The criticism that nondual original enlightenment thought undermines proper distinctions between good and evil is not something peculiar to this doctrine but has recurred throughout the history of the Mahāyāna. The Mahāyāna denial of duality aims at liberation from attachment by undercutting notions of self-existing entities to which one might cling; in repudiating the idea that there can be “self” independent of “other,” it also serves to foster responsibility and compassion. Its denial of “good” and “evil” as independent ontological entities is not a denial of morality; from the perspective of conventional truth, good and evil must be distinguished. But the Mahāyāna rhetoric of nonduality, such as “saṃsāra is nirvāṇa” and “the defilements are enlightened insight,” has at times been taken as a license to commit evil and exposed the tradition to criticism. (Page 360)

Because original enlightenment is seen as the true status of all phenomena, practice cannot be the “cause” of enlightenment. Thus its role becomes ambiguous. It must undergo redefinition, whether as predisposing one to the insight that “all dharmas are the Buddha-Dharma,” or as solidifying and deepening such insight, or as the exemplary form of the nonduality of the Buddha and the beings. But just as some version of “acquired enlightenment” cannot ultimately be dispensed with, neither can practice, as becomes clear from a close reading of texts. And from the perspective of history, medieval Tendai monks participating in hongaku discourse can be shown to have engaged in diverse forms of religious practice. (Page 359)

A close reading of texts suggests that such statements as “the defilements are none other than enlightened insight” are articulated from the standpoint of having realized nonduality, not that of having yet to realize it. Great as the attempt has been to minimize or even elude it, inevitably, something remains here of the notion of “acquired enlightenment.” We have seen how Nichirenshū scholars in the early decades of the century distinguished between Tendai original enlightenment thought as a statement of naturally inherent enlightenment (jinen hongaku), and Nichiren’s teaching as the actualizing of inherent enlightenment through practice (shikaku soku hongaku). The distinction, however, is overdrawn. Even the nondual Tendai original enlightenment stance remains, ultimately, one of shikaku soku hongaku, for the insight into original enlightenment and the transformation such insight is said to bring about are mediated by the knowledge (or faith) that “all dharmas are the Buddha-Dharma,” achieved at the stage of verbal identity. It is only from the standpoint of this nondual insight that the hongaku doctrine may be accurately characterized as “absolute affirmation.” (Page 358)

The first of the four shared categories was that of the pre-Lotus Sūtra teachings, widely held to be incomplete, in that they denied the possibility of Buddhahood to certain groups: followers of the two “Hinayāna” vehicles of the voice-hearer (śrāvaka) and the condition-perceiver (pratyeka-buddha), women, and evil men. Their relationship to the Lotus Sūtra, however, was an issue of profound disagreement, most particularly between the Tendai and Nichiren Buddhist traditions. Many Tendai scholars maintained that, read in the light of the Lotus, all these earlier teachings could be integrated within the one vehicle as expressions of its various aspects (zettai kaie); from this hermeneutical perspective, the practices associated with them, such as the nenbutsu, could all be regarded as the practice of the Lotus Sūtra. For Nichiren and his later followers, however, all earlier teachings were to be rejected in favor of the Lotus Sūtra, which was to be embraced and practiced exclusively (sōtai kaie). From the standpoint of thought and practice, this represents the greatest point of cleavage between the two traditions. (Page 353)

Iwata Kyōen, editor of the volume of the Tendaishū zensho (Complete works of the Tendai school) containing the major Eshin kuden hō mon, draws attention to the following passage in the Zōda shō, compiled by Songai’s disciple Gōkai (fl. 1347):

Question: What is the abbreviated method of practice of the threefold Lotus Sūtra [advocated by] the Great Teacher [Saichō]?

According to transmission, [this method consists of three lines. One:] “Namu to the Sūtra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wonderful Dharma, which opens the three [vehicles] to reveal the one [vehicle] and opens the recent [attainment of the Buddha in this world] to reveal the distant [i.e., his original enlightenment in the remote past], the single vehicle in which the mind, the Buddha and all living beings [are without distinction] ” (Namu-kaisan-kennichi-kaigon-kennon-shin-butsu-shujō-ichijōmyōhō-renge-kyō). (This represents the fundamental Lotus Sūtra.) [Two:] “Namu Buddha.” (This represents the hidden and secret Lotus Sūtra.) [Three:] “Namu-myōhō-renge-kyō.” (This represents the Lotus Sūtra that was preached explicitly.) According to transmission, one should recite these three lines morning and evening, without neglect.)

As touched upon in earlier chapters, the chanting of single phrases designed to encompass the essence of the Lotus Sūtra definitely predated Nichiren, and references to such practices occur occasionally in medieval Tendai literature. However, it is also possible that passages such as the one above represent the direct influence of Nichiren Hokke practice upon the medieval Tendai tradition, and that the daimoku, while subject to differing interpretations, was to some extent chanted within Tendai circles. (Page 352)

The [Fuji school’s] equation of Nichiren with the original Buddha is not easily reconciled with Nichiren’s own clear expressions of reverence for Śākyamuni as “parent, teacher, and sovereign” of all living beings, and this particular strand of Nichiren Buddhist thought has been much criticized by other Nichiren schools. In recent decades, it has come under attack for lack of basis in Nichiren’s writings by those sectarian scholars of Nichirenshū intent on purifying the Nichiren corpus of apocryphal works as a basis for establishing a normative doctrine, a project in which the present-day inheritors of the Fuji lineage–Nichiren Shōshū–have evinced little interest. (Page 342)

The equation of Nichiren with the original Buddha represents a bold if convoluted attempt to free Nichiren from the context of the preceding historical tradition of Śākyamuni’s Buddhism and to relocate Śākyamuni within the context of Nichiren’s teaching. Structurally, it resembles medieval Tendai claims that Chih-i’s inner enlightenment is prior to and surpasses the text of the Lotus Sūtra preached by Śākyamuni. It also suggests the nonlinearity and reversals of time and hierarchy characteristic of medieval Tendai kanjin-style interpretations: The seed surpasses the harvest; the stage of practice surpasses that of attainment; Superior Conduct, a bodhisattva, is superior to Śākyamuni, a Buddha; and Nichiren, who lived after Śākyamuni in historical time, becomes his teacher in beginningless time. In the reading of the three jewels of Buddhism adopted by most schools within the Nichiren tradition, the Buddha is defined as the original Śākyamuni of the “Fathoming the Lifespan” chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, the Dharma is Namu-myōhō-renge-kyō, and the Sangha is represented by Nichiren. In the Fuji school, however, the Buddha is Nichiren, the Dharma is Namu- myōhō-renge-kyō, and the Sangha is represented by Nikkō. Founder worship is hardly uncommon in Japanese Buddhism, but nowhere has it been provided with a more elaborate doctrinal rationale than in the Fuji lineage of the Nichiren tradition. (Page 341-342)

Another frequent interpretation regarding figures on the mandala takes the four leaders of the bodhisattvas who emerge from the earth–Superior Conduct, Boundless Conduct, Firm Conduct, and Pure Conduct–as representing the four universal elements of fire, wind, earth, and water, which form all things. Thus, the entire dharma realm is seen as the four bodhisattvas:

The four bodhisattvas who are the leaders of the Buddha’s original disciples manifest themselves as the four great elements. … Because [one constantly] receives and makes use of the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind that comprise the dharma realm, they might evoke no particular feeling of respect, but when one enquires into their essence, then the benefits they confer are unexpectedly vast. Day and night, the land and its inhabitants (eshō), and the myriad things all dis play the benefits conferred by the four bodhisattvas.

This equation of the four leaders of the bodhisattvas who emerged out of the earth with the four universal elements appears in medieval Tendai commentaries on the Lotus Sūtra and also in some writings attributed to Nichiren. This identification is developed through the kanjin-style technique of association by isomorphic resemblance discovered between the behavior of the four elements and the names of the four bodhisattvas. Earth is stable and is associated with “Firm Conduct.” Water cleanses and is consequently identified with “Pure Conduct.” Fire rises and is therefore assimilated to “Superior Conduct. ” Wind is unrestrained and is thus equated with “Boundless Conduct.”

In the following transmission on the mandala, attributed to Nichizō, a disciple of Nichirō of the Hikigayatsu lineage, the identification of the four bodhisattvas with the four elements is invoked to suggest that the Wonderful Dharma shall, in the Lotus Sūtra’s words, be declared and spread” (kōsen-rufu):

The placement of Superior Conduct (together with Boundless Conduct] and Pure Conduct [together with Firm Conduct] opposite one other [on either side of the central inscription of the mandala] expresses the meaning that the fire of wisdom represented by Superior Conduct, in dependence on the wind represented by Boundless Conduct, shall be widely declared (kōsen), and that the water of wisdom represented by Pure Conduct, in conformity with the earth represented by Firm [Conduct], shall spread (rufu).

(Page 331-332)

First, the mandala is interpreted from an immanentalist view. It is seen not as representing the enlightenment of an individual transcendent Buddha, but as a ritual object that enables the practitioner to discern and actualize a realm of enlightenment already innate within oneself. Since the ten realms are depicted by the names of their representatives on the mandala, this innate realm of enlightenment is usually discussed in terms of the mutual inclusion of the ten realms:

The ultimate teaching of the Lotus Sūtra is the original inherence of the ten realms. When you face this object of worship, the realm of oneself, the realm of the Buddha, and the realm of living beings are all the essence of the Wonderful Dharma, the suchness which is original enlightenment. …

Now [in our school, we] do not establish contemplation [as the method of realizing the three thousand realms in one thought-moment]. We display it on a sheet of paper, so that one can directly see, in a single thought-moment, three thousand realms.

What is the true mutual inclusion of the ten realms? The teacher [Nichiren] said: “The seven characters that are chanted are the Buddha realm. We who chant them are the nine realms. When the cause and effect of the four teachings are demolished, the true cause and effect of the ten realms is revealed.” At that time, we are the unproduced triple-bodied [Tathāgata], the true Buddha (jitsubutsu), who dwells in the Land of Tranquil Light. The Buddha who appeared in this world was a manifested trace (suijaku), a provisional Buddha who benefits the beings through provisional teachings. Keep this secret! Keep this secret!

Such readings are on the one hand rooted in Nichiren’s treatise Kanjin honzon shō, which discusses the object of worship as embodying the mutual inclusion of the ten dharma realms and the importance of believing that one’s own deluded thought-moment contains the Buddha realm. (Page 330)

It should also be noted that Nitchō’s* strong doctrinal emphasis on the original enlightenment of ordinary worldlings was modified by the presence of other elements in the context of practice. For example:

[Question]: By upholding the truth and not abandoning it, one eventually arrives at the fruit of Buddhahood–if this is the case, then whether or not Buddhahood is realized depends solely on the mind. The power of the sūtra, it would appear, is not involved. How should this be understood?

Answer: This is an essential matter. When it is said that one who maintains one’s resolve without abandoning it will achieve great merit, in reliance upon what do we understand that great merit to be achieved? By relying for one’s good roots upon the Lotus Sūtra and not losing one’s resolve, any merit can be achieved. Thus, even the slightest good roots can result in the fruit of Buddhahood. But should one not rely upon the Lotus Sūtra, no matter how vast one’s good roots may be, one will not arrive at the fruit of Buddhahood.

Or again:

All persons, by receiving the Wonderful Dharma transmitted by Bodhisattva Superior Conduct and having faith in it, will eradicate within this lifetime the delusions of the three poisons of greed, hatred, and folly [accumulated] since beginningless vast kalpas and, when this life is ended, with their final breath, shall at once realize the cherished desire of going to [the Pure Land of] Eagle Peak.

Side by side with his discussion of realizing enlightenment in the moment of chanting the daimoku are notions of realizing Buddhahood at the moment of death or going at death to the Pure Land of Eagle Peak. Nitchō’s case thus supports the suggestion, offered earlier in the context of medieval Tendai, that original enlightenment discourse was a rhetorical strategy rooted in commitment to a philosophical position of nonduality; in actual practice, it often existed side by side and was constrained by ideas that did not necessarily cohere with it logically, including the need to rely on superior powers (such as Buddhas or sūtras), the importance of cultivating lifelong faith, and birth after death in a pure land. (Page 324-325)

*Gyōgakuin Nitchō (1422-1500), eleventh kanju of Minobu and the leading scholar among the itchi faction of the Hokkeshūand studied under the ninth kanju of Minobu, Nichigaku.