The full title is “Shu Hokekyo Ongi Kuden”, Oral Transmissions of the Sacred Teachings of the Annotated Lotus Sutra.
The Ongi Kuden is believed to be the notes complied by Nikko Shonin on Nichiren’s lectures on the Lotus Sutra. There is also the Onko Kikigaki which is believed to be a similar document of the same purpose compiled by Niko Shonin. Since the Ongi Kuden has only recently been published by SGI, they point out that the Onko Kikigaki’s brevity and loose organization is yet further evidence of Nikko’s superiority over Niko. Both these writings are based on lecture points on the Lotus Sutra given by Nichiren. They are supposedly based on Nichiren’s personal annotated copy of the Lotus Sutra, the Chu Hokkekyo, but in fact neither document matches the format or content of this still extent Lotus Sutra copy belonging to Nichiren.
Apparently the Ongi Kuden was held in fairly high esteem until Shigyo Kaishu, a student of the famous Nichiren Scholar Asai Yorin, criticized it in his graduate thesis in 1935. He pointed out several inconsistencies in the writing and dating of the Ongi Kuden, some (not all) of which are as follows;
First and foremost, there is no extant version of the Ongi Kuden which was believed to have been compiled and written towards the end of Nichiren’s life. The first reference of it was in a quote in a work called “Hokke Keian Sho” by a Priest in 1503. The oldest actual version of the OK dates to 1539 and was copied by a priest named Nikkyo of the Happo lineage Nichiren school.
Shigyo further pointed out an inconstancy of the date on a seal supposedly affixed by Nichiren - “first day of the month, first year of Koan” but on the 29th day of the second month the name of the era was changed from Kenji to Koan. If the OK was based on lectures given in the beginning of Koan, it should have been dated in the proceeding Kenji. Also, Nikko was gone during this time period on a shakauku mission in the Fuji era and wouldn’t have been present to record the lectures as believed.
In addition, and this is a big issue in Nichiren scholarship - the OK contains too much Hongaku language to be considered authentic Nichiren though. Hongaku is a Medieval Tendai paradigm based on “Original Enlightenment”, that everything *is* the Buddha land, and we *are* Shakyamuni Buddha”. Taken to it’s extreme, as it was through history, the very principle negated the need for Buddhist practice, since we were already originally enlightened. Hongaku language and content is one of the earliest metrics for judging the authenticity of non-extant (not existing in an original document) Gosho.
Later Shigyo revised his work to include the point that in the OK is a reference or quote from the “K’o Chu”, or “a-Hua Ching K’o”, a Yuan dynasty commentary on the Lotus Sutra by Hsu Hsing Shan. This was written in 1295, 13 years after Nichiren’s death./
Nichiren Shoshu quickly responded. Ohashi Jijo wrote, in a journal article, regarding the principles of ji-Hongaku, original enlightenment in principle, and ri-Hongaku, original enlightenment in actuality. He stated that since the ji_Hongaku ties into the the princple championed by Nichiren Shoshu, that Nichiren was the “Originally Enlightened Buddha”, that the existence of this language in the OK validated it’s authenticity rather than disputed it. Also Jijo pointed out that the K’o referred to an earlier commentary, one which Nichiren may have had access to.
This was a major upheaval in the theories regarding Gosho authenticity. Non-sectarian scholars had long since used Hongaku language as an indicator that a non-extant Gosho was apocryphal, though extant authenticated Gosho did sometimes contain Hongaku theory (since Nichiren was in fact a Tendai Mikkyo Priest). Now Nichiren Shoshu was using the existence of Honkagu Shiso to validate the Ongi Kuden. This illustrates and wonderful example of sectarian polemics as they cross over again and again through scholarship. This explanation concluded with the logical assumption that Shigyo couldn’t understand the nature of the OK simply because he failed to grasp Nichiren Shoshu theology.
While the originally enlightened Buddha in the OK is Nichiren, Jijo failed to address numerous other reference to the originally enlightened Buddha through Tendai Hongaku literature.
It was actually a scholar from Nichiren Shu, Minobu that came to the defense of Nichiren Shoshu, interestingly. The continuation of that specific debate is lengthy and I will not address it now.
Also found in the Ongi Kuden are references to Alms Refusal, a later-era Nichiren movement known as Fuju Fuse, not giving or receiving alms from non-believers. This would not have become a significant issue until circumstances arouse in and around the 1400’s, pointing to a much later creation date.
But… clearly when one reviews both the Ongi Kuden and the Onko Kikigaki there is a relationship between the two writings that suggests conflict between the two parties of Nichiren Buddhism’s earliest schism, Nikko Shonin and Niko Shonin. For this reason it’s possible that both were written close to Nichiren’s death, or at least close enough to be seriously considered based on Nichiren’s lectures.
Asai Endo wrote regarding the possibility that both the Ongi Kuden and the Onku Kikigaki were written by opposing factions of the Itchi-Shoretsu debate, an ongoing schism between factions of Nichiren’s followers who debated whether the two divisions of the Lotus Sutra, the trace teaching (Shakyamon or first 14 chapters) and the Origin teaching (Honmon or last 14 chapters) were equal to each other, or that the Honmon was superior to the Shakyamon. The OK refers in several places to the distinction between the trace and origin teachings, and is consistent with the Shorestu position while the Onku Kikigaki mentions this distinction only once and thus seems more consistent with the Itchi position. This also would point to an early creation date, no later than 1400’s.
In truth, this is the reality of Nichiren’s Buddhism. Sectarian practice in wonderful, but things we believe, things we have been told by our sects, are nearly always more complicated than they appear. SGI-USA has recently published a beautiful version of the Ongi Kuden. There are no other English versions presently translated. Nichiren Shu, who has published it’s own version of the Gosho, we likely not bother with the Ongi Kuden.
Should we read the Ongi Kuden? Certainly. The Ongi Kuden AND the Onku Kikigaki stress the two important tenants of Nichiren’s teachings;
1. The theme of the Universality or Non-duality of all phenomena and the primordial enlightened Buddha.
2. The absolute sole supremacy of the Lotus Sutra.
Whenever, and whomever wrote the Ongi Kuden and the Onku Kikigaki certainly were in the Nichiren community. If not Nichiren’s actual words, the Ongi Kuden absolutely represents the development of Nichiren’s teachings. Sadly, for me, the Onku Kikigaki is not yet published in English, and most likely will not be, since it clearly does not serve sectarian interests.
Sectarian practice is supreme, I believe. In our various sects we practice in sanghas, along side others struggling to realize enlightenment in their own lives. Study is not always synonymous with faith, despite what SGI and other orgs say. It’s important to make peace with the reality that sectarian study and scholarly study are related, but different. It’s also important to accept that sectarian study is not always biased, and scholarly study is often not objective.
The concept of “the middle way” of Mahayana Buddhism reaches far and wide, and can be applied to many, if not most aspects of our individual lives.