Japane s e Jo ur n a l o f Re ligious Studies 1999 26/3- 4 Criticism and A ppropriation N ic h ir e n ， s Attitude toward Es ote ric Buddhis m Lu c ia D o l c e This paper explores the complex relationship between Nichiren and esoteric Buddhism (mikkyd). It first reconsiders the received view of Nichiren as an intransigent and systematic critic of all forms of esotericism, and suggests that his criticism should be understood as a strategy of legitimation. It then attempts to reevaluate Nichiren’s interactions with the Buddhism of his time, focusing on the influence that notions developed in T endai eso­ tericism (T aimitsu) and rituals in vogue in the early medieval period exer­ cised on Nichiren. In particular, it considers Nichiren 公 construction of a m andala as the object of worship (horizon) of his Lotus Buddhism. Nichiren used his knowledge of esotericism to reinforce the exclusive faith in the Lotus Sutra that he advocated. His tendency to amalgamate ideas originating from different traditions places him in a line of continuity with the forms of Buddhism that preceded him. In this respect, the analysis of Nichiren ys relation to esoteric Buddhism also becomes significant as a case study for a reexamination of the tenets of early medieval Buddhism (Kamakura Buddhism). Keywords: esoteric Buddhis m ( mikkyd) 一 Nicmre n lesritimation — mandala — Taimitsu — ritual 一 ^hmgon 一 N ic h ir e n ’s in t r a n s ig e n t c r it ic is m o f a ll o t h e r fo r m s o f B u d d h is m t ha n his own, with its ins is te nce o n an exclusive r e liance o n the Lotus Sutra, has c o ntr ibute d to the cha r acte r ization or h im as a un iq u e , a nd to a ce r tain e x te nt e cce ntric, figur e in Japane s e Buddhis m . A survey o f the var ie ty o f wor ks N ic h ir e n has le ft us , howe ve r , s hows t h a t his t h o u g h t was n o t comple te ly bas e d o n the Lotus Sutra, b u t cons tr ucte d * I w o u ld lik e to e x pr e s s m y g r a t it u d e to P r o fe s s o r As a i E n d o , fo r m e r ly o f Ris s ho Unive r s ity, fo r his in v a lu a b le h e lp a n d advice in e x p lo r in g th e d o c t r in a l b a c k g r o u n d o f N ic h ir e n ’s w r it in g s . I als o w is h to t h a n k th e In s t it u t e fo r N ic h ir e n S t ud ie s ( N ic h ir e n Kyog aku Ke n k y ujo ; o f Ris s ho Unive r s ity fo r k ind ly a c c e p ting m e in t h e ir m id s t during- my r e s e ar ch m Ja p a n , a n d the Ja p a n F o u n d a t io n fo r pr o v id in g fin a n c ia l s uppor t. 350 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 t h r o ug h a c o mple x proce ss o f a d o p t io n , a da pta tio n, or inve r s ion o f int e lle c tual cate gories a n d r it ua l practice s tha t were alre ady pr e s e nt in e ar lie r a n d c o nte mpor a r y for ms o f Bud dhis m , in c lu d in g thos e he crit­ icize d. T he e mphas is o n the Lotus Sutra is ce r tainly a cr ucia l as pe ct o f N ic h ir e n ’s th o ug ht, b u t the me as ur e o f its exclusiveness ne e ds r e co n­ s ide r ing. T his pa p e r atte mpts to r e e valuate N ic h ir e n ’s inte r a c tions with the r e ligious m ilie u o f his time , t hr o ug h an inve s tigation o f his a mbig uo us inte r pr e ta tion o f esote ric B u d d h is m (mikkyd 褒 教 、 • Japa ne s e s cholar s hip p r o d uc e d by the Nic hir e n s chools , while recogrnizme tha t N ic h ir e n ’s early t h o u g h t was affe cte d by e s ote ric Bud ­ dhis m, te nds to ne gate any s uch influe nc e o n the m a tur e Nic hir e n, a n d r athe r stresses his cons tant criticis m o f mikkyd. Alt h o ug h ce r tain aspects o f N ic n ir e n ， s tho ug ht, s uch as the c ons tr uc tio n o f a m a nd a la as the m a in obje c t o f w or s hip (horizon 本 尊 ） ， have obvious e s ote ric roots , it is d e nie d tha t Nic hir e n m a in t a in e d a s trong inte r e s t in eso­ te r ic B u d d n is m a n d its ways o f e x p r e s s io n t h r o u g h o u t his life . U n d o u b t e d ly , N ic h ir e n ’s c o lo r fu l inve ctive a g a in s t the e s ote r ic t r a d i­ tio n , w h ic h he calls S h in g o n 具 g ， is a s tr ikin g fe a tur e o f his wr itings : “T he Sning o n s chool, in particular , le ads to the r u in or bo t h this c o un­ try a n d C h in a ” (Misawashd, S T N 2 :1 4 4 9 ). “T he calamitie s [ caused] by the two s chools [ Pure La n d a n d Ze n] have n o p a r a lle l w ith thos e caus e d by the S h in g o n s chool; the views o i the S h in e o n s chool are gre atly dis to r te d” (Senjisho, S T N 2 :1 0 3 3 ). Yet the na tur e o f this criti­ cis m a n d the que s tion o f w he the r it re ally was a im ing to u n d e r m in e the essence o f es ote ric Bud d h is m have har dly be e n e x plore d. A pos itive r e la tions hip be twe e n Nic hir e n a nd es ote ric Bud d h is m is also d e nie d m an influe n t ia l inte r pr e ta tio n o f Japa ne s e Buddhis t his ­ tory. Kur oda T os hio, whos e the orie s have be e n crucial in r e fo r mula ting the na t ur e o f me die val Ja pa ne s e r e lig io n, in c lu d e d Nic h ir e n in the cate gor y o f “he te r odo x Bu d d n is m ” (itanha 異 乂 而 派 ) ， toge the r with the othe r e x pone nts o f what was tr a ditio na lly known as “Ka ma kur a Ne w Bu d d h is m .” In so do ing, he contr as te d N ic h ir e n ’s fo r m o f Bud dhis m with the ide ologically a nd ins titutio na lly d o m in a n t s tre am, w mc h he calle d “o r t h o d o x B u d d h is m ” a nd w hich h a d at its core a pervasive use o f es ote ric practice s a n d e x ote r ic doctr ine s (kenmitsu 顕 招 、 ハ In othe r wor ds , K u r o d a 5s the or y (1994 ， pp. 8- 9) w o uld im ply tha t the mos t im p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t o f me die val Japa ne s e r e lig ion, name ly, e s ote ri­ cis m, was n o t pr e s e nt in the he te r odox move me nts . On e may agre e with Kur o da tha t Nic h ir e n ’s advocacy o f a s ingle pr actice s tood in c on­ trast to the ple tho r a o f practice s acce pte d in o r thodo x Buddhis m , a nd tha t ms e x pe r ie nce o f pe r s e cution pla ce d h im at the ma r gins o f m a in ­ s tre am r e ligious life. Yet Nic h ir e n doe s n o t fit easily int o a cate gor y conce ive d in o ppo s it io n to e s ote ricize d for ms o f Bud dhis m . In fact, Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 351 as pe cts o f N ic h ir e n ’s r e lig io us t h o u g h t c o in c id e w ith the ways o f e x pre s s ion o f o r t ho d o x Buddhis m: the use o f es ote ric ide as a n d icons toge the r with doctr ine s fr o m the Lotus Sutra; the r e c o gnitio n o f the im po r ta nc e o f a pr actice that n o t only le ads to e n lig h t e nm e n t b u t also p r o d uc e s w or ld ly be ne fits ; the in c lu s io n o f be lie fs as s ociate d w ith kami; the stress o n the m ut ua l de pe nde nc e o f state a n d r e lig io n a nd a c onc e r n with the fate o f Ja pa n. Kur oda, while r e s haping the image o f a me die val Bud d h is m c e nte r e d o n the ne w s chools , r e fo r m ula t e d the o ppo s it io n be twe e n o ld a nd ne w that s tr e ngthe ne d the ide a o f a br e ak in c o n t in u it y b e tw e e n the two fo r m s o f B u d d h is m . A c e r ta in de gr e e o f e s ote r icization in the ne w move me nts (in c lu d in g N ic h ir e n ’s )， K u r o d a a d m it t e d ， b u t only fo r a late r p e r io d ， w he n the move me nts came to be ins titutio na lize d in s chools (1994 ， p. 20). In a s imilar way, a s hift o f focus fr o m Nic hir e n to the early Nic hir e n c o m m unity has oc cur r e d in s tudie s e x plo r ing the influe nc e tha t the T e ndai no tio ns o f or ig ina l e n lig h t e nm e n t (hongaku 本 覚 思 想 ） ha d e x e r te d o n the e x pone nts o f Ka m a k ur a B u d d h is m (T a m u r a 1965 ， St o n e 1990). T his r es e arch pre s e nts a n u m b e r o i ins tance s o f esoteric e le me nts in N ic h ir e n ’s works. Howeve r, by c onc e ntr a ting o n writings o f the Nic h ir e n corpus tha t have come to be r e gar de d as a po cr ypha l (works p r o d uc e d by N ic h ir e n ’s dis ciple s ), it still leaves r o o m for the conviction tha t Nic hir e n him s e lf r e m a ine d bas ically una ffe c te d by eso­ te ric Bud dhis m . In the following pages I s hall r e cons ide r Nic hir e n,s inte r pr e ta tion o f the es ote ric tr a ditio n a nd p o in t o ut ho w s ome esote ric notions a nd r ituals e x e r te d influe n c e o n Nic h ir e n . N ic h ir e n ’s te x tual a n d de vo­ tio na l pr actice s s ugges t th a t he ope r at e d w ithin the confine s o f the kenmitsu logic, r e novate d cate gorie s o f e s ote ric Bud d n is m a nd, to a ce r tain e xte nt, po p ula r ize d e s ote ric practice s by ta king the m o ut o f the h a n d s o f r it u a l s pe cialis ts . T he issues s ur ve ye d in this a r tic le , a lt h o ug h n o t e xhaus tive o f the variety o f patte r ns in w mc h Nic hir e n us e d mikkyd, may serve to s he d lig h t o n ms u n in t e r r u p t e d c onc e r n with e s ote ric Buddhis m . The Received View Ih e po s ition o f m u c h Japa ne s e s cholar s hip, a cc or ding to w mc h Nichure n ， s r e la tion to mikkyd s ho uld be unde r s to o d only in ne gative te rms , is affe cte d by a s e ctar ian age nda. It is e pit o m ize d in the wor ds o f a p r o m in e n t Nic hir e n s cholar o f the early pa r t o f this ce ntury, Asai Yorin: No matte r how much Nichir e n may have be e n influe nce d by his times, it is unthinkable that he would have adopte d Tomits u, 352 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 which he de nounce d as the doctrine that destroys the country, or T aimits u, which... he accused o f confus ing the provis ional with the true. If one assumes that Nichir e n did inde e d adopt esoteric Buddhis m, where would be the foundation for his crit­ (As ai 1945 ， pp. 325- 26) icism o f T omits u and Taimits u? Such a s tance reveals at le as t thr e e flaws in the in t e r pr e ta tio n o f Nic hir e n. Firs t o f all, the re is a s umma r y dis mis s al o f the he r m e ne utic d im e n s io n ， tha t is the re le vance o f the his tor ic al m o m e n t in w hic h Nic h ir e n live d as an inte r pr e te r o f a r e ligious tr a ditio n, r e s po nding to c o nte m p o r a r y ne e ds a n d in flu e n c e d by c o nte m po r a r y mode ls . As ai Y6 rin ， s inte r pr e ta tion assumes a s upr ahis tor ical space in w hic h Nic h i­ r e n is s uppos e d to have acte d a nd pur s ue d his ide alis tic goals. Se cond, the re as ons for N ic h ir e n ’s antagonis tic attitude towards esote ric Bud ­ dh is m are s implis tically unde r s to o d as a m or a l a nd s ocial e va luation o f the cons e que nce s o f an a dhe r e nc e to mikkyd. In this, N ic h ir e n ’s words are unc r itic ally take n at face value , w itho ut cons ide r ing tha t his de pic ­ tio n o f “wr ong te ac hings ” may be pa r t o f a strategy o f s e lf- le gitimation th a t make s use o f c o ns o lida t e d me c ha nis ms . T h ir d , the dis tinc tio n m a de be twe e n the two m a jo r for ms o f Ja pa ne s e e s ote ric Bud dhis m , T omits u 東 密 a nd T aimits u 台 密 ， suggests that Nic hir e n came int o c o n­ tact w ith two d iffe r e n t s chools o f e s ote r icis m (t h a t o f the S h in e o n s chool a n d tha t o f the T e ndai s chool) a nd cle arly dis ce r ne d be twe e n the m. T his re tr os pe ctive ly applie s cate gorie s de ve lo pe d m u c h late r th a n N ic h ir e n ’s time , a nd contr ibute s to a dis tor te d ima ge n o t only o f N ic h ir e n ’s unde r s ta nding o f es ote ric Bud d h is m b u t also o f me die val es ote ric Bud d h is m itself. As ai Yd r in ’s inte r pr e ta tion has occas ionally be e n challe nge d. In a b r ie f study, the his to r ia n Ie na ga Sabur o s ugge s te d tha t Nic hir e n may have mos t severely cr iticize d the for ms or Bud d h is m tha t mos t de e ply influ e n c e d him . Ie na ga r e ma r ke d tha t in his inte r pr e ta tion o f Ja p a n ­ ese his tory Nic hir e n at first d id n o t cons ide r es ote ric Bud dhis m to be “the r u in o f the c o untr y ” ( bokoku 亡 国 ） ； o nly late r d id he apply this cat­ egory, o n e m a lly us e d for the Pur e La n d s chool, to esote ric Bud dhis m , for the a lt h o ug h he m a int a ine d the im por ta nc e o f prayers (kito p r o t e c t io n o f the state (Ie n a g a 1976 ， p p . 105- 6). U nfo r t una t e ly , Ie n a g a d id n o t fu r t h e r e la b o r a t e o n his analys is , a n d by a n d la r g e , As ai Y<5rin， s view has b e e n p e r p e t u a t e d in a m o r e n u a n c e d r e n d e r in g . Aft e r a n e ar ly e s o te r ic in fa t u a t io n , N ic h ir e n is s up p o s e d to have be g un a systematic proces s o f criticis m o f mikkyd, w hic h in c lud e d all fo r m s o f e s o t e r ic B u d d h is m . F o llo w in g a t h r e e fo ld d iv is io n o f N ic h ir e n ’s biogr a phy now wide ly acce pte d as an inte rpre tative pa tte r n o f his life ， scholars dis tinguis h thr e e phas e s in N ic h ir e n 5s pos itio n with Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 353 r e gar d to mikkyd. In the firs t phas e , Nic h ir e n addre s s e d Kuk a i5s eso­ te ricis m (Izu pe r io d); in the s e c ond， he tar ge te d the In d ia n a nd Ch i­ nese patr iar chs o f esote ric Bud d h is m (Sado pe r io d); a n d in the fina l phas e , d u r in g his r e t ir e m e n t at Min o b u , he m o u n t e d a n offe ns ive a g a in s t T e n d a i e s o t e r ic is m ( K o m a t s u 1974; I bun jit e n , 5 8 5 b - c ). Alt h o u g h this s che matic r e pr e s e ntation o i the de ve lopme nt o f Nic h i­ r e n ^ t h o u g h t d u r in g his life time may be he uris tically us e ful, in pr ac­ tice it has o fte n e nc o ur a g e d fix e d int e r pr e ta tio ns o f how Nic h ir e n s ho uld have acte d in a give n pe r io d. Early Adherence to Mikkyd In spite o f the fact tha t s cholars agre e o n the early esote ric influe nc e o n N ic h ir e n , the r e is a la c k o f pr e cis e in fo r m a t io n o n N ic h ir e n ’s c ar e e r p r io r to his o p e n p r o c la m a t io n o f fa it h in the Lotus S utra, w hich forces us to use cir cums tantial e vide nce w he n tr ying to de te r ­ m in e his tr a ining. Curious ly, no cle ar de s cr iption o f his early e duc a­ tio n can be fo u n d in his own writings , r ic h in a uto bio g r a phic a l de tails as the y ofte n are, a nd this suggests a de libe r ate a tt e mpt o n N ic h ir e n ’s pa r t to m in im ize his e x pe r ie nce in or de r to cons tr uct a pur e ly Lotuso r ie nte d ima ge o f hims e lf. Scholars have as s ume d tha t N ic h ir e n ’s e ar­ lie st e d uc a tion was bas e d o n the e s ote ricis m de ve lope d in the T e ndai s chool, be caus e the te mple he firs t e nte r e d, Kiyos umi- de ra 清 澄 寺 ， was s uppos e dly affiliate d to the Yokawa 横 川 br a nc h o f T aimits u (T akagi 1970 ， p p . 2 0 - 2 1 ) .Howe ve r , to c or r e c tly id e n t ify the a ffilia t io n o f Kiyos umi- de ra in the pe r io d in w hich Nic hir e n was a y oung m o n k has pr ove d quite d iffic u lt ， a n d s cholars have n o t be e n able to p r o d uc e de finitive e vide nce . Alt h o u g h the t e mple may have be e n o r ig ina lly r e late d to T e ndai (its r e c ons tr uc tio n in the He ia n pe r io d is a tt r ibute d to E n n in 円 仁 ） ， th is d id n o t m e a n tha t pe ople a n d texts fr o m T omits u ce nte rs were e x clude d fr o m it. T he pr e s e nce a n d activity o f m onks affiliate d to the Shine i 亲 斤 義 Shing o n s chool (initia te d by Ka kuba n 寬 錢 ， 1095- 1143) are r e gis te r e d for the years tha t Nic m r e n s pe nt the re afte r r e t u r n in g fr o m t h e K in k i a r e a ( K u b o t a 1 9 9 3 ). A t t h e e n d o f t h e Ka ma kur a pe r iod, Kiyos umi- de ra was ind e e d affiliate d to Shingi Shine o n (Kokushi daijite n 8: 235). c ur io us ly , a lin k w ith this t r a d it io n o f e s ote ricis m also e me rge s fr o m two do c um e nts r e lat e d to N ic h ir e n ’s e arly years. On e , a h o lo ­ gr a ph da te d 1251， be ars a dis tinctive ly T omits u s ignature : it is a copy o f Gorin k ujt hishaku, an im p o r t a n t work o f Kakuban, w hicn Nic hir e n is t h o u g h t to have tr a ns c r ibe d d u r in g his s tudie s in the Kink i are a (c o lo p h o n, S T N 4: 2875). T he othe r, da te d 1254 a nd also s ur vivme in 354 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 ho lo g r a ph , is pr obably the first pie ce Nic hir e n c o mpile d afte r for ma lly p r o c la im in g his faith in the Lotus Sutra. It consists o f two dr awings o f the two Kings o f Knowle dge , Acala (Fudo) a nd Ragar aja (Aize n)， with mantr as r e late d to the two de itie s, a nd two ins cr iptions in whic h Nic hi­ r e n ide ntifie s him s e lf as be lo n g in g to the twenty- third g e ne r a tion o f a line age dire ctly de s c e nding fr o m Ma hava ir o ca na (Fudo Aizen kankenki, S T N 1 :16). Scholars have s ugges te d that at this time Nic h ir e n was still in close conta ct with a T omits u m o n k fr o m the Kinki are a, who ha d re ce ntly ar r ive d at Kiyos umi- de ra a nd w ho m Nic hir e n allowe d to copy his ow n m a n u s c r ip t o f t he Gorin k u ji his hak u (K u b o t a 1993 ， pp . 322- 23). In fact, a no the r ma nus c r ipt o f K a kub a n， s work, dat e d 1254 ， exists a n d is s igne d by a ce r tain N ic h iu n 日 件 living in Kiyos umi- dera. It one pr e s ume s a conve r ge nce o f diffe r e nt e s ote ric tr a ditio ns at Kiyos umi- de ra, the no tio ns tha t Nic hir e n e xpre ss ed in his first essaylonsr w r it in g a p p e a r less c o n t r a d ic to r y . T he K aitai sokushin jobuts ugi, wr itte n in 1242, while Nic hir e n was still staying at Kiyos umi- de ra, c o n­ tains s tate me nts id e nt it ia b le as o r ig in a t in e fr o m e ithe r T aimits u or T omits u. Nic h ir e n claims tha t the nin e wor lds (tha t is, the n in e kinds o f be ings ) r e pr e s e nte d in the Lotus S utra can all a tt a in im m e d ia t e b u d d h a h o o d {sokushin jobuts u 即 身 成 仏 ） ， a n d tha t the two Buddha s o f the Lotus Sutra, Sakyamuni a n d P r a bhuta r at na, r e pr e s e nt the dharmab o d y o f the B u d d h a (hos s nin 法 身 ） . T he s e are T a im its u ide as t h a t Nic hir e n de ve lope d in his late r writings . At the same time , however, he r e gar de d the Lotus Sutra as an “in t r o d u c t io n ” (shomon 初 門 ) to Shine o n， an e xpre ss ion us e d by Kukai in his classificatory works. In the e nd, Nic mr e n re affirms the fund a m e nt a l te ne t o f He ia n esoteric Buddhis m, tha t is, the s upe riority o f esote ric over e x ote r ic te achings (S T N :1 ， 14). On e may c o nc lud e tha t the k in d o f e s ote ric do c t r ine Nic h ir e n was e xpos e d to was no t clearly de fine d in te rms o f T aimits u or T omits u, b u t c o mb ine d e le me nts o f the two. It is also pos sible that Nic mr e n received bo th a T omits u a nd a la im it s u initia tion into esotericism. T ms was n o t u n c o m m o n at the e n d o f the H e ia n p e r io d , w he n m o n k s s uc h as Ka kuba n a n d Jic h ih a n 実 IS (ca. 1089- 1144), who were to be known as e x pone nts o f T omits u, h a d b o t h T aimits u a n d T omits u masters. Nic h ir e n m a in t a in e d his pos itive attitude towards mikkyd even afte r he h a d s uppos e dly be c ome set in his conviction r e ga r ding the s upe r i­ ority o f the Lotus Sutra. His ha gio gr a phy puts the b e g in n in g o f Nic h i­ r e n ^ Lotus Bud dhis m (rikkyd kaishu 立 教 開 宗 ） at 1253. In a full- le ngth essay N ic h ir e n w r ote six ye ars late r, howe ve r , h e s till r e ve ale d a kenmit­ su po s ition: he advocate d the s upe rior ity o f a fo r m o f Bud d h is m he n a m e d hokkeshing'on 法 芈 具 目 ， a c o m b in a t io n o f Lo tus a n d e s ote ric notio ns , w hich re fle cte d wha t he may have pr actice d in kenmitsu ce n­ ters (Shugo kokkaron, ST N 1 : 104 ， 107). T he as s ociation o f Lotus a nd Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 355 esote ric t h o u g h t is also a characte ris tic o f T e ndai es ote ricis m. Nic h i­ r e n ^ de fe ns e o f hokkeshingon thus suggests that he inte r pr e te d c onte m­ por ar y esoteric Bud dhis m in T aimits u te rms. T his is fur the r illus tr ate d by his late r de finitions o f mikkyd. N ichire n， s Classification of Esoteric Buddhis m T he te r ms m o s t o fte n us e d by N ic h ir e n w he n a ddr e s s ing e s ote ric Bu d d h is m are s hingon or shingonshu. T hes e labe ls do n o t indic ate the pre s e nt- day s h in g o n s c hool, b u t e s ote r ic B u d d h is m in its totality. Un d o u b t e d ly Nic h ir e n was aware tha t ins titutio na lly the s hingon he was talking a bo ut was cons titute d by two m a jo r e ntitie s , since at time s he d id dis tinguis h be twe e n “S hing o n o f the Eas te r n T e mple ” ( tdji no 東 寺 之 真 言 ， th a t is ， T omits u) a nd “Shing o n o f Mt. H ie i” (hie i no shingon 上 匕 窖 又 の 真 目 ， th a t is, T a im its u). Yet he ne ve r ma de e x plicit how the y doctr inally diffe r e d fr o m e ach othe r, n o r doe s it e me r e e fr o m his writings tha t the two were in c o m p e titio n doctr inally. A cle are r view o f how Nic h ir e n d e fin e d this s hingons hu can be de r ive d fr o m the d ia ­ grams th a t c ha r t his und e r s t a n d in g o f Bud d h is t texts, line age s , a nd doctrine s (ichidai gojt zu 一 代 五 日 寺 図 ) . T he s e diagrams , o f w mc h a n u m ­ be r dr awn in diffe r e nt pe r iods survive in ho lo g r a ph ic fo r m, follow the ba s ic p a t t e r n o f t he T e n d a i s ys te m o f c la s s ific a t io n o f d o c t r in e s (kydhan 孝 文 半 U) int o five pe riods , he nc e the na m e o f “charts or the five pe r iods o f B u d d h a ’s life .” Es ote ric Bud d h is m is fo u n d u n d e r the cate­ gor y o f “e x pa nde d t e a c hing ” (hodobu 方 等 咅 K)， w hic h cor r e s ponds to th e t h ir d p e r io d m the fiv e fo ld T e n d a i s c he me . T ms p la c e m e n t re flects one o f the pos itions o f the T e na ai e s tablis hme nt imme diat e ly afte r Sa ic ho5s 取 澄 de ath, w he n the p r o b le m arose o f in c lu d in g eso­ te ric te achings in a clas s ificatory system tha t or iginally d id n o t c onta in the m (cf. Tdketsu, NDZ 42: 364- 65 ， 393- 94; As ai 1973, Dp. 222- 26). Ih e a llo c a t io n to the t h ir d p e r io d o f B u d d h a ’s p r e a c h in g allow e d T e na a i m o nks to m a in t a in the s upe r ior ity o f the Lotus S utra as the “last te a c hing .” Nic hir e n r e us e d this e x pla na tion time a n d again. His clas s ification o f esote ric Bud d h is m may the re for e be s een as e vide nce o f his a dhe r e nc e to a mor e cons e rvative type o f T e nda i， w hic h h a d tr ie d to dismiss the cha lle nge pr e s e nte d by mikkyd. At the s ame time , it seems to crys tallize his r e je ction o f the alte r native s olutions offe r e d by a n o t h e r s tre am o f T e ndai monks , w ho h a d r e s po nde d to tha t c ha l­ le n g e by p la c in g the e s o te r ic te a c h ing s in th e las t p e r io d o f the five fold clas s ification, toge the r with the Lotus Sutra. As we s hall see, Nic h ir e n r e ga r d e d E n n in (794- 864) a n d E n c h in 円 珍 （ 814- 889) as the m a jo r e x p o n e n t s o f this s tr e am. I be lie ve , howe ve r , t h a t N ic h ir e n ’s 356 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 a dhe r e nce to the cons e rvative m o d e l was only fo r ma l. Alt h o u g h he m a in t a in e d the ta x onomic jus tific a tio n o f “last t e a c hing ” for the Lotus Sutra alone , his re s pons e to es ote ric Bud d h is m ultimate ly d e p e nde d o n de ve lopme nts set in m o t io n by E n n in a n d E nc hin. In his diagr ams Nic hir e n de fine d es ote ric Bud dhis m th r o ug h vari­ ous e le me nts . Firs t， he lis te d the c a nonic a l texts o f shingonshu: thr e e e s ote ric s cripture s , the Darijing, the Jinggangdingjing, a n d the Suxidijie luo jing , in d ic a t e d as the “thr e e Ma h a v a ir o c a n a s utr as ” (Dain ic h i sanbu- kyd 大 日 三 咅 K経 ， S T N 3: 2356). T he im por ta nc e Nic hir e n gives to the S ux idijie luojing de finitive ly re flects a pe r c e ptio n o f mikkyd in T ai­ mits u te rms: this s utra is cons ide r e d only a r itua l m a n u a l a n d n o t a ma jo r s criptur e in T omits u, whe re as it plays a ce ntr al r ole in la im it s u d o c t r in e . Se c ondly , N ic m r e n pr e s e nts th e lin e a g e o f the s c ho ol. U n d e r the one s ingle r ubr ic o f shingonshu one finds the In d ia n a nd Chine s e pa tr ia r c hs S ub h a k a r a s im h a (Shanwuw e i 善 無 畏 ， 637- 735 ) ， Va jr a bo dhi (Jin e g a ng zhi 金 岡 IJ智 ， P- 741), Amogha va jr a (Buko ng 不 空 ， 705- 774)， a n d Yix ing 一 行 （ 683- 727)， the fo u n d e r o f Japa ne s e S hin­ g o n Kukai (774- 835)， a nd the T e ndai abbots E n n in a n d E n c h in {ST N 3: 2385). T he or de r o f the ir inc lus io n appe ars to be c h r o n o lo g ic a l， a n d doe s n o t r e fle ct the diffe r e nt line age s o f T omits u a n d T aimits u. At time s the list is e nla r g e d to inc lud e the Chine s e mas te r o f Kukai, H u ig u o 慧 果 （ 746- 805)， or the fo u n d e r o f Ja pa ne s e T e ndai, Saicho (7 67 - 8 2 2 )， a n d e ve n the Chine s e mas te r o f e s ote r icis m o f Sa ic ho , Shunx ia o 順 暁 （ n.d.) (S T N S : 2300; S T N S : 2356 a nd 2388). T he latte r e xample s are s ignifica nt s ince the y illus tr ate a no the r c o ntr a dic tio n in N ic h ir e n ’s e valuation o f mikkyd: he ope nly cr iticize d only ^a ic h 6 5s suc­ cessors E n n in a n d E n c h in as the e x po ne nts o f T e nda i c o mpr o mis e with es ote ric Bud dnis m , b u t at the s ame time he corre ctly ide nt ifie d s aic ho as one o f the cha nne ls t hr o ug h w hich esote ric Bud dhis m ha d be e n tr a ns mitte d to Ja p a n. Finally, s ome diagr ams also r e cor d the clas­ s ification o f doctr ine s us e d by the shingonshu. Nic hir e n lis te d the two kydhan t ha t char acte r ize d Kuka i5s e s tablis hme nt o f es ote ric Buddhis m: the o pp o s it io n be twe e n e s ote ric a n d e x ote r ic te acmngs a n d the te n stages o f m in d (jiijiis h in 十 住 心 ; S T NS: 2335). In c o n c lu s io n , N ic n ir e n ， s d e fin it io n o f mikkyd mos tly r e lie s o n T aimits u cate gorie s , b u t doe s n o t ig no r e the doc tr ine s o f T omits u. On e c o uld guess that Nic hir e n was n o t e ntire ly aware o f two doctrinally d iffe r e n t e s ote ric t r a ditio ns be caus e he firs t abs or b e d the T omits u tr a ditio n th r o ug h texts tha t h a d alre ady be e n influ e n c e d by la im it s u t e r m in o lo g y (K a k u b a n 5s wor ks , fo r in s t a n c e ), a n d la t e r b e c a m e a c q u a in t e d w ith the e s ote ric lite r a tur e p r o d u c e d by T e nda i monks w ho h a d a s s im ila t e d K u k a i5s ide as . Ap p a r e n t ly , d is t in c t io n s we r e b lu r r e d in the es ote ric conte x t o f Ja pane s e me diae val Buddhis m . For Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 357 ins tance , the colle ctions o f esote ric rituals c o m p ile d in the Ka ma kur a pe r io d, the Kakuzensho a n d the Asabasho, to w hic h I s hall r e tur n later, b o t h c o nta in doc tr ina l inte r pr e tations o f T aimits u as we ll as T omits u, even th o u g h one is s uppos e d to r e cor d trans mis s ions o f T omits u line ­ ages a n d the othe r o f T aimits u (F r a n k 1986- 1987). T he de ve lopme nts o f esote ric Bud d h is m in the late He ia n pe r io d pr e s umably p r o d uc e d a m e r g in g o f in flu e n c e s in b o t h r it u a l pr a ctice s a n d d o c t r in a l p a r t ic u ­ lar itie s . It is in this conte x t t h a t Nic hir e n de ve lope d his id e a o f mikkyd as o n e t r a d it io n , w m c h e m b r a c e d b o t h T omits u a n d T a imits u b u t expre s s ed its e lf pr ima r ily in T aimits u te rms . Criticism of Mikkyd If the dis tinc tio n be twe e n the diffe r e nt for ms o f e s ote ric Bud d h is m doe s n o t e me r ge in N ic h ir e n ’s de fin it io n o f mikkyd, to wha t e x te nt can it be dis ce r ne d in the way he addresses mikkyd in his criticism? Le t us cons ide r the m a in figure s Nic hir e n attacke d in e ach o f the thre e phases in which scholars have divide d his c o nde m na tio n o f esoteric Bud dhis m. KU K A I Ja p a ne s e s cholar s ide nt ify Kuka i as the ta r ge t o f the firs t phas e o f N ic h ir e n ’s c r it ic is m o f mikkyd, w h e n he d ir e c t e d his a t t e n t io n to T omits u; this is s uppos e d to have s tarte d d u r in g his Izu exile. In one essay wr itte n in th a t p e r io d ， in fact, Nic h ir e n br ie fly cites Kuka i for having r e ga r de d the Lotus S utra as infe r ior to the Huay anjing 举 敏 経 a n d Darijing (Kyokijikokusho, S T N 1 :2 4 3 ). Nic hir e n he r e refers to one o f the kydhan systems e labor a te d by Kukai, the so- called “te n stages o f m in d ， ， ， in w hich the T e ndai s chool is ide nt ifie d with the e ighth stage. T his pla c e m e nt, w mc h N ic h ir e n inte r pr e ts as a clas s ification o f the Lotus Sutra be low the es ote ric sutras, is the m a jo r obje ctio n to Kukai o n e c a n fin d in N ic h ir e n ’s w r itings . It is s ig n ific a n t to n o t e t h a t Kuk a i5s tax ono my h a d alr e ady be e n the obje ct o f T aimits u critique s , in the ir e ffor t to cre ate an alte r native es ote ric he r me ne utics . Nic hir e n us e d exactly the s ame a r gume nts tha t h a d be e n de ve lope d by T aimit­ su writers agains t Kuka i5s inte r pr e ta tion, quo t e d fr o m the m, a n d sel­ d o m a d d e d ms own e x pla na tion. For ins tance , Nic h ir e n m e n t io n e d “five mis ta ke s ” (gos hits u 五 失 ） in K u k a i 5s cla s s ification o f the Lotus Sutra, to the e ffe ct that this clas s ification was n o t bas e d o n the fo ur m a jo r c a no nic a l texts o f the es ote ric s chool n o r o n its patr ia r chal tra­ d it io n (Shingon te ndai shdretsuji, ST N 1 :3 5 6 ). T he s e e rrors h a d be e n one o f the m a jo r aspects o f the re vis ion o f Kuka i5s clas s ification for ­ m ula te d by An n e n in his Kyojimondo (T. 75.400c- 403c; cf. As ai 1973, 358 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 pp. 681- 88). T he r e for e , what at first appe ars as N ic h ir e n ’s criticis m o f T omits u me r e ly r e ite rate s T aimits u po s itions a n d mos t like ly w o uld n o t have e xis te d w itho ut N ic h ir e n ’s pr e vious knowle dge o f T aimits u. O n the o the r h a n d , Nic h ir e n har dly c o m m e nt e d u p o n one bas ic te ne t o f Ku k a i5s system, the o p p o s it io n o f e s ote ric versus e x ote r ic, a lt h o ug h he r e cognize d the dis tinc tio n, lis ting it in his diagr ams a nd r e fe r r ing to it in his K aitai sokushin jobutsugi. He downplaye d its m e a n­ in g by s upe r impos ing the t r a ditio na l T e ndai five - pe riod kydhan, a nd r e s or ting to the cate gor y o f the “last t e a c hing ” to pr ove that the Lotus Sutra is the mos t valid s cripture . Wh e n he d id c o m m e n t o n the o p p o ­ s ition, he a ppa r e ntly atta che d a no the r m e a nin g to the te r m “e s ote ric” t ha n Kuk a i5s. He ig no r e d the diffe r e nt na tur e a n d pur pos e o f the eso­ te ric dis cours e that, ac c or ding to Kukai, sets a par t the es ote ric a n d the e xote ric scripture s . For Nic hir e n es ote ric pr ima r ily m e a nt the use o f mantr as a n d mudr as . He w onde r e d w he the r in In d ia a ve r s ion o f the Lotus S utra th a t c o n t a in e d ma ntr a s h a d e x is te d， b u t h a d n o t be e n trans late d in China , or whe the r the tr ans lator o f the Darijin g h a d ju s t a d d e d a few mantr as a n d mudr a s to the Lotus S utra a n d calle d tha t v e r s io n D a r ijin g ( T e radom ari gosho, S T N 1 : 5 1 4 ; S e njis ho, S T N 2: 1034- 35). In this way N ic h ir e n a c kno w le d g e d a c e r ta in de gr e e o f ide ntity be twe e n the two s cripture s , w hic h le ft o pe n the pos s ibility o f giving the Lotus Sutra an esote ric status. While the ide a s trongly c o n­ trasts with Kuka i5s unde r s ta nding o f “e s o te ric ， ” s uch a pos s ibility h a d be e n fo r m a lize d in the his tor y o f Ja pa ne s e e s ote ricis m by T aimits u writers who, in the ir own res pective ways, h a d clas s ifie d the c o nte nt o f the Lotus S utra as e s ote ric.1 It is fr o m this T aimits u pe rs pe ctive tha t Nic h ir e n can ove r look the intr ins ic diffe r e nce be twe e n e s ote ric a nd e xote ric a nd, as we s hall see, ap pr oa c h the pr o b le m o f the s upe rior ity o f the Lotus s criptur e in te rms o f the pr e s e nce or abs e nce o f mudr a s a n d mantr as . T H E P A T RIA RC H S O F E S O T E R IC IS M N ic h ir e n ’s focus o n issues tha t h a d be e n rais e d in T e ndai e s ote ricis m is e ven mor e e vide nt w he n one cons ide rs his criticis m o f the Indo- Chi­ ne se patr iar chs o f e s ote ric Bud d h is m , in pa r tic ula r Subha ka r a s imha a n d Amoghavajr a. Nic hir e n d e no unc e d Subha ka r a s imha for h o ld in g t he vie w tha t, t h o u g h th e t e a c h in g o f the Lotus S utra was d o c t r in a lly ide ntic a l with tha t o f the Darijing, the Lotus Sutra was infe r ior in te rms o f praxis (Zenmuisho, S T N 1 :410). Howeve r, thes e te rms o f e valuation 1 N ic h ir e n discusses the r e la t io n be tw e e n the two s cr iptur e s also in te r ms o f the id e ntit y o f the b u d d h a s w ho pr e a c h e d the two s utras (Shingon tendai shdretsuji, STN 1 : 479- 80). T his is a n o t h e r t o pic t h a t h a d b e e n e x p lo r e d by T a im it s u writers . Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 359 b e lo ng to Japa ne s e T e ndai, a n d were first e mploye d by E n n in , as we s h a ll s ee be lo w . T h u s N ic h ir e n m is r e p r e s e n t e d t h e p o s it io n o f Subhakar as imha, who actually h a d only asserted that the te achings o f the Lotus Sutra a nd the Darijin g have the s ame value , a n d h a d no t dis­ tinguis he d be twe e n do ct r ine a nd pr actice .2 In othe r words , Nic hir e n r e a d the fo r m ula t io n s o f late r T aimits u int o S ub h a k a r a s im h a ^ text. Wh a t is r e ga r de d as criticis m o f Subha ka r a s imha was in fact criticis m o f T aimits u (cf. As ai 1973 ， p. 264). On e o f the early essays in w hich N ic h ir e n ’s pos ition towards Subha kar as imha is e xpre ss ed was writte n in 1266， we ll be for e the Sado e xile , a n d almos t a de cade be for e he we nt to Mt. Min o b u (Zenmuishd, S T N :1， 409- 10). T his me ans tha t the c r itic is m o f the pa tr ia r c hs o f e s ote r icis m d id n o t b e g in d u r in g the Sado p e r io d ， as the three- stage divis ion suggests. It also implie s tha t the the or y a cc or ding to w hic h N ic h ir e n ’s criticis m o f T aimits u tr uly s tarte d only afte r he h a d r e tir e d to Mt. Min o b u lacks a fir m basis, even t h o u g h the na me s o f the T aimits u m onks E n n in a n d E n c h in mos t ofte n appe ar in r e la tion to the ide a o f the infe r ior ity o f the Lotus Sutra in the letters a nd essays o f the Min o b u pe r io d. N ic h ir e n ’s cr itic is m o f Am og ha va jr a , o n the o t h e r h a n d , m a inly conce r ns the a t t r ib ut io n o f a utho r s hip o f a m a jo r c a no nic a l te xt o f e s ote r ic B u d d h is m , the P u tix in lu n (Se njisho, S T N 2 :1 0 2 2 - 2 3 ; Mydichiny o gohe nji, S T N 2 : 1 7 8 1 ) .T his was a s ubje c t t h a t E n c h in h a d alr e ady de alt with. T he Putix inlun, whos e c o m p ila tio n was tr aditionally a tt r ibute d to Nag a r juna , h a d be e n us e d by Kukai to claim the u n iq u e ­ ness o f s h in g o n as a gate to e nlig hte nm e nt, s ince one o f its passages es tablishe s the es ote ric pr actice as the only me ans to attain b u d d h a ­ h o o d in this very body (sokushin jobuts u). Whe th e r Na g a r juna was to be c o ns ide r e d the a u t h o r o f this c o m m e nt a r y a n d Am og ha va jr a its tr ans lator was a fu n d a m e n t a l que s tion for T aimits u, in its a tt e mpt to re value the T e ndai fo r m o f sokushin jobutsu. E n c h in h a d s ugge s te d t ha t Amog havajr a was n o t the tr ans lator o f the te xt， b u t the author , d im in ­ is hing the ca nonic a l author ity o f the te xt as a p r o o f o f the unique ne s s o f the e s ote r ic p a t h ( S as agim on, CDZ 3 : 1038a; cf. As a i 1973 ， p p . 5 8 1 - 8 7 ). N ic h ir e n ’s c r it ic is m t h u s o n c e m o r e c o m e s s t r a ig h t fr o m T aimits u texts, in de fe ns e o f a po s ition tha t s uppor te d T aimits u ide as o f the pos s ibility o f a tt a ining im me dia te e n lig h t e n m e n t thr o ug h the Lotus Sutra. Nic hir e n also m e n t io n e d Amog ha va jr a in r e la tion to texts a n d c onte x t o f the Lotus rituals (hokkehd 法 華 法 ） . T he r e , as we s hall cons ide r be low, he seems to assien an im po r ta nt role to Amoghavajr a 2 In his Darijingshu S ub h a ka r a s im ha e x p la in e d the e s ote ric s cr iptur e by us ing co nce pts , image s , a n d te r m in o lo g y o f T e n d a i p h ilo s o ph y . Fo r a n analys is o f the r e le vant pas s age s fr o m t h e Darijingshu s ee As a i 19 86 a n d 1987. 360 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 within the his tory o f Lotus Bud dhis m , be caus e the latte r h a d cre ate d a horizon ce nte r e d o n the Lotus Sutra. TAIMITSU In the th ir d phas e o f his criticis m o f mikkyd, Nic hir e n is s uppos e d to have s tarte d ta r ge ting the T e ndai m onks w ho , in various ways, h a d d e nie d the ultim a te s upe riority o f the Lotus by contr as ting it with the mor e e ffe ctive pr actice o f e s ote ric Bud dhis m . Nic h ir e n s umma r ize d this po s itio n in the e x pre s s ion メ 理 同 事 劣 ： “e quivale nce in the concept o f abs olute re ality o f the Lotus S utra a n d es ote ric sutras, infe r i­ ority o f the Lotus S utra in the practice w hic h ope ns to b u d d h a h o o d .” A lt h o u g h the id e a b e h in d this kydhan h a d b e e n s pe cifically e x pr e s s e d in E n n in ， s Soshijjikydsho (Co m m e nt a r y o n S ux idijie luojing) , Nic h ir e n as cribe d it to othe r texts, a nd to o the r es ote ric masters as we ll， unify­ ing a large pa r t o f es ote ric Bud d h is m u n d e r this r ubr ic {Senjisho, ST N 2:1042- 3; Hdonshd, S T N 2 :1212- 13). T he p r ima r y obje ct o f his attacks we r e E n n in a n d E n c h in , b u t he ne ve r dis c us s e d the d iffe r e nc e s b e tw e e n the ir two inte r pr e tations o f the r e la tion be twe e n mikkyd a nd Lo tus t h o u g h t . He c o n d e m n e d E n c h in ’s a m b ig uo u s c o n c e r n w ith b o t h the de fe ns e o f the Lotus Sutra a n d the s upe riority o i the es ote ric te achings {Hdonshd, S T N 2 :1 2 1 4 )， r e fe r r ing to the fact th a t E n c h in h a d wr itte n s ome works fr o m an o r t ho d o x T e ndai p o in t o f view a nd othe rs fr o m an es oteric pe rs pective . Howeve r, by ins is ting o n E n c h m ’s lack o f consistency, Nic hir e n de libe r ate ly ie no r e a the fact tha t the tra­ d it io n a l d o u b le c u r r ic u lu m o n Mt. Hie i a llow e d b o t h pe rs pe ctive s , a n d h a d even m a de it into a duty for a n a bbo t to mas te r bo th. (T his is in spite o f the fact tha t Nic hir e n knew, a nd quote d, the im pe r ia l e dict c o nc e r nin g the tr a ining o f the abbot. Ct. Hdonshd, S T N 2 :1 2 1 4 a nd Zasuki 1， quo t e d in As ai 1973 ， p. 377). All a lo ne Nic hir e n co nc e ntr at­ e d his a tt e ntio n o n the p r o b le m o f clas s ification. A s urvey or his ne ga ­ tive s tate me nts c o nc e r ning E n n in or E n c h in prove s th a t he d id n o t critically addre s s o the r s pecific aspects o f the ir tho ug ht. Wh e n his crit­ icis m appe ars to be c ome hars he r, the s ubs tance r e mains the same; it o nly be come s m or e c o lo r ful a n d ir r e ve r e nt: “[ Ennin] is like a bat, w mc h is n o t a b ir d a nd is n o t a mous e .... He eats his fathe r, the Lotus Sutra, a n d enaws u p his mothe r , the de vote e o f the Lotus Sutra" {Hdon­ shd, S T N 2: 1219). N ic h ir e n ’s criticis m touche s less o n the thir d, a nd pe r haps mor e famous re pre s e ntative o f T aimits u, An n e n . O n the few occas ions w he n N ic m r e n e x plic itly m e n t io n s An n e n , the la t t e r ’s inte r e s t in Ze n is a ddr e s s e d, r a th e r t h a n his e s ote r ic ide a s {Senjisho, S T N 2 : 1041 ， 1052). Ih is is quite cur ious if one knows tha t Nic hir e n de r ive d m u c h o f his know le dge o f la im it s u fr o m An n e n . Ma ny o f N ic h ir e n ’s quota tions Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 361 fr o m the works o f E n n in a nd E n c h in actually come fr o m A n n e n ’s writ­ ings . Als o, w he n Nic h ir e n id e n t ifie d the “e quivale nc e o f p r in c ip le ” ( ridd) w ith the pr e s e nc e o f the c o n c e p t o f ichine n s anze n 一 念 三 十 (thr e e th o us a nd wor lds c o nta ine d in one s ingle thoug ht- mo me nt) in b o t h Lotus t h o u g h t a nd es ote ric Bud d h is m ( T eradomari gosho, ST N 丄 ： d 丄 3; Senjisho, S T N 2 :1 0 4 3 ), N ic h ir e n s poke in A n n e n 5s te r ms , fo r a m o n g the T aimits u monks only An n e n h a d advance d this ide a. T he la c k o f a d ir e c t c r itic is m o f A n n e n in r e la t io n to mikkyd ma y have to d o with the fact that An n e n ne ve r took over the po s ition o f a bbo t o f the T e nd a i s c ho ol (zas u) a n d th e r e fo r e d id n o t have the in s t it u t io n a l we ight o f figure s s uch as E n n in a nd Enc hin. In conc lus io n, to pr e s e nt N ic h ir e n ’s attitude towards es ote ric Bud ­ dh is m as a cr iticis m th a t e volve d fr o m T omits u to T aimits u appe ar s mis le a d ing , be caus e it pr e s uppos e s a m o r e c o m ple x a n d sys tematic r e cons ide r ation o f es ote ric Bud d h is m tha n the e vide nce in N ic h ir e n ’s writings warrants . O n the contrary, one may p o in t o ut tha t Nic hir e n addre s s e d the s ame obje c tion to any r e pr e s e ntative o f e s ote ric Bud ­ dh is m he attacke d: the r ailur e to affir m the abs olute s upe rior ity o f the Lotus Sutra. In cr iticizing Kukai or Amoghavajr a, JNichiren m a int a ine d the p o in t o f view o f thos e esote ric thinke r s who, afte r Kukai, revised the latte r 5s kydhan in or de r to p u t for w ar d the ir own int e r pr e tations o f e s ote r ic B u d d h is m — a pe r s pe ct ive in t e r n a l to e s ote r ic B u d d h is m itself, one m ig h t say. Wh e n cr iticizing E n n in a nd E nc nin , he r e s or te d to a r gume nts o f ta ile d loyalty to the fo u n d e r o f T e ndai, Saicho, who h a d n o t a p p lie d dis tinc tions be twe e n p r in c ip le a n d pr actice to the fu n d a m e n t a l e quality o f the Lotus a n d the esote ric paths . T he ind ivid­ ua l characte ristics o f e ach e x po ne nt o f mikkyd a nd the diffe re nce s in the ir inte rpre tative strategies with r e e ar d to the Lotus Sutra dis appe ar in N ic h ir e n ’s discours e . T he dis tinctions ma de by Sa ic ho5s dis ciple s be twe e n doc tr ina l c on­ te nt a n d praxis e x plain why Nic hir e n was c o nc e r ne d with the validity o f the Lotus Sutra in te rms o f e fficacious pr actice , w hic h in ms eyes h a d b e e n do w npla y e d by T aimits u. In the proce s s o f r e e va lua t io n Nic h ir e n us e d ma ny ar gume nts tha t a llude d to the es ote ric po te ntia li­ ties o f the Lo tus s c r iptur e , fr o m the pos s ibility th a t in In d ia the r e m ig h t have e x is te d a ve r s ion o f the Lotus S utra c o n t a in in g ma ntr a s a n d mudr as , to the as s e rtion that prayers {kito) for r a in bas e d o n the Lotus S utra ar e m o r e e ffic a c io u s t h a n kito b a s e d o n e s o te r ic s utr as (Sansanzdk iu no koto, S T N 2:10 65- 72). Nic hir e n was also inte r e s te d in the m a nd a lic r e pr e s e ntation o f reality, w hic h pr ope r ly be longs to eso­ te ric Buddhis m: he cr iticize d the six es ote ric masters Subhakar a s imha, Vajr a bodhi, Amoe havajr a, Kukai, E n n in , a n d E n c h in n o t only for mis ­ 362 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 le a d in g p e o p le a b o u t th e s up e r io r ity o f the s cr iptur e s , b u t als o fo r fa b ­ r ic a t in g a n d p r o p a g a t in g w r o n g k in d s o f m a n d a la s (Misaw ashd STN 2: 14 4 7). Ag a in s t the s e he p u t fo r w a r d his own m a n d a la . In s ho r t, Nic h ir e n d id n o t attack the pr actice o f es ote ric Bud d h is m per se， n o r d id he c o ns ide r his Bu d d h is m int r ins ic a lly d iffe r e n t fr o m e s ote ric Bud dhis m . Rathe r , he criticize d mikkyd be caus e it was a rival practice agains t which he ha d to affirm his own. Nic hir e n’s criticism was dire cte d towards his torical figure s o f Japane s e mikkyd, mor e th a n toward c o n­ te mpor a r y es ote ric Bud dhis m , a n d it took the fo r m o f a s e ctarian criti­ cis m a im e d at fin d in g le g itim a tion for his own doct r ine . T he fact tha t Nic h ir e n ce ns ur e d E n n in a n d E n c h in , b u t n o t An n e n , who h a d no official s tatus as r e pre s e ntative o f a s chool, c onfir ms this age nda. If le g itim a tio n is seen as the moving force b e h in d his attacks o n thinke r s o f t h e T e n d a i s c h o o l, it is o n ly n a t u r a l t h a t N ic h ir e n ’s c r it ic is m be came mor e pervasive in Min o b u , at the time w he n he be came mor e aware that he was cr e ating his own fo r m o f Lotus Buddhis m . N ic h ir e n ’s choic e to tackle issues o f clas s ification also place s his o p p o s it io n to mikkyd in the conte x t o f a s trate gic dis cour s e . Ky dhan h a d pr ove d successful as a me ans o f self- assertion in the ide ologic a l conflicts o f Bud dhis t his tory tha t yie lde d ne w inte r pr e tations or le d to t he c r e a t io n o f ne w r e lig io us m o v e m e n t s (G r e g o r y 1991 ， p p . 114- 16). It is n o t s ur pr is ing th a t Nic hir e n, we ll ve rse d in te x tual s tudie s , u t i­ lize d the s e ctarian func t io n o f sutra- classification for his own purpos e s . N o t only d id he express his ne e d o f e s tablis hing the “c or r e ct ” doc ­ tr ine with an ins is te nce o n the s upe rior ity o f one s ingle s utra, he also wrote essays in w hic h he a r tic ulate d his own hie r a r c hic a l dis tinc tio n be twe e n the Lotus Sutra a n d the es ote ric sutras (Shingon te ndai shdretsu­ ji, S T N 1 :4 7 7 - 83; Shingon shichiju shoretsu, S T N 3: 2312- 18). In this sense Nic h ir e n was b o u n d to the tr a ditio na l, s cholas tic mode s o f inte r ­ pr e ta tion o f Bud dhis t doc tr ine (Do lc e 1995 ， 1998). Appropriation of Esoteric Buddhis m N IC H IR E N ’S IN T E RE S T IN M IKKYO: T H E CHU-HOKEKYO An extensive r e a ding o f the Nic hir e n corpus make s cle ar tha t Nic h i­ r e n s tudie d la im it s u doc tr ina l texts a nd es ote ric ma te r ia l in ge ne r al. Eve n if one w o uld conce de tha t the pr ima r y r e as on for his s tudy o f mikkyd was to mas te r w hat he wante d to criticize , one s ho uld also re c­ ognize tha t these texts s upplie d h im with a b a c kg r o und o f knowle dge t h a t he e ve ntua lly us e d to fo r m u la t e his own e p is te m o lo g ic a l a n d o nto log ic a l par adigms . On e work in pa r tic ula r sheds lig h t o n the way Nic hir e n r e late d eso­ Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 363 te r ic d o c tr in e s to T e n d a i Lo tus te a c hings : his ow n c opy o f the t hr e e ­ fo ld Lotus Sutra, the s o- calle d Chu- hokekyd (Ya ma na ka 1980). T his te xt can be cons ide r e d a sui ge ne r is fo r m o f c omm e nta r y that, r athe r tha n e x pla ining the c a nonic a l s criptur e , wraps it in a ne t o f c or r e s po nde nc­ es with othe r texts o f Bud dhis t lite r atur e that othe rwis e appe a r to be unr e la t e d . Ra the r t h a n an a n n o t a t io n o f the s utra it is a n ind e x to what Nic h ir e n him s e lf r e ad a nd was inte r e s te d in ， a nd to the way he associated ideas. Alt ho ug h at times the c onne c tio n be twe e n a s criptural passage a n d the “a n n o t a t io n ” seems unfa t h o m a b le , quota tions fr o m d iffe r e nt texts c o nc e r nin g the s ame topic are ofte n lis te d one afte r the othe r, a nd this allows the re ade r, albe it with a ce r tain de gre e o f a p p r o x im a t io n , to fo llo w N ic h ir e n ’s flow o f t h o u g h t . O f the m o r e t ha n two h u n d r e d passages tr ans cr ibe d in the Chu- hokekyd, one - four th c o me s fr o m d o c t r in a l, r it u a l, a n d ic o n o g r a p h ic a l e s ote r ic te xts , in c lu d in g the ma jo r sutras a nd the ir comme ntar ie s , a nd fr o m essays by Kukai, E n n in , E nc h in, a nd An n e n . T hus , a lt h o ug h the c o m p ila tio n is n o t e xhaus tive o f the totality o f e s ote ric ma te r ia l Nic hir e n refers to, this much- ne gle cte d te xt is a r e ma r ka ble s ource for d o c u m e n t in g the esote ric conte x t in w hic h N ic h ir e n ’s t h o u g h t de ve lope d. Be caus e o f the c ons picuous pre s e nce o f e s ote ric writings , a n d an e qually s triking abs e nce o f works r e late d to Pure La n d or Ze n thought, Ya m a n a k a Kiha c hi suggests tha t the Chu- hokekyd was c o m p ile d d ur ing a n d afte r the Sado e xile , w he n N ic h ir e n ’s c onc e r n with mikkyd be came s tronge r (1980 ， pp. 648- 50). Ano t h e r hypothe s is , advance d by Shigyo Kais hu, re gards the te xt as e x is te nt be for e the Sado e xile a n d e x plains the qua ntity o f es ote ric quota tio ns by the fact that N ic h ir e n ’s early for ­ m a t io n was T aimits u (Ya m a n a k a 1980 ， p. 649). It may we ll be that in a n e ar lie r pe r io d Nic hir e n h a d a no the r copy o f the Lotus Sutra, now lost, w hic h he us e d as a ca nonic a l re fe re nce a nd a no te bo o k d u r in g his years o f s tudy in the Kinki area; this was in fact one o f the le a r ning me thods followe d by young monks , as the existence o f a s imilar Chuamidakyd by ^h m r a n indic a te s (T a k a g i 1970, p. 38). T e x tual c or r e ­ s po nde nc e s w it h in the N ic h ir e n c or pus t ha t Ya m a na ka po ints o ut, however, are c onvinc ing e vide nce tha t the Chu- hokekyd was c o m p ile d d u r in g the Sado years. Yamana ka also argue s tha t N ic h ir e n ’s pur pos e in r e c o r d ing this es ote ric mate r ial was to b u ild u p te x tual s uppor t for the fo r m u la t io n o i his criticis m o f mikkyd, b u t this may be que s tione d. Several passages r e cor de d in the c o m p ila tio n do n o t c onc e r n the tar­ ge t o f N ic h ir e n ’s attack, the kydhan; othe rs he us e d in his writings in a conte x t tha t h a d little to do with criticis m, a n d o n the contr ar y w ould sugges t a pos itive a ppr e c ia tion o f es ote ric ideas. In fact， the esote ric mate r ial trans cribe d in the Chu- hokekyd ha ppe ns to fur nis h an im p o r t a n t 364 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 clue to the mode ls Nic hir e n followe d whe n, d u r in g the Sado e xile , he cons tr ucte d a m a nd a la as the obje ct o f wor s hip ( horizon) a n d e m p h a ­ sized the m a n trie nat ur e o f the r e c itation o f the title o f the Lotus Sutra (daim ok u 題 M ) • A “GREAT MANDALA” AS THE HONZON OF LOTUS BUDDHISM We c a nn o t go into a de taile d analysis o f all the e le me nts o f N ic h ir e n ’s m a n d a la a n d the ir fu nc t io n in this article , b u t ce r tain fe ature s ne e d to be reassessed he r e to s how the ir affinity to esote ric conce ptions r athe r th a n to o r t h o d o x T e ndai. N ic h ir e n ^ ma nda la s are gr a phic c onfigur a tio ns that have ins cr ibe d in the ir m id d le the Chine s e lo goe r aphs o f the title o f the Lotus Sutra a nd, a r o u n d it ， the name s o f de itie s who appe a r in the Lotus Sutra or who, t h r o u g h a set o f co r r e s ponde nc e s , h a d c ome to be as s ociate d with it in me die va l Ja p a n . On e h u n d r e d a n d twenty- e ight o f Nicnire n ， s ho lo g r a ph ic manda la s have be e n pre s e rve d, da t ing fr o m 1271 to 1282 (Ya m a n a k a 1992). T he ma nda la s vary in size, fo r ma t, a n d pa t­ te r n, a n d this make s a typological clas s ification o f the e ntir e g r o up difficult. T he two picture s s hown he r e illus tr ate a ge ne r al divis ion o f N ic h ir e n ’s m a nda lic c or pus .3 T he firs t (see fis r .1 )， in the so- called “fo r m a l style” (kdshiki 公 式 、 ， is a m o r e c o mp r e he ns ive type o f m a n d a la w ith the title o f the Lotus S utra ins c r ib e d in the m id d le , a n d a r o u n d it, a r r a ng e d in pair s or gr oups in d iffe r e nt s e ctions o f the ic on, are ins c r ibe d the two Bu d ­ dhas o f the Lotus Sutra (Sakya muni a n d Pr abhuta r a tna ) a nd the fo ur r e pr e s e ntative bodhis attvas o f the o r ig in a l s e ction o f the s cr iptur e (honm on) ; fo u r o t h e r bo dhis a ttvas fr o m the Lotus S utra (Samantabha dr a , Ma njus r i, Maitr e ya， a nd Bhais aiya- raja); two or mor e dis ciple s o f the Bud dha ; a nd a hos t o f g ua r dia n de ities a m o n g w ho m are In d r a a n d Br a hma , dr agons , a n d fe male de mons . At the fo ur corne r s the re are the name s o f the Fo ur He ave nly Kings a n d at the r ig ht a n d le ft sides o f the ic on siddham letters r e pr e s e nting two Kings o f Knowle dge , Acala a n d Ragaraja. Ih is type o f m a nd a la also has ins c r ibe d the two ka mi Amate r as u a n d Ha c h im a n , the line age o f N ic h ir e n ’s Bud dhis m , a n d a r a t io na le fo r the cr e at io n o f this horizon. T he s e cond type o f m a n d a la is an “abbr e via te d” （ 略 式 ） r e pr e s e ntation, w mc h place s fewer figure s at the sides o f the ce ntr al e le me nt: in the one in c lud e d he re , fo r ins tance , the bodhis attvas o f the honmon are le ft out, a n d the cor ne r s J T h e two p ic tu r e s have b e e n p u b lis h e d w it h th e g r a c io us p e r m is s io n o f th e H ir a g a H o n d o - ji in M a t s u d o , C h ib a P r e fe c t u r e ; Ya m a n a k a S e it o k u o f Ris s h o a n k o k u k a i; a n d Yuza n k a k u S h u p p a n s h a , T okyo. I wis h to t h a n k N o g u c n i S h in c h o , o f Ris s ho Unive rs ity, fo r his h e lp in o b t a in in g pe r mis s io n. Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m F ig u r e 1 . Ma n d a la dr awn by Nic h ir e n . No date ; a t t r ib ut e d to B un， e i 1 1 (1 2 7 4 ). One o f the largest honzo n Nichir e n ins cribe d for his followers: made o f twenty sheets o f pape r, it measures 189.4 x 112.1 cm. It is one e xample o f the “fo r ma l” style. 365 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 366 r \ Fig ur e 2. Ma nda la dr awn by Nic hir e n. Not date d; attr ibute d to B un， e i 9 (1272). Known as the ichinen sanzen gohonzon because it also has ins cribe d a phrase fr om a T iantai Chine s e text on the ide a o f ichinen sanzen. It is small (39.7 x 30.3 cm) and may be re garde d as an e xample o f the “abbre viate d” style. are n o t mar ke d by the logogr aphs o f the He ave nly Kings (see fig. 2). T h e r e ar e two le ve ls at w h ic h o n e s h o u ld c o n s id e r N ic h ir e n ’s a p p r o p r ia tio n o f mikkyd ide o logy with r e gard to the m a n d a la : ( 1 ) the ide a o f cr e ating a dia gr a mma tic ic o n ， a nd (2) the s pe cific c o nte nt o f his mandalas . Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 367 T HE MAN DALA OF T HE T EN W ORLDS O n the firs t le vel, the s ignificance o f the e s ta blis hme nt o f a honzon tha t Nic h ir e n him s e lf calle d m a nd a la (dai m andara or hokekyd dai mandara) a n d that re s ponds to the rule s o f r e pr e s e ntation pr ope r to an e s ote ric m a nd a la is self- evident. T he ide a o f “c ha r ting the ve ne r able s ” (shosonzu 諸 尊 図 ） is une quivoc a lly e s ote ric, a n d pre s cribe s a s pe cific o r de r in the a r r a ne e m e nt o f the various figure s ins cr ibe d, w hich we also fin d in N ic h ir e n ’s m a nda la , e s pe cially in its mos t co mple te fo r m. He r e one may diffe r e ntia te registers for de ities o f diffe r e nt status, a nd pe rce ive the c ons tr uc tio n o f a clos e d s tructur e o f w hich the fr a me is we ll de fin e d by the name s o f g ua r dia n de itie s. T his es ote ric characte r o f N ic h ir e n ’s honzon ， howe ve r, is o fte n ig n o r e d be caus e N ic h ir e n ’s m a n d a la is r athe r seen as a r e pr e s e ntation o i the dis tinctive T e ndai d o c tr in e o f the inte r de pe nde nce o f the te n worlds {jikkai gogu 十 界 互 具 ） . It is ce r tainly pos s ible to dr aw cor r e s ponde nce s be twe e n the various classes o f figure s Nic hir e n ins c r ibe d a n d the classes o f be ings c odifie d in the te n- world s c he me (Kir iy a 1994). A c o r r e la t io n be tw e e n the d o c ­ t r in e a n d the m a n d a la e me r g e s als o in N ic h ir e n ’s wr itings . Firs t o f a ll ， the n o t io n o f the inte r de pe nde nc e o f the te n worlds plays a ce ntr al r ole in his te achings . O n the onto lo gic a l level, it pre s e nts re ality as an inte g r a te d unity in w hic h all aspects are in c lud e d a nd it corr e s ponds to a n o t h e r c o nc e pt in T e nda i p h ilo s o p h y de ar to Nic h ir e n , tha t o f ichinen sanzen. O n the s ote r iological level, the doc tr ine r ationalize s the pos s ibility o f b u d d h a h o o d fo r all kinds o f be ings : the h e ll o f n o n ­ e n lig h t e n e d be ine s is in c lu d e d in the B u d d h a r e a lm ， a n d buddha h o o a is c o nta ine d in the r e alm o f he ll. T he o p e n in g pae e s o f one o f N ic h ir e n ’s m a jo r wor ks , the K an jin honzonsho, are a lm o s t e ntir e ly de vote d to the e x pla na tion o f these ide as (S T N 1 :7 02 - 7). T he s truc­ ture o f this wor k pr ovide s e vide nce for the r e la tion be twe e n the te n wor lds a n d the m a nda la . T he lo n g disrression o n the a t t a in m e n t o f b u d d h a h o o d by the be ings o f the te n worlds is in fact followe d by a s e ction t h a t dis cusses an all- inclus ive B u d d h a a n d pr e s e nts the dai m andara as the obje c t o f wor s hip. T hus in Nic hir e n,s m in d the two issues ce rtainly are conne cte d. In a le tte r Nic hir e n is e x plicit a bout this: T he e ndowme nt o f the ten worlds (jikkai msoku) me ans that the te n worlds, without e xce ption o f any, are [ contained] in one wor ld. Ih u s I call [ this honzon] m andara. Mandara is a word fr om India. He re it me ans both “the pe rfe ct e ndowme nt o f a circle ” (rin- en gusoku 車 命 円 具 足 ) a nd “the gatheriner o f me r ­ itsw(kudoku- shu 功 徳 聚 ） . [Nichinyo gvzen gohenji, S T N 2:1376) On e m ig h t c onc lude the re for e that N ic h ir e n ’s ins c r ibing a m a nd a la is a na t ur a l cons e que nce o f his ove rall adhe r e nc e to o r t ho d o x T e ndai 368 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 B u d d h is m . Ne ve r t he le s s , o n e c r u c ia l q u e s t io n r e m a ins : ho w d id N ic h ir e n c o nce ive o f the t r a n s la t io n o f the d o c t r in e o f the in t e r ­ d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e t e n w o r ld s in t o a honzon t h a t h e c a lle d dai m andara} T he r e is no d o u b t tha t Nic hir e n uses the wor d m andala in its es ote ric m e a nin g s ince the de fin it io n tha t he gives looks ide ntic a l to t he class ic d e fin it io n o f the taizdkai 胎 蔵 界 m a n d a la give n in the fo u r t h fas c ic le o f S u b h a k a r a s im h a ^ Darijing s h u: “M a n d a la m e a ns c ir c le 輪 円 …. Fur the r , it has the m e a nin g o f asse mbly 衆 集 …. T he tr ue me r its 功 徳 o f the T athae ata are gathe r e d a n d exist in one place (Danpng's hu, T. 39.425a- b ， 426a). Sur ve ying es ote ric sources, one finds tha t the c o nne c tio n be twe e n the c o nc e pt o f the te n worlds a n d the n o t io n o f m a nd a la h a d s ome pr e ce de nts in la im it s u lite r ature . A n n e n ’s wntine s are cr ucial m this r e e ar d. An n e n is us ually r e gar de d as the t hinke r who tr ans pos e d Shine o n d o c t r in e (t h a t is, T omits u) in t o T e nda i, b u t in his a t t e m p t to u n ify th e two fo r m s o f B u d d h is m , he als o w o r k e d the o t h e r way a r o und , tr ans fe r r ing T e ndai ide as int o the esote ric conte x t. Us ine as te x tual e vide nce es ote ric c a nonic a l s ources, he de mons tr a te d that the c o n c e p t o f jik k ai gogu als o exists in mikkyd texts (Bodais hingis ho, T. 75.49 丄 c j. F ur the r m o r e , he set fo r th a co r r e s ponde nc e be twe e n the te n wor lds a n d the B u d d h a o f e s ote ric Bud dhis m , a n d a pplie d it to the two fu n d a m e n t a l ma nda la s o f the es ote ric tr a ditio n. As As ai E nd o has s ugge s te d, by ide ntiiyins r the e x te r na l s e ctions o f the kongokai 金 剛 界 a n d taizdkai manda la s with the firs t e ight wor lds o f the te nfold s che me , An n e n cre ate d a c o m b ina t io n with the worlds o f the buddha s a n d bodhis attvas de pic te d m the ce ntr al s ections o f the mandalas , so tha t the m a nd a lic s tructur e in its totality came to r e pr e s e nt all the te n wor lds . An n e n e mpha s ize d tha t the Dhar ma- wor ld (hokkai 法 界 ） ， o f w m c h the e s ote ric ma nda la s are r e pr e s e ntations , inc lude s n o t only the w or ld o f e n lig h t e n m e n t o f the Bud d h a , b u t also the othe r nin e worlds , be e dnninff with the r e a lm o f he ll. T he re for e , fr o m this angle , too, he dis clos e d the pos s ibility o f s e e ing the m a n d a la as an expre s ­ s ion o f the inte r pe ne tr a tio n o f the te n worlds (A s a i 1973 ， pp. 661- 66;. Nic h ir e n was ce r tainly aware o f A n n e n ’s fo r mula t ions o f the fu n d a ­ m e n t a l u n it y o f T e nd a i a n d e s ote r ic d o c t r in e . In fact, in his Chuhokekyd he r e cor de d a passage fr om An n e n ’s Bodaishingisho that asserts the pr e s e nce o f the c o nc e pt o f the te n wor lds in e s ote ric te achings (Ya m a na k a 1 9 8 0 ， p. 54; cf. Bodais hingis ho, T. 7 5 .4 5 6 c ). F u r t h e r e vi­ d e n c e or JNic hir e n， s fa m ilia r it y w ith A n n e n ’s views e me r ge s if o n e c o n ­ s ide r s h o w A n n e n us e d th e o t h e r T e n d a i im a g e o f in t e r d e p e n d e n t reality, that o f icmnen sanzen. It has be e n m e n t io n e d e ar lie r that, whe n N ic m r e n r e g a r d e d ichine n sanzen as the n o t io n o n w h ic h T aimits u thinke r s h a d b u ilt the “id e nt it y o f p r in c ip le ” be twe e n e s ote ric a n d Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 369 Lotus Bud d his m , he bas e d his unde r s ta nding o n A n n e n ’s inte r pr e ta ­ tion. An n e n illus tr ate d the c or r e s ponde nc e be twe e n the re ality o f the thre e th o us a nd wor lds (sanzen) a n d the one Bu d d h a o f es ote ric Bud ­ dhis m us ing diffe r e nt expre ss ions . For ins tance , he as serted tha t what T e n d a i calls “h u n d r e d w or lds , t h o u s a n d s uchne s s e s a n d thr e e t h o u ­ s a n d b e in g s ， a ltoge the r is a no t h e r n a m e fo r Ma ha va ir o c a na 55 (Kydji- mondo, T. 75.423a). Var ious passages fr o m his works indic a te tha t he und e r s to o d the T e ndai co nc e pt as e quiva le nt to the dhar ma- body o f the B u d d h a (the body o f s e lf- e njoyme nt, w hic h he calle d hos s hinjiju 法 身 自 受 ). As ai E n d o (1 9 7 3 ， p. 735) has p o in t e d o u t tha t, in so d o in g , A n n e n revive d a c or r e s ponde nc e alr e ady ar ticulate d in a wor k att r ibute d to Saicho, the Him its u shogonron (no lone e r e x ta nt), a nd linke d it to his ide a o f the ma nda lic e xpre s s ion o f Mahavair ocana. Nic hir e n r e ite rate d A n n e n ’s pa tt e r n o f cor r e s ponde nce s : he cite d the passage fr o m the Him its u shogonron, w hic h claims the ide ntity (soku 良 P) or ichinen sanzen a n d the bo dy o f s e lf- e njoyme nt (jijuy us hin 自 受 用 身 ） o f M a h さ vairocana, a n d conne ct e d this e quivale nce with his ma nda la . In the le tte r c o nta in ing the de fin itio n o f the m a nd a la I have quo t e d above , Nic h i­ r e n pr e s e nte d the passage (which he as cribe d to Saicho) as one o f the te x tua l g r o u n d s o n w h ic h his h o n z o n s h o u ld be r e g a r d e d as “the gre at m a n d a la tha t h a d n o t e xis te d be fo r e ” 未 曾 有 の 大 曼 陀 福 (Nichiny o gozen gohenji, S T N 2 :1375- 76). T hus Nic hir e n seems to be in line with la im it s u ideas. A co r r e s pon­ d e n c e b e tw e e n T e n d a i a n d e s ote r ic e x pr e s s io ns o f t h e w o r ld o f abs olute re ality exis te d in the T aimits u tr a ditio n, w he the r it re ally ha d be e n e s tablis he d by s a ic ho or no t. An n e n a p p lie d it to the e s ote ric mandala s , a n d Nic hir e n, r e de ploying T e na ai te rminology, p r o d uc e d a concr e te obje ct tha t c o uld r e pr e s e nt the es ote ric co nc e r n with visual­ izing the ult im a te re ality in a dia g r a mma tic ic on. T he passage fr o m the a fo r e m e n t io ne d le tter, in w hic h N ic h ir e n co mbine s the ide a o f m a n d a la with tha t or the inte r de pe nde nc e o f the te n worlds , r e ma ins quite obs cure w he n one tries to unde r s ta nd it with s ta ndar d T e ndai d o c t r in e in m in d , b u t be co me s c o m p r e h e ns ib le if pla c e d w it h in a T aimits u pe rs pe ctive o f cor r e s ponde nce s . T H E RIT U A L S O F T H E LO TU S SUTRA Wh ile T aimits u the orie s o f the c or r e s ponde nc e be twe e n es ote ric a nd e xote r ic e x pre s s ions o f the ultim a te re ality o p e n e d ne w ave nue s to Nic h ir e n fo r his r e pr e s e ntation o f the Lotus Sutra, the r itua l d im e n ­ s ion o f c o nte mpor a r y es ote ric Bud d h is m pr ovide d h im with s pecific mode ls for his honzon. T he s e cond level o f N ic h ir e n ’s a p pr o p r ia tio n o f es ote ric patte r ns , 370 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 w hic h r e gards the c o nt e nt o f his ma nda la s a n d the re as ons fo r the ins e r tio n o f ce r tain de itie s ， may be clar ifie d by an e x a m ina t ion o f one pa r tic ula r liturgy: the rites ce nte r e d o n the Lotus Sutra (hokkehd). T he hokkehd were pr oba bly de ve lope d in T aimits u circles, b u t the y a c quir e d gr e a t p o p u la r it y a m o n g all br a nc he s o f e s ote r ic B u d d h is m in late He ia n a n d e arly me die va l Ja p a n . Colle c tio ns o f r ituals s uch as the Kakuzensho (c o m p ile d by Ka kuze n o f the T omits u On o r y u be twe e n 1183 a n d 1213) a n d the Asabasho (c o m p ile d by Sho c ho o f the T ai­ mits u Ano r y u be twe e n 1242 a n d 1281) de vote cons ide r able space to the hokkehd a nd pr e s e nt an impre s s ive var iation in the r e nde r ings o f spe cific steps o f the r it ua l or in the inte r pr e ta tion o f the the orie s tha t were b e h in d ce r tain for ms o f it. T he s e c o lle c tio ns d o c u m e n t the in flu e n c e s N ic h ir e n may have be e n s ubje cte d to, a n d in this re s pe ct are a ne cess ary c o m p le m e nt to T aimits u do c tr ina l works, b o t h be caus e the y illus tr ate ho w ide as were concre te ly a pplie d a nd be caus e the mate r ial the y c o nta ine d also covers the p e r io d fr o m the last T aimits u e x po ne nt m e n t io n e d by Nic hir e n (Anne n) to N ic h ir e n ’s time s , filling a gap in the sources. He r e a nd the r e in his copy o f the Lotus Sutra, Nic h ir e n r e c or d e d various pas ­ sages fr o m texts r e late d to the Lotus rituals , s uch as the ir c a nonic a l s ource (Fahuaguanz hiy igui), w hic h was att r ibute d to Amoghavajr a; an ic o no g r a phic a l te xt pr oba bly in t r o d uc e d in Ja p a n at the b e g in n in g o f the Ka m a k u r a p e r io d ( Weiy ix ingsejing) ; a te x t a t t r ib ut e d to E n c h in (Koen hokkegi) ; a n d s e q u e n c e s o f m a n t r a s . Els e w h e r e h e dis cus s e s que s tions o f te xtual incons is te ncie s in the c a nonic a l m a n u a l {Senjisho, STN 2 : 10 2 2)， a n d e x plicitly re fe rs to ic o n o g r a p h ic a l de tails o f the r itual. (Zenmuishd, S T N1: 410; Hdonshd, S T N 2 :1219) It seems quite safe, the re ­ fore, to assume that he ha d a ce rtain familiar ity with the practice. In the follow ing page s I s hall p o in t o ut dis tinctive fe ature s o f the es ote ric rituals tha t le n d the ms e lves to a c ompa r is on with N ic h ir e n ’s ma nda la : the honzon us e d in the liturgy, the types o f de ities who play a c e n tr a l r o le in it, a n d the us e o f the title o f the Lotus Sutra. T he h o n zo n us e d in the hokkehd is a Lotus m a nda la iconog r aphically de rive d fr o m the ce ntral ha ll o f the taizdkai ma nda la . It de picts a lotus flowe r in the ce ntr e o f w hic h is the je w e lle d s tupa de s cr ibe d in the Lotus Sutra, with the two Buddha s Sa kyamuni a n d P r a bhuta r a tna sit­ ting ins ide . Eig h t bodhis attvas fr o m the s criptur e are plac e d o n the e ig ht pe tals o f the lotus flowe r a n d fo ur sravakas at the corne r s o f the firs t hall. Several g ua r dia n de itie s are s ituate d in the e x te r nal halls , a mong w ho m are the Four He ave nly Kings, Four Kings o f Knowle dge , In d r a a nd Br ahma, de mons a nd dr agons (Fahuaguanzhiy igui, T .19.595b5 96 a ). T he Lotus m a nd a la thus has ins cr ibe d classes o f de ities s imilar Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 371 to thos e one finds in N ic h ir e n ’s honzon, a lt ho ug h Nic hir e n s implifie d the esote ric assembly, le aving o ut ma ny figure s o f the e x te r nal halls o f the Lo tus m a n d a la . T he ic o n o g r a p h ic p a t t e r n is d iffe r e n t in t h a t N ic h ir e n ’s m a n d a la is a c alligr aphic honzon, a n d arr ange s the various ve ne r able s n o t conce ntr ically, b u t at the sides o f the ce ntr al e le me nt. In b o t h cases, howe ve r , the c e n t e r fr o m w h ic h the o t h e r figur e s e mana te is fo r m e d by s imilar symbols o f the Lotus S utra (the s tupa a nd the two Buddhas , a nd the title o f the s utra a n d the two Bud d h a s )4 a nd the fr ame o f the ic o n is ma r ke d by g ua r dia n deitie s. T he co mpa r is on be twe e n the esote ric m a n d a la a nd N ic h ir e n ’s hon­ zon is n o t arbitrary, for Nic hir e n him s e lf refers to the Lotus m a nd a la in several wr itings ， a n d seems to r e gar d it as one o f the for e r unne r s o f his honzon be caus e it was ce nte re d o n the Lotus Sutra {Honzon mondosho, S T N 2:1 5 7 3 - 7 4 ). He treats it as one o f not- yet- perfected r e pre s e nta­ tions o f the s cripture a nd its Bud dha , a nd attribute s the s ame s ignifi­ cance to it as to the honzon us e d d u r in g the e x ote r ic T e nda i Lotus samddhi, tha t is, the rolls o f the Lotus Sutra.5 It may appe ar contr adicto­ ry tha t Nic hir e n d id n o t he sitate to lin k a T e ndai a nd an esoteric pr ac­ tice. A r e la tion be twe e n the two honzon, however, h a d alr e ady be e n e s ta blis he d w it h in th e hokkehd: n o t o n ly h a d the r it u a l e x te ns ive ly b o r ­ r o w e d fr o m the samddhi in te r ms o f s tages o f p e r fo r m a n c e (As ai 1973, pp. 466—7 1 )， b u t also in the hokkehd, as it was pr actice d in Ja p a n , the s criptur e its e lf occas ionally r e plac e d the m a nd a la as honzon (Asabasho, DNBZ 59:1109- 10; Kakuzensho, DNBZ 54: 628). Wit h this b a c kg r o und Nic h ir e n w ould har dly fe e l a c o ntr a dic tio n be twe e n an iconic honzon a n d the s criptur e as honzon. Nic h ir e n ’s honzon appe ars to have be e n even mor e affe cte d by the e soteric r itual whe re the way o f ins cr ibing the ve ne rable s is conce r ne d. 4 N ic h ir e n ne ve r dr e w a s tupa in his ma nda la s , b u t in his wr itings he de s c r ibe d the hon­ zon as h a v in g in its c e nt e r the s tupa, w it h the daimoku ins ide . It is pos s iole to dis ce r n the vis u­ al im a g e o f a s tupa in the g r a p h ic a r r a n g e m e n t o f N ic h ir e n ’s honzon ( D o l c e fo r t h c o m in g ). J N ic h ir e n he r e q u o t e d the c a n o n ic a l te x t fo r the Lo tu s s a m a d hi, Zh iy i’s Fahuasanmeichanyi (T. n o . 1941), w h ic h pr e s cr ibe s the in s ta lla tio n o f a co py o f the Lotus Sutra o n the r it­ u a l p la t fo r m a n d fo r b id s t h e us e o f im a g e s o r o t h e r s c r ip t u r e s . T h e Lo t u s s a m a d h i {fahuasanmei, J p n . hokke zanmai 法 華 三 昧 ) is o n e o f t h e fo u r k in d s o f m e d it a t io n s d e v e lo p e d in the T e n d a i s c ho ol (S t e ve ns on 1986). In C n in a it was e x tr e me ly p o p u la r , a n d n o t lim it e d to the T ia n t a i c o m m u nit y . In Ja p a n it was a d o p t e d by Saic ho a n d be c a me the core o f o ne o f the two c ur r ic ula T e nda i m o nks h a d to follow o n Mt. Hie i. Scholars , howe ve r, have s ugge s te d t h a t in Ja p a n it r a t he r was the e sote r ic r ite o f the Lo tus {hokkehd) th a t e njo ye d a p o pula r it y c o m p a r a b le to t h a t o f the Lotus s a m a d h i in C h in a (Ume da 1927). In the Ka m a k ur a p e r io d, N ic h ir e n was n o t the o nly o ne to see a r e la t io n be tw e e n the e x o te r ic a n d the e s ote ric pr a c ­ tices o f the Lot us . Myoe (1173- 1282), fo r ins tance , dis cus s e d the s imila r ity be tw e e n a t t a in­ in g e n lig h t e n m e n t by p e r fo r m in g the Lo tu s s a m a d h i a n d a t t a in in g it by p e r fo r m in g the hokkehd (Shinmonshu, Myoe Shonin shiryo 3 ， p p . 251- 52). Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 372 Nic h ir e n d id n o t ju s t write the logogr a phs o f the na m e o f the de itie s , b u t also a wor d e xpre s s ing ve ne r ation a nd praise: nam u 南 無 • In sever­ al manda la s this wor d pre ce de s the name s o f all the de itie s in c lud e d in the honzon, bud dha s a nd bodhisattvas r e late d to the Lotus Sutra as we ll as g ua r d ia n de ities (for ins tance , f ig . 1 ) . T hus the c o nte nt o f s uch honzon is like a n invoc ator y s e que nce . It is h e lp fu l to c ompa r e this with s ome s ections o f the es ote ric Lotus rituals . T he Kakuzensho, for ins tance , r e cor ds u n d e r a n e ntr y fo r the Bud d h a s to ve ne r ate (raiん 加 禮 佛 ） ： Na mu Mahavairocana Buddha, Na mu the four bodhisattvas of wis dom, Na mu Sakyamuni Buddha (three time s )， Na mu Pra­ bhutar atna Buddha, Na mu the Sutra o f the Lotus Flower o f the Wondr ous Dha r ma [ Namu- myoho- rensre- kyo] , Na m u bodhisattva Samantabadra, Na mu bodhisattva Manjus ri, Na mu bodhis attva AvaloKitesvara, Na m u bodhis attva Maitre ya, Na m u [the two He avenly Kings] Vaisravana [ Bishamon] a nd Dhritarastra [ Jikoku] , Na mu the te n fe male de mons , Na mu all the Buddha s a n d the gre at bodhis attvas o f the kongokai, N a m u the taizdkai o f great compass ion. (Kakuzensho, DNBZ 54: 607) Ih e b e g in n in g a n d e n d o f the invoc a tio n addresses Ma ha va ir oc a na a n d ms assembly, be caus e Mahavair oc ana , as the one B u d d h a o f eso­ te ric Bu d d h is m , is pr e s e nt in all r ituals . T he r e fe r e nce to b o t h his m a nife s ta tio ns , the kongokai a n d the taizdkai, po int s at the s pe cific char acte r is tic o f the Lo tus r it ua l th a t c o m bine s e le me nts fr o m the kongokai a n d taizdkai mandalas . T he othe r de itie s appe a r in the Lotus Sutra, a n d we r e a lr e a dy as s ociate d w ith e a c h o t h e r in the invo c a tio ns us e d d u r in g the Lotus samddhi. All the name s (e x ce pt fo r Avalokitesvara) figur e in N ic h ir e n ’s manda las . On e may ar gue , the re for e , that N ic m r e n us e d the invoc a tions r e c ite d d u r in g the e s ote ric r it ua l as m o d e ls fo r his honzon a n d w r o te d o w n his ow n c o m o m a t io n o f ae itie s to be ve ne r ate d. At the s ame time he a dde d o the r e le me nts tha t also playe d a r ole in the hokkehd. For ins ta nc e , c e r ta in ve r s ions o f the hokkehd ins e r t the ma ntr a s o f Ac ala a n d Raga r a ja in the r it ua l (Kakuzensho, DNBZ 54: 1 23 )， a n d o ne finds traces o f b o t h in the s iddham e m bo d y in g the s e two Kings o f Knowle dge tha t Nic hir e n in c lud e d in his honzon. Acala a n d Ra g a r a ja b e a r n o r e la t io n to the Lotus S utra a n d s h o u ld n o t a ppe ar in a Lotus r e pr e s e ntation. He nc e the ir pre s e nce in vir tually all the ma nda la s Nic hir e n dr e w is a s tr ong ind ic a tio n o f the de pe nde nc e o i N ic h ir e n ’s honzon o n the esote ric r itual. Acala is alr e ady m e n t io n e d in the Chine s e c a nonic a l sources o f the hokkehd， w h ile Ragar aja seems to be a late r Japa ne s e a dd itio n, pr oba bly r e late d to the popula r it y tha t Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 373 this King o f Knowle dge a c quir e d in the late He ia n pe r iod, e s pe cially in rituals fo r pr ote c tio n.6 As we have seen at the b e g in n in g o f this ar ti­ cle, Acala a n d Ragar aja were the s ubje ct o f one o f N ic h ir e n ’s e arlie s t works, the Fudo Aizen kankenki. N ic h ir e n ’s a p p r o p r ia t io n o f the two e s ote ric figure s thus c o nt in ue d t h r o ug h o u t his life. An o t h e r s ignificant e le me nt is the place tha t Nic hir e n gave in his honzon to de itie s w ho only m a r g ina lly a ppe a r in the s utra, b u t who playe d a r ole in the Lotus rituals. T he fe ma le de mons are one e x am­ ple . Whe r e as thes e de ities do n o t see m to have be e n p o p u la r in the ic o no g r a phy or lite r atur e or his tim e ， the y were w or s hipe d d u r in g the hokkehd, the ir ma ntr as were r e c ite d， a n d the chapte r o f the s utra in which the y appe ar (“DMr a i^i”） was one o f the chapte rs chante d dur ing the Lotus rituals ac c or d ing to the c a no nic a l pr e s cr iptions . Nic h ir e n ins cr ibe d the m in mos t o f his ma ndala s , w he th e r colle ctive ly as the “te n raks as iM{jurasetsu 十 祿 刹 ） or lis ting the ir name s one by one . MAHAVAIROCANA in n i c h i r e n ’s m a n d a l a s 1 he mos t s tr iking e x ample o f a fie ur e e x te r nal to the nar r ative o f the Lotus s criptur e w ho m Nic hir e n place s in his honzon is Mahavair ocana. Figure s 1 a n d 2 d o c u m e n t two ins tance s o f this inc lus io n. T he first, a m a n d a la pr oba bly dr awn in 1274 a nd now ke pt at Hir a g a Hondo- ji m Mats udo, ins cribes the losrographs o f the two aspects o f Mahavair ocana, Ma h a v a ir o c a na o f the taizdk ai a n d Ma h a v a ir o c a na o f the kongokai, respectively afte r the name s o f Saky amuni a n d o f P r a bhiita r a tna ， a nd b o t h pr e ce de d by the invoca tio n nam u ( f ig . 1 ; Yamanaka 1992, p. 65) Ih e s e cond e x ample , an un d a t e d m a n d a la also ke pt at the Hondo- ji (be lie ve d to have be e n p r o d uc e d in 1272)， contains two othe r siddham apa r t fr o m thos e o f Acala a nd Ragar aja dr awn in the u p p e r pa r t o f the ic o n ， at the sides o f the title o f the Lotus Sutra (fie. 2; Yamanaka 1992 ， p. 45) To ide ntify these two gr a phe me s is quite difficult, for the y are n o t d r a w n in a s ta n d a r d fo r m . I t h in k t h a t the siddham o n the le ft s ide o f the m a n d a la is the seed- letter (s huji 種 子 ） us e d to r e pr e s e nt Ma ha ­ va ir oc ana o f the kongokai (am h), while the s iddham ins c r ibe d o n the r ig h t s ide ma y be o ne o f the seed- letters o f Ma h a v a ir o c a na o f the taizdkai, wr itte n incorre ctly. At first it may appe a r cur ious that, in spite o f his har s h c o n d e m n a ­ tio n o f e s ote ric B u d d h is m , N ic h ir e n c o u ld in c lu d e Ma ha va ir o c a na a m o n g the de itie s to ve ne r ate in a m a n d a la r e pr e s e nting the w or ld o f the Lotus Sutra. In the tr a ditio na l exegesis o f Nic hir e n s cholar s hip the two Ma ha vair o c ana are clas s ifie d m the cate gory o f “tr a ns fo r m a tion 6 O n th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f r it ua ls c e nt e r e d o n t he Kin gs o f Kn o w le dg e , in p a r t ic u la r Rag ar a ja, in the late H e ia n p e r io d , see H a y a m i 1975, pp . 104- 22. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 374 bo die s ” { funjin 分 身 , the e ma na tions o f Sakyamuni) a n d the ir ins c r ip­ tio n in the honzon is t h o u g h t to be motiva te d by N ic h ir e n ’s wis h to pr ove t h a t Ma h a v a ir o c a n a is in fe r io r to Sa ky a m uni. Ac c o r d in g to Nic hir e n, however, n o t only the two for ms o f Mahavair oca na b u t all Buddha s o f the unive r s e are e ma na tions o f Sa kya muni (Kaimokushd, S T N 1 :5 7 6 ). Why is it ， the n, th a t Ma ha vair o c a na a lo n e ， a m o n g the bud d h a s o f systems alie n to the Lotus Sutra, is ins cr ibe d m his m a n ­ dalas , a n d Am id a ， for ins tance , w ho m Nic hir e n also holds to be a / 龍 jin o f Sakyamuni, is ne ve r inc lude d? Aga in, the co r r e s ponde nc e tha t the e s ote ric t r a d it io n h a d pos ite d be twe e n Ma ha va ir o c a na a n d the Lotus S utra in the conte x t o f the hokkehd appe ars to be a key to Nic h i­ r e n ^ iconogr aphy. Above we have s een one e x ample o f the s ections o f the litur gy that de s cr ibe the de itie s to ve ne r ate , in w hic h the invoca tio ns to Ma h a ­ vair ocana o f the kongokai a nd Mahavair oc ana o f the taizdkai are lis te d toge the r with invocations to figure s fr o m the Lotus Sutra. It is o f even gre ate r re le vance that the ide ntity o f Sakyamuni with Mahavair oc ana o f the taizdkai a n d o f P r a bhuta r a tna with Mahavair oc ana o f the kongdk ai is extensively dis cuss e d in the texts o f the hokkehd, th o ug h at time s the ide nt ific atio ns are re verse d {Kakuzensho, DNBZ 54: 624- 5). T ms seems to be r e fle cte d in Nic h ir e n 5s a lloca tio n o f the lo e ogr a phs o f the two Mahavair oca na ne x t to the two Buddha s o f the Lotus ( fig .1 ) . Fur ­ the r mor e , the s ymbolic ins c r iption o f Mahavair oc ana by us ing two sid­ dham p la c e d above the two B u d d h a s o f the Lotus S utra (fig. 2) is r e minis ce nt o f practice s o f vis ualization r e late d to the hokkehd, in which the two Mahavairocana e me rge fr om a s e que nce o f tr ans for ma tions o f Sakyamuni a n d Pr a bhuta r a tna .7 It is in this e s ote ric pe rs pe ctive t ha t the two Ma h a va ir o c a na can take a “le g itima te ” place in N ic h ir e n ’s m a nd a la a nd be come e le me nts o f the Lotus wor ld tha t tha t m a nd a la re pre s e nts . T aimits u c onc e ptions o f the ide ntity o f Ma hava ir o c ana a n d Saky amuni ce r tainly c o ntr ibute d to N ic h ir e n ’s ide a o f a Sakya muni as the Bu d d h a who e ncompas s e s all o t h e r B u d d h a s as his m a n ife s t a tio n s , in c lu d in g Ma h a v a ir o c a n a h im ­ self. T h e r it u a l c o n t e x t o f the hokkehd, howe ve r, a ppe a r s to have b e e n the dir e c t m o d e l fo r the s pe cific cases in w hic h Ma ha va ir oc a na was in c lu d e d in N ic h ir e n ’s honzon. 7 T he c o r r e s po nde nc e s be t we e n the two Ma ha va ir o c a na s a n d the two b u d d h a s o f the Lotus Sutra are also illus t r a te d in a te xt t h a t is ce r ta inly r e la te d to the hokkehd, the Reng-esanmaikyd (ZZ n o . 20 4). S h io d a Gis o n a n d As ai E n d o have s ugge s te d t h a t N ic h ir e n bor r o w e d im p o r t a n t e le m e n t s o f h is m a n d a la fr o m t h is t e x t ( S h io d a 1982; As a i 19 74, p p . 2 6 1 - 7 1 ) .A d e t a ile d dis cus s ion o f the te xt a n d o f its r e la t io n to the e s ote r ic r it ua l is pr e s e nte d in my dis ­ s e r ta tio n (see D o l c e fo r t h c o m in g ). Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 375 THE D A IM O K U A N D THE “ESSENTIAL MANTRA OF THE LO TU S SU TRA ” T he analysis o f the Lotus litur gy indicate s tha t eve n the invoc a tio n o f the title o f the Lotus Sutra, w hic h is c ons ide r e d to be the mos t p r o ­ n o u n c e d characte ris tic o f Nic hir e n Bud dhis m , can be tr ace d back to the es ote ric conte x t. In the invocator y s e que nce cite d above , the title o f the s cripture is lis te d a m ong the deities to ve ne rate dur ing the r itual, in t h e s a me fo r m u la t io n we fin d in N ic h ir e n ’s m a n d a la : na mumyoho- re nge- kyo.8 T his es tablis he s a pr e c e de nt fo r the ins e r tio n o f the daimoku in t o N ic h ir e n ’s m a n d a la a n d , c ons e que ntly , fo r the r e cita ­ t io n o f the daimoku as the pr a c tic e a dvo c a te d by N ic h ir e n . T he re are several ins tance s o f the r e c itation o f the daim oku in n o n ­ e s ote r ic conte x ts , w h ic h pr e d a te N ic h ir e n a n d s h o u ld n o t be dis ­ mis s e d w he n ta lking o f pr e ce de nts (Ie na g a 1976 ， pp. 95- 96; T akagi 1973 ， p p . 430- 65). Howe ve r , the s e ins tance s pr e s e nt fe atur e s th a t make it unlike ly tha t the y s erve d as the m o d e l for N ic h ir e n ’s ins e r tio n o f the title o i the Lotus Sutra in his honzon. In the cases e x a mine d by T akagi Yutaka, for e x ample , the r e c itation o f the daim oku is as s ociate d with Am id a or Avalokite s vara, as the title o f the Lotus Sutra is invoke d toge the r with the name s o f the s e two Buddha s . T akagi also re cords cases o f an in d e p e n d e n t r e c itation o f the daimoku; thes e cases oc cur as the last act o f de votion o n the de athbe d. T he y p o in t to a use o f the daim oku as an alte r native to the r e c itation o f Am id a ^ na m e (the nenbuts u 念 佛 ) in o r d e r to a t t a in r e b ir t h a fte r d e a t h . T he us e o f the daim oku in the hokkehd, o n the othe r h a nd , is dire ctly r e late d to the bud d h a s a n d bodhis attvas o f the Lotus Sutra a n d to othe r ve ne r able s who re appe ar in Nic h ir e n’s ma ndala. Fur the r mor e , it is pa r t o f a liturgy a im in g at the a t t a in m e n t o i im m e d ia t e e n lig h t e n m e n t t h r o ug h the s cripture , a pr ima r y pur pos e also for Nic hir e n. T hus , if the conte x t o f usaee is take n into cons ide r ation, Nic h ir e n’s daimoku presents a gre ater affinity with the es ote ric pa tt e r n tha n with the Pur e La n d nenbutsu. T he hokkehd also offe r m a te r ia l fo r e x p lo r in g N ic h ir e n ’s m a n trie c o nc e ptio n o f the daimoku. In his writings JNichiren ne ve r de nie d the powe r a n d the efficacy o f m a n trie for mulas ; ofte n he s e e me d to advo­ cate r e pla c ing the e s ote ric mantr a s with the daim oku, w hic h he pr e ­ s e nte d as a m u c h mor e po w e r ful m a ntr a (Hdonshd, S T N 2:1 24 3- 44 ). Ih e r e is a n e x a m ple in w h ic h N ic h ir e n e x p la in e d the daim ok u by e xplicitly r e fe r r ing to a m a ntr a that was very im p o r t a n t in the esote ric ritual: the “m a ntr a o f the e s s ential m e a n in e o f the Lotus S utra' (hokke 8 Alte r na tive ve r s ions o f the r ituals in c lu d e d in the Kakuzensho a n d the Asabasho, a n d in o t h e r s im ila r c o m p ila t io n s , als o pr e s e nt va r iants o f th e in vo c a to r y p a t t e r n , in w h ic h the pr a is in g o f the s c r iptur e is e xpre s s e d in a m o r e c o m p le x way t h a n the s im ple namu- myohorenge- kyo. See , fo r ins ta nc e , Asabasho, DN BZ 59 :1 1 1 0 . 376 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 k anjin darani 、 伝 華 月 干 心 陀 羅 尼 ) . T his m a ntr a is in c lud e d in several ver­ sions o f the hokkehd， w ith glosses e x pla ining its m e a nin g a nd the lineaees in w hic h it was tr ans mitte d (Kakuzensho, DNBZ 54: 633- 34 ， 666). In o n e o f his m a jo r wor ks c o m p ile d d u r in g the Sa do e x ile ， w hile s pe aking o f the title or the Lotus Sutra in Sans krit, Nic hir e n cite d the m a ntr a in its entirety, a tt r ibuting it to Subha ka r a s imha a nd s pe ciiying tha t it was re ve ale d ins ide an ir o n s tupa in S o uthe r n In d ia (Kaim ok u­ shd, S T N 1 :5 7 0 ). N ic h ir e n als o tr a ns c r ibe d this m a n t r a in his Chuhokekyd u n d e r the e ntr y “hokke k anjin d arani” a n d a dde d an e ntr y for the line age o f its tr ans mis s ion a nd a fina l a nn o t a t io n tha t it is a secret m a n t r a (Ya ma na ka 19 8 0 ， p. 6 3 3 ). T his a g a in s ugge s ts t h a t N ic h ir e n pos s e s s e d a c e r ta in aware ne s s o f the dir e c t lin e o f c o n t in u it y th a t lin ke d his daim oku to the es ote ric pr actice o f the Lotus . Far fr o m be ing e m bodime nts o f the Lotus Sutra m e dia te d by T e ndai d o c t r ine , N ic h ir e n ’s honzon a n d his daim ok u a ppe a r to have pas s e d th r o ug h the nite r o f the es ote ric rituals o f the Lotus Sutra. I th in k that these rituals were im p o r t a n t for Nic hir e n in o the r ways as well. Re a d­ ing the texts o f the hokkehd, one finds tha t othe r e le me nts inc or por at e d in the r itua l or us e d as doc tr ina l ba c king for it c oinc ide with fu n d a ­ m e nta l aspects o f N ic h ir e n ’s thought: the e mphas is o n the s ixte e nth c ha pte r o f the Lotus Sutra; the dis tinc tion be twe e n the two s ections o f the s criptur e , honmon a n d shakumon; a nd eve n the cla im o f the validity o f th e Lo tus m a n d a la fo r the mappo p e r io d . conclus ion A compr e he ns ive analysis o f the Nic hir e n corpus , in c lu d in g his mor e s cholas tic w or ks ， s uc h as the a n n o t a t io n s to his c opy o f the Lotus Sutra, a n d a r e c ons tr uc tio n o f the roots o f his mandala s , pr e s e nt m o u n t in g e vide nce tha t Nic hir e n was influe n c e d by the e s ote ricis m o f his time s , to the e x te nt tha t s ome as pects o f N ic h ir e n ’s Bud d n is m c a n n o t be fu lly u n d e r s t o o d w it h o u t t a k in g e s ote r ic p r e c e de nts , b o t h in the d o m a in o f do ct r ine a nd o f practice , int o acc ount. Nic hir e n pr e s e r ve d two im p o r t a n t e le me nts o f the es ote ric praxis: the m a nd a la a n d the ma ntr a . He a pplie d to his honzon the s ymbolic value o f a vis ualization o f the abs olute tha t a m a n d a la has in esote ric doctr ine . F ur the r mor e , he stressed n o t only fa ith in wha t the obje ct re pre s e nts , b u t also its a po tr o p a ic efficacy as a ta lis ma n.9 In the s ame way, he c r e dite d the 9 P r o t e c t io n is a n im p o r t a n t fu n c t io n t h a t N ic h ir e n att r ib ut e s to his honzon. T he c o ns ta nt pr e s e nce o f g u a r d ia n de itie s in the m a n d a la , a n d the a llus io ns to th e ir pr ote ctive a c tio n t h a t o ne find s in N ic h ir e n ’s wr itings , s ugge s t t h a t he a s s imilat e d n o t o nly the ima ge r y p r o p e r to e sote ric Bu d d h is m , b u t also its pur pos e s . T he a p o t r o p a ic qua lity o f the honzon may also be Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 377 daim ok u w ith the m a g ic a l po we r to b r in g b o t h e n lig h t e n m e n t a n d worldly be ne fits t ha t is intr ins ic to a ma ntr a . N ic h ir e n ’s dis cour s e o n B u d d h is m was, in my view, a c ons c ious e ffor t to cons tr uc t an alte r native to e x is te nt esote ric r e ligious for ms o f pr actice . His criticis m o f mikkyd s ho uld the re for e be s een as a ne ces ­ sary s tep fo r his le g it im a t io n as a r e lig io us le ade r a n d his c la im to or thodoxy. T he dis cursive strategies he us e d e mploye d tr a ditio na l pa t­ te rns s uch as the clas s ification o f doctrine s , with the c ons e que nt ju d g ­ me nts o f value tha t this device im plie d. In s pite o f his c o nd e m na t io n o f esote ric Bud dhis m , N ic h ir e n ’s e nde avor to ar ticulate a “ne w” pr ac­ tice im p lie d a c omple x process o f a p pr o p r ia tio n o f es ote ric cate gories a n d icons t ha t one can har dly im a gine to have be e n uncons cious . I a m c onvince d th a t Nic hir e n, far fr o m for s aking mikkyd afte r his de finitive c o m m it m e n t to the Lotus Sutra, c o n t in u e d to pur s ue his s tudy o f e s ote r icis m, a n d fr o m this s our ce dr e w in s p ir a t io n fo r his r e fo r m u la t io n o f T e n d a i Lo t us t h o u g h t . His in t e r e s t in e s ote r ic no tio ns a n d practice s pe r haps e ve n incre as e d with time , toge the r with his a p pa r e nt criticis m o f the es ote ric tr a ditio n. Pr ime e vide nce o f this proces s is the fact that Nic hir e n de vise d his m a n d a la in its comple t e fo r m at the clima x o f his career, d u r in g the years o f the Sado e xile, a n d p r o d uc e d mos t o f his manda la s in Min o b u , w he n his Lotus te ach­ ings h a d r e ache d the ir full maturity. I have dis cuss e d T aimits u influe nc e o n Nic hir e n be caus e this is the fo r m o f es ote ric Bud dhis m tha t e me rge s mos t cons picuous ly in Nic h i­ r e n ^ writings . T his influe nc e s ho uld be e x pla ine d n o t so m u c h by re f­ e re nce to N ic h ir e n ’s early tr a ining, w hich as we have seen c a nn o t be cle arly d e fin e d ， b u t r athe r by the fact t ha t N ic h ir e n ’s conce r ns appe ar to c o r r e s p o nd to the the me s t h a t T aimits u m o n k s h a d addr e s s e d. Nic hir e n, however, us e d e le me nts tha t today w ould be class ifie d un d e r the labels o f bo t h T aimits u a nd T omits u, a nd this suggests t ha t the r e la­ t io n be twe e n the var ious fo r ms o f e s ote ric Bud d h is m in me dia e val time s was mor e flu id tha n s e ctarian inte r pr e tations o f the his tory o f esote ric Bud d h is m w ould have us be lie ve . F ur the r s tudy o f Ja pane s e es ote ricis m will be he lp ful to mor e fully unde r s ta nd the e nvir o nm e nt in w hic h Nic hir e n move d. T he r e are, o f cours e, factors othe r th a n e s ote ricis m that co ntr ibute d to the fo r m a t io n o f Nic hir e n Bud dhis m , the influe nc e o f Pur e La n d r e g a r d e d as the r e as on fo r w h ic h N ic h ir e n dr e w m a nd a la s o f a very s mall size, w h ic h c o u ld be us e d as pe r s o na l talis mans . Le tte r s t h a t pr o b a b ly a c c o m p a n ie d the h a n d in g ove r o f a hon­ zon to a fo llow e r r e fe r to the obje c t o f w o r s hip as omamori (t a lis m a n ), to be us e d fo r pr o te c ­ t io n o f the be lie ve r o r o f a m e m b e r o f his o r h e r fa m ily (Mydshin amagozen gohenji, STN 2: 1105; Nichigennyo shakabutsu kuydji, STN 2 :1 6 2 3 ). N ic h ir e n in vite d his followe r s n o t o nly to be lie ve in the honzon, b u t “to tie the honzon o n th e ir b o d ie s ， ， ， “to carr y it o n th e ir b o d ie s .” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 378 t h o u g h t be ing a s ignifica nt c o m p o ne nt . Ne ve rthe le s s , the analysis o f N ic h ir e n ’s c o mple x r e la tion with es ote ric Bud dhis m , o f w hic h he r e I have give n only a few e x ample s , a n d in a r at he r s implifie d fa s hion, r e mains cr ucial for a less do gmat ic view o i his system o f Buddhis m . T he combina tive te nde ncy that Nic hir e n dis playe d in his a p p r o p r i­ a tio n o f esote ric Bud dhis m raises que s tions , more ove r, with r e gar d to the dis c ontinuity be twe e n the “ne w,” “he te r o do x ” type o f Bud d h is m o f the Ka ma kur a pe r io d a nd the “o ld ， ， ， “o r t h o d o x ” type, w hich his tor ians a n d s e ctarian s cholar s hip alike have as s ume d, diffe r e nt as the ir age n­ da may be . He nc e N ic h ir e n ’s r e la tions hip with mikkyd offers a critical angle fr o m w hic h to r e t h in k n o t only his p o s itio n in Ja pa ne s e r e li­ gious his tory, b u t also the na tur e o f Kamakur a Bud d his m as a whole . REFERENCES A B B RE V IA T IO N S CDZ Chisho Dais hi zenshu 智 証 大 師 全 集 ， 4 vols. DNBZ 25- 28. DNBZ D a i N iho n Bukky d zensho 大 曰 本 佛 教 全 書 ， 150 vols . Bus s ho Ka nkoka i 佛 書 刊 行 会 ， e d. T okyo: Bus s ho Ka nkoka i, 1912- 1922. Ibun jite n Nichiren Shonin ibun jiten: Shihen 日 蓮 聖 人 遺 文 辞 典 一 史 編 . Rissho Daigaku Nicmr e n Kyogaku Kenkyujo, ed. Minobu: Mmoousan Kuonji, 1989. Kokushi daijite n 国 史 大 辞 典 ， 15 vols. Kokus hi Daijite n He ns hu Iinkai 国 史 大 辞 典 編 集 委 員 会 ， ed. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1979- 1993. NDZ Nihon daizdkyd 日 本 大 蔵 経 ， 51 vols. Nakano Tetsue 中 野 達 慧 et a l.， eds. Tokyo: Niho n Daizokyo He ns ankai, 1914- 1921. ST N Showa teihon Nichiren Shonin ibun 昭 和 定 本 日 蓮 聖 人 遺 文 ， 4 vols. Ris­ sho DaigaKu Nichir e n Kyogaku KenKyuio, ed. Minobu: Minobusan Kuonji, 1988. T. T aisho shinshu daizdkyd 大 正 新 脩 大 蔵 経 ， 100 vols. T akakusu Junjir o 高 楠 順 次 郎 et al., eds. Tokyo: Taisho Issaikyo Kankokai, 1924- 1935. ZZ Shinsan Dainihon zokuzdkyd 新 纂 大 日 本 続 蔵 経 ， 90 vols. Kawamura Kos ho 河 村 孝 照 ， e d. Tokyo: Kokus ho Ka nkoka i, 1975- 1989. P R IM A R Y S O U R C E S ( A U T H O R S ) Am o g ha va jr a (Buko ng , Jpn. F uku 不 空 ） Fahuaguanzhiyigui 法 華 観 智 僂 軌 （ Jp n . Hokke kanchigiki, fu ll title : Joju mydhdrengekydd y uga k anc hik igi成 就 妙 法 蓮 華 経 王 瑜 伽 観 智 僂 軌 ） T. no. 1000 ， 19.594- 602. Ann e n 安 然 Kydiimondo 教 時 問 答 Shingonshu （ full title: Shingonshu kydiimondo 真 言 宗 教 時 問 答 •真 言 宗 教 時 義 ） ， T. no. 2396 ， 75.374- 450. or Dol c e: N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 379 Bodaishingisho 菩 提 心 義 抄 ' (full title: T aizo kongo bodaishingi ryakumondosho 胎 蔵 金 剛 菩 提 心 義 略 問 答 抄 ） ， T. no. 2397， 75.451- 560. E n c h in 円 珍 Sasagimon 皆 々 疑 文 ， CDZ 3 : 1038- 70. Koen hokkegi 講 演 法 華 _ (fu ll title : N^ushingonmon junyojitsuken koen み oMダ );ぶ wgi入 真 言 門 住 如 実 見 講 演 法 華 略 義 CDZ 3: 911-40. E n n in 円 仁 Soshijjikydsho 蘇 悉 地 経 疏 （ full title: Soshijjikyarakyd rakusho 蘇 悉 地 羯 藕 経 略 疏 ） .T . no. 2227 ， 61.389- 484. ^ Kakuban 覚 鑀 Gorin k uii hishaku 五 輪 九 字 秘 釈 （ fu ll title : Gorin k ujirm d him its us haku 五 輪 九 字 明 秘 密 釈 ） . T. no. 2514 ， 79.11- 22. Ka kuze n 覚 禅 似 /^ 覚 禅 抄 . DNBZ 53- 56. My o e 明 恵 Shinmonshu 真 聞 集 ， Shonin shiryo 明 恵 聖 人 資 料 3 : 183- 285. Kozanji tenseki monjo soq -o chos adan 高 山 寺 典 籍 文 書 綜 合 調 査 団 ， ed. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1988. N ic h ir e n 1242 1254 1259 Kaitai sokushin jobutsugi 戒 體 即 身 成 仏 義 . ST N 1 : 1- 15. Fudd Aizen kankenki 不 動 愛 染 感 見 記 . ST N 1' 16. Shugo kokkaron 守 護 国 家 論 . ST N I : 89- 136. 1 2 6 2 め 淡 和 々 0ゐ 似 / ^ 教 機 時 国 鈔 . STNI.. 241- 46 . 1266 善 無 畏 抄 . STNI.. 408- 14. 1268 1270 1270 1271 1272 1273 1275 1275 1275 1275 1276 1276 1277 1278 Ichidai goji keizu 一 代 五 時 鶏 圖 . ST NS: 2299- 2303. Shinovn shichiju shoretsu 真 言 七 重 勝 劣 . S T N 3: 2312- 18. Shingon tendai ル 加 成 真 言 天 台 勝 劣 事 . S T N I: 477- 83. 寺 泊 御 書 . ST NV. 512- 17. Kaimokushd 開 目 抄 . STN\ .. 535- 609. K aniin honzonsho 観 心 本 尊 抄 （ Full title: N w rai metsugo gohyakus ais hi k an jin honz ons ho 如 来 滅 後 五 百 歳 始 観 心 本 尊 抄 ） . S T N 1: 702- 21. Ichidai goji keizu 一 代 五 時 鶏 圖 . ST N 3: 2333- 43. Mydshin amagozen gohenji 妙 心 尼 御 前 御 返 事 . S T N 2 : 1105. Sansanzdkiu no koto 三 三 蔵 祈 雨 の 事 . ST N 2 : 1065- 72. 選 時 抄 . S T N t 1003- 61. 版 靴 報 恩 抄 . S T N 土 1192- 1250. Ichidai ^oii keizu 一 代 五 時 鶏 圖 . S T N 3: 2355- 59. Nichim o o-ozen gohenji 日 女 御 前 御 返 事 . S T N 2 : 1374- 77. Honzon 本 尊 問 答 抄 . ST N2.. 1573- 86. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 380 Misawashd 三 ST N 2' 1443- 50. Ichidai goji keizu 一 代 五 時 鶏 圖 . S T N 3.. 2384- 88. Nichigennyo shakabutsu kuydji 日 眼 女 釈 迦 佛 供 養 事 ST N 幺 ••1623- 26. Ichidai goji keizu 一 代 五 時 鶏 圖 . ST NS: 2388- 90. •妙 一 女 御 返 事 . S T N 爻 ..1777- 83. 1278 1279 1279 1280 1280 ChUhokekyd注 (unkno w n) 法 華 経 . See Yamanaka 1980. Shocho承 澄 Asabasho 阿 娑 縛 抄 . DNBZ 57- 60. SubhAkar as imha (Shanwuwe i, Jp n . Ze n m u i 害 一 行 無 畏 ） / Yix in g (Jpn. Ichigyo ） 日 経 疏 (Jpn. Dainichikydsho; full title: Daibirus hana jobutsu ー み 如 大 毘 盧 遮 那 成 仏 経 疏 ） . T. no. 1796 ， 39.579- 789. Darijings hu 大 Zh iy i智 顗 似 anm パ •法 46.949- 55. 華 昧 三 懺 僂 (Jpn . Hokkezanmai senoi). T. no . 1941 ， P R IM A R Y S O U R C E S (S U T RAS A N D C O M M E N T A R IE S ) ゾ Darymg* 大 日 経 (Jp n . Dainichikyd; fu ll title : Daibirushana jobutsushinhen 大 毘 盧 遮 那 成 仏 神 変 加 持 経 ） ， T. no. 848 ， 18.1- 55. 岡 IJ頂 経 (Jpn. Kongochokyo; full title: Kongocho issaimorai shinjissetsu daijogensho daiky ddky d 金 岡 頂 一 切 如 来 真 実 摂 大 乗 現 証 大 教 王 経 ） ， T. no. 865 ， 18.207- 23. Putix inlun 菩 fe 七 、 論 (jDn. Bodaishinron; full title: Kongocho yugachu hotsu anok utara sanmyaku s anbodais hinron 金 岡 丨 j 頂 瑜 伽 中 發 阿 耨 多 蕹 三 藐 三 菩 提 心 論 ） . T. no. 1665 ， 32.572- 74. Rengesanmaikyd 連 華 三 昧 経 (rull utie: M^dhdrenge sanmai himitsu sanmayanyo 金 妙 法 蓮 華 三 昧 秘 密 三 摩 耶 経 ） ZZ no . 204， 2: 882- 86. フ Yng*蘇 悉 地 羯 蕹 経 ^一 （ Jpn. Soshijjikyara kyd) T. no. 893 ， 18.603- 33. Tdketsu 東 決 ， NDZ 42 {T endaishu kengyoshoso 天 台 宗 顕 教 章 疏 2): 363- 83; 391- 405. Weiyixingsejing 威 僅 形 色 経 (Jpn. Igigydshikikyd, full title: Hokke mandara igigydshiki 法 華 曼 陀 羅 威 僅 形 色 法 経 ） T. no. 1001 ， 19.602- 6. S E C O N D A R Y S O U RC E S As ai E n d o 浅 井 圓 道 1973 1974 1986 Joko Nihon T endai honmon shisdshi 上 古 日 本 天 台 本 門 思 想 He ir akuji Shote n. Ho n zo n r o n no te nkai 本 尊 論 の 展 開 . In Chusei Hokke ten k a i 中 世 法 華 佛 教 の 展 開 ， Ka g e y a ma G y o o 影 山 克 雄 251- 76. Kyoto: He ir akuii Shote n. Dainichikyos ho no naka Hokke kyogaku 大 日 経 疏 の 中 Rissho Daigaku Daigak uin kiyd 2:1- 22. 史 . Kyoto: Bukkyd no ， e d .， pp . 法 華 教 学 . Dol c e: 1987 N ic h ir e n ’s Att it ud e toward Es ote ric Bu d d h is m 381 Dainichikyos ho no naka Hokke kyogaku 2 (続 ) . Rissho Daigaku Daigak uin kiyd 3:1- 13. As ai Yo r in 浅 井 要 麟 N ichire n S honin kyogaku no kenkyu 日 蓮 聖 人 教 学 の 研 究 . Kyoto: He ir akuii s hote n. 1945 D o l c e , Luc ia 1995 Es ote r ic pa tte r ns in N ic h ir e n ’s t h o u g h t . The Japan Foundation Newsletter 23/5: 13- 16. Bud d h is t he r m e ne utic s in me die val Ja p a n: Ca no nic a l texts, scholastic tr adition a nd sectarian pole mics . In Canonization and Decanonization, A. van de r Kooij a nd K. van de r T oorn, eds., pp. 229- 43. Le ide n: Brill. For thcoming Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra: Esoteric Patterns in a Japanese Medieval Interpretation of the Lotus (worKing title ). Le ide n: Brill. 1998 F r a n k , Be r na r d 1986- 1987 Les grande s sommes iconogr aphique des e poque s de He ia n et de Kamakura. A nnuaire du College de France, pp. 555- 98. G r e g o r y , Pe te r N. 1991 Tsung'- mi and the Sinification of Buddnism. Prince ton: Pr ince ton University Press. Hayami T as uku 速 水 侑 He ian kizoku shakai to bukkyd平 安 貴 族 社 会 と 仏 教 . Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan. 1975 Ie na g a S a b u r o 家 長 三 郎 Chusei Bukkyd shisdshi kenkyu 中 世 仏 教 思 想 史 研 究 . Kyoto: Hozokan. (Re pr int o f 1947 e dition) 1976 Kir iya Se iichi 桐 谷 征 ー 1994 Nichir e n s honin ni oke ru daimandar a no zuho to sono l g i 日 蓮 聖 人 に お け る 大 曼 陀 蕹 の 図 法 と そ の 意 義 . Nichiren kyogaku kenkyujo kiyd 21:17- 44. Ko ma ts u Kunia k i 小 松 邦 彰 T e ndaimikkyo shiso to no r e nkan 天 台 密 教 思 想 と の 連 関 . In Chusei Hokke Bukkyd no tenkai 中 世 法 華 佛 教 の 展 開 ， Kage vama Gyoo, e d., Dp. 83- 104. Kyoto: He ir akuji Shote n. 1974 Ku b o t a T e ts umas a 窪 田 哲 正 1993 Awa Kiyos umis an gumo njiho gyoja no ke ifu 安 房 清 澄 山 求 聞 持 法 行 者 の 系 譜 . Nichiren kyogaku kenkyu kiyd 20: 311- 34. Ku r o d a T o s h io 黒 田 俊 雄 1994 顕 Shoensei shakai to Bukkyo 荘 園 制 社 会 と 佛 教 . In Kenmitsu taisei ron 密 体 制 論 ， Kuroda Toshio chos ak us hu 黒 田 俊 雄 著 作 集 2. Kyoto: Hozokan. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 26 /3 - 4 382 S h io d a Gis o n 塩 田 義 遜 1982 Nic h ir e n S h o nin no h o n zo n 曰 蓮 聖 人 の 本 尊 . In Nichiren 曰 蓮 ， Nakao Takas hi 中 尾 克 a nd Watanabe Hoyo 渡 邊 寶 陽 ， eds.， pp. 265- 309. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan. St e v e n s o n , Da nie l B. 1986 T he four kinds o f s amadhi in early T ， ien- t， a i Buddhis m. In T ra­ ditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism, Peter N. Gregory, ed., pp. 45- 97. Honolulu: University o f Hawai‘i Press. St o n e , Ja c q ue lin e I. 1990 So me d is p u t e d w r it ing s in the N ic h ir e n co r pus : T e x tua l, he rme ne utical a na his torical proble ms . Ph. D. dissertation, Un i­ versity of Calitornia- Los Angeles. T akagi Yutaka 高 木 豊 1970 Nichiren: Sono kodo to shiso 曰 蓮 一 1973 そ の 行 動 と 思 想 . Tokyo: Hyorons ha. He ian jid ai Hokke Bukkydshi kenkyu 平 安 時 代 法 華 佛 教 史 研 究 . Kyoto: He ir akuii Snote n. T a mur a Yos hiro 田 村 芳 朗 1965 Kamakura shin Bukkyd shiso no kenkyu 鎌 倉 新 佛 教 思 想 の 研 究 . Kyoto: He ir akuii Snote n. Ume da Ryusratsu 梅 田 ■ 月 1927 Hokke zanmai to hokke ho 法 華 三 昧 と 法 華 法 . Mikkyd kenkyu 27: 107- 20. Yamanaka Kih a c hi 山 中 吾 八 1992 Nichiren Shonin shinseki no sekai 日 蓮 聖 人 真 跡 の 世 界 . Y am anaka Kihachi chosaku zenshu 山 中 喜 八 著 作 全 集 1 .Tokyo: Yuzankaku. Yamanaka Kih a c h i， e d. 1980 Teihon 定 本 注 法 華 経 ， 2 vols. Kyoto: Hozokan.