, but not yet adequately expressing the true state of affairs. He himself expressed a different, more subtle view. … [H]e states: “Were the mind to give rise to all phenomena, that would be a vertical [relationship]. Were all phenomena to be simultaneously contained within the mind, that would be a horizontal [relationship]. Neither horizontal nor vertical will do. It is simply that the mind is all phenomena and all phenomena are the mind. … [This relationship] is subtle and profound in the extreme; it can neither be grasped conceptually nor expressed in words. Therefore, it is called the realm of the inconceivable.”

In Zhiyi’s understanding, phenomena do not arise from a pure mind or abstract prior principle. “Principle” means that the material and the mental, subject and object, good and evil, delusion and enlightenment are always nondual and mutually inclusive; this is the “real aspect of all dharmas” that only buddhas can completely know, referred to in the “Skillful Means” chapter (24). This perspective revalorizes the world, not as a realm of delusion, but as the very locus of enlightenment. The aim of practice, then, is not to recover a primal purity, but to manifest the buddha wisdom even amid ignorance and delusion.