Category Archives: Fire

Fire, Blog, Books

Fire in the Lotus

Available on Amazon
When I first picked up Fire in the Lotus and saw that it devoted four chapters to Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai, I assumed it was going to be another homage to President Daisaku Ikeda. Instead I found a reasoned exploration of Nichiren Buddhism and its many varieties. If anything, Daniel Montgomery walks a doctrinal line established by Professor Senchu Murano (1908-2001), who translated the Lotus Sutra in 1974 for Nichiren Shu. Montgomery was the editor of the Second Edition revision of Murano’s translation.

Fire in the Lotus was published in 1991. As a result it does not address the excommunication of Soka Gakkai members by Nichiren Shoshu on Nov. 28, 1991. It also discusses groups such as Nichijo Shaka’s Buddhist School of America that have since disappeared. But on a whole, it stands up well today.

That’s not to say that I don’t have any complaints. Montgomery erroneously conflates the Parable of the Priceless Gem of Chapter 8, The Assurance of Future Buddhahood of the Five Hundred Disciples, with the Parable of the Priceless Gem in the Top-Knot of Chapter 14, Peaceful Practices.

Another parable in the Sutra treats the matter from a different angle. A young man became drunk after an evening of carousing and passed out. A wealthy friend had to leave him there, but decided first to do him a favour. He took a valuable jewel and placed it in the drunken man’s topknot. Surely, he reasoned, when his friend woke up, he would notice the jewel, use it to pay any expenses, and still have plenty left over for whatever he wanted.

But this did not happen. When the drunken man got up the next day, it never occurred to him that he was now wealthy. First he was thrown out of the inn for not paying his bill. Then things went from bad to worse. He wandered from place to place, doing odd jobs when he could and living from hand to mouth.

Years later, his wealthy friend ran into him and was shocked by his appearance. ‘What happened to you?’ he asked. ‘How did you lose all your money?’

‘What money? I never had any. You know that.’

The money from the jewel I left in your topknot. I left it for you so that you could pay your expenses, invest the rest, and go into business for yourself.’

The poor man dug into his topknot and, sure enough, there was the priceless jewel! It had been there all along. He had been a rich man, carrying a fortune with him wherever he went, but he had never known it.

So it is, says the Buddha, with everyone. The priceless jewel, the Buddha nature, lies within us untapped. The only difference between the Buddha and us is that he knows this, has unraveled his topknot, and exposed the jewel of the Buddhahood. (Page 50)

Then there’s the question of how one writes the Daimoku in English. For most of the book, Montgomery uses Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. But occasionally Soka Gakkai’s spelling with Nam sneaks in. It is understandable when Montgomery is quoting a Nichiren Shoshu or a Soka Gakkai source, but then it pops up unexpectedly:

Even more extraordinary is the story of Nisshin Nabekamuri, the ‘pot-wearer’ (1407-88). A representative of Toki Jonin’s Nakayama School, he arrived in Kyoto at the age of 22, and promptly set to work writing a thesis in imitation of Nichiren’s, which he called, ‘Establish the Right Law and Rule the Country’. When he finished it he presented it to Shogun Ashikaga Yoshinori, which was a mistake. The Shogun had once been an ordained monk on Mount Hiei, and had inherited a bitter hatred for Nichiren Buddhism. He decided to break Nisshin for his impertinence. The young priest was arrested and tortured. Nisshin was not tortured only once, but daily for two years. The Shogun took a perverse delight in watching the sufferings of the priest; he supervised the daily tortures by fire, rack, sword, and whatever else he could think of. Nothing would make Nisshin stop chanting, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Finally the Shogun ordered that a metal pot be jammed over his head to keep him quiet, but from underneath the pot could still be heard, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! Nam-myoho-renge-kyo!

Nisshin’s ordeal might have continued indefinitely had not the cruel Shogun been assassinated one day while watching a theatrical performance. Nisshin was released, and the pot was removed from his head. He rebuilt his temple, which had been destroyed, took up his drum, and went back to the street corners to chant, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! Nam-myoho-renge-kyo! Never one to avoid a challenge, he is said to have triumphed in 60 religious debates in the course of his 65-year career. (Page 161-162)

One assumes Montgomery got this version of the tale from Nichiren Shoshu/Soka Gakkai materials, but the inconsistency grates.

Montgomery has something of pattern of picking up material whole. For example, in discussing Shariputra’s dislike for women he quotes from Buddha-Dharma: New English Edition, published by the Numata Center for Buddhist Translation in 1984.

However, there is a delightful Sanskrit story that even Shariputra met his match when he encountered a woman saint in heaven and asked her, ‘Now that you have the ability, why don’t you change yourself into a man?’ Instead of answering him, she turned him into a woman and asked him if he felt any different.

That “delightful Sanskrit story” is actually the Vimalakīrti Sūtra and the “saint in heaven” is actually a goddess who has been living in Vimalakīrti’s room for 12 years. Here’s Burton Watson’s translation of the exchange:

Shariputra said, “Why don’t you change out of this female body?

The goddess replied, “For the past twelve years I have been trying to take on female form, but in the end with no success. What is there to change? If a sorcerer were to conjure up a phantom woman and then someone asked her why she didn’t change out of her female body, would that be any kind of reasonable question?”

“No,” said Shariputra. “Phantoms have no fixed form, so what would there be to change?”

The goddess said, “All things are just the same—they have no fixed form. So why ask why I don’t change out of my female form?”

At that time the goddess employed her supernatural powers to change Shariputra into a goddess like herself, while she took on Shariputra’s form. Then she asked, “Why don’t you change out of this female body?”

Shariputra, now in the form of a goddess, replied, “I don’t know why I have suddenly changed and taken on a female body!”

The goddess said, “Shariputra, if you can change out of this female body, then all women can change likewise. Shariputra, who is not a woman, appears in a woman’s body. And the same is true of all women—though they appear in women’s bodies, they are not women. Therefore the Buddha teaches that all phenomena are neither male nor female.”

Then the goddess withdrew her supernatural powers, and Shariputra returned to his original form. The goddess said to Shariputra, “Where now is the form and shape of your female body?”

Shariputra said, “The form and shape of my female body does not exist, yet does not not exist.”

The goddess said, “All things are just like that—they do not exist, yet do not not exist. And that they do not exist, yet do not not exist, is exactly what the Buddha teaches.”(Page 90-91)

All things considered, Fire in the Lotus is an excellent addition to any library devoted to Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra.

Next: Original Enlightenment and Nichiren as the Original Buddha

Fire, Nichijo, Blog

Fire in the Lotus: Buddhist School of America

As part of my series of articles discussing the book,Nichijo: The Testimony of John Provoo, I’m reprinting here the portion of Daniel Montgomery’s Fire in the Lotus discussing Nichijo Shakya. This material, which was published in 1991, has several factual errors. For example Montgomery suggests Rev. Shobo Aoyagi was at the Sacramento Nichiren Buddhist Church in 1940 when John Provoo formally converted to Nichiren Buddhism. Aoyagi  was in San Francisco. Montgomery also mischaracterizes why Provoo’s conviction for treason was overturned. Several other facts differ from those in Nichijo’s book.

Buddhist School of America

Nichijo Shaka is the most colorful and controversial Nichiren leader in America. In spite of his Japanese name, he is a Caucasian American from San Francisco. Born John D. Provoo in 1917. He was introduced to Oriental philosophy by his mother, who was an early Montessori advocate. She later converted to Buddhism under the guidance of her son. Provoo was so impressed by Buddhism that in 1940 he accepted the Precepts (formally converted) under the Rev. Shobo Aoyagi of the Sacramento Nichiren Buddhist Church. Never one to do things by halves, he went to Japan to study for the priesthood at Mount Minobu. He had been there seven months when his studies were cut short by a call from his draft board back in California (Young East, Autumn 1965, 13).

The draft board ignored his claim to be a theological student and assigned him to the army, which soon shipped him back to the Orient, this time to the Philippines. When the Japanese invaded the Philippines in 1941, Provoo suddenly found himself in the thick of desperate fighting. However, with the fall of the American fortress of Corregidor, he was taken prisoner.

Provoo was one of the few American prisoners who could speak Japanese. Moreover, he had a lively interest in Buddhism and Japanese culture. The Japanese found him a willing spokesman for the prisoners — perhaps too willing. Within two days of his capture, he was thought to have made accusations against an American lieutenant which led to the latter’s execution. As the weary years passed, many American prisoners, who were living under appalling conditions, came to resent Provoo’s behavior and favored treatment from their Japanese captors. They believed that his cooperation with the enemy had passed over to collaboration. “The consensus among the men on Corregidor,” says Lt. Gen. John Wright, a former fellow-prisoner, “was that Provoo was a traitor, a turncoat, a self-centered individual not to be trusted.”

When the war ended, Provoo was at first overlooked in the flush of victory, but his fellow prisoners of war had not forgotten him. Eventually some of them managed to get him charged with collaboration with the enemy — treason — and brought to trial. Throughout the trial Provoo steadfastly maintained his innocence, but former prisoners lined up against him. Among them was no less a personage than General Wainwright, the highest ranking American prisoner of war. Provoo was found guilty and condemned to a federal prison. His lawyers, however, had not yet given up, and carried his case to the Supreme Court of the United States. There he was declared innocent on a technicality: the statute of limitations had expired. Provoo’s conviction was reversed, and he was set free.

In 1965 a large Japanese delegation came to the United States to participate in the 12th Congress of the World Association of World Federalists. The delegation was headed by Archbishop Nichijo Fujii, the highest ranking abbot of Nichiren Shu. After the close of the congress some of the delegates, including Archbishop Fujii and Professor Senchu Murano, made a tour of the United States to meet American Buddhists. In New York City Professor Murano was approached by John Provoo, who asked to be introduced to the Archbishop. The two got on well. Provoo became the personal disciple of the Archbishop, who took him back to Japan to continue his studies at Mount Minobu.

Provoo concluded his studies satisfactorily. He was ordained a priest, and in 1968 the Archbishop gave him the right to train and ordain future American aspirants. Provoo changed his name to Nichijo Shaka — Nichijo in honor of the Archbishop and Shaka for Shakyamuni Buddha. By 1981, when he came to the “Big Island” of Hawaii, he had trained and ordained 17 priests, of whom many were women. (The Honolulu Advertiser, 30 August 1981)

Nichijo Shaka never attempted to start a mass movement. His aim was to establish an American training center for serious students who would then bring orthodox Nichiren Buddhism back to their home towns. Because he wanted his center to be purely American, he refused to accept official support for it as a Nichiren Shu foreign mission. He lived simply as a Buddhist monk, and it was not until Dr Richard E. Peterson of the University of Hawaii gave him the use of three acres on the “Big Island” that he was able to build a permanent center.

Like Nichiren, who was finally granted land on Minobu only to find his health deteriorating, Nichijo Shaka found himself in the same predicament. He founded the “Buddhist School of America: Perfect Law of the Lotus Teaching” when he was too ill to supervise it properly. Therefore he ordained the Rev. Nichizo Finney as his successor, and took him to Minobu to complete his training. (History of Nichiren Buddhism in Hawaii, 34, in Japanese)

Nichijo Shaka’s career is drawing to its close. The success or failure of his efforts now rests with those he trained, and their impact remains to be seen.

Fire in the Lotus, p251-253

Table of Contents

Fire, Blog

Where Do Prayers Go?

In Daniel B. Montgomery’s Fire in the Lotus, he mentions that Mugaku Nishida (1850-1918) inspired the creation of the Nichiren lay organization Reiyukai, which was founded in 1924.

Nishida said:

The living individual is the body left behind by the ancestors in this world, so we should treat our ancestors as if they were our own bodies . . . In our hearts we have the seed of buddhahood, which also remains in the ancestors’ souls, so we must protect it for our own salvation. The salvation of the ancestors is our own salvation, and our salvation is the ancestors’ salvation.

Montgomery got the quote from Helen Hardacre’s “Lay Buddhism in Contemporary Japan,” p14, Princeton University Press, 1984.

I believe Nishida’s sentiment fits well with Nichiren Shu and the reason why memorial prayers and services are important. But that’s not to say I particularly like Reiyukai. Later in Fire in the Lotus, Montgomery quotes Joe Walters, Manager of Reiyukai America Association, on the subject of prayer:

Our prayer, which in reality is a sincere wish from the bottom of our heart, is not directed towards any particular deity, but is given freely for the ears of whomever or whatever is in the unseen world, the spiritual world, and may have the power to help us fulfill that wish. In this way, we can all harmoniously wish for and strive for world peace together.

Praying “to whom it may concern” has never been acceptable me. I Googled “praying to the universe” and got back 11.2 million results, including a pullout box with “Prayers for Surrender” from millennial-grind.com:

Universe, I surrender my agendas, timelines, and desires to you. I trust that you are leading me towards solutions of the highest good for all. 2. Universe, I step back and let you lead the way.

I just do better focusing my prayers on my causes and conditions while I embrace the protection from the ever-present Eternal Śākyamuni Buddha.

Fire in the Lotus includes a wonderful quote from Nikkyo Niwano, founder and president of Rissho Kosei-kai:

It was because of the guidance of my teacher, Sukenobu Arai, that I became fond of the Sutra, threw myself into it, and made it a part of me. Until then I had gone from one religion to another; each had the power to save, but they were like coarse nets through which many fish could slip. The more I read the Lotus Sutra, the more I realized that its truth was infinite in scope, infinite in precision, infinite in power to save. The Lotus Sutra, I saw, is a finely woven net through which no captive can slip. The ecstacy of discovering this made me want to shout and sing and dance for joy.

This I can relate to.

Fire

The Dharani that Contains All Dharanis

In Fire in the Lotus, Daniel Montgomery offers this explanation of the Daimoku. (He lists his source material inside parentheses.)

Just as the Dharma Flower is the quintessence of both universal truth and universal life, so its sacred title, Myoho Renge Kyo, is the quintessence of the sutra. All that remains is for us to identify ourselves with the Absolute. This is done by adding the first word, Namu, ‘I devote myself to’. The dharani which contains all dharanis, the mantra which contains all mantras, is Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.

Shakyamuni obtained enlightenment when he completely identified himself with the Absolute. We obtain enlightenment exactly the same way. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is the enlightenment of the Buddha. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is our own enlightenment, too. In Namu Myoho Renge Kyo we identify with the Buddha. In Namu Myoho Renge Kyo the Buddha identifies with us.

This identification is complete in every respect. Just as the Buddha is three bodies in one, so are we. ‘The person who chants Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is a Buddha. His body is the Dharma-body of the Buddha; his mind, the Reward-body of the Buddha; and his behavior, the Manifestation-body of the Buddha’ (Myoho-ama-gozen-gohenji, Showa-teihon, 1535).

The sects, Nichiren says, from the old Nara sects on down to the recent Kamakura sects, seek identity with only part of the threefold body of the Buddha. For example, to concentrate on the precepts taught by the historical Shakyamuni, as is done in the Little Vehicle is to worship only the Manifestation-body. To go to the other extreme worshipping only the eternal Principle (Dharma-body) as is done in esotericism, is to cut oneself off from the historical foundations. To worship only Amida is to concentrate on the Reward-body at the expense of the other two. The only correct object of worship is the three-in-one and one-in-three as expounded by Chih-i and Saicho. This is expressed in the Dharma Flower as the Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni.

‘All the sects except the Tendai Sect,’ he wrote in 1272, ‘worship wrong objects. The Kusha, Jojitsu, and Ritsu Sects (Hinayana) worship Buddha Shakyamuni, who is regarded as the person who eliminated illusions and attained enlightenment for the first time under the bodhi tree. They are as wrong as a crown prince who thinks that he is the son of a subject. The Kegon (Flower Garland), Shingon, Sanron, and Hoso (‘Consciousness-only’) Sects are Mahayana. The Hosso and Sanron Sects worship Buddha Shakyamuni as defined in the provisional Mahayana. They are as wrong as a crown prince who thinks he is the son of a colonel. The Kegon and Shingon Sects despise Buddha Shakyamuni and worship Buddha Vairocana (personifying the Absolute). They are as wrong as a crown prince who deserts his father and follows another king of unknown ancestry. The Pure Land Buddhists hold that Buddha Amitabha is their Buddha, and do not worship Buddha Shakyamuni. They do not know that Buddha Amitabha is one of the manifestations of Buddha Shakyamuni. The Zen Buddhists (who reject all traditions) are like a man of low birth who criticizes his parents when he gets some position in society. They despise the Buddhas and the sutras. All these sects worship wrong objects’ (Kaimoku-sho, 182-4, slightly altered).

Only in the Dharma Flower does Shakyamuni reveal the universal Buddha-seed, which permeates all life, and the fulfilment of that seed. It is the king of sutras just as the Original Buddha Shakyamuni, the fulfilment of the seed, is the origin of all Buddhas.

Next: Where Do Prayers Go?

Fire

The Life of Kumarajiva

Daniel Montgomery’s Fire in the Lotus offers many details of the characters who played a role in Nichiren Buddhism. Take the story of Kumarajiva, whose skillful translation of the Lotus Sutra into Chinese led to the sutra’s popularity in Asia.

Kumarajiva was born in Kucha, a Central Asian city on the northern trade route between India and China. His father Kumarayana was an Indian Brahmin of high rank, who had abandoned court life for that of an itinerant preacher. His mother Jiva was a sister of the King of Kucha. When Kumarayana’s travels took him to Kucha, he caused such a sensation that the princess demanded to have him for a husband. Their child was named after both his distinguished parents, Kumara for his father and Jiva for his mother.

Princess Jiva was a most remarkable woman. Under her husband’s influence, she became more and more interested in Buddhism and eventually surpassed him in wisdom and practice. She wanted to become a nun, but her husband objected, at least until a second child was born. When Kumarajiva was seven, his father finally relented. The mother took her son, and both of them entered the Buddhist Order.

When Kumarajiva was nine or ten, he travelled with his mother to India, where they studied under a famous Hinayana teacher. When he was 12, they returned to Central Asia, this time to Kushan, where they continued their studies. Already the boy was known as a precocious scholar and debater. The two spent a year in Kashgar studying Abhidharma (Hinayana philosophy) and other sutras, and then returned to Kucha to study the Hindu Vedas. Finally they were introduced to Mahayana, and Kumarajiva began his career of copying, translating, and lecturing on Mahayana sutras. He became a fully ordained monk, at the age of 20. His mother, who had attained the level of enlightenment called anagamin (one who will never be reborn in this world), retired to India.

Kumarajiva’s star was still rising. He became the most celebrated teacher in Central Asia, and his fame spread abroad as far as China. King Fu Chien (Fu Jian) of the former Ch’in kingdom resolved to bring him to his capital of Ch’ang-an. Around 382 he sent his general Lu Kuang (Lu Guang) with an army of 70,000 men to capture Kucha and bring back Kumarajiva. It was to be nearly 20 years, however, before Kumarajiva reached China.

General Lu Kuang stormed Kucha, killed the king, and captured the Buddhist sage. However, when he heard bad news from China, that the king had been overthrown and replaced by an inimical monarch, the general decided not to return home. Instead, he returned only part of the way, carved out a petty kingdom of his own, and took his prize captive with him.

The general took perverse delight in humiliating his prisoner. He was not a Buddhist, and was not impressed by Kumarajiva, who was then about 40 years old. He insisted that the monk marry a princess of Kucha. When Kumarajiva refused, the general got him drunk and locked him up in the same room with the princess. By dawn Kumarajiva was no longer either a teetotaler or a virgin.

Kumarajiva, always a scholar at heart, did not waste his time during his long sojourn in western China. He became fluent in the Chinese language, attracted many disciples, and even won the grudging admiration of the general. When the new king of Ch’in (called Later Ch’in), who was a Buddhist, begged the general to send Kumarajiva to China the general refused.

It took a second military invasion to get Kumarajiva into China at last. In 401 an army from China overthrew the general and brought his hostage safely to the capital of Ch’ang-an.

Here the famous teacher was treated with great respect. He was given the title of National Preceptor and put in charge of translating the sutras into Chinese. He was given every facility, including a team of linguists to assist him, and splendid quarters in the royal palace. Under such favorable circumstances he was able to turn out one translation after another, all of them unexcelled in their accuracy and elegant style. The Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma (Myoho Renge-kyo in Sino-Japanese) was his masterpiece.

As Kumarajiva grew older, the king began to fear that his incomparable talent would be lost to the world after his death. The solution seemed to be for him to have an heir, who would carry on his work. He ordered that the sage be waited upon by ten comely maidens, hoping that at least one of them would become the mother of his child. Kumarajiva relented, but he was not proud of his luxurious lifestyle. He is said to have told his pupils, ‘You must take only the lotus flower that grows out of the mire, and not touch the mire itself.’

Many Buddhist monks resented Kumarajiva’s way of life, and a fellow Central Asian, Buddhabhadra, translator of the Flower Garland Sutra, criticized him openly. So popular was Kumarajiva, however, that it was the critic Buddhabhadra who was forced to leave the capital. Kumarajiva continued to live there in splendor until the day he died.

The story is taken from Kogen Mizuno’s “Buddhist Sutras: Origin, Development, Transmission,” which was published by Kosei Publishing in 1989.

Next The Dharani that Contains All Dharanis

Fire, Blog

Original Enlightenment and Nichiren as the Original Buddha

In describing Daniel Montogemery’s Fire in the Lotus, I mentioned that it appeared to adhere to a Nichiren Shu doctrinal line that Senchu Murano drew. This is most evident in Montgomery’s discussion of Original Enlightenment thought and the Ongi-kuden.

Senchu Murano’s 1998 booklet entitled Questions and Answers on Nichiren Buddhism contains a series of questions he was asked by his friends overseas.

Feb. 6, 1986, Daniel B. Montgomery asked:

“Are the Ongi-kuden and the Onko-kikigaki of any value or not?”

Murano responded on Feb. 24, 1986:

“Recent investigations have reached the conclusion that the Ongikuden was written by a priest of the Nikko Monryu during the Muromachi Period (1392-1467). It stresses the importance of the Hongaku-shiso (the philosophy of original enlightenment). The Hongaku-shiso was naturalistic optimism, which flourished in those days of national disintegration. The logic favored by the philosophers was, roughly speaking, we have the Buddha-nature; we are Buddhas in essence; we are already Buddhas; we do not have to practice anything. Thus, secularism was justified. The purpose of Buddhism became just to enjoy speculation by arbitrary self-will, ignoring the study of texts. Bold equations were endlessly created, such as “we are Buddhas,” “illusions are enlightenment,” “this world is the Buddha-land,” “one is three,” “three are one” etc., etc. These equations are fascinating, but produce no value. The Hongaku-shiso was advocated by the Medieval Age Tendai (Chuko Tendai), and many Nichiren Buddhists were also attracted to this philosophy. Even today, the impact of this philosophy is still found in the terminology of the liturgy of Nichiren Buddhism. The Onko-kikigaki was written probably by someone connected with the Itchi-ha, who attempted to cope with the Ongi-kuden, also during the Muromachi Period.”

In Fire in the Lotus, Montgomery examines the idea of Original Enlightenment thought as it evolved in Japan and shows how the distortion of Original Enlightenment theory led to Nichiren Shoshu’s idea that Nichiren, not Śākyamuni, is the original Buddha.

There is a difference between Original Enlightenment as taught in India and China, and as it developed in Japan, where it encountered ‘the basically optimistic Shinto mentality of the Japanese.’ In its pure form Original Enlightenment may be the highest reaches of Buddhist thought. The idea is that all the contradictions and conflicts of the world as we know it are transcended by Emptiness. Subject and object, male and female, mind and body, life and death, good and evil, and other polarities are not opposed to each other, but mutually dependent. Take away one, and you lose the other. In the Vimalakirti Sutra this idea of interdependence is expressed as non-duality (Japanese, funo.) Nonduality refers to the absolute, not to the everyday world, which is clearly full of dualities and contradictions.

In Japan, however, Tendai thinkers pushed the idea further. They affirmed the absolute nature of the contradictions. The everyday world is the absolute; it is not-two.

Yoshiro Tamura, in his study entitled ‘Interaction between Japanese Culture and Buddhism: The Thought of Original Enlightenment,’ points out that a very thin dividing line has been crossed here. From maintaining the tension between the absolute and the relative as not two, we have crossed over to the affirmation of the relative itself as the not-two (Osaki Gakuho, No. 138 (1985) 2).

This is the Japanese version of Original Enlightenment. It spread gradually, almost as if its proponents were not fully aware of what they were implying. The idea of Original Enlightenment was already developing at the time of the Kamakura reformers, and it became pervasive after them. It is found everywhere, especially in Tendai, Shingon, Nichiren, Kegon and Zen. It is forcefully repudiated only by the Pure Land schools, who reject this world entirely, putting all their hope in the world to come. But even there, it sometimes sneaked in by the back door, for we are saved naturally by Amida without any contrivance on our part.

The logic of Original Enlightenment is that since we are already enlightened, we do not have to do anything about it. We are already Buddhas just as we are. It follows that any religious practice — any morality, for that matter — will only confuse the matter. We must ‘do our own thing’ because ‘our own thing’ is the Buddha nature operating within us.

The vocabulary of Original Enlightenment produced grandiose slogans: ‘I am Buddha’; ‘illusions are enlightenment’; ‘this world is the Buddha-land’; ‘the three bodies of Buddha are one’; ‘one is three’; ‘earthly desires are enlightenment’; ‘body and mind are one’; ‘the sufferings of life and death are nirvana’. In his authenticated writings Nichiren rarely used such terms, and when he did, he carefully explained their meaning.

‘Earthly desires are enlightenment and … the sufferings of life and death are nirvana. When one chants Namu Myoho Renge Kyo even during sexual union of man and woman, then earthly desires are enlightenment and the sufferings of life and death are nirvana. Sufferings are nirvana only when one realizes that the entity of human life throughout its cycle of birth and death is neither born nor destroyed.’ (MW 2:229)

Nichiren’s explanation is orthodox Mahayana. Reality viewed from wisdom is nirvana and enlightenment (bodai); reality viewed from illusion is passion and suffering. In either case, reality is reality. Many Tendai, Shingon, and Pure Land teachers of the times crossed a subtle line here with their careless use of dramatic slogans, but Nichiren held to that line. A highly moral man, he objected to the amorality latent in Original Enlightenment. He saw it clearly in the iconoclasm of Zen, which he described as ‘inspired by devils.’

After his death, however, there appeared collections of his unauthenticated ‘oral teachings,’ which were loaded with the vocabulary of Original Enlightenment. A well-meaning author compiled a book to bring Nichiren up-to-date by recasting his teachings in the then-popular slogans of Original Enlightenment. He called it Ongi Kuden (‘Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings [attributed to Nichiren]’). Appearing at the height of the Original Enlightenment craze, it is saturated with its phraseology. Here is its exegesis of a line from Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra:

‘Since I truly became Buddha (there have passed) infinite, boundless . . .’ (Ga jitsu jobutsu irai muryo muhen): Gajitsu (‘I truly’) means Buddha’s attaining enlightenment in kuon, the infinite past. However, the true meaning is that Ga (‘I’) is indicative of all living things in the universe or each of the Ten Worlds, and that Jitsu (‘truly’) is defined as Buddha of Musa Sanjin (natural Three Bodies) . . . The person who realizes this is named Buddha. I (literally, ‘already’) means the past and rai (literally, ‘to come’) the future. Irai includes the present in it. Buddha has attained the enlightenment of Ga jitsu, and His past and future are of uncountable and unfathomable length . . . Kuon means having neither beginning nor end, being just as man is, and being natural. It has neither beginning nor end because Musa Sanjin is not created in its original form. It is just as man is because it is not adorned by the 32 wonderful physical features and 80 favorable characters [of a Buddha]. It is natural because the Buddha of Honnu Joju (‘unchanging inherently existing’) is natural. Kuon is Namu Myoho Renge Kyu Kuon Jitsujo — really enlightened, enlightened as Musa (‘not being produced by conditions’).
(Ongi Kuden, quoted by Ikeda, Science and Religion 200)

All the main ideas of Original Enlightenment are here: ‘just as man is’; ‘not produced by conditions’; ‘not adorned with any special characteristics’; ‘inherently existing’; ‘all living things are originally enlightened’. The only important idea which is missing is ‘earthly desires are enlightenment’, but that appears elsewhere in the same text: ‘Burn the firewood of earthly desires and reveal the fire of enlightened wisdom’ (Ongi Kuden, quoted by Kirimura, Outline of Buddhism 172).

Ongi Kuden, which may have been written at Taiseki-ji in the first place, became prominent in the theology of Nichiren Shoshu. It was widely believed to contain the authentic verbal teachings of Nichiren as recorded by Nikko. Ironically, one forgery provoked another one. The rival ‘Unity’ branch produced its own ‘oral transmission’ called Onko-kikigaki, and claimed that it had been put into writing by Niko of Mount Minobu. Its real purpose seems to have been to counteract the influence of Ongi Kuden. Only in recent times have both works come to be regarded as pious forgeries (Murano 1982).

The Nichiren Shoshu doctrine that Nichiren himself is the Original Buddha follows logically from Original Enlightenment. Nichiren is originally enlightened to the true Dharma. ‘Original’ here does not mean first at a point in time, but eternal — timeless. We are all originally enlightened, and Nichiren reveals what this means. When we practice what he practiced (as when Shakyamuni practices what he practiced) we uncover our originally enlightened nature.

Nichiren is said to have realized his own Original Enlightenment at the moment the executioner raised the sword above his head on the beach at Tatsunokuchi. From that moment on Nichiren’s teachings are the infallible words of the Originally Enlightened Buddha.”

Fire in the Lotus, p177-180

To underscore this focus on the Ongi-kuden in Nichiren Shoshu at the expense of Nichiren Shu foundational teachings, Montgomery points out that in 1950, Jōsei Toda, a founder of Soka Gakkai, promised to rebuild Taiseki-ji, which had been largely abandoned during the war years. To do this, he vowed to emphasize the Ongi Kuden and to shun Chih-i’s philosophy. Montgomery points out that he gets this information from Daisaku Ikeda’s Human Revolution, Volume IV, pages 249-56.

Next: The Life of Kumārajīva