In Nikāya Buddhism, the bodhisattva image is restricted to Śākyamuni Buddha himself. In this system, a bodhisattva is not a general term describing an open concept. It is an image of an ideal follower of Buddhism, namely Śākyamuni. However, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, anyone who makes a vow to practice Buddhism for the benefit of others can become a bodhisattva and put such practices into action, hoping to become a buddha at some point. So for anyone practicing as a Mahāyāna Buddhism, the concept of the bodhisattva spread as an open image that all followers should try to achieve.

[I]n Nikāya Buddhism, an arhat is not seen as equal to a buddha. An arhat only equals a buddha in the sense that they have both achieved nirvāṇa. Differing from a buddha, an arhat does not try to benefit others through teaching, and an arhat understands completely that his existence is far below the existence of a buddha. Therefore, the followers of Nikāya Buddhism do not believe that they can become buddhas and do not desire to become buddhas. In their belief system it would be extremely arrogant for them to presume that they can become buddhas.

A pratyekabuddha is the other type of follower in Nikāya Buddhism. The Japanese word for this is engaku. The characters used are: “en,” condition, and “gaku,” awaken. “Condition” refers to the twelve-fold chain of dependent origination. Pratyekabuddhas achieved awakening by becoming truly aware of the meaning of the twelve-fold chain. Because these followers preferred to practice Buddhism alone rather than to reside in temples, roaming fields without a teacher or a dwelling, they are also called dokukaku, or the self-awakened. The character “doku,” means “alone,” and “kaku,” is the same character as “gaku.” Another term for them that copies the pronunciation of part of the original word is byakushibutsu but in this chapter we will use the term pratyekabuddha.

As explained above, many of these pratyekabuddhas practiced Buddhism without a teacher. Such a practice would have been unthinkable during the lifetime of the Buddha, the great teacher. It is therefore clear that this type of follower began to appear after the Buddha’s death. Please keep in mind that the existence of pratyekabuddhas clearly implies that the Buddha’s life had ended and so there was no obvious teacher.

The Japanese word for “śrāvaka” is shōmon, written using the characters for the words “voice,” shō, and “hear,” mon. Originally this meant “those who heard the voice of the Buddha,” with no distinction as to man, woman, monk or lay person. In this way, the term śrāvaka must be used with care, as it has historically been used with dual meanings.

While various scholars agree that the life of Śākyamuni Buddha lasted 80 years, several theories exist regarding the year of his birth and death. If we accept the theory based on the dates of the reign of King Aśoka, namely that the Buddha was born in the 460s BCE and lived to the 380s BCE, we conclude that the saṃgha, the monastic community founded by the Buddha, stayed unified for about 100 years after his death, without division into different schools. This period is referred to as Early Buddhism.

Eventually, this unification broke down due to differences in thought regarding the precepts of Buddhism and how to keep the rules the Buddha established. Two groups arose. The Theravāda, or Sthaviravāda, believed that the rules should be kept unchanging. The Mahāsāṃghika believed that rules should change in accordance with the times. This basic division of Buddhism occurred roughly 100 years after the death of Śākyamuni Buddha. After this division began, further division of both schools continued from BCE to CE, finally producing about 20 different schools. Nikāya Buddhism refers to the schools resulting from this first basic division and their subsequent divisions.

In the same BCE-CE period, Mahāyāna Buddhism arose. There had been a dominant theory that monks maintained Nikāya Buddhism, and lay believers led the Mahāyāna movement. Now there is another theory that Mahāyāna Buddhism arose out of Nikāya Buddhism. We cannot consider the two groups as simple rival religions. Even so, it is evident that Mahāyāna Buddhism and Nikāya Buddhism show clear differences in their beliefs. It can be said that these differences reflect the differences of the followers who practiced the beliefs of the different schools.

It is not simple to understand the Lotus Sūtra. Depending on the standpoint from which you approach the Lotus Sūtra, your understanding will take a different direction.

You might start with the original Sanskrit version of the Lotus Sūtra and consider it as one of the early Mahāyāna sūtras. Doubtless this is meaningful work for Buddhist studies.

On the other hand, one cannot ignore the Chinese translation of the Lotus Sūtra. This translation led to a wide range of belief and was a great influence on the development of Buddhist thought. Grand Master Tiāntái Zhizhe, 538-598 CE, Grand Master Dengyō Saichō, 767-822 CE, and Nichiren Shōnin, 1222-1282 CE, immediately come to mind as leaders who made great strides in Buddhist thought through their study of the Chinese version of the Lotus Sūtra. If you use these leaders as guides to your understanding of the Lotus Sūtra, it is not necessary to consider the Sanskrit version; the Chinese translation is all you need.

In this discussion, we keep the Chinese version in mind as we explore the teachings of the Lotus Sūtra. We Japanese have long used the Chinese version of the Lotus Sūtra, or its Japanese translation, rather than the Sanskrit version. Therefore, when quoting the Lotus Sūtra, we will use passages from the Chinese translation as translated by Bishop Senchu Murano.

That being said, we have no intention of preventing your study of Buddhism from understanding the Lotus Sūtra as one of the early Mahāyāna sūtras. Only by combining approaches can one understand the necessity of the cornerstones of the teachings of the Lotus Sūtra. These are, “opening the three vehicles to reveal the One Vehicle,” “attainment of buddhahood by the people of the two vehicles,” “opening the near to reveal the far,” and “attaining awakening in the remotest past.”

The Buddhism transmitted to Southeast Asia is called “Southern Buddhism” or “Theravāda Buddhism.” It was first transmitted to Sri Lanka from India and then subsequently spread throughout Southeast Asia. Its transmission to Sri Lanka was comparatively early. It is said that around the third century BCE when the Sri Lankan King Devanampiya Tissa, 250-210 BCE, sent a special envoy to the Indian King Aśoka, the bhikṣu Mahinda, circa 3rd century BCE, went to convert the former to Buddhism. Thus, pre-Mahāyāna Buddhism was transmitted to the country in its early stage of development.

In early scriptures Śākyamuni criticized magic and ritual, and Mahāyāna scriptures as well preached the danger of these non-Buddhist artifacts. However, in its process of transmission, Buddhism fused with native thought, and came to incorporate Hindu-style rituals. The Japanese practice of offering prayers via memorial services that burn wood in front of Fudō Myōō (Acalanātha-Vidyārāja) and other figures originates in the Vedic fire offering ceremony called homa.

Esoteric means “secret.” In contrast to the exoteric teachings of the Mahāyāna, esoteric teachings are called the Vajrayāna, Diamond Vehicle, or Mantrayāna, True Word Vehicle. However, the buds of these teachings had already arisen when Mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures were written. Dhārāṇis, which in Mahāyāna scriptures were held to be able to support wholesome dharmas such as the memorization of scriptures, came to be used as spells. In esoteric teachings they developed into mantras, true words and vidyās, incantations.

In the Suvarṇaprabhāsottama Sūtra, Supreme Golden Light Sūtra, one can find the beginnings of esoteric thought in the form of prayers, magic, and so on. These teachings became systematically formulated starting in the seventh century CE after the appearance of the Mahāvairocana Sūtra, Mahāvairocana [Tathāgata] Sūtra, and Vajraśekhara Sūtra, Diamond Peak Sūtra.

The Consciousness-only school, which advocated the meditation practice of yoga, taught the “five distinct natures” based on the idea that the third vehicle is truth. It taught that sentient beings innately have five types of predisposition: (1) to obtain śrāvaka awakening, (2) to obtain pratyekabuddha awakening, (3) to obtain the buddha awakening of the Mahāyāna, also referred to as “bodhisattva awakening”, (4) one that is indeterminate and does not fit into any of the above, and (5) one that lacks the capacity for awakening. It follows from this teaching that the potential for attaining buddhahood is pre-determined. This goes against the one vehicle teaching that all sentient beings can obtain buddhahood. It was criticized by Haribhadra (ca. 800 CE) of the Mādhyamika school and was the subject of a debate in Japan between Saichō (767-822 CE) of the Tendai sect and Tokuitsu (dates unknown) of the Hossō sect.