Ben Ajari Nissho (1221-1323), was the eldest of the six senior disciples. He was sixty-two years old at the time of Nichiren's death. He was based at Hokkeji, a temple he had established at Hamado in Kamakura. He together with Daikoku Ajari Nichiro, headed the community of Nichiren's followers in Kamakura. His lineage became known as the Nissho or Hama monryu.1
Nissho had once been a fellow student with Nichiren Dai-Shonin at Mt. Hiei. Though he was one year older, he was so impressed with Nichiren Dai-Shonin that he joined him in Kamakura when Nichiren Dai-Shonin first began preaching there in 1253. It is said that Nissho had been adopted by Konoye Kanetsune, the third head of the Konoye family of the Kyoto nobility. This connection would become important later on in the propagation of Nichiren Buddhism.
After the Tatsunokuchi Incident, Nissho took up residence in Hama, Kamakura. In 1284, the Hamado hermitage became the Hokkeji Temple. Because Nissho's lineage was first based at Hama, it is known as the Hama Lineage. In 1317, Nissho transferred Hokkeji Temple to his disciple Nichiyu. The Hokkeji Temple was moved to Tamazawa, Izu in 1621 and renamed Myohokkeji Temple.2
Daniel Montgomery says about Nissho that he was a "gentle man who would have preferred a life of scholarship to a life as a missionary"3 He had been senior to Nichiren at Mt. Hiei, but he was wise enough to see superior wisdom when he met it and follow him as his master devotedly.
All the sources agree that Nissho and his nephew Nichiro had a very difficult time in Kamakura after the death of Nichiren Dai-Shonin.4 Because of persecutions they were unable to attend the second anniversaries (one year after) of Nichiren's death, and so the "rotational system" that they had devised based on his will was scrapped and Nikko Shonin took it on himself to try to run Minobu by himself. According to the sources, during this time it was Nikko who was defending Lord Hakiri against charges he was slandering Nichiren's teachings.
On the third anniversary of Nichiren's death, in 1284, instead of travelling to Minobu for an annual service as instructed by Nichiren, Nissho decided to submit a revised version of the Rissho Ankoku-ron to the Kamakuran Shogunate. The new version extended Nichiren's criticism of slander to Shingon and Tendai esotericism.
Just as with Nichiren Shonin's original submission, this one also brought out a mob which tried to burn down the Hamado hermitage. Nissho calmed them down by telling them that he was a loyal Tendai priest who simply wanted to reform Tendai Buddhism. Nissho and Nichiro also used the argument that they were simply Tendai reformers and were not trying to establish an illegal sect when the War Minister Yoritsuna again tried to suppress Nichiren Buddhism in 1285. War Minister Yoritsuna demanded that they join the other sects in praying for the peace of the Hojo family (who controlled the Kamakuran Shogunate). In order to protect the fledgeling Nichiren Buddhist community in Kamakura, Nissho and Nichiro relented and participated in the prayers, though they did petition for a debate with the other schools.
Of course the difference was that now they had the explicit hatred not just of Jodo and Zen, which were "new religions" and outside of the "mainstream" schools, but of the Tendai and Shingon schools, which had formerly been distrustful, but whose priests were often defeated in debate and made to either vacate or become Nichiren's disciples. Indeed that is how Nichiren had acquired the Hamado hermitage.
For this reason, and the fact that these events brought both trouble to the other priests and neglect of attention to Nichiren's grave, these two acts won him criticism from Nikko Shonin who was already critical of the other five priests for not attending the first of the memorials to Nichiren and for not taking their turns tending Nichiren's grave. Nikko noted in one letter that when he came to visit Nichiren's grave on that same anniversary he found it neglected.6 And he also obliquely criticized Nissho by asking if the expected persecutions had happened yet. Nikko had been prepared for them, it seems Nissho hadn't been. This would soon lead to him breaking with them.
Nissho, by remonstrating in the way he had, against Tendai and Shingon he found himself in the position of defending himself from public charges and private slander. Nichiren had advocated bringing those subjects up in a formal debate where their logic could be presented in that forum. I have a full discussion of this both at six priests page and below. But Nissho seems to have not been fully apprised of all of Nichiren's concerned when Nichiren wrote "sometimes one should refrain from criticizing them openly as their doctrines resemble mine" Nissho doesn't seem to have gotten that message. One gets the impression that he stepped into the "fray" unprepared to be the center of the action, but unwilling to defer to those more junior to him other than Nichiren himself. Perhaps Nissho's scholarly bent, and intellectualism prevented him from seeing the strategic situation, at any rate history judges him as a coward for giving into the Bakufu. and his failure to consult with Nikko and the other priests may have also contributed as well to the outcome. One can't say how much they were in support of him. Indeed this may have been what precipitated Toki Jonin to take a full tonsure and take over the Nakayama lineage as well as Nikko's departure from Minobu a few years later. The principle of dependent origination means that often times the cascading effects of one moment of cowardice can travel for centuries.
In his defense, though he both had "precipitated the crises" and was the target of it. Even if Nissho had presented an unrevised Rissho Ankoku Ron copy, he would have stirred up persecution. The Bakufu did not favor the theories of Nichirenism and feared the kind of power that such a religion might present if it became popular among the common people. It would have been difficult to convince the accepted primary religions to accept Nichirenism without a Dengyo style debate, and perhaps even without one. And the opposition of Zen and Jodo were assured no matter the outcome. Most of the Bakufu prefered Zen for emotional reasons. Nissho, as on the cutting edge of the sword, could not hide in a hermitage far from the center of power and mind his own business the way that Nikko could.
Secondly, the Nichiren Sect was an offshoot of Tendai. The whole reason for six priests had been to have an independent ordination platform, not to establish a new religion outside of the mainstream. For Nichiren true Buddhism represented a new "praxis" but one that was entirely within the logical frame set up by Tendai. Indeed Nissho's arguments that he was simply orthodox were in line with the thrust of Nichrien's own reasoning and his formal refutations of Tendai and Shingon. Every time a Tendai Temple converted to Nichirenism this was proof that Nichiren's teachings were within the logical framework of Tendai. He was teaching something new, but not really that new.
Nichiren Shu priests admit that Nissho and his disciples probably did see themselves as Tendai reformers. After all they were Tendai monks. And this is one of the reasons why Nikko Shonin refused to have anything to do with them after they started saying this. The other reason is that they were alleged to devalue Nichiren's Honored Writings(Gosho) and Honored Mandalas (honzon). This was probably because in seeing Nichiren as a Tendai teacher they only valued his major treatises and writings and didn't feel the sense that his simple letters of thank you and encouragement belonged in the Nichiren Canon.
The Hama Lineage maintained good relations with the Tendai school for a long time, and even sent students to Mt. Hiei to study Tendai philosophy and even to receive their ordinations. All the Nichiren Schools had exchanges with the various Tendai Schools, but most saw themselves as something new, and eventually even the Hama schools realized that that was so.
Nissho also founded the Myohoji Temple in Nase, Sagami in 1306. This temple was transferred to Nissho's disciple Nichijo in 1307. Myohoji Temple was moved to Murata, Echigo when it's main patron, Nobuaki Kazama, moved back there.
Given the above facts and history, it becomes apparant the real context of the following remarks:
Ikeda writes7
"Incidently at the third monthly leaders' meeting, which was held in April, I spoke about the Gosho, "Letter to Two Believers" (Gosho Zenshu, p.1101). In this letter, the Daishonin shows great concern towards the aged Nissho, even with regard to the temple where he resides. In spite of the mercy that was shown to him, Nissho was so ungrateful as to betray the true teaching of the Daishonin; his act can only be called shameless and pitiful. Thanks to whom was he able to have his own temple? It was entirely through the great favor of the Daishonin. Nissho had, in effect, received the temple in trust for the Daishonin. If it came to having to give up his temple to protect the Law, by rights he should have done so gladly."
This is a key to understanding what went wrong. A surface reading of what Nissho did in revising the Rissho Ankoku Ron and then in response to the resulting persecution would indeed place the blame on his cowardice. After all Nichiren had been willing to die for his submission of the original. That Nissho wasn't willing to do the same when confronted by the authorities for his rewritten Rissho Ankoku Ron, indeed was a unspeakable act of cowardice. But I think that the key to understanding what he did, what was really wrong with it, and why we tend to get the wrong message from what happens to him, comes from the next passage, which holds the clue to a better understanding:
"It is said that the Daishonin's Buddhism begins and ends with the 'Rissho Ankoku Ron.' The spirit of the Rissho Ankoku Ron constitutes the essential foundation for the Daishonin's disciples. It was this fundamental spirit that these followers had abandoned.
When I first saw Ikeda's reference to this I thought that these criticisms were unduly harsh given the above circumstances. After all Nissho's troubles started from trying to carry out the "spirit" of the Rissho Ankoku. This reference seemed to be unfair. And yet when you read what he is writing after reading Nichiren's other works in which he calls for care in refuting Tendai and Shingon, etceteras (see six priests for more) then you see that Nissho's biggest blunder was simply that he didn't think through what he was doing before doing it. When Ikeda next says:
Nissho and the others who did not follow Nikko Shonin were so cowardly and cunning as to distort the teachings of the master to whom they were greatly indebted in order to protect themselves. It is necessary that you the members of the Youth Divison who are the future leaders of Kosen-rufu, take a careful look at how they lived after the Daishonin's death.
This complaint may be fully within the traditions of Nichiren Shoshu and even a "samurai" understanding of fujefuse and Nichiren's teachings, but how perceptive is it really? Nissho may have been "cunning" after he got into trouble, when he denied the uniqueness of Nichiren's teachings and spun himself into being simply a "tendai" priest, but actually his real problem was not that he was "cunning" but that he was dunderheaded in revising the Rissho Ankoku Ron the way he did. Had he followed Nichiren's advice, attending Nichiren's grave as promised, concentrating on Shakubuku, and trying to bring about the great debate that was needed in order to bring Nichiren's teachings into legitimacy he would not have found himself in such a corner. He might have been able to enlist at least some of the Tendai priests and bring them over to Nichiren's teachings. His real stupidity was that he antagonized the Government without using fully his tools of logic, wisdom, and courage. Had he been actually willing to give his life that would have accomplished little without the great debate he was calling for.
It was really his arrogance, and not his cunning or intent to distort Buddhism that nearly did in the Kamakura members. It was also the fallout of the true state of affairs, Nikko Shonin was not technically in charge and Nissho was -- in Kamakura. And it seems he just plain wasn't up to it. As Daniel Montgomery writes, he wasn't suited to the life of a missionary or a Martyr. He may have thought he was, but when confronted with torches he was forced to back down.
And Ikeda's criticisms are ironic on other scores as well. Ikeda is criticizing Nissho for not being willing to stand up for his values at the cost of his life. And yet, Ikeda himself played the role of the "expedient means" when he resigned his position as Gakkai President out of unwillingness to confront the priesthood of Nichiren Shoshu. The key issue in both confrontations was "are you willing to stand behind what you say and take the consequences." And "how to bring about the desired outcome." By going "underground" and letting the issues simmer for 12 years before confronting the High Priest, Nikken, Ikeda can't really criticize Nissho for cowardice. In both cases the rationale was to "protect the members" from persecution or misunderstanding what was going on. It is easy to criticize across the span of centuries and from the podium of a well healed position and a comfortable room full of adoring fans.8
- Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism page 302 by Dr. Jacqueline Stone.
- Mike's page on the subject: http://campross.crosswinds.net/Ryuei/SixDisciples_01.html
- Fire in the Lotus, Daniel Montgomery page 152-153
- More: http://la.nichirenshu.org/history/history.htm
- Fire in the Lotus, Daniel Montgomery page 153
- Some of these things are discussed on page 335 of Dr. Stone's book
- From Today Onward, World Tribune Press Copyright 1989 page 81
- See Stormy April 24th essay in which he makes it a noble sacrifice that he capitulated to the priests. Compare this to what Nissho did. Nissho would have been killed. Ikeda could have kept up his remonstrations from a bully pulpit.