Writing of Nichiren Shonin Doctrine 2: pp. 53, 105-106

Kaimoku-shō or Liberation From Blindness: pp. 43, 114,

Writings of Nichiren Daishonin I: 240, 280-281

Twice in Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren expresses his determination in the form of vows. Roughly one third of the way into the work he states, “… it is not easy to uphold even a word or phrase of the Lotus Sutra in the Latter Age of Degeneration. This must be it! I have made a vow that this time I will have an unbending aspiration to buddhahood and never fall back!” (Hori 2002, p. 53) Towards the end of Kaimoku-shō, Nichiren again states his determination in the form of vow or perhaps series of vows to continue to uphold the Lotus Sutra no matter what; furthermore, he vows to be like a pillar, a pair of eyes, or a great vessel for Japan. I think it could be said that this vow is the real climax of the Kaimoku-shō.

I have made a vow. Even if someone says that he would make me the ruler of Japan on the condition that I give up the Lotus Sutra and rely upon the Kammuryō-ju-kyō (Sutra of Meditation on the Buddha of Infinite Life) for my salvation in the next life, or even if someone threatens me saying that he will execute my parents if I do not say “Namu Amida-butsu,” and no matter how many great difficulties fall upon me, I will not submit to them until a man of wisdom defeats me by reason. Other difficulties are like dust in the wind. I will never break my vow to become the pillar of Japan, to become the eyes of Japan, and to become the great vessel for Japan. (Hori 2002, pp. 105-106)

This passage from Kaimoku-shō is sometimes cited in survey books dealing with Japanese Buddhism as an example of Nichiren’s fiery determination. Unfortunately this passage is also used to make the case that Nichiren was a megalomaniac, a fanatic, and a nationalist. Edward Conze summed up Nichiren in the following way in his book Buddhism: It’s Essence and Development:

It is customary to reckon the sect of Nichiren (1222-82) as one of the schools of Amidism. It would be more appropriate to count it among the offshoots of nationalistic Shintoism. Nichiren suffered from self-assertiveness and bad temper, and he manifested a degree of personal and tribal egotism which disqualify him as a Buddhist teacher. He did not only convince himself that he, personally, was mentioned in the Lotus of the Good Law, but also that the Japanese were the chosen race which would regenerate the world. The followers of the Nichiren sect, as Suzuki puts it: ‘even now are more or less militaristic and do not mix well with other Buddhists’. (p. 176)

There are so many things wrong with that mischaracterization (originally published in 1951) that it is hard to know where to begin. How could Nichiren ever be confused with Amidism when that is the very school that Nichiren was most critical of? To this day, though, writers of introductory books on Buddhism continue to characterize Nichiren Buddhism as a form of Pure Land Buddhism simply because it also features chanting as its main practice. This is pure laziness, however, since anyone who has read this far into this commentary or any of Nichiren’s writings will already know that Nichiren Buddhism is no more related to Pure Land Buddhism than is Zen, and in fact it would be fairer to characterize Nichiren Buddhism as a streamlined form of T’ien-t’ai Buddhism. In addition, Edward Conze cites D.T. Suzuki (1870-1966) in confirmation of his opinion, but D.T. Suzuki was himself a rather chauvinistic proponent of Rinzai Zen and the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit (to the point where D.T. Suzuki has been accused of Japanese nationalism by modern critics like Robert Sharf and Brian Victoria). At the very least, D.T. Suzuki was no expert on Nichiren Buddhism and was not predisposed to give a fair or unbiased opinion. Aside from the ridiculous lumping in of Nichiren Buddhism with Pure Land Buddhism and the ludicrous appeal to D.T. Suzuki’s opinions about it, I can see where some people might take some of Nichiren’s statements, such as the above vows, out of context and misconstrue them to support the idea that Nichiren was a megalomaniac (what is today called more clinically a narcissistic personality disorder), a nationalist, and a violent fanatic. It is this that I want to address, because I think the above vows should not be interpreted in such a perverse manner and that in fact they are the high point of the Kaimoku-shō.

Let’s begin with the charge of nationalism. It is certainly true that Nichiren was concerned with the welfare of Japan and its people. This, however, just makes Nichiren a concerned or even a patriotic citizen, it does not make him a nationalist. Now “nationalism” can mean different things. It seems to me that those accusing Nichiren of nationalism are claiming that he believed in the ideology of “my nation right or wrong,” or that Nichiren valued the Japanese nation above all else, or that he believed the Japanese people were somehow unique and superior to all other nations and ethnicities. There is, however, absolutely no basis for such ideas in Nichiren’s writings. Nowhere does Nichiren state that Japan is superior to other nations in any political, economic, or ethnic sense. In fact, he sometimes refers to Japan as a remote and tiny island nation far removed from India, the land of the Buddha (see the beginning of Shugo Kokka-ron on p. 3 of Hori 2003). He refers to the Hōjō regents as “mere rulers of a small island kingdom.” (Hori 2008, p. 24) He even states that the two most important Shinto gods (whom Nichiren included on his calligraphic mandala) are inferior to the Vedic gods of India. “Such deities as Goddess Amaterasu and Great Bodhisattva Hachiman are highly esteemed in Japan, but they are merely minor gods compared to the King of the Brahma Heaven, Indra, the sun and moon, and the Four Heavenly Kings.” (Ibid, p. 37) Nichiren could in fact be quite critical of Japan. A rather blunt example of this can be found in the Sado Gosho (Letter from Sado) that is attributed to Nichiren. The following is not what one would expect to find in the body of works of a nationalist.

According to the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha emitted a radiant light that illuminated the 136th hell underground and revealed that not a single offender remained there. This was because they had all achieved buddhahood through the “Life Span” chapter of the Lotus Sutra. What a pity, however, that the icchantikas or persons of incorrigible disbelief, who had slandered the correct teaching, were found to have been detained there by the wardens of hell. They proliferated until they became the people of Japan today. (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p. 304)

Nowhere in his writings does Nichiren suggest that his concern for the power or prestige of Japan, or its Shinto deities, or even the Japanese emperor overshadow that of Buddhism. In fact, to the contrary, Nichiren suggests the opposite: the nations welfare depends upon the Dharma.  This is in fact the major theme of his Risshō Ankoku-ron (Treatise on Spreading Peace Throughout the Country by Establishing the True Dharma). If Nichiren was a nationalist, then so were Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the other Hebrew prophets who risked their lives to warn the nation of Israel that the conduct of their ruling elites was leading it into disaster.

When it comes to religious or spiritual considerations, Nichiren did view Japan as being in a unique position as a nation predisposed to Mahayana teachings and the Lotus Sutra in particular and having a responsibility to return the True Dharma to the rest of Asia and even to India, the homeland of Buddhism. Nichiren comes by these ideas quite honestly. Mahayana Buddhism had in fact been introduced to Japan from the very beginning, as has been discussed. In the Kembutsu Mirai-ki (Testimony to the Prediction of the Buddha), Nichiren cites reports from China that Buddhism has disappeared from India and was on the verge of disappearing in China as well. He then quotes the Chinese T’ien-t’ai monk Tsun-shih who said, “Buddhism at first spread eastward to Japan from China, just as the moon rises in the west shining on the east. Now it comes back from Japan to China just as the sun rises in the east and sheds light on the west.” (Hori 2002, p. 176) It was not nationalism that led Nichiren to believe that Japan’s experience with Buddhism had been Mahayana in orientation from its inception and that it had been preserved (so far) in Japan while disappearing or deteriorating on the mainland. It was simply an observation. Furthermore, Japan’s privileged (from Nichiren’s point of view) position as a Mahayana nation and responsibility to restore the Dharma to the mainland was entirely conditional upon Japan upholding the true Dharma, otherwise Japan would itself be destroyed by invasion from without and civil war within. This is not nationalism. This is simply calling one’s country to task for failing to live up to its potential and fulfill its responsibilities. This is the work of a prophet delivering messages of hope to those who will listen and warnings to those who will not.

Nichiren is also portrayed as an aggressive and even violent fanatic. The extravagant vows that he makes are sometimes cited as evidence of this. For instance, Nichiren vows to never give up the Lotus Sutra even if someone offered to make him ruler of Japan or threatened to kill his parents. Is this unreasoning aggressive fanaticism however? Or is it simply a refusal to cave in to bribes or threats? I would note that Nichiren’s parents had already passed away when he wrote this, so this was a bit of rhetoric on Nichiren’s part. What is often overlooked is Nichiren’s caveat: “… I will not submit to them until a man of wisdom defeats me by reason.” Was this empty rhetoric? Why even put that caveat in there? In fact, the whole of the Kaimoku-shō up to the point where Nichiren expresses this vow is a marshaling of texts to support Nichiren’s case that the Lotus Sutra is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha that should not be neglected, derided, or subordinated to lesser teachings. Now we may or may not accept Nichiren’s reasoning, and may or may not find his proof-texts and the presumption of scriptural authority they rested upon convincing, but I do think Nichiren put in quite a lot of effort to present a well reasoned case and that as far as he was concerned no one had provided him with any adequate response to the case he was making for the Lotus Sutra (and against its detractors). Instead, he had been physically attacked on several occasions, banished twice, and almost been executed. Who exactly was being unreasonable and fanatical about their beliefs? Nichiren, who wrote long essays citing the Buddha’s teachings in order to clarify the Buddha’s true intention? Or those who were trying to silence and even kill him? And what was Nichiren advocating as the ultimate teaching based on the Lotus Sutra? I rather like the way it is put in Hoshina Goro Taro-dono Gohenji (Reply to Hoshina Goro Taro), a letter attributed to Nichiren. “

In Buddhism that teaching is judged supreme that enables all people, whether good or evil, to become Buddhas. Surely anyone can grasp so reasonable a standard. By means of this principle we can compare the various sutras and ascertain which is superior. (Gosho Translation Committee 1999, p. 156)

I, for one, am satisfied that Nichiren was not a nationalist, though certainly a patriot and even a prophetic figure. I am also satisfied that Nichiren was not unreasonable. I would even say that according to the standards of his time Nichiren provided ample evidence and plentiful reasons for his advocacy of the Lotus Sutra, and that it was his opponents who were responding to reasoning with violence. The question then remains as to whether Nichiren was a megalomaniac in vowing to become the pillar, eyes, and great vessel of Japan – as if all depended upon him. Doesn’t such an attitude betray megalomania or narcissism on Nichiren’s part? I, for one, do not think so. I believe that Nichiren’s vows need to be understood in the context of the Mahayana tradition of bodhisattva vows, which are often quite grandiose in their attempts to inspire a heroic and even cosmic sense of selfless compassion. In light of this tradition, Nichiren’s vows are actually quite humble and circumscribed.

In the previous chapter dealing with provisional Mahayana, I introduced the concept of the arising of the “thought of awakening” (S. bodhicitta), the initial aspiration to attain perfect and complete awakening and save all sentient beings. I also discussed the four great vows of bodhisattvas that are used in most East Asian religious services, including the Nichiren Shu. The four vows are one way of expressing the initial aspiration of a bodhisattva. Another way of expressing the bodhisattva’s initial aspiration in terms of a general vow can be found in the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra attributed to Nagarjuna.

One who seeks the Path of the Buddha, from the time of first bringing forth the resolve [to realize complete enlightenment], makes a vow, “I vow that I will become a Buddha and cross the beings over to liberation, that I will succeed in realizing all of the Buddha dharmas, that I will practice the six pāramitās, that I will smash the hordes of demon armies as well as of all the afflictions, that I will gain the knowledge of all modes, that I will realize the Buddha Path, and that I shall ultimately gain entry into nirvāna without residue. (Dharmamitra 2008, p. 731)

I also mentioned previously that bodhisattvas also make specific vows. For instance there are the 48 vows of Bodhisattva Dharmakara who became Amitabha Buddha and who is particularly known for his 18th vows that enables anyone who calls upon his name to be reborn in his pure land as long as they have not committed any of the five grave offences or slandered true Dharma. The Flower Garland Sutra also contains many long passages wherein bodhisattvas express their vows and determination to save all beings. The vows and dedications of Bodhisattva Diamond Banner in the Flower Garland Sutra are particularly interesting, as are the vows expressed by Śāntideva (c. 685-763) in his Bodhicaryāvatāra (Guide to the Buddhist Path of Awakening). They both hold much in common with Christian ideas about Jesus as a savior who took up the cross in order to spare others from suffering and who often compares himself in the gospels to bread, water, light, and a way for others. Here are a couple of selections from the vows expressed by Bodhisattva Diamond Banner:

I should be a light for all sentient beings, to enable them to attain the light of knowledge to annihilate the darkness of ignorance. I should be a torch for all sentient beings, to destroy all darkness of nescience. I should be a lamp for all sentient beings, to cause them to abide in the realm of ultimate purity. I should be a guide for all sentient beings, to lead them into the truth. I should be a great leader for all sentient beings, to give them the great knowledge. (Cleary 1993, p. 532)

I should accept all sufferings for the sake of all sentient beings, and enable them to escape from the abyss of immeasurable woes of birth and death. I should accept all suffering for the sake of all sentient beings in all worlds, in all states of misery, forever and ever, and still always cultivate foundations of goodness for the sake of all beings. Why? I would rather take all this suffering on myself than to allow sentient beings to fall into hell. I should be a hostage in those perilous places – hells, animal realms, the nether world, etc. – as a ransom to rescue all sentient beings in states of woe and enable them to gain liberation. (Ibid, pp. 534-535)

The following are Śāntideva’s verses expressing the dedication to the welfare of all beings:

With the good acquired by doing all this as described, may I allay all the suffering of every living being.

I am medicine for the sick. May I be both the doctor and their nurse, until the sickness does not recur.

May I avert the pain of hunger and thirst with showers of food and drink. May I become both drink and food in the intermediate eons of famine.

May I be an inexhaustible treasure for impoverished beings. May I wait upon them with various forms of offering.

See, I give up without regret my bodies, my pleasures, and my good acquired in all three times, to accomplish good for every being.

Abandonment of all is Enlightenment and Enlightenment is my heart’s goal. If I must give up everything, better it be given to sentient beings.

I make over this body to all embodied beings to do with as they please. Let them continually beat it, insult it, and splatter it with filth.

Let them play with my body; let them be derisive and amuse themselves. I have given this body to them. What point has this concern of mine?

Let them have me to do whatever brings them pleasure. Let there never be harm to anyone on account of me.

Should their mind become angry or displeased on account of me, may even that be the cause of their always achieving every goal.

Those who will falsely accuse me, and others who will do me harm, and others still who will degrade me, may they all share in Awakening.

I am the protector of the unprotected and the caravan-leader for travellers. I have become the boat, the causeway, and the bridge for those who long to reach the further shore.

May I be a light for those in need of light. May I be a bed for those in need of rest. May I be a servant for those in need of service, for all embodied beings.

For embodied beings may I be the wish-fulfilling jewel, the pot of plenty, the spell that always works, the potent healing herb, the magical tree that grants every wish, and the milk cow that supplies all wants.

Just as earth and the other elements are profitable in many ways to the immeasurable beings dwelling throughout space,

So may I be sustenance of many kinds for the realm of beings throughout space, until all have attained release.

In the same way as bygone Sugatas took up the Awakening Mind, in the same way as they progressed on the Bodhisattva training,

So too, I myself shall generate the Awakening Mind for the welfare of the world; and just so shall I train in those precepts in due order. (pp. 20-22)

In such a tradition, there is nothing odd about Nichiren making a vow to be a pillar, eyes, and a great vessel for the people of Japan. If anything, it is perhaps odd that Nichiren doesn’t vow to be the pillar, eyes, and great vessel for the whole world, or for all sentient beings. Here, perhaps, Nichiren is being humble in restricting his concern to that which he can immediately address through his remonstrations with the rulers of Japan. Also, remember, that Nichiren believed that if the Japanese people took faith in the true Dharma of the Lotus Sutra, then they would be in a position to restore Buddhism and India, thus returning the favor to those countries that initially transmitted Buddhism to Japan. Nichiren’s far-reaching concern was actually for all sentient beings throughout the world in the Latter Age of the Dharma. It was his hope that all beings would awaken to Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren’s vows are not an expression of hubris, but the expression of the particular vows of a compassionate bodhisattva responding to his own unique historical situation with courage and determination to do what he can to help his fellow countrymen and women.

The Kaimoku-shō could very well end with these vows. They are the culmination of the rest of the whole work. Nichiren had addressed all his doubts and questions in regard to whether he was doing the right thing, whether he was interpreting the Lotus Sutra and Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings correctly, and whether the persecutions and hardships he and his disciples and followers had faced and continued to face at the time of the writing of Kaimoku-shō were not somehow evidence that he was not in accord with the Buddha’s teachings. In the end, he demonstrated that what he taught was not just his own biased view but was in accord with the teachings of the Buddha recorded in the sutras, and that those sutras had also predicted that there would be hardships and persecutions faced by those who would dare to uphold the true Dharma in the Latter Age. Having worked through his doubts, or perhaps just the doubts of those he was writing for, Nichiren reiterates his unwavering determination in the form of these vows. In this he expresses his bodhisattva spirit and aspiration to work for the liberation and awakening of all beings. The remainder of the Kaimoku-shō can be viewed as an epilogue in which Nichiren clarifies the methods that are to be used to propagate the Lotus Sutra.

Sources

Cleary, Thomas, trans. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston: Shambhala, 1993.

Conze, Edward. Buddhism: It’s Essence and Development. Birmingham: Windhorse Publication, 2001.

Crosby, Kate and Skilton, Andrew, trans. The Bodhicaryāvatāra. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Dharmamitra, Bhikshu, trans. Nāgārjuna on The Six Perfection: An Ārya Bodhisattva Explains the Heart of the Bodhisattva Path. Seattle: Kalavinka Press, 2008.

Gosho Translation Committee, editor-translator. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 1999.

Hori, Kyotsu, comp. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine Volume 2. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2002.

________________. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Doctrine Volume 1. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2003.

________________. Writings of Nichiren Shonin: Biography and Disciples Volume 5. Tokyo: Nichiren Shu Overseas Propagation Promotion Association, 2008.

Murano, Senchu, trans. Kaimokusho or Liberation from Blindness. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000.