Placing Nichiren In The “Big Picture”
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1999 26/3–4Placing Nichiren in the “Big Picture”Some Ongoing Issues in ScholarshipJacqueline I. STONEThis article places Nichiren within the context of three larger scholarlyissues: de³nitions of the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period;the reception of the Tendai discourse of original enlightenment (hongaku)among the new Buddhist movements; and new attempts, emerging in themedieval period, to locate “Japan” in the cosmos and in history. It showshow Nichiren has been represented as either politically conservative or radical, marginal to the new Buddhism or its paradigmatic ³gure, dependingupon which model of “Kamakura new Buddhism” is employed. It alsoshows how the question of Nichiren’s appropriation of original enlightenment thought has been inµuenced by models of Kamakura Buddhismemphasizing the polarity between “old” and “new” institutions and suggests a different approach. Lastly, it surveys some aspects of Nichiren’sthinking about “Japan” for the light they shed on larger, emergent medievaldiscourses of Japan’s religiocosmic signi³cance, an issue that cuts acrossthe “old Buddhism”/“new Buddhism” divide.Keywords: Nichiren — Tendai — original enlightenment —Kamakura Buddhism — medieval Japan — shinkokuFOR THIS ISSUE I was asked to write an overview of recent scholarshipon Nichiren. A comprehensive overview would exceed the scope ofone article. To provide some focus and also adumbrate the signi³cance of Nichiren studies to the broader ³eld of Japanese religions, Ihave chosen to consider Nichiren in the contexts of three larger areasof modern scholarly inquiry: “Kamakura new Buddhism,” its relationto Tendai original enlightenment thought, and new religiocosmological concepts of “Japan” that emerged in the medieval period. In thecase of the ³rst two areas—Kamakura new Buddhism and originalenlightenment thought—this article will address how some of themajor interpretive frameworks have shaped our view of Nichiren, andhow study of Nichiren has in turn affected larger scholarly pictures.
384Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/3–4Some assessment of current interpretations and alternative suggestionswill also be offered. Medieval concepts of Japan, however, representsan area where the importance of Nichiren has yet to be fully recognized,and this ³nal section of the article suggests the potential contributionto be made by an investigation of his thought in this regard.Nichiren and Kamakura BuddhismNo era in Japanese Buddhist history has received more scholarly attention than the Kamakura period (1185–1333). This was the time whenseveral of the Buddhist traditions most inµuential in Japan today—Zen, Pure Land, and Nichiren—had their institutional beginnings.Indeed, for many years, the study of Kamakura Buddhism was largelyequivalent to the study of sectarian origins. The last two decades, however, have seen a dramatic methodological shift, which in turn hasaffected scholarly readings of Nichiren.Beginning before the war, a major category in studies of KamakuraBuddhism was the “Kamakura new Buddhism” àVG[î—that is, themovements beginning with Hõnen, Shinran, Eisai, Dõgen, and Nichiren(Ippen is also sometimes included). Especially in the postwar period,the older institutionalized Buddhism from which these founders hademerged was treated primarily as the backdrop for their religious innovations. “Old Buddhism”—Tendai, Shingon, and the Nara schools—was regarded in the dominant postwar model of Kamakura Buddhismas a moribund remnant of the state Buddhism of the ritsuryõ Ai system, elitist, overly scholastic, and unable either to respond to the religious needs of the common people in the face of an alleged sense ofcrisis accompanying the arrival of the Final Dharma age (mappõ À)or to accommodate to rapid social change brought about by the riseof warrior power. In contrast, the new Kamakura Buddhist movementswere seen as egalitarian and lay oriented, offering easily accessiblereligious practices. They were often represented in a “Protestant”light, as having rejected worship of the myriad kami and the apotropaic rites of esoteric Buddhism. And, unlike the commitment of “oldBuddhism” to serving the state with its rituals of nation protection,the new Buddhism was deemed to have been concerned chieµy withindividual salvation. Postwar “new Buddhism”–centered models ofKamakura Buddhism were represented by such scholars as IenagaSaburõ and Inoue Mitsusada, for whom the exclusive Pure Landmovement was paradigmatic. This model often characterized Nichiren as an in-between ³gure who had not fully negotiated the transition from “old” to “new.” For Ienaga in particular, Nichiren’s belief in
STONE: Placing Nichiren in the “Big Picture”385the ef³cacy of ritual prayers (kitõ tô) and his concern with theJapanese kami placed him squarely in the lineage of “old Buddhism”;any “new Buddhist” elements in his teaching were due solely toHõnen’s inµuence (IENAGA 1947, pp. 96, 63). In particular, Ienaga sawhis emphasis on “nation protection” (chingo kokka D³B) as indistinguishable from that of Nara and Heian times, something that “presents a large obstacle to understanding Nichiren’s religion solely interms of the so-called new Buddhism” (p. 68). Ienaga is an outstanding scholar, and his work on Kamakura Buddhism, read critically, isstill useful today. Nonetheless, he was writing in the immediate postwar period, when conscientious scholars of Buddhism were just beginning to confront the troubling legacy of institutional Buddhism’srecent support for militant Japanese imperialism. In that context,Nichiren’s concern with the relationship between Buddhism and government could perhaps be seen only in a negative light.A major challenge to “new Buddhism”–centered models of Kamakura Buddhism came about through the work of the late historianKuroda Toshio (1926–1993), whose work is too famous to need muchdiscussion here (see DOBBINS 1996). Kuroda conclusively demonstratedthat the dominant forms of medieval Japanese Buddhism were not theKamakura new Buddhist movements, which did not attain signi³cantinstitutional presence until the late medieval period, but rather thetemple-shrine complexes of “old Buddhism.” Kuroda found that, farfrom being an ossi³ed remnant of Nara state Buddhism, these institutions had evolved distinctively medieval forms of organization, deriving their support, not from the imperial court, but from their ownextensive private estates or shõen vÓ. As major landholders, togetherwith the court and later the bushi Dw (warrior) leadership, these temple-shrine complexes emerged as one of the powerful kenmon or ruling elites that formed the joint system of medieval governance(kenmon taisei Ï–¿ ). As one of these powerful factions, the leadingBuddhist temples joined across sectarian lines to form a distinctive ritual and ideological system that Kuroda called the kenmitsu taiseißO¿ —a fusion of the exoteric doctrines of particular Buddhistschools with a shared body of esoteric ritual that provided both thaumaturgical support and religious legitimization for existing rule. Kenmitsu Buddhism, Kuroda argued, over whelmingly representedorthodoxy (seitõ j) for the period. Within this overarching system,the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period were meremarginal heterodoxies (itan b2).Kuroda’s work produced a revolution in scholarly approaches tomedieval Japanese religion. He shifted attention away from the longstanding approaches of doctrinal and sectarian history to focus on the
386Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/3–4political, economic, ideological, and other previously neglecteddimensions of the ³eld. He transcended an earlier emphasis on individual sects by noting underlying structures that cut across traditions,such as the exo-esoteric fusion (kenmitsu); discourse of the mutualdependence of imperial law and Buddhism (õbõ buppõ sõi ron À[ÀoSÇ); or the honji-suijaku ûGs) logic that identi³ed kami as thelocal manifestations of buddhas and bodhisattvas, thus enabling theincorporation of spirit cults and kami worship within the kenmitsu system. The implications of his work have yet to be fully explored. Kurodahimself did not study Nichiren in any detail, but his understanding ofthe new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period as small heterodox movements de³ning themselves over and against the dominantreligiopolitical establishment opened a new perspective from whichNichiren might be reconsidered. Here we will brieµy consider someaspects of the work of Sasaki Kaoru and Satõ Hiroo, two scholars whohave focused on Nichiren in this light.NICHIREN AS “ANTIESTABLISHMENT”Sasaki Kaoru has built upon Kuroda’s work to clarify the nature of thedominant religious establishment against which the new movements,including Nichiren’s, were reacting. He argues that Kuroda’s categoryof kenmitsu taisei typi³es the religious institutions of Kyoto aristocratsbut is not adequate to describe the religious support structure of theKamakura Bakufu, which developed its own religious policy. Sasakiaccordingly introduces the concept of zenmitsu shugi 7Oü–, a religious ideology composed of Zen and esoteric elements stemmingfrom the activities of those Zen monks and mikkyõ ritual specialistswho provided the Bakufu with religious support. The Buddhism bolstering the established system of rule (taisei Bukkyõ ¿ [î) can thusbe divided into that of the court aristocracy and that of the leadingKamakura bushi. Over and against this dominant “establishment Buddhism,” Sasaki sets up two further categories: antiestablishment Buddhism (han-taisei Bukkyõ ‚¿ [î), or those who de³ned themselvesover and against the dominant religious system, and “transestablishmentBuddhism” (chõ-taisei Bukkyõ ¿ [î), or those whose religion wasde³ned independently of the tension between the other two (SASAKI1988, 1997).One of the most striking features of Sasaki’s work on Nichiren is hisanalysis of how Nichiren gradually shifted, over the course of his life,from an “establishment” to an “antiestablishment” position. As othershave noted, Nichiren in the early stages of his career was very muchself-identi³ed with “old Buddhism” or the kenmitsu of Tendai (KAWAZOE 1955–1956; IKEGAMI 1976; SATÕ 1978). His criticism of Hõnen’s
STONE: Placing Nichiren in the “Big Picture”387exclusive nenbutsu was launched from this kenmitsu standpoint. Nichirensaw himself as a successor to Myõe gˆ and others of the establishedBuddhist schools who had written critiques of Hõnen’s Senchakushð*ãT (Shugo kokka ron !D³BÇ, STN 1: 90) and, contra Hõnen’sexclusive nenbutsu doctrine, still spoke at this stage of the esotericteachings and other Mah„y„na sutras, along with the Lotus Sðtra, asworthy teachings to be upheld. He also criticized the exclusive nenbutsumovement for undermining the Tendai economic base. But Nichiren’s early self-identi³cation was with the Tendai of Mt. Hiei, and relations between the Bakufu and Mt. Hiei were anything but cordial. TheBakufu had a number of Tendai monks in its service; for example, ofthe seventeen successive chief superintendents (bettõ ƒc) of Kamakura’s Tsurugaoka Hachiman Shrine Æþkg· who served between1180 and 1266, ten were Tendai monks. All, however, belonged to therival Tendai lineage of Onjõ-ji Óô , which had enjoyed a longstanding relationship with the Minamoto house. Bakufu religious policy, saysSASAKI (1997, pp. 405, 421–22), was informed by anti-Hiei sentiment—one reason, in his estimation, why Nichiren encountered persecution.Sasaki divides Nichiren’s thinking into three periods demarcated byhis exile to Sado Island: pre-Sado (up until 1271), Sado (1271–1274),and post-Sado (1274–1282), or the years of his retirement on Mt.Minobu. He traces Nichiren’s shift from an establishment to antiestablishment perspective through an exhaustive reading of his worksand collation of their internal evidence, focusing on Nichiren’s viewof the emperor and the Bakufu, his criticism of the esoteric teachings(mikkyõ), and his understanding of the kami (SASAKI 1997, pp. 287–415).In his early writings, Sasaki says, Nichiren saw the emperor or tennõúy as Japan’s actual ruler (jisshitsuteki kokushu Öí³ü) and theBakufu as subordinate, an upstart in terms of pedigree and the rulermerely in name or form. While in exile on Sado, however, his thinking on this matter began to change, undergoing a radical transformation during the Minobu years. This becomes particularly evident inhis understanding of the Jõkyð Uprising of 1221, in which the retiredemperor Go-Toba sought to overthrow the Bakufu and restore fullimperial authority but was defeated by the Kamakura forces under thecommand of Hõjõ Yoshitoki. As a result, despite his imperial status,Go-Toba and two other retired emperors who had supported himwere sent into exile. Nichiren interpreted this as due to Go-Toba’sreliance on mikkyõ ritual rather than the Lotus Sðtra for his thaumaturgical support, as well as the spread of other, “inferior” teachings. Thisinversion of the proper hierarchy of “true” and “provisional” in therealm of Buddhism led to a corresponding upset in worldly rule:
388Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/3–4Not only were estates dedicated to support the true sutraseized and stolen and converted into the domains of the provisional sutras of shingon, but because all the people of Japanhad embraced the evil doctrines of the Zen and nenbutsu sects,there occurred the most unprecedented overturning of highand low (gekokujõ 4áî) the world has ever seen. However,the lord of Sagami [Hõjõ Yoshitoki] was innocent of slandering the Dharma, and in addition, was master of both literaryand military arts. Thus Heaven permitted him to become ruler(kokushu ³ü). (Shimoyama goshõsoku 4[:Ì” STN 2: 1329)Nichiren also reconciled the fact of Go-Toba’s defeat with the tradition that the bodhisattva Hachiman had vowed to make his dwellingon the heads of honest persons and in particular to protect one hundred honest sovereigns in succession. Nichiren interpreted “honest”in both the worldly sense, meaning free from falsehood, and in a religious sense, as according with the Lotus Sðtra, in which Š„kyamuniBuddha vowed that he would “honestly discard skillful means” and“preach only the unexcelled Way” (T. no. 262, 9.10a). “The retiredemperor of Oki [Go-Toba] was in name the nation’s ruler, but he wasa liar and a wicked man.” In contrast, Yoshitoki was “in name the vassal, but in his person a great sovereign and without falsehood”; henceHachiman had abandoned Go-Toba, the eighty-second tennõ, andtransferred his protection to Yoshitoki (Kangyõ Hachiman shõ @ kg¿, STN 2: 1848). A similar logic informs Nichiren’s reading, duringthe Minobu period, of the defeat of the Taira in 1185. Like Go-Tobafour decades later, the Taira had relied on mikkyõ ritual in theirprayers for victory; hence the emperor Antoku, drowned in the battleof Dan-no-Ura, had been “attacked by the general Minamoto no Yoritomo and became food for the ³sh in the sea” (Shinkokuõ gosho P³ :–, STN 1: 881; see also pp. 884–85), while Yoritomo was able “not onlyto defeat the enemy but also to become the great general of the warriorsof Japan, solely because of the power of the Lotus Sðtra” (Nanjõ-dono gohenji Çû*:‘ª, STN 2: 1175. Yoritomo’s respect for the Lotus Sðtrais historically attested). Nichiren also says that, just as the bodhisattvaHachiman had shifted his allegiance from Go-Toba to Yoshitoki, sohad he also earlier transferred his protection from Antoku to Yoritomo(Shijõ Kingo-gari onfumi vûD7Ñ:k, STN 2: 1824). Thus in Sasaki’sview, during the Minobu period, Nichiren’s view of who representedJapan’s legitimate ruler completed a 180o turn. The emperor, whomhe had looked upon before the Sado exile as the actual ruler, he nowrelegated to the status of ruler in name only. Clearly this view sawlegitimacy of rule as deriving, not from the imperial bloodline, butfrom readiness to protect the Lotus Sðtra.
STONE: Placing Nichiren in the “Big Picture”389As Sasaki notes, Nichiren’s view of the shift of authority from GoToba to Yoshitoki was inseparable from his criticism of the esotericteachings. This criticism begins from about 1269 and develops duringthe Sado and post-Sado years. It was from the Sado exile on thatNichiren began to interpret Go-Toba’s defeat as an example of thepernicious effects of relying on mikkyõ ritual. This reµected not merelyNichiren’s interpretation of past events but was also intimately connected to his view of present Bakufu policy. Even before the arrival ofthe letter from the Mongols demanding that Japan enter into a tributary relationship, the Bakufu had sponsored esoteric rites: the position of chief superintendent of the Tsurugaoka Hachiman Shrine wasdominated by mikkyõ ritual specialists from the imperial capital,chieµy from the lineages of Tõ-ji and Onjõ-ji. Patronage had also beenextended to prominent mikkyõ ritualists of the Saidai-ji precept lineage:Eison µ (1201–1290) and his disciple Ninshõ ݧ (1217–1303).Now, in the face of the Mongol threat, the Bakufu was all the moreeager to sponsor such rituals for thaumaturgical protection. Nichiren,however, saw the Mongol threat itself as the result of slander of thetrue Dharma, to be averted only by wholehearted conversion to theLotus Sðtra; thus in his eyes, the Bakufu was in imminent danger ofdestroying itself in the same manner that Go-Toba had done decadesearlier. In contrast to his early criticism of the exclusive nenbutsu,which was closely linked to the views of the Buddhist establishment,Nichiren’s criticism of Zen and especially mikkyõ was developed fromthe standpoint of his growing Lotus exclusivism and antiestablishmentoutlook that culminated during the Minobu years. According to Sasaki,in this period of Nichiren’s life, all notions of worldly rule (õbõ) as aseparate authority dropped from his worldview and only the authorityof Buddhism (buppõ) remained; Nichiren’s vision was now that of atranscendent “world of the Lotus Sðtra” (Hokekyõ no sekai ÀT u›ƒ)in which all legitimacy of rule was to be judged solely by the standard1of whether or not the Lotus Sðtra was upheld (SASAKI 1997, pp. 309–10).1 While expressing admiration for Sasaki’s research, Satõ Hiroo has offered some correctives and clari³cations. First, Satõ ³nds that Nichiren’s early writings distinguish betweenthe sovereign (kokuõ ³ ), or head of the country, and the ruler (kokushu ³ü), who carriesout actual administration. Satõ argues that Nichiren always identi³ed the Hõjõ with thekokushu, at least with regard to the Kantõ provinces, though his earlier writings accord thetennõ superior authority. Thus Sasaki’s claim that Nichiren before Sado saw the tennõ as the“actual ruler” may have to be reevaluated. Second, Satõ cautions that Nichiren’s referencesto Heaven allowing Yoshitoki to become ruler, or the transfer of Hachiman’s protectionfrom Go-Toba to Yoshitoki, does not mean, as some scholars have suggested, that Nichirenendorsed ideas of overthrowing the imperial dynasty under a new mandate of Heaven, orthat he saw the imperial line as having been abrogated. The emperor remained head of thecountry; it was the actual authority of rule that Nichiren saw as having shifted to the Bakufu.
390Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/3–4The emergence in Nichiren’s thinking of a transcendent “world ofthe Lotus Sðtra” can also be traced, Sasaki argues, through his changing views of the kami. An early letter (1264) to a female followeraddresses her questions concerning menstrual taboos, which Nichirendismissed as irrelevant from a Buddhist standpoint but accorded alimited local signi³cance as something generally expected by thekami. “Japan is a land of the kami (shinkoku P³),” he wrote, “and theway of this country is that, strange as it may be when they are manifestations (suijaku) of buddhas and bodhisattvas, [the kami] in manyrespects do not conform to the sutras and [Buddhist] treatises. Andyet we ³nd men of wisdom who forcefully insist that the kami aredemonic and not to be revered, thus causing harm to their lay supporters” (Gassui gosho ½v:–, STN 1: 292; see also YAMPOLSKY 1996, p.256). Sasaki sees this passage as reµecting uncritical acceptance of theJapanese kami and participating in the Buddhist establishment’s criticism of exclusive nenbutsu practitioners for their refusal to worshipthem. On Sado, however, the Japanese kami, especially Tenshõ Daijin(Amaterasu Õmikami úÑØP) and Hachiman, undergo rede³nitionin his thought as protectors of the Lotus Sðtra and its practitioners. Inother words, Nichiren divorced them from their speci³c associationwith Japan and relocated them within the world of the Lotus Sðtra as2Buddhist tutelary deities who protect the true Dharma. Sasaki ³ndsthat Nichiren’s relativizing of the kami vis-à-vis the Lotus Sðtra continued during the Minobu period and took various forms. A letter datedsoon after his reclusion declares furiously that Brahm„, Indra, the sunand moon deities, and the four deva kings are doomed to the Av‡cihell for failing to protect him and his mission as the votary of theLotus Sðtra (Shinkokuõ gosho, STN 1: 893), while three years later hewrote that these same deities had commanded the Mongols to chastiseJapan for its slander of the Lotus Sðtra and that “Tenshõ Daijin andthe bodhisattva Hachiman are powerless to help” (Yorimoto chinjõ þ ! STN 2: 1359). When a ³re destroyed the Tsurugaoka Hachimanshrine in 1280, Nichiren wrote that Hachiman, who had vowed to proThird, Satõ argues that Nichiren never abandoned hope of ³nding some form of government support for his teaching. When he despaired of gaining endorsement from the Bakufu,he for a time entertained hopes of winning a hearing from the tennõ; this, in Satõ’s view, iswhy his post-1278 writings show increased awareness of the emperor, and not, as some modern nationalists have argued, because he was a supporter of imperial rule (SATÕ 1998, pp.253–304). While Satõ does not address the issue, the Sandai hihõ shõ discussed by SuekiFumihiko in this volume might, if it is genuine, be fruitfully considered in this light.2 It is in this rather minor role in the Buddhist hierarchy that Tenshõ Daijin and Hachiman appear on Nichiren’s mandala. During the last years of the Paci³c War, the Ministry ofEducation, prompted by the complaints of shrine priests, demanded that the mandala berevised. The war ended before the issue could be resolved (see ISHIKAWA 1975).
STONE: Placing Nichiren in the “Big Picture”391tect “honest persons,” had razed his own shrine and ascended to theheavens because there were no more honest persons in Japan, onlyDharma slanderers (Shijõ Kingo-gari onfumi, STN 2: 1823; see alsoKangyõ Hachiman shõ STN 2: 1849). It is an error, Sasaki concludes, tolabel Nichiren’s view of the kami a remnant of “old Buddhism,” asIenaga did. In his later thought, Nichiren came thoroughly to reject thehonji-suijaku notions that bolstered the authority of establishmentBuddhism and deemed the kami signi³cant only insofar as they protectthe “world of the Lotus Sðtra.” This was in effect a denial of the kami intheir original status as the deities of Japan and thus consistent withthe rejection of kami worship said to characterize the new Buddhism.THE “LOGIC OF EXCLUSIVE CHOICE”Another reading of Nichiren and Kamakura Buddhism to build uponthe insights of Kuroda Toshio is that of SATÕ Hiroo (1987, 1998).Satõ’s larger project has been to investigate the differences in theunderlying “logic” of both kenmitsu orthodoxy and the heterodox itan,as well as in their respective cosmological visions. “Old Buddhist” institutions of the medieval period, Satõ ³nds, were supported by what heterms a “logic of harmony” (yðwa no ronri ÎÉuÇ7). According tothis logic, all Buddhist teachings are true. The differences among various teachings and practices are necessitated by the varying capacitiesof practitioners, so that no one will slip through the net of the Buddha’s salvi³c intent. This assertion that “all Buddhism is true” did not,of course, preclude asserting the supremacy of one’s own tradition byarguing that it was intended for persons of the most highly developedfaculties. In Satõ’s view, the “logic of harmony” was by no means amedieval equivalent of modern ideals of religious tolerance or pluralism but rather was enlisted for various forms of social control. Itserved to maintain a loose unity among rival Buddhist institutions asthe kenmitsu system; one could assert the superiority of one’s ownschool or lineage but could not deny that others had their own validity.Additionally, the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, or kami enshrined as objectsof worship in a particular temple or shrine were all seen as particularembodiments of universal truth. Thus the shõen attached to theseinstitutions could be de³ned as “Buddha lands” and the taxes andlabor of peasants employed on them, as “offerings to the Buddha”; similarly, peasant negligence or resistance in providing these services couldbe averted by the threat of divine punishment. Lastly, Satõ claims, therecognition of distinctions of superior and inferior spiritual facultiesinherent in the “logic of harmony” served by analogy to legitimize theexisting social hierarchy.In contrast, the new Buddhism, beginning with Hõnen and devel-
392Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26/3–4oped by Shinran and especially Nichiren, is characterized in Satõ’sview by a “logic of exclusive choice” (senchaku no ronri *ãuÇ7).This logic holds one form of Buddhism alone to be valid and deniesthe soteriological ef³cacy of all others. For Satõ, this logic goes wellbeyond simple commitment to a single form of practice; he notes thateven within the framework of the old Buddhism supported by the“logic of harmony,” one ³nds practitioners who relied, for example,solely on the nenbutsu, arguing that it was the only teaching suited totheir particular capacity. What distinguishes the “logic of exclusivechoice” is its categorical rejection of all other forms as soteriologicallyuseless. Satõ sees this logic as backed by the absolute authority of asingle, personi³ed transcendent Buddha, from whom all otherauthority was seen to derive. The “logic of exclusive choice” in effectdenied not only all other forms of religious practice but also theentire “logic of harmony” and, implicitly, the system it legitimized.This new concept, Satõ writes, “aimed at a completely different sort ofsociety, in which the worldly law was subordinated to the BuddhaDharma and in which, under the Buddha who held sovereignty overthe land, all people were placed equally, without regard for origins orstatus” (SATÕ 1998, p. 40).We have noted how postwar models that saw a focus on individualsalvation as characteristic of “Kamakura new Buddhism” regarded theexclusive Pure Land movement as central, and Nichiren, with his concern for the nation, as having not yet fully emerged from the framework of “old Buddhism.” But when the new Buddhism is rede³ned, asin the more recent, Kuroda-inspired models, in terms of resistance tothe religiopolitical establishment, it is Nichiren who inevitably emergesas its paradigmatic ³gure. In Hõnen’s case, for example, the potentialof the exclusive nenbutsu to function as a critique of the kenmitsu system remains undeveloped. He discouraged his followers from criticizing the worship of other buddhas or kami and did not put forth aclear argument about the relationship of Buddhism to worldly authority; thus religion in Hõnen’s teaching remains apart from worldlyaffairs. Nichiren’s teaching, on the other hand, requires the believer toengage in such criticism as an act of compassion, even at the risk ofone’s life. This was because he saw the “exclusive choice” of the LotusSðtra as determining, not only one’s personal salvation, but also thewelfare of the country. He elaborated an entire concomitant discourseabout ful³lling the mission of a bodhisattva by practicing shakubuku,the rebuking of attachment to provisional teachings, and eradicatingone’s past sins by encountering persecution as a result. Moreover, hewas very clear about how Buddhism is related to worldly authority. In
STONE: Placing Nichiren in the “Big Picture”393contrast to “old Buddhist” discourse of the mutual dependence ofBuddhism and worldly rule, Nichiren separated the two and radicallyrelativized the latter. In his eyes it was the ruler’s duty to protect thetrue Dharma, and he ruled legitimately only so long as he ful³lled it(SATÕ 1978, pp. 22–23; see also Satõ’s article in this volume).Earlier postwar scholars of Nichiren, such as Fujii Manabu, TokoroShigemoto, Takagi Yutaka, and Kawazoe Shõji, had already noted hiscritical attitude toward the establishment and his subordination ofworldly authority to the Buddha Dharma. Sasaki and Satõ have further built upon the work of these predecessors and additionallyplaced Nichiren in a larger interpretive framework of Kamakura Buddhism, particularly of the itan or marginal movements, that drawsupon the insights of Kuroda Toshio. Despite their innovativeapproaches, both have been criticized for reproducing “new Buddhism”–centered views of Kamakura Buddhism, excessively polarizedbetween the new movements, seen as egalitarian, progressive, and liberating, over and against an oppressive Buddhist establishment(KURODA 1990, pp. 7–11; SUEKI 1993; see also the response to Kurodain SATÕ 1998, pp. 439–51). A discussion of the strengths and shortcomings of their models in illuminating Kamakura Buddhism as awhole would exceed the scope of this article. Here, however, we maynote their very substantial contributions to our understanding of Nichiren. By drawing attention to the long-neglected ideological side of histeaching, they offer new insight into how he saw the relationship ofBuddhism to political authority, showing conclusively that it was by nomeans a mere continuation of earlier notions of nation-protec
ic rites of esoteric Buddhism. And, unlike the commitment of “old Buddhism” to serving the state with its rituals of nation protection, the new Buddhism was deemed to have been concerned chieµy with individual salvation. Postwar “new Buddhism”–centered models of Kamakura Budd
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
3 The Buddhism of Nichiren Daishonin —Nichiren Daishonin's Life and Teachings 1. The Life of Nichiren Daishonin Nichiren Daishonin (1222-82) dedicated his life to propagating the Mystic Law—
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
