There are few topics that cause more controversy among Nichiren Buddhists than mixing other Buddhist practices with Daimoku chanting. Most will agree that Daimoku, chanting Namu -- or Nam' - Myoho Renge Kyo is primary. Nichiren specifically endorsed several ancillary or supplemental practices. Examples would include worshiping and / or contemplating a Gohonzon based on the Lotus sutra, and reciting segments of the Lotus Sutra. Of course, there are disagreements on both the correct format of a Gohonzon, and its significance. For some, the Gohonzon is primary, for others it is supplemental. As for the Sutra, there are differing opinions on which parts should be recited.
I have a lot of questions. Are there technical Buddhist terms for 'primary' and 'ancillary' or 'supplemental?' Does primary mean it is sufficient by itself? Or is just a prerequisite that comes first; like primary school? Does it mean that it is indispensable and necessary; while the ancillary practices are optional? If ancillary practices are optional, may we choose our own options from the vast body of Buddhist Practices; or are we limited to those that Nichiren used himself, specifically endorsed, or at least tolerated? What if Nichiren allowed a practice for one follower; but told another to avoid it?
Must we factor in the time when Nichiren wrote something; before or after the Tatsunokuchi persecution? Do Nichiren's suggestions, guidance, and admonitions to followers who lived in 13th Century Japan even apply on the global stage of the 21st Century? How does one deal with outdated, medieval, superstitious notions, like dragons causing rain? Should we strictly rely on and limit our options to the literal and specific, examples supplied to us in Nichiren's writings? What about practices that he did not even address?
Perhaps we should we seek a general, conceptual understanding, and then apply the concepts and principles to come up with methods or techniques of practice that meet our present wants and needs? I think most would agree that, among the multitude of Buddhist practices, Nichiren was most critical of the Nembutsu chant associated with Honen's Pure Land School. In one of Nichiren's major doctrinal treatises,he even referred to Honen's Nembutsu as the 'One Great Evil.' I have examined the translated Gosho that are available to me, looking for specific guidance about Nembutsu, to his followers. I came up with three scenarios:
1. A prominent layperson, and probable government official, from Sado Island, was, in his public life, a devout believer in the Nembutsu. Meanwhile, he was also a covert disciple of Nichiren. This follower was advised to keep a low profile, and not show his copy of the Lotus Sutra to anyone. Also, this follower was advised that combining a practice of Daimoku and Nembutsu was preferable to exclusive reliance on Nembutsu; but exclusively relying on Daimoku was best. This example makes me think of contemporary western Buddhists that are members of Christian congregations, primarily for social reasons.
2. Another disciple was told that chanting a little Nembutsu would not be harmful; provided one puts the Daimoku first. Specifically, the follower was told to chant plenty of Daimoku before chanting the Nembutsu.
3. Then there is the advice to Akimoto; which some are so fond of citing. In a letter to this disciple, who, iirc, was a monk of some kind, Nichiren compared mixing Nembutsu with Daimoku to mixing his excrement with his rice. In other words, Nichiren appeared to be saying that Nembutsu is unclean, something to definitely avoid.
I am sure readers can come up with plenty of quotations in which Nichiren expresses criticism of Pure Land Buddhism. Keep in mind that I am discussing Nichiren's advice about Nembutsu only because it is, by far, the most extreme example of his critiques. I personally do not chant Nembutsu, nor do I suggest it, or even not suggest it, to others. I have no advice on the Amida mantras. For now, I am interested in understanding Nichiren's critiques. While Nichiren was sometimes hostile to Nembutsu; we can still find some nuance, wiggle room, and apparent contradiction in his words. This suggests that further investigation is needed.
Moreover, it strikes me as patently absurd to yank the advice to Akimoto, which was most likely just about Nembutsu, out of context, and use it summarily dismiss the mixing of all other practices; such as meditation, with Daimoku. There were cases in which Nichiren showed at least a smidgen of tolerance for the Nembutsu. I think the difference in the advice goes to two issues. First, there is the motive or intention of the disciple. For the lay follower from Sado, the Nembutsu was a social thing; possibly even a job requirement. In the second case I cited, it was, at worst, a harmless distraction. In the case of Akimoto, it was obviously a serious issue. To understand this, it is helpful to have a least a cursory knowledge of how and why Nembutsu was practiced.
In the Japan of Nichiren's time, there were two main kinds of Nembutsu practice. For convenience; I call these Contemplative Nembutsu and Devotional Nembutsu. My understanding in that the former was more or less devised and promoted by the Tendai Patriarch Eshin (942–1017), better known as Genshin. Basically, it combined a devotional practice, centered on the Buddha Amida, with the Tiantai Meditative practices of Calm Abiding and Insight; samatha-vipassana / shamatha-vipashyana 止観. The latter, Devotional Nembutsu, was promoted by in Japan by Honen (1133-1212).
Eshin apparently believed that humanity was entering the dreaded last days, an impure era in which people would lack both merit and the discerning wisdom needed to cultivate wholesome mental states. As such, the possibility of falling into the Eight Great Purgatories was seen as a clear and present danger. So the first thing was to save the follower from Heck; through Transference of Merit 施福移轉 {hīfu yízhuan / sefuku iten} or 迴向門 {huíxiangmen / ekoman}. This was to be achieved by calling on the compassionate saving grace of Amida Buddha; via devotional chanting and meditation.
Note that in one or more of the Mahayana Sutras, the Buddha Amida had vowed to grant rebirth in the Pure Land to anyone who called on his name. Then, in the next life, in the Pure Land, one would be able to carry out the more advanced practices and attain Awakening. This is similar to the Theravadin concept of the third stage disciples, called Anagamin or non-returners. The Anagamin, after death, are reborn in the Pure Abodes, and it is there that they are finally able to attain the final stage of Arhat.
I suspect that, in terms of Eshin's Contemplative Nembutsu, this language could be construed as figurative. Put another way, a disciple with little or no merit would be unable get past the Five Hindrances and attain Fixed Concentration. Even if such a person entered the elevator; or attained the Access Concentration, the ride would likely be frightening; like a descent into Heck, instead of an ascension to the Fine Material Heavens. So, the devotional practice would be a kind of Preparation Concentration; like what I discussed in the previous entry. On one occasion, Nichiren called Eshin's teachings broad, but not deep. I think Nichiren, perhaps, viewed Contemplative Nembutsu as shallow because it relied on the wrong Buddha and the wrong Devotional Mantra? I think that, venerating the wrong Buddha for this age, is the second issue. Nichiren's own view might seem rather shallow, why quibble over which Buddha one venerates or which sounds one mumbles? I think we need understand his reasoning; but that is another topic. For now, I am more interested in intention or motive; what one seeks to gain or glean from a practice.
At any rate, there was also the Devotional Nembutsu; which was promoted in Japan by Honen. My understanding is that Honen construed the Amida Pure Land myth literally. I am told that he saw all other practices, even the Calm Abiding and Insight Meditations themselves, as impediments. If so, it might be safe to say that the Devotional Nembutsu, as originally taught by Honen, was not self completing in this life time. In contrast to this. Nichiren taught that Daimoku enables one to practice 観心 {kanjin} and complete the path in this lifetime. Note the 観 {kan} is the same as in 止観 {shikan}. 観 is a translation of vipashyana; a spiritual introspection or insight practice leading directly to Awakening.
It is highly doubtful whether Nichiren's problems with Devotional Nembutsu even still apply to the 21st Century Pure Land Schools. That is not really my scope here. I am interested in how Nichiren understood the Devotional Nembutsu that was promoted by Honen. That might clarify Nichiren's guidance to Akimoto. On mixing rice and excrement, those are essentially the same thing, but at two different stages of the digestive process. Nichiren also used the 'hole in the bucket' analogy. The former might imply confusing cause & effect. The latter clearly implies conflicting goals that cancel each other out. Let's assume that Akimoto was mixing Honen's Devotional Nembutsu with Nichiren's 観心 {kanjin} based on Daimoku. Perhaps he hoped that he could Awaken, via Daimoku, in this life; but was not convinced? So, as a way of hedging his bets, he also sought rebirth in the pure land, via Nembutsu? That would be sort of like riding two horses going in different directions. One could only go in circles, and get nowhere. Had Honen been alive, he might have told Akimoto to make up his mind.
That said, let's suppose that one views rebirth in the Pure Land as figurative language? In other words, one views it as a state of mind one can attain in the here and now? Moreover, lets say one views this as a preliminary or preparation practice; not as the end goal? Then, I think, the conflict begins to vanish. At worst, Nembutsu becomes superfluous or a waste of time. Personally, I do not chant Nembutsu, not even as an ancillary practice. I do carry out other supplemental practices to cultivate merits, and attain blissful states of mind. I do not even see those as ways to attain Awakening. They are, for me, right now, ways of cultivating spiritual good health. I do not see bathing as a way to Awakening either; but I still wash my body. My conclusion, for now, is still that the apparent contradictions, in Nichiren's guidance about Nembutsu, is that this was about the intention or motive of the particular follower. Maybe that is a concept we can apply to our own practice(s)?
]]>
