The Reception of the Lotus S ūtra in Japan

Hiroshi Kanno

I

N discussing the Japanese reception of the philosophy and culture
based on the Lotus SËtra, one must note that in the development of
the Lotus SËtra, one of the most influential events in the history ofJapanese Buddhism was the emergence of Saichō (767–822), thefounder of the Japanese Tiantai sect, and Nichiren (1222–1282), thefounder of the Nichiren Hokke (Lotus) sect. In addition, with regard to
the influence of the Lotus SËtra on literature, art and the performing
arts, the Tiantai sect played an overwhelming role, and from the Muromachi period (1336–1573) onwards one can note the influence of the
Nichiren Hokke sect.1
This paper introduces the Japanese reception of the philosophy andculture based on the Lotus SËtra within the span from the official introduction of Buddhism up to Nichiren. Owing to the limitations of myresearch and to the length of this paper, I wish to summarize my observations along the following points: the Hokke-gisho (a four-fascicle
annotation on the Lotus SËtra) of Prince ShØtoku; the copying of andlecturing on the Lotus SËtra; the founding of the Japanese Tiantai sectby Saichō; the Lotus SËtra and its literature; and Nichiren and the LotusSËtra.
THE HOKKE-GISHO OF PRINCE SHŌTOKU
According to the Nihon-shoki (Chronicles of Japan), the officially
recorded transmission of Buddhism to Japan is said to be 552. However,according to the History of the Construction and the Development ofGangyō-ji Temple and the Catalogue of the Existing Treasures of the
Temple, it is 538. At present, though, 538 is regarded as the year Buddhism was most likely transmitted to Japan. According to the FusØryakki (Concise History of Japan), a copy of the Lotus SËtra was first
introduced into Japan in 577, approximately 40 years following the
introduction of Buddhism.
The JØgË-ShØtoku-hØ-Ø-teisetsu (Traditions Concerning His Holiness31

32

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANPrince ShØtoku) states that Prince ShØtoku (574–622) delivered acourse of lectures on the ShØman-gyØ (Ír¥målå SËtra). According to the
Nihon-shoki, the article of July of the 14th year of Emperor Suiko(606), he delivered a course of lectures on the Lotus SËtra and theShØman-gyØ, respectively. According to the History of the Construction
and the Development of HØryË-ji Temple and the Catalogue of the
Existing Treasures of the Temple, dated February 11 in the 19th year of
the Tempyō era (747), three copies of the Hokke-gisho (a four-fascicle
annotation on the Lotus SËtra), one copy of the Yuima-gyØ-gisho (athree-fascicle annotation on the Vimalak¥rti SËtra) and one copy of theShØman-gyØ-gisho (a one or three-fascicle annotation on the Ír¥målåSËtra) are recorded as having been made at the order of His Holiness
Prince ShØtoku. Although this record does not mention the course of
lectures he delivered on the Vimalak¥rti SËtra, the existence of theYuima-gyØ-gisho enables us to presume that Prince Sh ōtoku delivered acourse of lectures on the Vimalak¥rti SËtra. It has been believed formany years that he delivered a course of lectures on the three sutras,
Lotus, Ír¥målå and Vimalak¥rti, respectively, and the three annotations
were made in natural course.
Despite heated discussions on the issue of his delivering lectures on
the three sutras and the three annotations, a final conclusion has still notbeen reached.2 Nonetheless, it is a historical fact that throughout the
middle ages quotes and commentaries were made from the Hokkegisho, which is undeniably Prince ShØtoku’s writing. Thus, I shallbriefly discuss the Hokke-gisho.
The fourth volume of the Hokke-gisho is an annotation on the LotusSËtra (27 chapters excluding the “Devadatta” chapter) and is principally
based on the doctrine of the Hokke-giki 3 (an eight-fascicle annotation
entitled “Fahua-yiji,” which was lectured by Fayun [467–529] ofGuang-zhai-si in China, and written by his disciple), frequently quoting
many passages from it under the titles “the original’s meaning,” “theoriginal’s annotation” and “the original’s explanation.” The original ispresently in the custody of the Imperial Household. It was first published in the first year of H ōji (1247). One will note that quotations areused from the Hokke-gisho in the JØmyØ-genron-ryakujutsu by ChikØ
(708–776?) of GangyØ-ji temple and the Kegon-gokyØshØ-shijiki byJuryØ (late eighth century) of TØdai-ji temple. Annotations on the
Hokke-gisho are the HokekyØ-jØgË-Ø-gisho, the Hokke-sho-ekØki byGyØnen (1240–1321), the Hokke-kirin-yËfËdan by RyØjo (1268–1318),
and others. In Japan, however, as the three major writings of Tiantai(Fahua-xuanyi, Fahua-wenju and Mohe-zhiguan) were overwhelminglyTHE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN33

popular as annotations on the Lotus SËtra and as the Hokke-giki is criticized in those writings, it is only natural to say that the influence of the
Hokke-gisho, which is based on the Hokke-giki, was limited to a small
scale.
As the Hokke-gisho completely follows the Chinese style of annotation in its format and description and because it is principally dependent
on the doctrine of the Hokke-giki by Fayun, it criticizes the Hokke-giki
at times while establishing its own doctrines.
Generally speaking, annotations on a sutra clearly present its entire
structure by separating its contents into paragraphs along numerous levels. Each paragraph sets its own respective theme and the relation
between the large and small paragraphs is also established. Explanations of difficult terminology and interpretations of the metaphors arealso included. However, they often bore readers and, due to its nature,
the annotator’s personal views are often not easily reflected. The same
could be said of the Hokke-gisho.
In spite of this, I would like to point out two points in the Hokkegisho that deserve attention. First is the unique interpretation of thedescription of a person “who constantly takes pleasure in sitting in meditation” which appears in the 14th chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “Peaceful
Practices.” In this chapter, it is taught that an ascetic should only
approach and associate with people who constantly take pleasure in sitting in meditation. In contrast to the original interpretation of the LotusSËtra, the Hokke-gisho states that an ascetic should not approach amonk of H¥nayåna Buddhism who “constantly takes pleasure in sitting
in meditation.” The reason for this is explained as follows: “He, withthe mind of delusion, lives here and constantly takes pleasure in sitting
in meditation around mountains. Therefore, how can he find time topropagate this sutra in the world?”4 This interpretation takes into
account that the Lotus SËtra emphasizes the propagation of the sutra
after the passing away of Íåkyamuni. Secondly, the term “one greatvehicle” does not appear in other annotations.5 Since the Lotus SËtra
expounds the theory of the one vehicle of the Buddha (i.e., the teachingthat all persons can equally attain Buddhahood, irrespective of any distinctions made by voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones or bodhisattvas),
the word “one” was placed before the “great vehicle” to separate it fromthe idea of a differentiation into a great and a lesser vehicle as done inprevious Mahāyāna Buddhism.6

34

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANCOPYING OF AND LECTURING ON THE LOTUS SŪTRA
The earliest mention of this practice in Japan is in 673 in Kawara-dera
temple when the copying of all the sutras began. The Lotus SËtra was
first copied in the third year of Jinki (726)7 when Emperor ShØmu
ordered a copy to be dedicated to the retired Emperor GenshØ. The factthat the Emperor ShØmu ordered 1,000 copies of the Lotus SËtra to bemade in the 20th year of TempyØ (748) in memory of the late retired
Emperor GenshØ is worth a special mention. Since the Lotus SËtra
teaches the virtue of the five kinds of teachers who embrace, read,recite, expound and copy, the copying of the Lotus SËtra became very
popular practice in India and China. It also became popular in Japan tothe extent that obscure priests, laymen and even emperors became
engaged in it, resulting in numerous copies of the Lotus SËtra.
During the Heian period (794–1185), in particular, it became a fashion among the nobility to make splendid decorated sutras. The LotusSËtra was copied on deep blue colored paper with gold paint. It wasalso copied on paper which had pictures of grass, trees, birds and otherdesigns, which are deemed as works of high level artistry. The LotusSËtra was also copied with each character enthroned on a lotus pedestal
or in a pagoda, or with each character copied alongside Buddhist statues. Such works of copying encouraged in the Lotus SËtra give us a
glimpse of the believers’ unparalleled pious devotion. In particular, fanshaped booklets of the Lotus SËtra (a national treasure preserved inShitennØ-ji temple) and a set of the Lotus SËtra dedicated by Taira no
Kiyomori8 (1118–1181) to Itsukushima Shrine (a national treasure) areconsidered to be among the most splendid works of Japanese art.
In the latter part of the Heian period, under the influence of eschatology, the custom of burying9 sutras became a common practice. It was a
tradition to copy the Lotus SËtra, put it into tubes and bury them under
the ground to prepare for the advent of Bodhisattva Maitreya, who wasbelieved to come down to this world 5,670 million years after the deathof Íåkyamuni to preach the three assemblies of the dragon trees.
An overwhelming majority of the sutras that were buried were copiesof the Lotus SËtra. It is well known, for example, that Fujiwara no
Michinaga (966–1027) buried the Lotus SËtra, copied on deep blue colored paper with gold paint, in the Kinpusen Mountain in Yamato.
When the Grand Council of State issued a notice requesting priests torecite the Lotus SËtra or the Sovereign Kings SËtra of Golden Light(KonkØmyØ-saishØ-Ø-kyØ), it was a requisite that priests acquire generalknowledge of the Lotus SËtra. In the 13th year of TempyØ (741),

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN35

Emperor ShØmu ordered the building of Kokubun-ji temple andKokubunni-ji temple for surmounting national crises such as the prevalence of plagues and the worsening of relations between Japan andSilla. The official name of Kokubun-ji temple was designated asKonkØmyØ ShitennØ Gokoku no Tera, and 20 priests were dispatched
there and ordered to recite the Sovereign Kings SËtra of Golden Light topray for the protection of the nation. The official name of Kokubunni-ji
temple was Hokke Metsuzai no Tera. 10 nuns were dispatched there andordered to recite the Lotus SËtra for the expiation of sins. Although
there are no sections where the protection of the state is directly mentioned in the Lotus SËtra, it was regarded as an important sutra by
Kokubunni-ji temple (a state religion), and was officially authorized by
the state as one of the three sutras to be recited for the protection of thenation along with the Sovereign Kings SËtra of Golden Light and the
Benevolent Kings Wisdom SËtra (Ninn ō-gokoku-hannya-haramitsukyō).
Thus, copying and reciting of the Lotus SËtra prevailed during the
Nara and Heian periods and, along with this phenomenon, assemblies
for preaching the Lotus SËtra were held more frequently. It was at Kenjaku Monastery in the premises of TØdai-ji temple in the 18th year of
TempyØ (746) that RØben (689–773), for the first time, preached theLotus SËtra in an assembly. Assemblies on the Lotus SËtra thereafter
were held very frequently for the repose of the souls of the dead. GonsØ
(754–827) first preached the eight volumes of the Lotus SËtra for eightdays each for the repose of the soul of the mother of his friend, thepriest EikØ, at Iwabuchi-dera temple in Yamato in the 15th year of
Enryaku (796). This is the beginning of Hokke-hakkØ (eight lectures on
the Lotus SËtra). Hokke-hakkØ became the most popular assembly heldat temples, private residences of the nobility and in shrines during the
Heian period. Hokke-jukkØ (10 lectures on the Lotus SËtra) was firstinitiated by SaichØ, who explained and preached the 10 volumes of the
Lotus SËtra including the Immeasurable Meanings SËtra (Muryōgikyō), the prologue to the Lotus SËtra, and the Universal Worthy SËtra
(i.e., the SËtra of Meditation on Bodhisattva Fugen), the epilogue of the
Lotus SËtra, in the 17th year of Enryaku (798) at IchijØ-shikan
Monastery located on Mt. Hiei. Thereafter, Hokke-sanjukkØ (30 lectures on the Lotus SËtra) also started to be held, with the addition of thetwo sutras of the prologue and epilogue to the 28 chapters of the LotusSËtra.
This concludes my discussion on the copying of and lecturing on the
Lotus SËtra by emperors, the nobility and priests of high positions. I

36

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANshall now discuss devotional copying and recitation of the Lotus SËtra
by the common people, as mentioned in the Nihon-ryØiki (NihonkokugenpØ-zen’aku-ryØiki) compiled by KyØkai, a Buddhist priest ofYakushi-ji temple. This is the earliest Japanese collection of Buddhist
moral tales, said to have been compiled during the KØnin period(810–824), which consists of three volumes (35 tales in the first volume, 42 in the second, and 39 in the third, respectively). Among them
there are 12 tales10 whose titles bear the name of the Lotus SËtra. They
preach the virtue of faith in the Lotus SËtra as well as the punishment
incurred for the slander of the sutra. Since SaichØ founded the Japanese
Tiantai sect, the Lotus SËtra became all the more enthusiasticallyreceived by the common people, which led to the writing of Japanesecollections of Buddhist moral tales. Among them are the Nihon-ØjØgokuraku-ki (compiled by Yoshishige no Yasutane in approximately986), the Dai-nihonkoku-hokekyØ-genki (compiled by ShuryØgon-inshamon Chingen in approximately 1004) and the Konjaku-monogatari(the mid-12th century; compiler unknown). These works enable one tolearn about the history of the majority of the common people’s faith inthe Lotus SËtra.
THE FOUNDATION OF THE JAPANESE TIANTAI SECT BY SAICHŌDuring the Nara period (710–794), not only was the MyØhØ-renge-kyØ(Miaofa lianhua jing), translated in 406 by Kumåraj¥va (344–413 or
350–409), introduced to Japan, but the ShØhoke-kyØ (Zhengfa hua jing),
translated in 286 by Dharmaraksa. (c. 230s; died age 78), and the Tempon-myØhØ-renge-kyØ (Tianpin miaofa lianhua jing), translated in 601
by Jñånagupta (523–605) and Dharmagupta (d. 619), were also introduced into Japan. Moreover, numerous annotations were also introduced.11 Ganjin (688–763), in particular, introduced the three major
writings of Tiantai and many other documents of the Chinese Tiantai
sect to Japan.12
SaichØ became interested in the teachings of the Chinese Tiantai sectthrough the Kegon-gokyØ-shØ (a five-fascicle of the five kinds of teaching classified by the Kegon sect) and the DaijØ-kishin-ron-giki (a threeor five-fascicle annotation on the DaijØ-kishin-ron) by Fazang(637–714) of the Kegon (Huayan) sect in China. After completing his
studies of the documents introduced by Ganjin, he went to China in
804. He returned to Japan after he had learned the teachings of Tiantai
under the guidance of Daosui and Xingman. In 806, the court permitted
SaichØ to take in two priests every year and authorized his school as an

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN

37

independent Tiantai sect along with six other sects of Nara. Particularly
noteworthy among his achievements were the disputes against Tokuichi
of the HossØ sect on the doctrine of the three provisional teachings andthe one true teaching, and against the six sects of Nara about the establishment of a Mahåyåna ordination center at Mt. Hiei. The dispute with
Tokuichi concerned the theory of the “one Buddha vehicle” of the LotusSËtra versus the respective doctrines of the five groups of the HossØ
sect. SaichØ claimed the superiority of the universal Buddha nature andthe possibility of anyone attaining Buddhahood according to his perception of the doctrine of the “one Buddha vehicle” of the Lotus SËtra.
One of the major works on the Lotus SËtra by SaichØ is the DaitØshiragi-shoshË-gisho-ehyØ-tendai-gishË (Classification of the Schools
Based on Tiantai’s Doctrine in Great China and Silla), in which heindicates that numerous Buddhist masters in China and Silla founded
their schools based on Tiantai’s doctrines, thus claiming the superiorityof the Tiantai sect.
In his writing, the Hokke-shËku (The Outstanding Principles of the
Lotus SËtra), SaichØ insists that the Lotus SËtra is the most superior
among all sutras because it offers a direct means to enable one to attain
Buddhahood in one’s present form in contrast to other sutras which
require lengthy ascetic practices over a span of many kalpas. His otherwritings include an annotation on the Immeasurable Meanings SËtra
(the prologue to the Lotus SËtra). Although it is said that he wrote anannotation on the Lotus SËtra, it is no longer in existence.
THE LOTUS SŪTRA AND ITS LITERATURE
One can see traces of widespread faith in the Lotus SËtra as recorded in
the aforementioned Nihon-ØjØ-gokuraku-ki, Dai-nihonkoku-hokekyØgenki and Konjyaku-monogatari. These writings clearly indicate thetremendous influence of the Lotus SËtra on literature. Moreover, onewill note the emergence of literature by woman authors such as the
Makura-no-sØshi (The Pillow Book in approximately 1000) by SeishØ
Nagon, the Genji-monogatari (The Tale of Genji in approximately
1005) by Murasaki Shikibu, and others. These are evidence of the LotusSËtra’s tremendous influence on the religious life of the people.
One must mention the ShakkyØ-ka (a 31-syllable Japanese poem on
the theme of Buddhism) as one example of Japanese literature directlybased on materials taken from the Lotus SËtra.13 We can find some
ShakkyØ-ka in the ShËi-waka-shË (a collection entitled ShËi consistingof a 31-syllable Japanese poem compiled in approximately 1001–1005),

38

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANwhich are based on materials taken from the Lotus SËtra. In 1002,
around the time when the ShËi-waka-shË was compiled, Fujiwara no
Michinaga composed some waka poems with his colleagues for therepose of the soul of his sister, Higashi-sanjØ-in Senshi. Since then, it
became fashionable to compose waka poems on the themes of the 28
chapters of the Lotus SËtra. The Hosshin-waka-shË, compiled by Senshi-nai-shinnØ (964–1035), is a collection of only ShakkyØ-ka, andmore than half of them are based on themes of the Lotus SËtra.
In the Go-shËi-waka-shË (compiled in 1086), classification into two
items, the ShakkyØ and the Jingi (God of Heaven and God of the Earth)
were initiated. In the Senzai-waka-shË (compiled in 1187), we can see
an independent part of ShakkyØ being established for the first time. It issaid that about one third of ShakkyØ-ka are related to the Lotus SËtra.14
The retired Emperor Goshirakawa (1127–1192) ordered the compilation of the RyØjin-hishØ (a collection of Ima-yØ, a Japanese poem with abasic form of four lines with seven-five syllables or eight-five syllableseach) in which are found 135 waka poems based on materials from theLotus SËtra.
NICHIREN AND THE LOTUS S ŪTRA
Nichiren, while accepting the trend of the holders of the Lotus SËtra
during the Heian period,15 established his own concept of chanting
daimoku (the Japanese title of the Lotus SËtra with the word “namu” inthe beginning). In contrast to the widespread faith in the Nembutsu sect(the invocation of the name of Amitåbha Buddha) by the common people of China, the practice of the chanting of daimoku flourished tomatch the faith in Nembutsu by the Japanese common people. Also, the
new sects that appeared in Japan were mostly based on the concepts of
the Lotus SËtra. These facts indicate that this trend was based on
Nichiren’s origination of the invocation of the daimoku.
While daimoku and honzon (the object of worship) are the mostessential aspects of Nichiren’s thought, he directed his attention to thetheory of ichinen-sanzen (three thousand realms in a single moment ofmind) as the theoretical basis of his doctrine. To Nichiren, it was thevitally important theory of ichinen-sanzen that linked himself with
Zhiyi (another name for Tiantai, 538–598) and Íåkyamuni of the LotusSËtra, manifesting that the three were in line with the orthodox history
of Buddhism.
Nichiren’s interpretation of ichinen-sanzen can be summarized as fol-THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN39

lows. Historically speaking, although it was Zhiyi who first expounded
the theory of ichinen-sanzen in his Great Concentration and Insight(Mohe zhiguan), Nichiren states that ichinen-sanzen was originally
expounded in the Lotus SËtra, and that Zhiyi merely drew it out fromthe Lotus SËtra. Since ichinen-sanzen is the principle by which anyone
can attain Buddhahood, it was expressed as the “seed of Buddhahood.”
Nichiren established Nam-myØhØ-renge-kyØ in the Latter Day of the
Law as the medium to interpret the principle of ichinen-sanzen. Furthermore, as ichinen-sanzen also enables non-sentient beings to attain Buddhahood, it was established as the object of worship or mandala. Thus,
we can understand that ichinen-sanzen was explained and taught
through the means of the object of worship and daimoku of NammyØhØ-renge-kyØ, the original interpretation of Nichiren.
Needless to say, Nichiren’s interpretation of ichinen-sanzen is notthat of Zhiyi, but his own original concept called ji-no-ichinen-sanzen(actual ichinen-sanzen).16 In studying the characteristics of Nichiren’s
reception of the Lotus SËtra, it is requisite that one studies how
Nichiren interpreted the mainstream concept of the Lotus SËtra of India.
I would like to comprehend the mainstream concept of the Lotus SËtra
from three angles.17 The first is the concept of the “one Buddha vehicle”
that teaches that all sentient beings can equally attain Buddhahood. The
second is the theory of the eternal existence of Íåkyamuni and that he is
the Eternal Buddha who attained Buddhahood in the remote past and is
the only and absolute savior of all sentient beings in the sahå world.
The third is the concept that the Bodhisattvas of the Earth are the successors of the Lotus SËtra after the passing away of Íåkyamuni. In conclusion, it can be said that the theories of Nichiren, which are beyond
time and space, are in closest connection to the three main thoughts of
the Lotus SËtra.
Nichiren and the Concept of the “One Buddha Vehicle”
The concept of the “one Buddha vehicle” means that Íåkyamuni
appeared in this sahå world for the sole and lofty purpose of enabling
all sentient beings to equally attain Buddhahood. There are two important aspects in this concept. One is the teaching that all sentient beings
can equally attain Buddhahood. The second is the teaching that stresses
the importance of the advent of Íåkyamuni as the savior.
The former point, which is to enable all beings to attain Buddhahood,does not need any further explanation as it was easily understood bythose who recited the Lotus SËtra in China and Japan. Nichiren’s recep-

40

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANtion and development of the teaching that all people can attain Buddhahood was inherited from Zhiyi’s theory of ichinen-sanzen. As for thelatter teaching, the significance of Íåkyamuni’s advent for the purposeof enabling all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood, it can be said that
Nichiren’s religious piety enabled him to accept this as it is. The importance of the close relationship between the Buddha and the common
mortal as expressed in the principles of geshu-yaku (benefit received
from sowing the seed of Buddhahood), the juku-yaku (the benefit
received from the seed maturing) and the datchaku (the benefit received
from the seed being harvested) revealed by Tiantai, was strongly
stressed by Nichiren far beyond comparison to Tiantai.
There is a concept derived from the aforementioned theory, which iscalled Nichiren no Shakuson-goryØ-kan which means Nichiren’s viewthat Íåkyamuni dominates the world. This view is based on the thirdchapter of the Lotus SËtra, “Simile and Parable,” which states: “Butnow this threefold world is all my domain, and the living beings in it are
all my children. Now this place is beset by many pains and trials. I am
the only person who can rescue and protect others.”18 In other words, itteaches that this sahā world is Íåkyamuni’s domain and, therefore, there
is a deep religious connection between Íåkyamuni and all sentient
beings. Based on this theory, Nichiren criticizes the Pure Land sect,saying that because Amitåbha Buddha (the Buddha of Infinite Light) of
the pure land of the highest joy in the west has no connection withhuman beings living in the sahā world, faith in Amitåbha Buddha is off
the point, and further criticizes it, saying that faith in Amitåbha Buddha
only makes light of the true master Íåkyamuni. In addition, Nichiren’s
criticism of the Tathågata Mahåvairocana as the Buddha of the dharma
body of the Shingon sect is also based on the same view.
Nichiren and the Concept of the Eternal Buddha from the Remotest Past
As for the concept of the eternal Buddha from the remotest past, onemust mention that Nichiren made a clear distinction between the theoretical teaching (shakumon) and the essential teaching (honmon) of the
Lotus SËtra and that he particularly emphasized the importance of thelatter. He pointed out, for example, that the theory of ichinen-sanzen,
which is a systematic thought on the ten factors expounded in the second chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “Expedient Means,” can never be ultimately complete until the meaning of the essential teaching is taught.
Furthermore, in the “True Object of Worship,” Nichiren explains Buddhahood as he refers to the name associated with Íåkyamuni in the
remote past as mushi no kobutsu. He never uses such universal, abstract

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN

41

or immanent terms as “Buddha nature” mentioned in the Nirvaˆa SËtra
of the great vehicle. In his writings, we can easily comprehend
Nichiren’s fervent faith in Íåkyamuni of the remotest past.
Nichiren and the Concept of the Bodhisattvas of the EarthWith regard to Nichiren and the concept of the Bodhisattvas of the
Earth, it is a well-known fact that, from the standpoint of the realizationthat he was a Bodhisattva of the Earth, Nichiren lived his life as the“votary of the Lotus SËtra.” The Bodhisattvas of the Earth are expounded in the 14th chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “Emerging from the Earth.”
They emerged from the earth as the successors of the Lotus SËtra after
the passing away of Íåkyamuni.
At the beginning of this chapter, innumerable bodhisattvas far outnumbering the sands of eight Ganges, who came from other lands, vow
to propagate the Lotus SËtra after the passing away of Íåkyamuni.
However, Íåkyamuni refuses their vow for the reason that there existed
in the sahå world other bodhisattvas equal to the number of the sands of
60 thousand Ganges, and that they were the very ones who possessed
the mission to propagate the Lotus SËtra. Just then, those bodhisattvas
emerged from the earth through a cleft in the ground. When Bodhisattva
Maitreya and the bodhisattvas as many as the number of the sands ofeight thousand Ganges saw these bodhisattvas never seen or heard of
before, they were in doubt and inquired who they were. Íåkyamuni
replied that they were disciples whom he had taught since his attaining
Buddhahood. Bodhisattva Maitreya, still not convinced how Íåkyamuni
could have taught so many disciples in the short period (some 40 years)
after attaining Buddhahood, continued to beg Íåkyamuni to relieve himfrom his doubt. In response to this request, Íåkyamuni reveals the concept of the Buddha who attained Buddhahood in the remote past, astaught in the 16th chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “The Life Span of theThus Come One.” The “Emerging from the Earth” chapter does not give
sufficient explanation on the characteristics of the Bodhisattvas of the
Earth. In fact, one should refer to the 10th chapter, “The Teacher of theLaw,” for explanations on who these successors of the Lotus SËtra wereafter the passing of the Buddha.
In conclusion, those who embrace faith in the Lotus SËtra are
believed to have already attained true Enlightenment in their past life,and yet out of deep compassion they relinquished the fruit of their goodkarma and voluntarily chose to be born in this evil world to propagate
the Lotus SËtra. They, therefore, do not seek to attain Enlightenment
through their own efforts, nor do they seek to be saved by an absolute

42

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANsavior.19 They strongly bear in mind their true identity that they havealready attained Enlightenment in their past life and have been born into
this evil world at their own will to propagate the Lotus SËtra for thesake of all sentient beings in the evil world, and thus feel satisfied byfulfilling their mission. Herein lies an extremely interesting religious
theory. Therefore, with regard to their mission in this life, they declarethat they are envoys of the Tathågatha, or Buddha, dispatched by theTathågatha to undertake the task of the Tathågatha, which is to save allsentient beings by preaching the Lotus SËtra.
One can say that the key phrase that reveals Nichiren’s view of the
Lotus SËtra is “the envoy of the Tathågatha,” which appears in “The
Teacher of the Law” chapter of the Lotus SËtra. The reason for this isbecause it can be said that Nichiren used this term to express his awareness of being the Bodhisattva of the Earth. Nichiren interprets the timespan after the passing away of Íåkyamuni as the Latter Day of the Law,during which he will live as the rebirth of Bodhisattva Superior Practices, the leader of bodhisattvas equal in number to the sands of 60
thousand Ganges. Namely, he recognizes himself as the savior of all
sentient beings in the Latter Day of the Law.
Although most Buddhists in China and Japan seem to interpret thestory of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth as a myth taught in the LotusSËtra, Nichiren, as mentioned above, interpreted them as real happenings in history.20 In this way, Nichiren can be said to be a pure-minded
and unaffected practitioner of the Lotus SËtra. When viewed from areligious point, this aspect of him, in fact, shows us what a tremendously interesting character and philosophy he possessed. The same could
be said of not only his interpretation of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth
but also of shakuson-goryØ-kan, or of Íåkyamuni who attained Enlightenment in the remote past.
The Circumstances that Formed Nichiren’s Interpretationof the Lotus Sūtra
Nichiren placed great importance on the essential theory of the Eternal
Buddha and the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, which are still often madelight of. I would like to examine the reasons that made this possible for
Nichiren. At the time the Lotus SËtra was compiled, it can be presumed
that the followers of the Lotus SËtra were under strained relations withNikåya Buddhism. The same could be said of his isolation from the
Buddhist society in those days due to his religious activities. Regardlessof time and place, criticizing existing, preconceived ideas and callingfor new ones is like throwing oneself into difficulty. This is a lesson his-THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN

43

tory repeatedly teaches. Even though the minor persecutions incurredby HØnen (1133–1212), who was the target of Nichiren’s severest criticism, are incomparable to those suffered by Nichiren, it is still a historical fact that HØnen was persecuted by the authorities. It is presumed
that Nichiren being isolated only triggered him to long for the advent of
the absolute savior and to deepen his self-awareness as the Bodhisattvaof the Earth.
Nichiren’s claim that the Lotus SËtra was the highest teaching and hisrefusal to take into account other teachings put him in the same category as those followers who, when the Lotus SËtra was compiled, claimed
that only the Lotus SËtra could save all sentient beings. Nichiren’s interpretation differs much from those of the Chinese annotators who were
obliged to annotate numerous sutras in the framework of an organic system.
It may be said that at the time of completion of the compilation of the
Lotus SËtra, the faith of these numerous compilers and successors had
been reduced to an empty shell in the process of its academic reception
in China. In contrast to this, Nichiren’s unique and personal view of the
Lotus SËtra revived it.
With the confidence gained by not only studying the Lotus SËtra withhis mind but by “living” the teachings of the Lotus SËtra and his confidence in declaring that he was the “votary of the Lotus SËtra,” we cansafely conclude that he was the sole person who accepted the essential
theory of the Lotus SËtra in the true sense and developed it. One canreasonably say that the many contemporary religious activities based on
the Lotus SËtra are all ultimately derived from Nichiren.
Notes
1This paper does not include periods after the Muromachi. The following are believers of the Nichiren Hokke sect from later periods who were related to arts and the performing arts: KanØ Motonobu (1476–1559), Hasegawa TØhaku (1539–1610), Hon’inbØ
Nichikai (1555–1618), Hon’ami KØetsu (1558–1637), KanØ Tan’yË (1602–1674),
Chikamatsu Monzaemon (1653–1724), Hishikawa Moronobu (1618–1694), Ihara
Saikaku (1642–1693), Ogata KØrin (1658–1716), Jippensha Ikku (1765–1831), Nakamura Utaemon III (1778–1838), Katsushika Hokusai (1760–1849) cf. YojØ Nomura,Nichiren-kei-geijutsuka-ryakuden (Short Biography of the Artists Related to the
Nichiren Sect), Nichiren and the Lotus SËtra, Lectures on Nichiren, vol.1, Tokyo:
Shunjūsha, 1972. However, it is not clear how strong their faith was.
2
On the genuineness of Hokke-gisho, cf. Hiroshi Kanno, “SangyØ-gisho-no-shingimondai-ni-tsuite (On the Genuineness of the Three Commentaries)”, compiled by the
Okura Institute of Spiritual Culture, Comprehensive Study on Asuka Culture, Tokyo:
Kokusho KankØkai, 1989. For the “Hokke-gisho,” the following were used as reference: Gyobutsu-bon-Hokke-gisho-fukusei-bon (A Facsimile of the Hokke-Gisho, Imperi-

44

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANal Household), Tokyo: Yoshikawa KØbunkan, 1971. Hokke-gisho in TaishØ-shinshËdaizØ-kyo vol. 56, Tokyo: Society for the Publication of the Taisho Tripitaka, 1926.
Translation; edited and translated by ShinshØ Hanayama, Hokke-gisho vol. 1–2, Tokyo:
Iwanami Bunko, (old edition in 1931–1933, new edition 1975). Research works:
ShinshØ Hanayama, A Study on Hokke-gisho of Prince ShØtoku, Tokyo: SankibØBusshorin, 1933. Compiled by Hisatoyo Ishida, An Encyclopaedia on Prince ShØtoku,
Tokyo: Kashiwa ShobØ, 1997.
3
cf. Translated and noted by Hiroshi Kanno, Hokke-giki, Collections of Annotationsof the Lotus SËtra vol. 2, Tokyo: Okura Publishing Co., 1996.
4
cf. TaishØ-shinshË-daizØ-kyØ, vol. 56, p. 118 mid.
5
One must be careful to conclude that the term “one great vehicle” was originatedby the author of Hokke-gisho and take into consideration that many annotations werelost in China.
6
ShinshØ Hanayama had already pointed out these two points in his Hokke-gisho
vol. 2, 1975, pp. 407–8.
7
cf. Yutaka Takagi, A History of Hokke Buddhism in the Heian Period, Kyoto:
Heirakuji Shoten, 1973, p. 193. Much reference is made to the fourth chapter of thebook: “Origin and Development of Lecture Courses on the Lotus SËtra.”8
Each chapter of the Lotus SËtra can be regarded as one volume. Including one volume each of the Immeasurable Meanings SËtra, the Universal Worthy SËtra, theAmitåbha SËtra, the Heart SËtra and the Verse of Vows it reaches a total of 33 volumes.
9
In the Verse of Taking Vows of Nanyue Huisi (515–577) of China, it is recordedthat he buried the Great Wisdom SËtra and the Lotus SËtra written in golden letters. It issaid that En’nin (794–864) introduced this custom to Japan.
10
cf. Nihon-ryØiki, (Nihon-koten-bungaku-taikei 70), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1967.
11
cf. Mosaku Ishida, ShakyØ-yori-mitaru-nara-chØ-bukkyØ-no-kenkyË (A Study of
Buddhism in Nara Period from the View of the Copying of Sutras), Tokyo: TØyØBunko, 1930, pp. 136–146.
12
ibid. pp. 32–41.
13
Dai-sØjØ (Archbishop) GyØki composed a ShakkyØ-ka poem based on the contentsof the “Devadatta” chapter, the 12th chapter of the Lotus SËtra as follows: “I received
the Lotus SËtra because of my service to Devadatta in the past by gathering firewood,
picking vegetables and drawing water.” On waka poems of the Lotus SËtra, cf. Yutaka
Takagi, the HokekyØ-waka-to-hØmonka (Waka Poems and HØmonka on the LotusSËtra), the fifth chapter of A History of Hokke Buddhism in the Heian Period.
14
cf. Tadayuki Nishida, “Lotus SËtra and Japanese Literature,” The Journal of Oriental Studies (a separate volume): A Collection of Lectures at Buddhist University vol. 8,
Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Philosophy, 1978, p. 64.
15
Concerning the holders of the Lotus SËtra, cf. “On Religious Activities of Holdersof Sutras” in the seventh chapter of A History of Hokke Buddhism in the Heian Period.
16
cf. Hiroshi Kanno, “Nichiren’s Reception and Development of Ichinen-sanzen,” thethird chapter of What is Ichinen-sanzen, Tokyo: the Daisan Bunmei Sha, 1992.
17
cf. Hiroshi Kanno, “The Essential Concept of the Lotus SËtra and its Development
in China and Japan” in the second chapter of the Emergence of the Lotus SËtra, Tokyo:DaizØ Publishing Co., 1997. The writer states that the early Mahåyåna Buddhist sutras
could be seen as a new interpretation of the Buddha’s life and thought (ibid., p. 13). I
think this description is especially appropriate for the Lotus SËtra. The most significant

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPAN45

events in the Buddha’s life are his attainment of Buddhahood, the request of Brahmå,his first preaching and his nirvåˆa at the age of 80. In Buddhism, needless to say, everything begins with his Enlightenment. Moreover Buddhism could not have been formed
if the Enlightenment of the Buddha was not been taught through speech. ThereforeÍåkyamuni’s first preaching based on the request of Brahmå is naturally very significant. Since then he never ceased to preach for more than 40 years until he enterednirvåˆa at the age of 80.
In the Lotus SËtra, Íåkyamuni either interprets or adds explanations to the significant
events in his life, that is, his attaining Enlightenment, the request of Brahmā, his firstpreaching and his nirvåˆa at the age of 80. At first his attaining of Enlightenment was
regarded as the Enlightening to the saddhamma (correct law). The Lotus SËtra adopted
the event of the Enlightening to the saddhamma (Påli for saddharma in Sanskrit) as thetitle of the Lotus SËtra (Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra) and recognized itself as thesupreme and ultimate law preached by all Buddhas in common.
Next, the second chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “Expedient Means,” contains the request
made by Íåriputra in accordance with the request of Brahmå. Íåkyamuni complies withthis request by expounding the “one Buddha vehicle.” This is in perfect accordancewith the first preaching. The preaching is clearly defined as Íåkyamuni’s second
preaching of the supreme law in the Lotus SËtra. The term “the second preaching” isnot only found in the Lotus SËtra but in other Mahåyåna sutras as well. This fact is aclear evidence that the compilers of Mahåyåna sutras were well aware of their dependence on the second preaching, while sutras of early Buddhism were based on the firstpreaching. The 16th chapter of the Lotus SËtra, “The Life Span of the Thus Come
One,” gave a new interpretation of his nirvåˆa. It states, “as an expedient means I
appear to enter nirvana” (tr. by B. Watson, The Lotus SËtra, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, p. 229). In other words, this theory expounds that while Íåkyamuni
possesses an eternal life, as a skillful means to save all sentient beings, he provisionallyenters the state of nirvåˆa.
As mentioned above, the Lotus SËtra is structured around the significant events inÍåkyamuni’s life. This is in contrast with other Mahåyåna sutras which were based onstories of other Buddhas or bodhisattvas in order to save all sentient beings. In this way,
one can say that only the Lotus SËtra was based on the historical Buddha who actuallyexisted and had as its main theme the eternal Buddha who appeared to save all sentient
beings of the sahå world.
18
Tr. by Burton Watson, The Lotus Sutra, pp. 69–70. cf. TaishØ-shinshū-daizØ-kyØ,vol. 9, p. 14 lower column.
19
My two descriptions of “the significance of the existence of the Buddha, the savior”
and “they do not seek to be saved by the absolute savior” are easily misunderstood to becontradictory to each other. My intent was to clarify that the Bodhisattvas of the Earthwould fulfill their past vows supported by the great power of the Buddha, the savior. I
would like to take this opportunity to mention the relationship between the difficult-topractice way and the easy-to-practice way mentioned in the Mahåyåna sutras. In my
opinion, the Mahåyåna sutras were brought to existence by those followers of Buddhism who diligently performed their religious practice to attain Enlightenment in exact
accordance with the historical Buddha. On the other hand, there must have been numerous sentient beings who were not religiously trained enough to be saved. Therefore, theMahåyåna sutras expounded the difficult-to-practice way for the former and the easy-topractice way for the latter. In my opinion, the mutual relationship of these dual natures

46

THE RECEPTION OF THE LOTUS SUTRA IN JAPANof practice is that the easy-to-practice way would be an introductory to Buddhism andthe difficult-to-practice way would be the practice that would lead a person to deepen
their resolve to attain Enlightenment.
20
His view can be compared to that of the Pure Land sect whose followers were convinced that the pure land existed in the west and that Amitåbha Buddha lived there. On
the other hand, a distinguished difference with Nichiren is that he perceived himself tobe the mythical figure in the sutra.

The research for this article was pursued, in part, through the support
of a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(c) of the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Science, Sports and Culture.