The Distinction Between Ri And Ji

Among the large corpus of writings traditionally attributed to Nichiren (1222-1282) are many that deal with original enlightenment thought. In 1926, when Shimaji published “Nihon ko Tendai kenkyū no hitsuyō o ronzu,” it was generally accepted both inside and outside Nichiren Shū that Nichiren had taught the doctrine of original enlightenment. Some difference of opinion existed as to whether he stood closer to the doctrinal position of the Eshin or the Danna school, but the influence of medieval Tendai on his thinking was virtually unquestioned.

Nonetheless, within Nichiren Shū, scholars had for some time been engaged in attempting to establish the existence of clear differences between medieval Tendai hongaku thought and the hongaku thought of Nichiren, making use of the distinction between ri, or “principle,” and ji, meaning “phenomena” or “concrete actuality.” Over and above their importance to East Asian Buddhism generally, these categories held a time-honored place in the Nichiren tradition, having been used by Nichiren himself to distinguish between the “contemplation of the mind” (kanjin) set forth by the Chinese T’ien-t’ai founder Chih-i (538- 597) and his own form of practice. Where Chih-i’s form of meditative discipline was that of “principle,” or introspective contemplation to perceive the true aspect of reality in one’s own mind, Nichiren’s was that of “actuality,” or the chanting of the daimoku, the title of the Lotus Sūtra, said to embody the reality of the Buddha’s enlightenment and the seed of Buddhahood. Nichiren’s usage reflects the strong influence of esoteric Buddhism, in which ri refers to formless truth that is contemplated inwardly, and ji, to its expression in outwardly manifest practices involving concrete forms. (Page 67-68)

Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism