And so I again return to the topic of Namu vs. Nam in writing the devotional chant followers of Nichiren voice.

I’m not talking about what I chant. Sometimes I chant “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō” and sometimes it sounds like “Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō.” My son, who was raised under Soka Gakkai influence, soothes his 14-month-old son by chanting “Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō.” I don’t have a problem with that.

But I want the written Odaimoku – the Sacred Title – to be “Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”

The Chinese character “Na” or 南 means South. “Mu” or 無 means Nothing. As explained in Journey to the Path of Righteousness:

Characters used in this manner are commonly referred to as non-characters because the meaning of the characters is considered inconsequential. Rather, in this case, this is the transliteration of the Sanskrit word “Namah,” and can be defined as devotion (Kimyo or Kie). Two common definitions for these are: “I ask of” and “I offer up my life to”.

Journey of the Path to Righteousness, p 24-25

Soka Gakkai openly admits that “‘Nam’ is a phonetic contraction of ‘Namu.'” (See Note 117 here. Having adopted “Nam” as the spoken contraction, the SGI editors backed themselves into a corner when writing about the Nembutsu.

Because I, Nichiren, chant and spread Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the power of Namu-Amida-butsu will be like a moon waning, a tide running out, grass withering in autumn and winter, or ice melting in the sun. Watch and see!

I’ve covered this before. What brings this up now is Andrew Skilton’s “A Concise History of Buddhism,” a survey of the history of Buddhism that includes a section on Buddhism Beyond India.

In his discussion of Buddhism in Japan he offers a concise description of the Kamakura period. Speaking of Hōnen’s Pure Land school, he says on page 180:

Dissatisfied with the Tendai teachings of Mount Hiei, Hōnen eventually discovered the work of a previous Japanese Pure Land Buddhist, Genshin, and that of the Chinese teacher Shan-tao. Under the combined impact of these two he began to teach that salvation was only possible through the recitation, with faith, of Amida’s name, i.e. the nembutsu — Namu Amida Butsu. All other practices were secondary to this, for in the present corrupt age no one is capable of attaining Enlightenment through their own efforts, jiriki, but is in reality totally dependent upon the compassionate ‘other-power’, tariki, of Amida.

Skilton offers a reasonable description of Nichiren on page 181:

The last of the new schools to be discussed here had no foreign precedent, and therefore could be seen as the most Japanese development. This grew from the teaching of Nichiren (1222-82). Though trained as a Tendai monk, Nichiren was profoundly distressed by the appalling disasters, both natural and political, that characterized the Japan of his day, and felt that a different approach to spiritual practice was necessary. He came to the conclusion that these disasters were due to the disappearance of the true teaching of Buddhism from the land, and that, for Japan to survive, this true teaching had to be reintroduced. He identified the true teaching with the eternal Śākyamuni Buddha of the Lotus Sūtra, and asserted the identity of Śākyamuni Buddha both with the Lotus Sūtra itself and with all sentient beings. Furthermore, he went so far as to claim that all other forms of Buddhist practice were positively harmful, and agitated for their suppression by the rulers for the sake of the well-being of Japan. He identified himself with the Bodhisattva Viśiṣṭacāritra, praised in the Lotus Sūtra by the Buddha as the Bodhisattva who will restore the true teaching after its future disappearance. Since he was repeatedly persecuted for his views and eventually exiled to the island of Sado, he also identified himself with the persecuted Bodhisattva, Sadāparibhūta, from the same sūtra.

But then Skilton says:

The main spiritual practice advocated by Nichiren was the recitation of the daimoku, Nam myō hō renge kyō, ‘Homage to the Lotus Sūtra’. Nichirenism was to become popular among members of the merchant class.

I had a similar problem at the beginning of the year with Roger J. Corless’ “A Vision of Buddhism.” At least in his case he attempted to write the spoken contraction, offering Nam’Myo-Ho-Ren-Ge-Kyo.