T’ien T’ai’s Doctrines of The Middle Path and Reality – Part 1 of 2

T’ien T’ai-Buddhism is a school representing, most faithfully and elaborately, the Middle Path of the Buddhist doctrine. It is a school founded, in the sixth century by a Chinese monk from T’ien T’ai, named Chih-i; and its chief aim was to achieve a higher synthesis of the external realism of materialistic tendency and the acosmism [a theory that denies that the universe possesses any absolute reality] of transcendental extreme. It further elaborated the theory of reality along the line of the thought above indicated, and on the basis of the “Lotus of Truth.” This book, as has been observed above, may be called the Johannine Gospel of Buddhism. It tries to solve the problems of reality by the key given in the identification of Buddha’s enlightenment with cosmic truth.

Omitting further reference to the book, I here cite a saying which became the starting point of T’ien T’ai’s theory of reality. The saying is a verse in Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamika Sastra, or Treatise on the Middle Path. It says:

Everything arises according to causation;
We regard it as a vacuity (śūnyatā),
(But) it is phenomenal reality by virtue of appearance,
Which is at the same time the Middle Path.

Vacuity [emptiness] (śūnyatā, or suññatā in Pali) is an ancient term used in Buddhism and meant something beyond common sense or ordinary ratiocination [reasoned train of thought]. It was not a mere negation, as it is often understood; but speculations at which we must now glance clustered about it.

“Vacuity” [emptiness] was understood by the transcendentalists to mean the voidness of phenomenal things, and so the real entity was interpreted as being beyond all distinctions and causal relations. This position is most fully stated in the one hundred thousand ślokas [verses] of the Prajñā-pāramitā, a book aiming at “the annihilation of all relativities” by an almost endless repetition of neither, nor. But this annihilation was always carefully distinguished from the nihilistic view (uccheda [utterly annihilated]) that nothing exists, because the Buddhist vacuity supposes a something beyond relativities, unknowable, yet attainable in meditation. Now Nāgārjuna accepted the transcendentalist standpoint, but at the same time admitted an apparent reality (prajāñpti) in what is given (upadā). What he called the Middle Path was a synthesis of the two points of view. In spite of his adherence to the Middle Path, which was the precious inheritance of Buddhist thought, he did not give a definite statement of it, but left it to the domain of contemplative vision, attainable by only a select few. Thus, it was T’ien T’ai’s task to draw a more positive and definite conclusion from Nāgārjuna’s statement of the Middle Path, and for this purpose he translated the two extreme views into the terms of universality and particularity.

Vacuity [emptiness], according to T’ien T’ai, means nothing but the nonbeing of a particular existence apart from the universal Dharmatā [nature of a thing]. We speak of this or that thing or substance, quality or condition, and think it to be a reality, in and by itself. Nothing is more erroneous than this, because we know that nothing in this world, visible or tangible, exists without causal nexus. It is a Dharma, a thing or condition, because it is a manifestation of the Dharma, the law of causation. Vacuity does not mean the voidness of any existence in itself, but vanity of the view that sees in it a reality apart from the fundamental Dharmatā.

Thus, the thesis of vacuity [emptiness] implies the antithesis, that what is apparently existing is a reality, in the sense that it is given, given as something the meaning of which must be sought deeper and higher. In other words, an abstract universality is a vacuity, not less than a mere particularity; either is a mere abstraction apart from a datum. A particular datum may be an appearance, and yet be a product of the universal law of causality, and a manifestation of the fundamental nature of existence. A thing or a condition exists actually, and although it is subject to decay, and may disappear according to causality, it is so far a reality – a phenomenal appearance.

The synthesis amounts to affirming both vacuity [emptiness] and [provisional] appearance at the same time. The conception of vacuity has shown us that a particular existence is void, when taken in itself; but it points to the reality of the universal, as an outcome of a thoroughgoing negation of relativity. On the other hand, the idea of phenomenal appearance has demonstrated that there is a reality in phenomena which is no less essential to our conception of being than the reality attached to the universal. The world of the universal, the unity of all things in the fundamental nature, is the foundation of every particular existence, pre-existent to all particular manifestations. Yet its manifestations in concrete beings are as real as the pre-existent universals, being subject to the laws that rule all. That they are ruled by the same laws shows their unity in the basis. The particular derives its being from the universal nature of things, while the universal could not fully realize its true nature without manifesting itself in a particular. Both are real, but either by itself is imperfectly real. The Middle Path consists in uniting the two aspects of existence, universal and particular, and in seeing therein the true reality. To this argument, the consideration of Buddha’s personality gave the key, and we shall see how it is developed.

As to the relation between the particular and the universal, the case of Buddha is not only an example, but the typical representative. He was born as a human being, passed through mental struggles, and finally attained Buddhahood, and lived the fifty years of his ministry as the Truth-revealer. This is an actual life of a particular person, and no one can deny its facts, except the docetists [who believe the body of Buddha was not human], against whom the orthodox Buddhists took a united stand. Yet he was a Buddha, because he was enlightened in cosmic truths and realized the universal nature of Buddhahood, which is called Bodhi, or Enlightenment. He is Bodhi incarnate, so to speak, and Bodhi is the universal and fundamental nature of the spiritual existence, which is preexistent to appearance of particular Buddhas, and the a priori basis of their attainment. The epithet “Tathāgata” is an adequate expression of the relation between the universal Bodhi and particular Buddhas. Buddha’s personal life is a particular phenomenon, and the significance of his Buddhahood is lost, is a vacuity, when considered apart from the Truth he has attained and revealed to us. Yet the Truth (tatha) is a mere abstraction, a dead name, unless there appears a Tathāgata in concrete human life. The true reality in the person of Buddha consists in the dignity of the Tathāgata attained by a particular person, in virtue of the universal Bodhi, which is the essential condition of his communion with the Buddhas of the past and of the future.

This solution of the relation between the particular and the universal in the person of Buddha as the Tathāgata serves, at the same time, as the solution of the questions which arose concerning the acquisition or inherence of Buddhahood. Buddhahood is an acquisition, viewed from the standpoint of phenomenal appearance, as is actually shown in the career of Buddha. But it is, at the same time, inherent in his nature, and also in each of us, because without the pre-existent universal Buddhahood, a Buddha loses the foundation of his dignity. He has become a Tathāgata by treading the same way, the One Road, as all other Tathāgatas, and by thus entering the communion of Buddhahood; and this apparent acquisition is the necessary development of the Buddhahood inherent in an individual and pre-existent to individual persons. The standpoint of the Middle Path thus emphasizes equally both the a posteriori acquisition and the a priori inherence of Buddhahood, because either one of these two aspects, without the other, is an imperfect idea of the Buddha as such. In other words, Buddha is really a man, and verily the Truth. As a man he has realized the truth of the oneness of existence; he is the Truth-winner. The person in whom the Dharmatā of the universe has come to light, and who has “become Truth,” “become knowledge,” cannot but be the adequate representative of the Dharmatā, that is, the Tathatā. The Lord of Truth, the Ruler of the Realm of Truth, derives his dignity from the very source of Truth, and therefore he can work as the Truth-revealer. The actual human manifestation is a condescension on the part of the universal Truth; while the latter is first embodied and actualized in the former.

The universal Buddhahood is called Dharmakāya, or “Truth-body,” while the personal Buddha is Nirmāṇakāya, or “Condescension-body”; and these two, together with another, the Sambhogakāya, or “Bliss-body,” the spiritual manifestation of Buddhahood, make up the Buddhological Trinity. This doctrine of the Trinity is a very old one in Buddhism, and T’ien T’ai emphasizes the unity of the three, because the three aspects, considered as a unity, constitute the only right view of Buddha’s person, and of the true reality exemplified in his person.

The Trinity of Buddha’s person, however, is not limited to him alone, but in each of us is inherent the corresponding Trinity, or, as we may conveniently express it, the unity of the universal foundation and the particular manifestation. A concrete human being is a reality, but his full meaning is based on humanity in general. There is a man, and he is the man who would embody in his person the essential nature of humanity, not in the abstract, but concretely. The universal “humanity” is the “Truth-body” of every human being, and his life under particular conditions is his “Condescension-body,” while his own self-consciousness, and the influence that he means to exert upon his fellow-beings constitute his “Bliss-body.” In short, the unity of the universal man and the particular man is the reality of man.

The same remark applies to every other kind of existence, and T’ien T’ai assumes, in accordance with Buddhist tradition, ten different realms of sentient beings. The nethermost one is the hell (Naraka), or rather purgatory, where beings of extreme viciousness, deprived of the light of wisdom, are tormented by their own vices. The furious spirit (asura) is a manifestation of hatred and greed; the hungry ghost (preta) represents never satisfied greed, combined with stupidity; the beast (tiryak) is the life of stupidity and blindness; the heavenly worlds (deva) are the abodes of those beings who are intoxicated with pleasure and careless of others. These five, together with mankind (manusya), are the six stages of transmigration. Above these, are two kinds of beings who are self-satisfied in their own attainment in meditation or learning and make no further effort to realize the vitality of the universal communion, represented by the learned Sravaka and the self-contented Pratyekabuddha. The Bodhisattva is a being, who, having attained a certain height of spiritual illumination, is striving earnestly for the salvation of others. Above them all stands Buddha, in whom the universal communion and the fundamental nature of all beings are realized in idea and life, and who, by virtue of his wisdom and mercy, leads other beings to the same light. Thus, in every being in each of these classes there is manifested the relation of the universal and the particular, the concrete life of the universal Dharmatā [nature of a thing]; but it is in Buddha alone that the full light of universal truths and the all-embracing communion are realized.

The Fundamental Tenets of Buddhism Concerning Reality – Part 3 of 3

Now, let me further expound the Buddhist conception of the relation between the world and the individual, which gives the key to the understanding of its conception of reality.

The individual, as such, is neither real, in the commonly asserted sense of being a personally persistent entity, nor unreal, in the sense that it has no place in existence. It is unreal, because it is subject to constant change; but it is real, as a product of causation, as a manifestation of character accumulated by karma. Either of these points of view leads to the thesis, “There is no (substantial) ego.” But Buddhism sees in the person of the Tathāgata a real individual, the individual par excellence, because the Dharmatā of the universe is represented, embodied, realized, in his person as the Tathāgata. It is in the personal enlightenment of universal truths in Buddha that the realm of Dharma has come to self-consciousness, to the full realization of its meaning. In other words, the person of the Tathāgata is not an individual personality, in contradistinction to other individuals, but in communion with all others. When I say, “all others,” I mean it, not as an aggregate of separate individuals, nor as a haphazard crowd of individuals, but as unified in the basic unity of the Dharmatā, and united in the realization of the universal communion. This is the teaching of the Ekayāna [One Vehicle], of which we shall see more presently. An individual, according to Buddhism, is no more a mere individual, if, and so far as, he identifies himself with others; his ego is transformed to a universal self. Buddhism does not call this transformed and expanded self a self, but a Tathāgata, or a “being of truth” (dharmā-bhūto, dharma-kaya), as in the case of Buddha.

Looked at in this way, any individual is a Tathāgata who realizes the universal Dharmatā of the universe, not only in his ideas, but in his life, and lives the life of the universal self. So long as, and so far as, he regards himself as separate from others, every individual is only a partial, and therefore imperfect, manifestation of his own real nature (dharmatā), while everyone is destined to attain the height, or depth, of his own true self in communion with all others, by virtue of the basic unity of the fundamental Dharmatā. When this ideal is attained, even partially, one has so far realized his real self, which is no longer an ego in the sense that he once cherished. He is the same person in appearance, but in reality his self is so far transformed. What thus happens resembles the metamorphosis of an insect. Buddha, in recalling his former lives, designates his former self by the pronoun “I,” but he is at the same time most emphatic in distinguishing his former “I” – even the “I” when he lived as a prince or a recluse – and calls himself “Tathāgata,” in the third person, as the designation of his true personality and high dignity. The same title may be applied to anybody who reaches the same attainment as Buddha; and, in fact, Buddha called everyone of the same attainment a Tathāgata. In short, everyone who has found his own real nature in the fundamental Dharmatā of all existences, that is, in communion with the Tathāgatas, is one who has become truth, become insight, and thereby identified himself with the universe. It is in the conception of reality attained by such a person that the universe is realizing its universal Dharmatā [– the intrinsic nature or reality of phenomena].

A necessary consequence of this idea about the relation between the individual and the world is the teaching of the Ekayāna [One Vehicle]. It means the one and the same way for all the Tathāgatas of the past, present, and future. It is the Way, and at the same time the Ideal – the way to realize the truth of universal communion, and the ideal to be reached by that way. It is also the foundation of existences, and the goal of the way, because an ideal is vain without foundation, and the two are simply two aspects of the same Dharmatā. Buddha said:

“The Perfectly Enlightened of the past, and the Buddhas of the future,
As well as the present Perfectly Enlightened One who dispels sorrows from many –
All have lived, do live, or will live,
By revering Dharma; this is the Dharmatā of all Buddhas.
(Samyuga, 6.1.2; com. S. 47. 18.)

This unity of the Ekayāna [One Vehicle] is manifested in the Buddhist community, which, though limited in its visible manifestation, is to be extended without limit to include all beings of every possible description, and of all ages. Thus, the Buddhist community is a realization of the universal communion of all Buddhas and Buddhas-to-be, who are – or ought to be – united in the revelation of the final Dharmatā. This is the reason why Buddha disdained anyone who, being satisfied with the tranquility of his mind, remains a solitary sage. Such a sage is called a Pratyekabuddha, or self-satisfied wise man, and is regarded not only as a selfish man, but one who does not see the real light, either his own, or that of the world. The Tathāgata, on the contrary, is an individual who is no longer an individual merely, but has identified himself with all others.

Thus, the Tathāgata is the ideal person in the Buddhist religion, and it is only in the life of the Tathāgata that the full meaning of the universe is realized. This ideal is also called Dharma, which here means “norm,” as Mrs. Rhys Davids correctly renders it. [Buddhism: A Study of the Buddhist Norm, 1912.] The moral norm and religious ideal for every Buddhist consists in attaining, as Buddha has shown by his own example, the supreme enlightenment in the truth-order and the fundamental nature of the world, in accordance with the truth of existence, and by treading the same One Road, in company with the Buddhas of all ages. The Buddhist ideal, seen in this light, necessarily demands the life of fellowship, in which the real continuity of life, or the Dhammatā of existence, is first realized. In this fellowship, an individual no longer remains a separate being, but becomes a personal embodiment of the universal life – “das Objectwerden des Subjects,” to borrow the Hegelian terminology. The “communion of saints” transforms our self into the universal self; and therein is brought to light the true nature of reality.

To sum up, the Buddhist conception of reality is the existence in which the universal nature of existence is realized in the enlightened mind, which is the realization of the all-embracing fellowship. It rejects reality apart from this personal enlightenment; it rejects an enlightenment in a secluded self – the former being externalism and the latter transcendentalism. But both aspects of being embraced and “aufgehoben” in the realization of the universal Dharmatā. In short, the true conception of reality is brought to light only in the unity of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

The Fundamental Tenets of Buddhism Concerning Reality – Part 2 of 3

“Where there is birth, age and death necessarily follow. This realm (of causal nexus) is perpetual, regardless of the Tathāgata’s appearing or not appearing (in this world); and the stability of truth and the order of truth follow their necessary and natural concatenation. The Tathāgata has comprehended this and penetrated into the Truth; having comprehended and penetrated into it, he announces and preaches it, makes it known, establishes and reveals it, and makes it clear and visible.”
(Samyutta, 12. 20.)

Herein is a point of great importance, which gave rise to two opposite interpretations of Buddha’s teachings. One school understood in this thesis the permanent stability of the Dharma, meaning thereby external existence, while the other interpreted the stability of truth as existing in our own mind. The difference may be stated thus: The school which emphasized the objective import of the Dharma ran to an extreme verging on materialism, asserting the reality of the external order, and denying the mind, on the ground of the doctrine of non-ego. The opposite direction was taken by the other school, which saw no meaning in what is usually spoken of as the objective world, apart from its significance as a manifestation of the universal Dharmatā. The consequence was that the truth of existence was to be realized only in the enlightened mind of a Buddha, and that, therefore, reality belonged, not to the world of visible diversity, but to the realm of transcendental unity. The former tendency was represented by the Sarvāstivādins, the men who asserted that “all exists”; who were opposed by nearly all others, though the extreme transcendental view was not universally accepted. Before taking up the opposition, we must inquire what Buddha’s own position was.

Buddha always explicitly repudiated the two extremes, the Permanence-view (Sassata-vāda) and the Nihilistic view (Uccheda-vāda), that is, the views which either assert or deny the reality of the external world per se. He once said to his great disciple, Kaccāna:

“The world, for the most part, holds either to a belief in being or to a belief in non-being. But for one who, in the light of the perfect insight, considers how the world arises, belief in the non-being of the world passes away. And for one who, in the light of the perfect insight, considers how the world ceases, belief in the being of the world passes away. … That all is existent is one extreme; that all is non-existent is another extreme. The Tathāgata, avoiding the two extremes, preaches his truth, which is the Middle Path.”
(Samyutta, 12. 15; Warren, p. 165.)

The former view is that of common-sense realism, which Buddha refuted by showing how change and decay actually go on before our eyes. Buddha opposed this kind of realism, not by denying reality altogether, but by demanding a change in the conception of reality, a transfer of the idea of reality from the conception of permanent external existence to that of becoming ruled by the law of causation. On the other hand, the nihilistic theory differs from Buddha’s position in a very subtle manner, because Buddha rejects the idea of permanence, yet sees reality in things and processes; both being Dharmas by virtue of the same law. He accepts the assertion that nothing exists in the sense that nothing persists by itself; but he rejects the same assertion by making a counter-affirmation that reality consists in the stability and order of truth, of the law of causation. This is what he called the Middle Path, as he preached the Middle Path in his ethics, rejecting both the hedonistic life and ascetic self-mortification.

The Buddhist realism above referred to was in fact not so materialistic as it was believed to be by the opposing schools. Yet it concentrated its effort upon an analysis of the Dharmas, as if they were merely external existences, and neglected the significance of Buddha’s Tathāgataship, which consisted in his having grasped the truth of existence in his enlightened mind. The realists missed the point in their conception of Dharma because they proceeded to its analysis, apart from the ideal interpretation of the Dharmas as given by Buddha himself. Thus, this school of realists was controverted by adducing the personal example of Buddha, and by emphasizing the significance of faith in him as the Tathāgata, in the conception and interpretation of reality. In other words, the opposition took the orthodox course of never separating the conception of Dharma from the personality of Buddha as the Truth-winner and Truth-revealer.

Now, not speaking of the extreme transcendentalism, the orthodox theory of the Middle Path may be formulated in the following way:

Buddha has unquestionably said that the truth-order exists and works, regardless of whether a Tathāgata appears, or not. But, who among Buddhists could, without his revelation of Dharma, have realized that truth? In fact, the external-realist asserts the truth-order in consequence of Buddha’s teaching; and Buddha taught this because the truth was grasped by him. This we say, not merely in the sense that Buddha is our authority in this matter, but in the sense that the truth-order would remain a meaningless entity or process, unless there were at least one man who had realized it and interpreted its meaning. Undoubtedly, the truth-order may be working, even while you or I do not realize it. Yet it has become known to us through Buddha’s revelation, and then in our own enlightenment. Enlightenment and revelation are the essential factors in the nature of the truth-order because the conception truth-order does not mean a dead entity, nor a merely external order, but implies a realization of its import in the enlightened mind, which represents the ideal order of existence.

Otherwise expressed, the world, the realm of truths (dharmadhātu), as a whole, is the stage on which the beings in the world attain their own Dharmatā; and therefore, the world, subsisting by itself, but without knowing its own meaning – its own truth-order – is an imperfect manifestation of its real nature. Only a half, and the inferior half, of reality, of the real nature of existence, is rightly to be conceived as the merely external existence; the other half, the essential and integral half, is first revealed to us when we bring to light our own real nature. It is a realization of the Dharmatā, on my part or yours; this is, however, not a merely individual work, but the enlightenment of an individual mind as a part of the world, nay, as the key to the revelation and realization of its real nature. Reality (Sanskrit, dharma-tathatā, dharma-svabhāva) is nothing but a full realization of the true nature; and in the true nature of the world, the ideal interpretation plays no less part than what is erroneously called external existence. The conception of reality becomes meaningless, unless an integral part, or aspect, is realized through at least one individual. What then is the significance of enlightenment on the part of an individual?

Here is conspicuously shown the significance of Buddha’s attainment and revelation, by which he plays an integral part in the world’s truth-order, and herein lies the importance of his personality as the Truth-winner and Truth-revealer. It is in his person that the real import of existence has come to light; it is in his enlightenment in the fundamental nature (dharmatā) of the world that the cosmos has found its own mouthpiece, the representative, the embodiment, of its truth-order; it is through his revelation that the world, including ourselves and many other beings of different sorts, has gained the key to the interpretation and comprehension of its real meaning. Knowing and seeing, enlightenment and revelation – all are nothing but the essential nature of the truth-order, by which the meaning of existence, and therefore of reality, is made explicit, or can be evolved. Wherefore it is said:

“The Exalted One knows knowing, sees seeing; he is the One who has become the eyes (of the world); he is the One who has become knowledge (or enlightenment); he is the One who has become truth; he is the One who has become Brahmā (the highest deity of Brahmanism); he is the instructor, the revealer, the One who pours out good, the One who gives immortality; the Lord of Dharma, that is the Tathāgata.” (Samyutta, 35. 116, etc.)

Buddha, the Tathāgata, is the prototypical representative of the seer, of the knower, of the one who has realized his own true nature, together with that of the whole world. In short, Buddha’s enlightenment is the interpretation of the world, which means not simply a process in an individual mind but plays an integral part in the existence of the world, being a revelation of its own meaning – a self-realization of the world, so to speak. This is the view of the Middle Path.

The Fundamental Tenets of Buddhism Concerning Reality – Part 1 of 3

Buddhism is a comprehensive system of thought. In it we find a materialistic school, which denied the existence of the mind and affirmed the reality of the external world; there was also an extreme idealistic school, which explained all perceptions and phenomena as illusions. Moreover, in Buddhist thought, philosophical theories are intricately interwoven with religious faith regarding the person of the founder; and, similarly, the various ways of practicing contemplation are inseparable from ethical considerations which bear upon the religious, or ecclesiastical, community. The mind is minutely analyzed; yet Buddhist psychology was not a theoretical study but was considered to be a means of introspection in meditation, which in turn very much influenced the psychological theories in question. The law of causation was the chief tenet of Buddhist cosmology; but for Buddhism this conception was highly teleological, being understood in the sense of moral retribution. Morality is taught, of course; and every Buddhist is expected to observe its rules; the moral ideal, however, was not limited to human life, but extended to all kinds of existence, visible and invisible. A religious ethic, or a philosophical religion, or a religious philosophy – each one of these designations may be applied to Buddhism; while in the numerous schools within it different points have been given prominence.

Thus, to abstract a phase of Buddhist thought, apart from other factors, is as if one were to dissect a human body into parts and treat one of them as a unit. As a Buddhist simile expresses it, none of the numerous diamonds studded on a net can be touched without affecting all the others. Yet I shall try here to take up one aspect of Buddhist thought concerning reality. It would be an altogether hopeless task, if there were not a certain continuity of thread even in the meshes of a net. And this continuity is given in the conception of Dharma, which means “law,” or “truth.” This is one of the Buddhists Trinity, the others being Buddha and Sangha, that is, the person of the founder and the community of believers. This Trinity is the foundation of the Buddhist religion, and none of the three is perfect apart from the others. It will presently appear how the Buddhist conception expressed in the idea of Dharma is supported by, and connected with, the faith in Buddha, the revealer of truth. But I shall start with the idea of Dharma, apart from the other terms of the Trinity.

Dharma is a very flexible term in Buddhist terminology. It meant originally, in the Brahmanic idea, “what endures,” that is the law of social order. Buddha adopted this term, divorced from its association with social sanction, and used it to designate his teachings about the truths of existence. These teachings were expressed in words and preserved in writings, although to the Buddhist they were not merely letters or words, but truths, and therefore things, as well. Buddha is the revealer of truths as they are in reality, and the doctrines are proclaimed in accordance with the reality of things. That is the reason why the word Dharma, especially when used in the plural, means things, or conditions, or realities, both mental and physical. These things and conditions are not products of chance but exist and change according to the definite order of laws, or truths. This order of truth is expressed pre-eminently by the law of causation, which is assumed by Buddhism to be universal and irrevocable throughout all changes of the world. “That being present, this comes to be; because that has arisen, this arises” – this is the keynote of the Buddhist view of the world. The law of causation is applied to the physical and mental orders of existence, to the subjective and objective aspects of our being. It is the essential nature of things and processes that they are through and through ruled by the same Dharma of causation.

Partly because of the assumption of universal causality, and partly because of its religious ideal of communion, Buddhism assumes the basic unity of existence, notwithstanding the fact that it admits apparent diversity. We comprehend the Dharma of the external existence because the same Dharma is inherent in us; we understand other people because they are beings subsisting by the same Dharma. Thus, the fundamental nature of all Dharmas is one and the same. The fundamental nature of existence, in this sense of unity, is called dharmatā, that is, the essential quality of being subject to the laws of existence. Dharmas exist and become such as they are (yathābhūtam), and yet they are one in nature and in relation. Everything that is born and grows is subject to age, ills, and death – this is the essential nature of things. All Buddhas, of the past, present, and future, have attained, and will attain, the highest freedom by treading the same way of perfection – this is the universal qualification (dharmatā) of Buddhas. Buddha’s teachings and injunctions aim at the purification of the mind and are efficacious to lead us up to the supreme enlightenment – this is the invariable import of the Dharma. The term Dharmatā applies to every one of these aspects of the universal nature. The same idea is expressed adverbially by the word tathatayā, that is, in accordance with nature, and as a noun by tathatā, i.e., “as it is,” or “Thatness.” Therefore, Buddha is called Tathāgata, the One who has attained the Truth of existence, the Dharmatā or Tathatā of the world, and has come to reveal the same truth to us. He is the Truth-winner and Truth-revealer. Because the Dharmatā is the same in him and us, his truth is revealed to us, and we are enlightened by the same truth.

The Dharma is the truth revealed by Buddha, the Lord of Truth; yet he is not the creator of it. We are enlightened by the truths taught by him, but we can be thus enlightened because our existence and nature are based on the same Dharmatā that is found in Buddha himself. The final Dharmatā is the fountain of Buddhist attainment and revelation, for Buddha as well as for ourselves. The world of Dharmas is a perpetually flowing stream; foam and flakes float on its surface, but one can attain the tranquil ocean of Nirvāṇa by pursuing the course of the stream; after all, one and the same is the water in the fountain, in the stream, and in the ocean. Seen in this way, the fundamental Dharmatā of things and beings is the source of illusion as well as of enlightenment, of vices as well as of virtues. One who does not realize this unity is in illusion, while one who has grasped the Dharmatā or Tathatā, is a Buddha. It is said:

All are subject to the laws (dharmas) of ill,
Of age, as well as of death;
Beings exist according to the laws.
(yathā dhammā, tathā sttā). (Anguttara, v. 57.)

The deluded are distressed by these changes, while the enlightened man is not troubled by them because he knows the truth. The Truth is permanent, even independent of persons who are troubled by it, or are enlightened in it. Again, it is said:

“Where there is birth, age and death necessarily follow. This realm (of causal nexus) is perpetual, regardless of the Tathāgata’s appearing or not appearing (in this world); and the stability of truth and the order of truth follow their necessary and natural concatenation. The Tathāgata has comprehended this and penetrated into the Truth; having comprehended and penetrated into it, he announces and preaches it, makes it known, establishes and reveals it, and makes it clear and visible.”
(Samyutta, 12. 20.)

Since the appearance of Professor James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience,” (1902) the attention of scholars has been strongly drawn toward men of original religious experience, with emphasis on the psychological point of view, disregarding doctrinal considerations. A conspicuous result of the change brought about by this book is that religious psychology has been extended from a study of material taken from the average masses, to the study of strong personalities and their characteristic faith. The primary motive of the present work is to contribute to this newer branch of religious psychology a study of a man who has been comparatively unknown to Western scholars. Another impetus to the publication of this study was derived from the encouragement given by Professor Royce. After reading his book, “The Problem of Christianity,” I presented to him an essay on the Buddhist conception of life, as a counterpart of his chapter on the Christian doctrine of life. A reference to Nichiren made in that paper led me to tell the senior philosopher of Harvard more about the Buddhist prophet. The present volume is a result of his advice and encouragement to write something on Nichiren.

Nichiren’s personality has various peculiar interests of its own. Besides the points which I have tried to bring out in this book, it is deserving of special mention that a great amount of material for the study of his life is available in his numerous writings, amounting to more than four hundred essays and epistles. Not only have most of them been proved to be authentic, but about one-third are preserved in Nichiren’s original handwriting, while many others have come down to us in old manuscripts made by his disciples or later followers. These authentic writings contain ample and trustworthy sources for the study of his life and thought, and nearly every step of his development, his struggles, and his faith can be clearly traced in them; for Nichiren was a man who told much about himself, his experiences and ambitions, his thoughts and sentiments. Moreover, he was an unexcelled calligrapher, and his autographs have a characteristic vividness of expression, due to the picture-like forms of the Chinese ideographs. Thus, not only can his thoughts and the incidents of his life be learned from his own words and sentences, but the modulations and changes of sentiment and emotion can be closely followed in his writings. It is rare that the works of an ancient author are so well preserved and furnish us so abundantly with the means of investigating his career and ideas as in this case. In the present sketch all traditions and legends of later growth have been excluded, and all the main points, as well as many minor details, are related exclusively on the basis of Nichiren’s own statements. For this reason, it may be regarded as virtually a record of Nichiren’s own confessions, and as such, it will, I hope, be found a useful study in the religious psychology of a prophetic leader.

To the intrinsic interest of the life of Nichiren as a Buddhist reformer of the thirteenth century, may be added the fact that there has been a noteworthy revival of his teaching and spirit in modem Japan. Details about this revival, as well as the growth of Nichiren’s influence after his death, will be treated in my forthcoming book on the Religious and Moral Development of the Japanese.

Perhaps I may be permitted to say a little concerning my personal relation to the Nichirenite revival. It was during my stay in England and India that my dear friend, Chogyū Takayama, was converted to Nichiren’s faith and that I criticized him in correspondence. Takayama’s conversion caused a great stir, and though there were adverse critics, there were also enthusiastic admirers, especially among the younger generation, who flocked to the ardent convert and his accepted prophet. Since then, many societies have been organized for the study — both historical and religious — of Nichiren, and their membership comprises students and scholars, lawyers and businessmen, military and naval officers. When I returned to Japan in June 1903, my friend had already been dead six months; but his influence was rapidly growing, and he who had once been called “the Nietzsche of Japan” was regarded as the standard-bearer of the Nichirenite revival. The task of editing Takayama’s writings gave me occasion to study the process of his conversion, together with the life and personality of his prophet. Further studies have brought me into closer and closer touch with Nichiren’s faith and thoughts. The consequence is that in writing this book I have always been tempted to tell the story fully and have found it difficult to decide how much should be omitted. At any rate, I offer this little volume to the public with a full confidence that I have not misrepresented the great teacher.

I cannot let this book appear without expressing my deep gratitude to Professor Josiah Royce and Professor George F. Moore. The former, as I have said above, showed his interest in the subject and gave me valuable aid by reading through the manuscript and suggesting various points that might with advantage be recast, for all of which I am very grateful. Professor Moore has kindly revised the manuscript, made arrangements for publication, and consented to read the proofs. Indeed, without such encouragement and assistance from my fatherly colleagues at Harvard this publication would not have been possible. The present volume will always recall to me pleasant memories of my delightful stay at Harvard, during my two years of work there. I hope that I may soon give another humble sign of my homage to Harvard by a publication dealing with the religious and moral history of Japan, which was the subject of my lectures there.

M. Anesaki.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 9th, 1915,
the six hundred and thirty-fourth anniversary of the arrival of the Mongol armada at the Bay of Hakata.