Before the year ends I want to put this topic to rest.

While wandering through used bookstores during a visit to Rochester, New York, this year I purchased a copy of Edward Conze’s “Buddhism; It’s Essence and Development.” The book I picked up was published by the Philosophical Library of New York.

In my readings on Buddhism Conze’s name has come up often in the footnotes, a source of information other authors relied on. What sort of information?

Consider this from page 206:

It is customary to reckon the sect of Nichiren (1222-1282) as one of the schools of Amidism. It would be more appropriate to count it among the offshoots of nationalistic Shintoism. Nichiren suffered from self-assertiveness and bad temper, and he manifested a degree of personal and tribal egotism which disqualify him as a Buddhist teacher. He did not only convince himself that he, personally, was mentioned in the Lotus of the Good Law, but also that the Japanese were the chosen race which would regenerate the world. The followers of the Nichiren sect, as Suzuki puts it: even now are more or less militaristic and do not mix well with other Buddhists.”

Let’s break this down:

1. It is customary to reckon the sect of Nichiren (1222-1282) as one of the schools of Amidism.
2. more appropriate to count [Nichiren Buddhism] among the offshoots of nationalistic Shintoism
3. Nichiren suffered from self-assertiveness and bad temper, and he manifested a degree of personal and tribal egotism which disqualify him as a Buddhist teacher.
4. He did not only convince himself that he, personally, was mentioned in the Lotus of the Good Law, but also that the Japanese were the chosen race which would regenerate the world.
5. The followers of the Nichiren sect, as Suzuki puts it: even now are more or less militaristic and do not mix well with other Buddhists.”

None of this is excusable for a man who is described as a scholar, but perhaps we can at least offer the suggestion that his view of Nichiren was influenced by his times.

According to Conze’s “Author’s Note,” he gave a series of lectures on Buddhism at Oxford’s St. Peter’s Hall in the early 1940s. In 1948 he was encouraged to create “a work covering the whole range of Buddhist thought.” The first edition of his book was published in 1951.

The Buddhism of Nichiren was very different in the years immediately before and during World War II, when Chigaku Tanaka’s influence held sway.

As Edwin B. Lee explains, Tanaka synthesized Nichiren Buddhist doctrines with Shinto traditions to create a unique form of Japanese nationalism, “Nichirenism,” which intertwined religious and political goals.

This is not unlike Junjiro Takakusu’s unkind view of Nichiren, which was also the product of the pre-war Japan.

Like Takakusu, Conze takes Nichiren’s assertiveness in declaring the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra as “bad tempered.” I disagree and we’ll just have to leave it at that.

One assumes Conze’s statement that Nichiren convinced himself that “he, personally, was mentioned in the Lotus of the Good Law” is a reference to Bodhisattva Jōgyō, Superior Practice, one of the four leaders of the Bodhisattvas who emerged from underground in Chapter 15 of the Lotus Sutra and who is given the task of spreading the sutra in the latter days of the law. Nichiren wondered if he were Bodhisattva Jōgyō. Many of Nichiren’s followers today assume he was. But whether or not he was, that was not a primary feature of Nichiren’s teachings.

What Nichiren did recognize of himself in the Lotus Sutra was the persecutions and harassment predicted for those who attempt to spread the sutra. If Conze considers Nichiren’s view that Chapter 13, Encouragement for Keeping this Sutra, spoke to his life experience as “egotism which disqualify him as a Buddhist teacher,” then, again, I have to disagree.

Finally, there is Conze’s declaration that Nichiren taught just another form of Amidism.

Conze’s book defines Amidism as:

• It is a kind of totalitarianism of faith in which faith is all-powerful regardless of moral conduct.
• It is a religion accessible to everyone.
• It rejects hardships, austerities, and even the mild asceticism of monastic life.
• All people, good or bad, are admitted to Amitabha’s Pure Land.
• Faith in Amitabha’s grace is the sole condition for admission to the Pure Land.
• Amitabha is a compassionate god who, unlike the Christian God, is not a judge.

(This summary is provided by NotebookLM. A PDF of the book is available here if you want a quick AI assistant review.)

The only point of intersection between Conze’s Amidism and Nichiren’s devotion to the Lotus Sutra is that it is a religion accessible to everyone.

I am unapologetic in my admiration for Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra.

In 2025 I will underscore this by publishing daily a short example of the promise of the Lotus Sutra.

Next: The Next 10 Years.