Issues around the Transfer Documents

Nichiren Shoshu has the tradition that Nikko Shonin was the only legitimate successor to Nichiren Daishonin. The foundation for this claim is in the "Two transfer documents" and is supplemented by claims contained in such possibly apocryphal Gosho as the "Hon-ninmyo Sho" and the "One Hundred and six articles." Yet these documents are themselves controversial. This page will try to examine the issues involved in these transfer documents. It can't possibly do the subject justice, but it at least can give an overview.

Document for Entrusting the Law Which Nichiren Propagated Throughout His Life

This states:

"I transfer this Law, which I, Nichiren, have propagated throughout my life to Byakuren Ajari Nikko. He is to be the supreme leader for the propagation of Honmon. When the sovereign accepts faith in this Law, the Kaidan of Honmonji Temple must be established at Mount Fuji. You must wait for the time to come. This is what I call the Actual Law of the Precept. Above all, my disciples must uphold this document.

The ninth month of the fifth year on Koan

Nichiren

The order of the heritage of the Law: Nichiren, Nikko

(�Nichiren Ichigo Guho Fishhook Sho� Gosho, p. 1675)

This document was supposedly kept at Honmonji along with the next one:

The Document for the Transfer of Mt. Minobu Temple

I transfer Venerable Shakyamuni’s teachings of fifty years to Byakuren-Ajari Nikko. He is to be the Head Priest of Minobu-san Kuonji Temple. Those priests and lay believers who refuse to accept this are slanderers of the Law.

The thirteenth day of the tenth month on the fifth year of Koan At Ikegami, Musashi Province

Nichiren

(�Minobu-san Fuzoku Sho� Gosho, p. 1675)

Other Transfer Documents

Transfer Document from Nikko to Nichimoku:

The above two transfer documents are almost generally agreed outside of Taisekiji to be forgeries, so Nichiren Shoshu must rely on other documents to try to support it's central object of worship. So Nichiren Shoshu's best evidence for the "Dai-Gohonzon" is a transfer document, purportedly mentioning it, that was purportedly bequeathed on Nichimoku Shonin by Nikko Shonin:

"The Dai-Gohonzon of the second year of Koan (1279) Nikko has inherited is hereby conferred upon Nichimoku." Nikko Shonin's Letter of the Heritage

The general problem with this transfer document is that it is difficult to get a gander at the original text, it is hard to say whether the actual translation supports the interpretation, and of course the text is presented absent any discussion of authentication issues or whether it actually refers to the wooden Dai-gohonzon or some other Gohonzon. This is expecially worrisome since each of Nichiren's disciples had those paper Gohonzon. On the other hand, what most Fuji School opponants fail to note is that it does indicate the general importance that Nikko may have attached to the Gohonzon as sublime object of worship.

Stolen?

One reason that the Fuji Schools reliance on the transfer documents from Nichiren are suspect is the dog ate my homework quality of the defense. The documents in NST's possessions are copies. The originals of these documents originally were supposedly held at Kitayama Honmonji. Unfortunately there was a successor fight between the priests of Kitayama Honmonji and a temple founded in Nishayama by a disputant to the succession of Kitayama. The Reverend Kawabe says in this Oko:

"Both transfer documents were stored at Omosu Seminary (present day Kitayama Honmonji Temple of the Nichiren-shu sect of Mount Minobu). On March 17^th, 1581, many sacred treasures including The Two Transfer Documents (above) were violently stolen by the followers of Nishiyama Honmonji Temple and the lord of Kai Province, Takeda Katsuyori, and his vassals and soldiers, who supported Nishiyama Honmonji Temple and antagonized Kitayama Honmonji Temple. At that time, both temples had defected from Taisekiji."

Both temples were not even remotely affiliated with Taisekiji at that time. They were disputing claimants to being legitimate successors to Nichiren and Nikko from the Omosu Seminary lineage. He continues:

"Unfortunately, both documents have been lost since that conflict. The Chief Priest of Kitayama Honmonji, Nichiden, demanded the return of those sacred treasures. He protested by fasting. He died, but the documents were never returned. Both sides long time slander of Buddhism brought about this unfortunate incident. In March of the next year, the Takeda clan was completely crushed by the invasion of other clans. The Takeda family no longer exists. I think their conflict was a grave bad cause."

The conflict mentioned here was only one of many. And I think it is a historical comment on the behavior of the monks during this period. Like most successors to a founder with a good idea, positions become important not just for the "sake of the law" but for the sake of the fame and importance of the monks, priests, or leaders upholding that law. Thus the loss of these transfer documents is a commentary on the emptiness of the claims embodied in those documents. Any "lineage" is only as good as those upholding it.

Discussion

The Takeda clan makes a good choice for blaming the loss of the transfer documents, but even before the originals were stolen they were in dispute. And it also illustrates how the rivalries and personal disputes of the various schools undermined any legitimacy of succession they might otherwise have claimed. As Rev. Kawabe says, the priests and laymen who were involved in these succession disputes were making a "grave bad cause." In as sense they destroyed their own claims to the "lineage" from Nichiren.

Secret Doctrines

A large part of the issues involving the transfer documents came from them being part of a legacy of "turf wars" between Nichiren Monks, and concommitant claims to "oral," "secret," or "direct" heritages passed down from master to disciple over the years. These "claims" often led to succession fights as one leader had only his own word over whether or not he had -- in fact -- been intended to be the successor to his teacher. Sometimes there would be rivals for the same position. One solution for this was to only transfer teachings to one person. This method worked as long as that disciple lived long enough to receive it. The other method would be for the priest to "retire" after selecting a successor, this too ran into troubles if the successor died. For that reason all Nichiren lineages had problems with continuity. Eventually the solution to this was to make all the teachings written. But "oral" and "secret" legacies were useful to those claiming a position. So they tended to be made up even when they didn't exist.

Most of the Nichiren traditions eventually set aside their oral traditions and went to transfer based on "praxis" (common traditions and practice) rather than doctrinal orthodoxy. But Nichiren Shoshu has continued to emphasize its oral and heritage based traditions.

This is evidenced in their efforts to justify these transfer documents. The first quote that Reverend Kawabe trotts out, even before he starts talking about the texts themselves is this one:

Nichiren Daishonin says in "The Oral Teaching about the Annotation of the Lotus Sutra"

"Keep this in secret, keep this in secret. This is the "Life Blood of the Inheritance of the Law to Only One Person."   You must not tell of this."

Professor Jacqueline Stone on Nikko and the Transfer documents

As Marc Strumph points out in his transcription:

Note: "Origin teaching" as Dr. Stone uses it here refers to the "Honmon" the essential teaching section and last half of the Lotus Sutra. The "Origin" of enlightenment or "Original Gate" to enlightenment. When she uses the term "Trace teaching" it refers to the "shakumon" or first half of the Sutra.¹

The Transfer Documents

Professor Jacqueline Stone writes in her chapter: "The Particular Doctrines of the Fuji School"(note I'm adding my own links but the verbiage is hers):

"As rivalries developed among the various lineages of the Hokkeshu, different branches within the sect began to formulate distinct interpretations of Nichiren 's teaching by which they each asserted their own legitimacy. However, no Hokke lineage has been more sharply divided from the rest of the tradition, or developed so distinct a doctrinal position, as the Nikko or Fuji school, which derives from Byakuren Ajari Nikko (1246-1333). The Fuji school is best known today through one of its descendants, Nichiren Shoshu, with whom the Soka Gakkai - largest of Japan's contemporary "new religions" - was affiliated from the time of it's founding until 1991. From about the sixteenth century on, Fuji doctrine divided into two streams, that of the Taisekiji, located near Mr. Fuji, and that of Yohoji in Kyoto. Since Taisekiji doctrine became dominant within the Nikko school during the Edo period, Fuji doctrine is often referred to - not entirely accurately - as synonymous with that of the Taisekiji. The interpretations discussed here precede the split but would become particularly characteristic of Taisekiji doctrine. While the Fuji school has long claimed to represent the only legitimate form of Nichiren Buddhism, other branches of the Hokkeshu have denounced it as heretical. Like the scholar-monks of other Hokke lineages, those of the Fuji school drew on medieval Tendai thought in systematizing their doctrine, however, they did so in a particular way that supported their distinctive reading of Nichiren 's teaching."

As Professor Stone mentions, the Nikko lineages were founded on differing interpretations of what Nichiren was teaching. As she also mentions there are two substreams of the school, one centered on Yobo-ji for a long time, and the other centered on Taisekiji. There are also schools that acknowledge to one degree or another the issues involved in the lineage claims of this school. I've copied this chapter intact in order to comment on it while letting people see what she says for herself rather than rely on my interpretations. She is a former NSA member who seems to still have a strong interest in Nichiren's teachings, though I think she is somewhat independent in her practice (if she is still practicing). She now is teaching at Princeton University and her brilliant book and dissertation show why she deserves her Doctorate. For what she writes about Nikko Shonin and the origins of the Fuji School visit these pages²:

Six Priests

Nikko

Lord Hakiri

Fuji School

"It is by no means certain that Nikko himself actually intended to break decisively with Nichiren 's other leading disciples and establish his own school. Among his disciples, however, the tradition quickly emerged that only he, of six senior monks, had correctly maintained the purity of Nichiren's teachings(lineage). From there, it was but a short step to the claim that Nichiren had in fact transferred his teaching to Nikko alone. The "Minobu sojo" (Minobu transmission), and apocryphal transfer document, probably written at least a hundred years after Nichiren 's death, says, "Nichiren transfers the Dharma that he spread throughout his lifetime to Byakuren Ajari Nikko, who is the be the great leader of the propagation of the origin teaching." A second such document, the "Ikegami sojo" ( Ikagami transmission), transfers to Nikko, in Nichiren 's name, the fifty years of Sakyamuni's Dharma preaching and entrusts to him the charge of Minobusan Kuonji. Transmission texts were also produced that purport to be Nikko's record of oral teachings conferred by Nichiren to him alone, or that were written down by Nikko for Nichiren . During the Edo period, the doctrines expressed in these transmission texts would be systematized by the Fuji Taisekiji scholar Kenju-in Nichikan (1665-1726) as the framework for interpreting Nichiren 's writings. The transmission texts themselves, however, were produced in the Muromachi period and draw heavily on the structures of medieval Tendai thought to formulate and legitimate the unique doctrinal interpretations emerging among Nikko's later followers."³

Transmission Documents

"Two of these transmission texts most important in the history of the Fuji lineage are the 'Hon in-my sho' (On the original cause) and the 'Hyaku rokka soja' (106 article transmission), together known as the "two transmission texts" ( 'ryo kechimyaku sho'). They were probably compiled roughly at least a hundred years after Nichiren 's death. The 'Hon in-myo sho' presents itself as Nichiren 's explanation, from the standpoint of the origin teaching, of a secret transmission concerning Chih-i's three major works that Tao-sui purportedly conferred upon Saicho during the latter's journey to China. It follows the structure of the 'Sandai shoho shichimen sojo kuketsu' ( Verbal decisions on the seven-article transmission of [Chih-i's] three major writings), a medieval Tendai text attributed to Saicho, which purports to record this transmission. The 'Jyaku rakka sojo', which has similarities of content with the 'Hon in-myo sho', consists of 106-articles concerning the superiority of the origin over the trace teaching. The Fuji school adopted a very strong 'shoretsu' position, although, as discussed below, it's scholars defined what constitutes the "origin teaching" in a distinctive fashion. A detailed discussion of these two texts is not possible here, but a few of their major ideas can be summarized, showing how they appropriate structures from medieval Tendai thought to assert the legitimacy of the Fuji doctrinal position."

Hon nin Myo Sho

"The 'Hon in-myo sho' develops a fourfold interpretation, in increasing levels of profundity, of "name and essence" - two of the five aspects of the Lotus Sutra set forth in Chih-i's 'fa-hua hsuan-I' - name, essence, gist, function, and teaching:

"First, name and essence both have the meaning of impermanence; this corresponds to the sutras preached before the Lotus Sutra and to the schools based upon them.

Second, the essence is real but the name is temporary; this corresponds to the trace teaching and to acquired enlightenment, which is impermanent ('shikaku mujo').

Third, name and essence are both real; this corresponds to the origin teaching and to original enlightenment, which constantly abides ('hongaku joju').

Fourth, name and essence are [both] inconceivable; this corresponds to the direct realization of the contemplation of the mind ('kanjin jikidatsu'), which is Namu-myoho-renge-kyo."

"This amounts to a comparative classification of teachings and is structurally comparable to Eshin school's "fourfold rise and fall." The fourth and highest category, ranking as even more profound than the text of the origin teaching of the Lotus Sutra itself, is here equated with the 'daimoku', the core of Nichiren Buddhist practice, and the direct realization of Buddhahood. This understanding is very similar to the interpretation of Gyogakuin Nitcho of the Minobu lineage, cited above, and the reading of other Muromachi period Hokke scholars."

Nichiren had found his justification for chanting the Daimoku in the Lotus Sutra, and expecially in passages advocating recitation and practice of "even a single phrase" of the Sutra. The practice is not specifically advocated by the Sutra but as Professor Stone says next:

"As discussed in the previous chapter, Nichiren had spoken of the 'daimoku' as "hidden in the depths of the text of the ''Fathoming the Life-span' chapter" of the origin teaching. His claim here bears some resemblance, and is perhaps partially indebted, to medieval Tendai notions of an ultimate truth or insight- kanjin - that is not explicitly stated in the sutra itself. However, since he held the daimoku to be "hidden in the depths" of the origin teaching, it would appear that he did not see it as independent of the sutra, in the way that some medieval Tendai lineages would come to define "contemplation of the mind" as a Dharma prior to, and transmitted separately from, the scriptural text. Later scholars within the Nichiren tradition would discuss the origin teaching of the Lotus Sutra and daimoku as being inseparably related, respectively, as "doctrinal teaching" (kyoso) and the "contemplation of the mind" (kanjin), or as "the surface of the text (monjo) and "the depths of the text" (montei). In the early fourteenth century, as mentioned above, a number of Hokke scholars asserted that the sutra and the daimoku - or doctrine and contemplative practice - are non-dual (kyo funi), probably in part to counter the claims of Eshin Tendai lineage based at Senba that 'shikan' is altogether independent of the written Lotus Sutra, (this "non-dual" position is also held today by the mainstream Nichiren denomination, Nichirenshu.) Later, however, under the influence of such medieval Tendai ideas as the "fourfold rise and fall" and "shikan surpasses the Lotus," the daimoku was often said to be superior to the origin teaching. The uniqueness of Fuji doctrine lies in the extreme status of a Dharma virtually independent of the Lotus Sutra text."

The Nichiren School had found plenty of Justification within the Lotus Sutra and it's teaching of the benefits of even the "fiftieth" person receiving and transmitting it's teachings. However, as Dr. Stone says next:

"Later, however, under the influence of such medieval Tendai ideas as the "fourfold rise and fall" and "shikan surpasses the Lotus," the daimoku was often said to be superior to the origin teaching. The uniqueness of Fuji doctrine lies in the extreme to which this position was carried, assigning to the daimoku the status of a Dharma virtually independent of the Lotus Sutra."⁴

Buddhism of Harvest, versus Buddhism of Sowing

"In the two transmission texts, this argument is developed in the following manner. The origin teaching, the last fourteen chapters of the Lotus Sutra, is said to express the "subtlety of original effect ('honga-myo'), that is, the state of Buddhahood that Sakyamuni achieved as a result of practice in the distant past , as discussed in the "Fathoming the Lifespan" chapter of the Lotus. It does not, however, explicitly reveal the "subtlety of the original cause" ('hon in-myo') - here, the "seed" or practice by which he achieved that Buddhahood. Thus it served to lead to enlightenment only those people who had lived in the Buddha's lifetime or in the True and Semblance Dharma ages, who had already received and nurtured the seed of Buddhahood in prior lifetimes; therefore it is called the "origin teaching of the harvest" ('datchaku no honmon').

The principle of Buddhism, which is asserted by the Fuji School as the one that is appropriate for the final Dharma age is "The principle of True Cause" or Hon-nim Myo As Jackie goes on to state:

In the Final Dharma age, when no one has received the seed of Buddhahood in prior lifetimes, this origin teaching is useless. The only valid teaching in this age is held to be that of "the original cause," Nichiren 's daimoku, which represents the seed of Buddhahood. This claim is based on Nichiren 's assertion in the Kanjin Honzon Sho:

"The origin teaching of the Buddha's lifetime and [that of] the beginning of the Final Dharma age are both alike the pure perfect ('jun em') [teaching]. However, the former corresponds to [the harvest of] emancipation and the latter, to the seed. The former is one chapter and two halves [i.e., the "Fathoming the Lifespan" chapter and the adjacent, framing sections of the preceding and following chapters], and the latter, solely the five characters of the daimoku."^{See Kanjin No Honzon Sho}

"For many Hokke scholars, the above passage referred to two aspects of the origin teaching: in the past, in the form of the "one chapter and two halves," the origin teaching had served to bring about the harvest of emancipation; in the present age of mappo, as five characters of the daimoku, it served to sow the seed. The same Dharma, in other words, could function as either the harvest or the seed, depending upon whether those who received it had formerly planted good roots by receiving the seed of Buddhahood ('hon i uzen') or not ('honmi uzen'). For Fuji scholars, however, this passage referred to two separate teachings. Sakyamuni's origin teaching and Nichiren 's daimoku. The superiority of the daimoku over the origin teaching of the Lotus Sutra is expressed in the Hon in-myo sho as follows:

"In the Lotus [Sutra] of the harvest, the origin and trace [teachings] are both the trace [teaching]? The Lotus [Sutra] that sows the seed [of Buddhahood] is the one and only origin teaching."

By this definition, all twenty-eight chapters of the Lotus Sutra are relegated to the status of "trace teaching" and the "real" origin teaching is the seed of Buddhahood - the daimoku - alone.

"Defining the "seed" and the "harvest" of liberation in this way as two distinct teachings could also imply two different teachers, and this is precisely the direction in which Fuji doctrine moves. Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra states, "Once I [Sakyamuni] practiced the bodhisattva way" a passage read by Chih-i { Master Tein Tai } as pointing to the original cause of Sakyamuni's enlightenment. Based on this passage, the Fuji transmission texts postulate a teacher prior to Sakyamuni's attainment of enlightenment in the remote past, who first conferred upon Sakyamuni the seed of Buddhahood and enabled him to realize the stage of verbal identity. In contrast to Sakyamuni, the "teacher of the subtlety of original effect" ('honga-myo no kyoshu'), this prior Buddha is characterized as the "teacher of the subtlety of original cause" ('hon in-myo no kyoshu'). He resembles the "unproduced triple-bodied Tathagata" of medieval Tendai thought in being prior even to the distant enlightenment of Sakyamuni as described in the sutra text.. This teacher's sowing of the seed of Buddhahood in the beginingless past enabled Sakyamuni to achieve the stage of verbal identity, thus beginning the process of cultivation that would culminate in his enlightenment in the remote past, as described in the "Fathoming the Lifespan" chapter. It is said to be recapitulated in the Final Age with Nichiren 's propagation of the daimoku⁵:

"Today the origin and trace teachings of maturing and harvesting are both "trace" and the origin teaching that corresponds to [he stage of] verbal identity [achieved by Sakyamuni] in the distant past is "origin"?The Buddha is master of the teachings of maturing and harvest, while I [Nichiren ] am master of the Dharma of sowing?What Sakyamuni practiced in the remotest past when he realized the stage of verbal identity has now at this time, in the Final Dharma age, been transposed to the person of Nichiren , who also represents the stage of verbal identity"

Mappo

Professor Stone continues:

"The Final Dharma(mappo) age is the moment when present time and the timeless realm of the original Buddha (the "teacher of original cause") are united in the act of practice. The dispensation of the historical Sakyamuni from his lifetime through the True and Semblance Dharma ages - a period when people attained enlightenment through the teaching of the "harvest" and a linear process of cultivation - is short-circuited, and, via the daimoku, the seed of Buddhahood, timeless original enlightenment is realized in the present moment."

"Mappo as the historical moment of intersection with the enlightenment of the original Buddha is a notion present in Nichiren's writings. However, in his thought, the Sakyamuni buddha who attained enlightenment in the remote past as described in the sutra text and the originally enlightened Buddha without beginning or end appear to be mutually identified and inseparable, the one corresponding to the doctrinal teaching (kyo) and the other, to that which is realized through faith and practice (kan). In Fuji doctrine, however, these two tended to become distinguished as the "teacher of original effect" and the "teacher of original cause", the latter being increasingly identified with the person of Bodhisattva Superior Conduct and with Nichiren . From the perspective of the sutra text, Sakyamuni Buddha is the teacher of Bodhisattva Superior Conduct. In Fuji doctrine, this is dismissed as a provisional view, the reality being that Superior Conduct is the teacher of Sakyamuni. The Hon in-myo sho simply identifies Nichiren as "the practitioner of the subtlety of original cause" (hon in-myo no gyoja). However, the Hyaku rokka sojo is more explicit: "The subtlety of original effect corresponds to Sakyamuni Buddha, and the subtlety of original cause, to Bodhisattva Superior Conduct"

"Honin myo no Gyoja"

"..The Hon in-myo sho simply identifies Nichiren as "the practitioner of the subtlety of original cause" (hon in-myo no gyoja). However, the Hyaku rokka sojo (100 Questions and answers) (See apocryphal.html) is more explicit:

"The subtlety of original effect corresponds to Sakyamuni Buddha, and the subtlety of original cause, to Bodhisattva Superior Conduct."

It also says:⁶

"What Nichiren now practices does not differ from the conduct of [the Buddha] in the most distant past when he achieved the stage of verbal identity, not by so much as a single mustard seed? The "Fathoming the Lifespan" chapter of my [Nichiren 's] inner enlightenment is the subtlety of original cause hidden in the depths of the "Fathoming the Lifespan" [chapter] of the harvest, and its teacher is myself?From the standpoint of beginingless time (kuon ganjo), "in heaven and earth, I alone am worthy of respect" refers to Nichiren?Nichiren, constantly abiding throughout the three time periods [ of past, present, and future], [confers] the benefits of [the stage of ] verbal [identity]? The Buddha of sowing is [like] the moon in the sky, while the Buddha of the harvest is [like] the moon reflected in a pond"

"By the latter part of the Muromachi period, such ideas would be systematized in the Fuji school's idiosyncratic doctrinal position, elaborated particularly within the Taisekiji line, the equates Nichiren with the original Buddha ('Nichiren Hombutsu ron'). A few passages form the Muromachi period writings of this school will suggest some of the various ways in which this doctrine was developed. For example, Nichiu (1409-1482), ninth abbot of the Taisekiji, argues that for people of the Final Dharma age who are at the beginning stage of practice, Nichiren as the teacher of the original cause is a more appropriate focus of devotion than Sakyamuni:

"In our school, we do not enshrine as the object of worship the Sakyamuni who, during his lifetime, taught people able to extricate delusion and thus reach the ultimate principle?Because this Sakyamuni, who taught for the sake of those at advanced stages of practice, is beyond the deluded perception of [being like ourselves], who are at the stage of verbal identity and have but newly produced the aspiration for enlightenment, we take as our object of worship that which Sakyamuni practiced as the cause for his enlightenment. This is why we rely on the eminent founder, Nichiren Shonin."

"Nichiyo, a contemporary of Nichiu and of the same Fuji lineage, interprets Nichiren as manifesting in his behavior a reality that Sakyamuni only theoretically expressed:

"[Nichiren] Daishonin is the essence of the Lotus Sutra. Sakyamuni's Lotus Sutra is the Lotus Sutra in words alone? When [Nichiren] practiced the Lotus Sutra in actuality, then it became the true Lotus Sutra."

Similarly, Sakyo Ajari Nikkyo (b.1428), a disciple of Nichiu, developed the argument for Nichiren as the original buddha in his 'Musaka sho'. He argues that Bodhisattva Superior Conduct, who represents the stage of practice, is the teacher of all buddhas and surpasses Sakyamuni, who represents only the stage of attainment. Thus Nichiren, who is the embodiment of Superior Conduct in the time of mappo, is all-inclusive:

"Simply believing in Nichiren Shonin encompasses the virtues of faith in Sakyamuni, Many Jewels, Superior Conduct, and all Buddhas."

Equation with Original Buddha

"The equation of Nichiren with the original Buddha represents a bold if convoluted attempt to free Nichiren from the context of the preceding historical tradition of Sakyamuni's Buddhism and to relocate Sakyamuni within the context of Nichiren's teaching. Structurally, it resembles medieval Tendai claims that Chih-I's inner enlightenment is prior to and surpasses the testimony of the Lotus Sutra preached by Sakyamuni. It also suggests the nonlinearity and reversals of time and hierarchy characteristic of medieval Tendai kanjin-style interpretations: The seed surpasses the harvest; the stage of practice surpasses that of attainment; Superior Conduct, a bodhisattva, is superior to Sakyamuni, a Buddha; and Nichiren, who lived after Sakyamuni in historical time, becomes his teacher in Beginingless time. In the reading of the three jewels of Buddhism adopted by most schools within the Nichiren tradition, the Buddha is defined as the original Sakyamuni of the "Fathoming the Lifespan" chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Dharma is Namu-myoho-renge-kyo, and the Sangha is represented by Nichiren. In the Fuji school, however, the Buddha is Nichiren, the Dharma is Namu-myoho-renge-kyo, and the Sangha is represented by Nikko. Founder worship is hardly uncommon in Japanese Buddhism, but nowhere has it been provided with a more elaborate doctrinal rationale than in the Fuji lineage of the Nichiren tradition.

"Fuji interaction with Tendai institutions are less easy to document than in the case of Minobu, but they nevertheless occurred. Sanmi Nichijun (1294-1354/1356), a noted scholar of the lineage, studied both Eshin and Danna teachings on Mr. Hiei. The sixth abbot of Taisekiji, Nichiji (d. 1406), is said to have studied Tendai doctrine at the Senba dangisho. Nichiu, the ninth abbot, mentioned above, appears as a young man to have received the transmission of the Tendai kuden text Nijo sho. Whatever the nature and extent of such contacts, there appear to be several points of structural similarity between Fuji doctrine and medieval Tendai thought. First, the supreme Dharma, in this case the daimoku, is held to be prior to and virtually independent of the text of the Lotus Sutra, as in "mind contemplation" or kanjin in the transmissions of some medieval Tendai lineages. Second, the supreme Dharma is associated with a Buddha who is postulated prior even to the Sakyamuni who attained enlightenment in the remote past as described in the sutra text; the "unproduced triple-bodied Tathagata" in the case of Tendai documents and the "teacher of original cause" in the case of the Fuji school. And third, a reversal of conventional hierarchies occurs in which the ordinary worldling is accorded status higher than the Buddha who attained enlightenment in the sutra. In the case of the Fuji school, the "ordinary worldling" refers very specifically to Nichiren, and more generally to his followers who chant the daimoku."

"The equation of Nichiren with the original Buddha is not easily reconciled with Nichiren's own clear expressions of reverence for Sakyamuni as "parent, teacher, and sovereign" of all living beings, and this particular strand of Nichiren Buddhist thought has been much criticized by other Nichiren schools. In recent decades, it has come under attack for lack of basis in Nichiren's writings by those sectarian scholars of Nichirenshu intent on purifying the Nichiren corpus of apocryphal works as a basis for establishing a normative doctrine, a project in which the present-day inheritors of the Fuji lineage - Nichiren Shoshu - have evinced little interest. But authenticated writings of a founder are not the only basis upon which religious traditions have, historically, chosen to argue tier authority. Scholars of the medieval Fuji school, like the Tendai lineages of their day, based their interpretations of doctrine and their claims to legitimacy less on original texts than on secret transmissions, a hermeneutical approach that its modern descendents have in large measure inherited."⁶

Much of the material here comes from Jacqueline Stone's wonderful Book⁷:

Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Tendai Buddhism which you can get a copy of at this page:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0824820266/102-4197826-6071301

References

To save effort I copied from these sources:

Part One of his posts can be found at this post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren&selm=20020206224401.13205.00001373%40mb-bk.aol.com

Part Two I moved to the page on Nikko, but the source is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=a3tpm0%241b2ib5%241%40ID-107238.news.dfncis.de&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dalt.religion.buddhism.nichiren%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26site%3Dgroups

Part Three:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3189800423d&hl=en&selm=20011231150741.11847.00002526%40mb-fx.aol.com&rnum=1

Part Four:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren&selm=20020206224100.13205.00001370%40mb-bk.aol.com

Part Five:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren&selm=20020206224010.13205.00001369%40mb-bk.aol.com

{"Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism",by Jacqueline Stone Ph.D., pp.336,337,338}

Much of the material here comes from Jacqueline Stone's wonderful Book:

Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Tendai Buddhism which you can get a copy of at this page:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0824820266/102-4197826-6071301

I finally found the transfer documents in this OKo

http://www.nstmyosenji.org/sermons/2001/koshie01.htm

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws