- Ennin (793�864)1
- Born in Shimotsuke-no-Kuni(Tochigi Prefecture); posthumous title, (Jikaku Daishi)
As a young Buddhist monk At the age of 15, he became a student of Saich�, "Dengyo Daishi". As an adult he made a pilgrimage to T�ang China which he recorded in his diary. This period is well known in the West, thanks to Edwin Reischauer�s2 pioneering translation of "Ennin�s Travels in T�ang China" (Ennin's diary)3 and his study of Ennin�s Diary: "The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law (1955)4. Ennin achieved fame as a transmitter of Chinese culture and religion to Heian society(see this page for a timeline), an honored teacher of emperors and nurturer of the budding and eventually overwhelmingly influential Tendai school of Buddhism on Mt. Hiei --these are all parts of Ennin�s full and fascinating life.5
Dengyo had aborted his pursuit of Mikkyo Teachings upon realizing that Kobo Daishi had no intentions of honoring his promise to propagate the Lotus Sutra teachings as he and Kobo had promised each other, but that Kobo Daishi felt that his teachings could only be mastered by years of in depth personal training. Dengyo Daishi during the early 800's had even been willing to become Kobo Daishi's disciples in order to receive the transmission of the Shingon Dharma. But when Kobo insisted that such a transmission would take years of study on Dengyo's part, and Dengyo realized that Kobo was "deny[ing] [the efficacy] of 'Transmission through the Sutras", Dengyo and Kobo had broken with each other. Dengyo had there-after revised his work the "Ehyo Tendai Shu" to criticize the Mikkyo Teachings as follows:
�The esoteric Shingon Buddhist, the newcomer, went so far as to deny the validity of transmission through writing (hitsuju �4)� (DZ 3, p. 344).1
Ennin was 29 years old when Dengyo died, and became his third successor (after Gishin and then Encho) so he should have been conversant with his teachings. But he probably was one of the monks who accompanied Dengyo to visit Kobo Daishi in 812 CE to receive Shingon initiation into the two Mandalas. 2
In 838 Ennin visited Tang China, where he recounted his visit in his diary. While there he witnessed the suppression of Buddhism under the Chinese Emperor Kaisho. He also completed a study of "Mikkyo" Teachings similar to those which Kaisho suppressed and brought them back to Japan. During this time The Tendai Sect was facing stiff competition from the Shingon Sect with it's "Mikkyo Teachings" and he probably thought that these transmissions would enable the Tendai Lotus School to compete more successfully with them. At any rate he brought back many sutra texts at great risk to his life.
Ennin was also influential in the development of the underlying theory that led to the rise of "Pure Land Buddhism" (see Ennin and Pure land references at this link:http://www.jodo.or.jp/jsri/English/Honen/LIFE/Tendai/development.html"). He introduced the constantly walking samadhi, called the jogyodo in which Tendai monks customarily recited the Lotus Sutra in the morning and performed nembutsu practice in the evening. This may have been the practice that Nichiren was introduced to as an Acolyte years later.
Ennin must have been conversant with the Ehyo Tendai Shu but he was highly attracted to the Mikkyo Teachings and had risked his life to get transmissions of them from China. What happened next Nichiren Recounts as follows: As Nichiren says about him, in Repaying Debts of Gratitude:
On the tenth day of the ninth month in the thirteenth year of Jowa (846), he returned to Japan, and on the fourteenth day of the sixth month of the first year of Kajo (848), an imperial edict was handed down [permitting him to conduct the Shingon initiation ceremonies]. Perhaps because he had had difficulty determining the relative merit of the Lotus and Dainichi sutras when he was studying in China, he proceeded to write a seven-volume commentary on the Kongocho Sutra and a seven-volume commentary on the Soshitsuji Sutra, making a total of fourteen volumes. The gist of these commentaries is that the doctrines set forth in the Dainichi, Kongocho and Soshitsuji sutras and the doctrines expounded in the Lotus Sutra ultimately indicate the same principle, but because of the ritual use of mudras and mantras associated with the former, the three Shingon sutras just mentioned are superior to the Lotus Sutra.
Nichiren skewers the logic behind Ennin's reasoning, but he is hardest on Ennin's most conclusive method for valorizing his decision:
In essence, this agrees exactly with the view of Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih and Pu-k'ung set forth in their commentary on the Dainichi Sutra. But perhaps Jikaku still had doubts in his mind, or perhaps, having resolved his own doubts, he wished to clear up the doubts of others. In any event, he placed his fourteen volumes of commentary before the object of worship in the temple where he resided and made this appeal in prayer:
"Though I have written these works, the Buddha's intention is very difficult to determine. Are the Dainichi Sutra and the other two Shingon sutras associated with it superior? Or are the Lotus Sutra and the two sutras associated with it to be ranked higher?"While he was earnestly praying in this manner, on the fifth day, early in the morning at the time of the fifth watch, a sign suddenly came to him in a dream. He dreamed that the sun was up in the blue sky, and that he took an arrow and shot at it. The arrow flew up into the sky and struck the sun. The sun began to roll over and over, and when it had almost fallen to the earth, Jikaku woke from his dream.
Delighted, he said,
"I have had a very auspicious dream. These writings, in which I have declared that Shingon is superior to the Lotus Sutra, are in accord with the Buddha's will!"He then requested that an imperial edict be issued to this effect, and he disseminated his teaching throughout the country of Japan.
But the edict that was handed down as a result of this request says in effect,
"It has at last become known that the Shikan doctrines of the Tendai sect and the doctrines of the Shingon sect are in principle in perfect agreement."
Jikaku had prayed to confirm that the Lotus Sutra is inferior to the Dainichi Sutra, but the edict that was issued says that the Lotus Sutra and the Dainichi Sutra are the same!
As Nichiren points out subsequently in his essay, this was hardly an auspicious dream, since shooting the sun and having it fall out of the sky is hardly an auspicious sign on which to base a major decision. What really happened was that Ennin was faced with the choice of setting aside his hard earned acquisitions of Sutras and transmissions (Abhisekhas) or of finding some means to make them acceptable to his fellow teachers. Everyone wanted to believe in Mikkyo. Mikkyo Teachings had been attracting monks all over Japan, even Saicho himself had briefly been dazzled by them. He had received initiation or "abhisekha" into the Shingon teachings under Kobo himself. Had Ennin been filial to Dengyo he would have lost many of his own disciples to the Shingon Sect. Dengyo's own disciples had been unwilling to follow their master and completely break with Mikkyo. How could someone who had travelled to China and invested time and effort into mastering them be expected to do so? However, these two were familiar enough with his work to have recognized the significance of Dengyo's break with Kobo over the importance of written teachings over "esoteric" face to face transmissions will see that that would have been the only appropriate course.
Basically Jikaku was completing a process started by Kobo and Dengyo together, and that Dengyo had been unable to stop. These kinds of teachings are overwhe attractive to monks and other elites of any country. We see this in other countries besides Japan, such as Tibet or our own USA.
Nichiren Wrote extensively on Jikaku Daishi's appropriation of "Mikkyo" doctrines, which he usually would simply refer to as "Shingon" as to him they were exactly the same corpus. For instance in the Gosho "On the Doctrine of attaining Buddhahood in ones present form" (which is a category 'b' for disputed Gosho, but nevertheless encapsulizes his sound reasoning and is probably genuine -- he writes:
But the Shingon priests of To-ji temple speak ill of Nichiren, saying,
"You are only an ordinary man, whereas the Great Teacher Kobo was a bodhisattva who had reached the third stage of development. You have not yet reached the state of realizing the non-birth and non-extinction of all phenomena in your present form, while the Great Teacher Kobo attained Buddhahood in his present form before the emperor�s very eyes. And moreover, because you have not yet received any imperial edict [bestowing such a title upon you], you are not a Great Teacher[Daishi]. Therefore you do not qualify as a teacher of the country of Japan! (This is their first point.)
"The Great Teacher Jikaku was a disciple of Dengyo and Gishin; the Great Teacher Chisho was a disciple of Gishin and Jikaku; and the eminent priest Annen was a disciple of the eminent priest Anne. These three men have declared that the Hokke-Tendai sect�s doctrine of attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form represents only the esoteric doctrines, while the Shingon sect�s teaching of attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form represents the esoteric doctrines and practices. The great teachers Dengyo and Kobo were neither of them stupid men. In addition, sages show no partiality, and thus, the three teachers Jikaku, Chisho and Annen, though they lived in the mountain temple founded by Dengyo, concurred in their teachings with the intent of Kobo of To-ji temple. Accordingly, in Japan for the past four hundred years or more, no one has disputed their doctrines. Now, what do you, an unworthy person, mean by coming forward with these evil doctrines of yours!" (This is their second point.)
Answer: If you simply speak rudely and adopt an abusive attitude, I will not discuss the matter with you. I will discuss it only if you sincerely desire to hear the truth. But with people like you, if one makes no reply, then you suppose him to be incapable of responding. Therefore I will answer you. But rather than adopting an abusive attitude or using rude language, you had better produce some clear passage from the sutras to support the assertions of the Great Teacher Kobo in whom you put such trust. In view of your abusive language and attitude, it would seem that in fact there is no sutra passage [substantiating the Shingon doctrine] of attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form!
As for the matter of Jikaku, Chisho and Annen, the great teachers Jikaku and Chisho embraced the doctrines of the Great Teacher Dengyo while they were still in Japan. But after they journeyed to China, they adopted the doctrines of such teachers as Yuan-cheng and Fa-ch�uan and in their hearts discarded the doctrines of the Great Teacher Dengyo. Thus, although they lived in the mountain temple founded by Dengyo, they proved unfaithful to his teachings.
Nichiren was essentially right about this, as a cursory comparison of their embrasure of Mikkyo with what Dengyo teaches after his break with Kobo Daishi in his Ebyo Shu will demonstrate. Dengyo had criticized Shingon teachings with the conclusion: "�The esoteric Shingon Buddhist, the newcomer, went so far as to deny the validity of transmission through writing (hitsuju �4)�". If one truly believes that esoteric teachings should only exist to help people understand Buddhism who have curiousity and time to delve deeper, and not as a special seperate body of magical understandings then fidelity to Dengyo would have meant taking seriously what he wrote in the Ebyo Shu, as Nichiren tries to explain next, using his vast knowledge of the Tendai corpus:
Question: What led you to this conclusion?
Answer: The commentary by the Great Teacher Dengyo states,
"You should understand that this passage is inquiring whether there are any persons who have attained Buddhahood, and so intends to manifest the great power and authority of this sutra."
This section is related to a passage he quoted earlier in this commentary from the Devadatta chapter of the Lotus Sutra [in which Monjushiri says],
"When I was in the ocean [I constantly expounded the Lotus Sutra alone]."The point of Dengyo�s comment is that, no matter how much people may talk about attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form, unless there are actual examples of persons who have done so, one should not heed their doctrine. It stands to reason that, unless based on the sutra of the single truth that is pure and perfect, there can be no attainment of Buddhahood in one�s present form. And in the Shingon scriptures such as the Dainichi and Kongocho sutras, no examples of such persons are to be found.
Moreover, when we examine these Shingon sutras, we see that they clearly belong to the categories of "combining, excluding, corresponding and including." They do not teach that persons of the two vehicles can attain Buddhahood, nor do they even suggest anywhere that Shakyamuni actually attained Buddhahood in the inconceivably remote past.
Were Jikaku and Chisho perhaps deceived by the commentaries of Shan-wu-wei, Chin-kang-chih and Pu-k�ung? Jikaku and Chisho appear to have been worthy men and sages, and yet they tended to honor what was distant and to despise what was close at hand. They were bewitched by the fact that the three Shingon sutras contained mudras and mantras, and completely forgot about the all-important path of attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form.
This is a reference to their efforts to acquire more understanding of Buddhism, honor, and fame, by their journeys to China. It is also an observation that is still sound to this very day. An expert is almost always someone from out of town. And few listen to those who are nearby unless they have some kind of status. Nichiren continues:
Thus, although the persons on Mount Hiei at present seem to be propounding the Lotus Sutra�s doctrine of attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form, they are in fact propounding the attainment of Buddhahood in one�s present form as put forward by the Great Teacher Jikaku, Annen and the others. The attainment of Buddhahood in one�s present form put forward by these persons is an attainment of Buddhahood in name but not in reality. The doctrines of such people are utterly at variance with those of the Great Teacher Dengyo.
According to the Great Teacher Dengyo, regardless of whether or not people have cast aside the body subject to transmigration through delusion with differences and limitations, the intent of the Lotus Sutra is that they attain Buddhahood in their present form. But according to the doctrines of the Great Teacher Jikaku, if one casts aside the body subject to transmigration through delusion with differences and limitations, then this cannot be called attaining Buddhahood, in one�s present form. However, people who propound such a view have no understanding of what attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form really means.
thus we can see that Nichiren's reasoning was entirely grounded on Dengyo's own writings. But of course Nichiren had also to confront the claim that there had been an oral heritage passed on from Dengyo to Jikaku that somehow "trumped" these writings of his. This was (and still is) a frequent device by which teachers would seek to gain legitimacy for views that diverged, or even contradicted, the expressed opinions of their founders.
Question: The Great Teacher Jikaku knew the Great Teacher Dengyo personally, studied directly under him and inherited his teachings. You, on the other hand, are separated [from Dengyo] by more than four hundred years. Is this not so?
Answer: Are persons who have received the teachings directly from their teacher invariably free from error, while those who appear in later ages and examine and come to a perfect understanding are to be regarded as worthless? If so, then should we throw away the sutras and instead rely upon the four ranks of bodhisattvas? Should a person throw away the deed of transfer received from his father and mother and instead depend upon oral transmissions? Are the written commentaries of the Great Teacher Dengyo so much trash, and the oral traditions handed down from the Great Teacher Jikaku the only guide to truth?
This becomes a timeless question, as Nichiren's own disciples would later employ basically the same devices, and sometimes borrow oral teachings from these very same "followers" of the great Tendai founders. (See Nichirenism page).
Nichiren answers:
In the Hokke shuku, the Great Teacher Dengyo lists ten points that are not found in any sutra [other than the Lotus]. As the eighth of these, it names the sutra�s:
"superiority in leading people to attain Buddhahood in their present form."Later on, the commentary states:
"You should understand that this passage is inquiring whether there are any persons who have attained Buddhahood, and so intends to manifest the great power and authority of this sutra.... You should understand that, among the sutras that the other sects rely upon, there are none that teach the doctrine of entering [Buddhahood] in one�s present form."Are we to turn our backs upon this passage of commentary and instead endorse the doctrine of attaining Buddhahood in one�s present form based on the Dainichi Sutra, which the Great Teacher Jikaku says represents the esoteric doctrines and practices?
Question: Among the commentaries of the Great Teacher Dengyo, are there any that do not recognize the word "only" in the Bodaishin ron�s statement [that "only in the Shingon teachings can one attain Buddhahood in one�s present form"]?
Interestingly, the Bodaishin Ron passages referred to are probably apocryphal. Nichiren skirts confronting this directly.
Answer: The Hokke shuku states:
"Neither teacher nor disciples need undergo countless kalpas of austere practice in order to attain Buddhahood. Through the power of the Lotus Sutra they can do so in their present form."Thus, as you can see, this commentary does not recognize the word "only" in the Bodaishin ron�s statement.
Question: If one rejects the Bodaishin ron, is he not then rejecting Nagarjuna?
Answer: It is more likely that the translator distorted the meaning according to his personal views.
Question: If you reject any translator, then should you not also reject Kumarajiva, the translator of the Lotus Sutra?
Answer: In the case of Kumarajiva, there is actual proof [attesting to the validity of his translations]. But no such proof exists in the case of Pu-k�ung.
Question: May I ask what proof you refer to?
Answer: I refer to the fact that Kumarajiva�s tongue remained unburned. You should inquire about the details.
Question: Were Jikaku and Chisho ignorant of this matter?
Answer: These two men put their trust in the doctrines of the Tripitaka masters such as Shan-wu-wei. That is probably the reason they rejected the correct teachings of the Great Teacher Dengyo. They are examples of men who relied upon persons and turned their backs upon the Law.
Question: Up until now, there has never been anyone in Japan who controverted the teachings of Jikaku, Chisho and Annen. How do you explain that?
Answer: Do the followers of the Great Teacher Kobo accept the teachings of Jikaku and Chisho? Do the followers of Jikaku and Chisho accept the teachings of the Great Teacher Kobo?
Question: Although the two teaching lines may differ somewhat, they are not, as your teachings would be, as incompatible as fire and water. And neither do they criticize others as slanderers of the True Law, do they?
Answer: But how exactly should we describe slander of the True Law? When the followers of non-Buddhist religions attack the Buddhist teachings, when followers of Hinayana attack Mahayana, when followers of provisional Mahayana look down on the teachings of true Mahayana, or when true Mahayana attempts to join forces with provisional Mahayana -- in the final analysis, when what is superior is designated inferior -- such acts go against the Law and are therefore termed slander of the Law.
Where is there any scriptural evidence to support the Great Teacher Kobo�s contention that the Dainichi Sutra is superior to the Lotus and Kegon[Flower Garland] sutras? The Lotus Sutra, on the other hand, contains passages clearly stating that it surpasses the Kegon and Dainichi sutras. This is the meaning, for example, of the statement that among all the sutras the Buddha "has preached, now preaches and will preach" in the future, [the Lotus Sutra stands supreme]. Though Kobo is highly honored, he can hardly escape the grave charge of contradicting Shakyamuni, Taho and all the other Buddhas of the ten directions, who are Shakyamuni�s emanations!
Now, rather than appealing to the authorities in an attempt to browbeat me, why do you not simply produce some reliable passage of scriptural proof? You people look to human beings to be your allies. But I, Nichiren, make the gods of the sun and moon, Taishaku and Bonten, my allies. Gods of the sun and moon, open your divine eyes and look at what is happening! In the palaces of the sun and moon there are surely copies of the Lotus, Dainichi and Kegon sutras. Compare them and see what the truth is! Whose teachings deserve the higher place, those of Kobo, Jikaku, Chisho and Annen, or those of Nichiren?
If in the doctrines I put forth there is one part in a hundred or a thousand that accords with true principles, then how can these heavenly beings withhold their aid from me? And if the teachings of Kobo and the others are in fact false, then all the people in this country of Japan will suffer the retribution of being born without eyes.25 Will not the heavenly beings then think of them with great pity?
I, Nichiren, have twice been banished, and at one point was almost beheaded. Those responsible were in effect attempting to cut off the heads of Shakyamuni, Taho and all the other Buddhas of the ten directions!
Nichiren did not confront the Tendai Sect publicly, because he knew that in a debate he could draw out these important points using the methods of logic, reason, and literal proofs. His critiques of Jikaku were valid, and yet to this day both Mikkyo and Lotus Sutra are taught nearly exactly as Jikaku Daishi taught them.
Esotericism was and is almost overwhelmingly attractive to people with time on their hands and a little education. Whether it is Zen, Kaballah, Tantric Buddhism, which is what Shingon and Mikkyo essentially are, or its relatives in Gnostic teachings, Hindu Tantra, or Kaballah. The idea that there is a layer of knowledge deeper then, or parrallel to the explicit teachings of religion resonates on a mythic, unconscious level. In the end even Nichiren uses some esoteric conventions, as he did in the Gosho the "Kanjin No Honzon Sho" where he enjoined his disciples not to discuss that Gosho with people not properly initiated into his teachings. Ennin tried to solve the problem by making the esoteric teachings equal to the Lotus Sutra. But he did so in such a way that he left their implied superiority "in terms of practice" and thus he went against the spirit of his own founder (Dengyo). Nichiren solved the same problem without gutting the spirit of the Lotus Sutra by finding the answers "within the text" of the Sutra. Had Ennin taken that approach and not surrendered to esotericism, Tendai Buddhism and Japanese History might have taken a different course. After he died, a succession fight broke out between his followers and his successors followers. The result of this fight was centuries of conflict. Nichiren refers to this as part of his belief that Ennin's teachings were incorrect. Esotericism leads to the valoration of leading teachers and their teachings without the criticism and acceptance of alternative views that a more egalitarian spirit creates. When Monks teach with an Esoteric attitude, when they tell their disciples the moon is made of cheese, their disciples are expected to bring crackers. The trouble is that by mixing Mikkyo with the Lotus Sutra, he disregarded the egalitarian spirit of the a href="http://www.geocities.com/chris_holte/Buddhism/LotusSutra/index.html">Lotus Sutra which promises salvation for all mankind. As Nichiren says about him in the Gosho "Repaying Debts of Gratitude:"
In Japan, as we have seen, only on Mount Hiei in the time of the Great Teacher Dengyo was there a votary of the Lotus Sutra. Dengyo was succeeded by Gishin and Encho, the first and second chief priests of the sect, respectively. But only the first chief priest Gishin followed the ways of the Great Teacher Dengyo. The second chief priest Encho was half a disciple of Dengyo and half a disciple of Kobo.
The third chief priest, Jikaku, at first acted like a disciple of the Great Teacher Dengyo. But after he went to China at the age of forty, though he continued to call himself a disciple of Dengyo and went through the motions of carrying on Dengyo's line, he taught a kind of Buddhism that was wholly unworthy of a true disciple of Dengyo. Only in the matter of the precepts for perfect and immediate enlightenment established by Dengyo did he conduct himself like a true disciple.
He was like a bat, for a bat resembles a bird yet is not a bird, and resembles a mouse yet is not a mouse. Or he was like an owl or a hakei beast. He ate his father the Lotus Sutra, and devoured his mother, those who embrace the Lotus Sutra. When he dreamed that he shot down the sun, it must have been a portent of these crimes. And it must be because of these acts that, after his death, no grave was set aside for him.3
Maybe that was too harsh, but Nichiren then says:
The temple Onjo-ji, representing Chisho's branch of the Tendai sect, fought incessantly with the temple Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei, which represented Jikaku's branch of the sect, the two going at each other like so many asuras and evil dragons. First Onjo-ji would be burned down, then the buildings on Mount Hiei. As a result, the image of Bodhisattva Miroku that had been the special object of worship of Chisho was burned, and the special object of worship of Jikaku, as well as the great lecture hall on Mount Hiei, were likewise burned. The monks of the two temples must have felt as though they had fallen into the hell of incessant suffering while they were still in this world. Only the Main Hall on Mount Hiei remained standing.
And later:
You may pile up dung and call it sandalwood, but when you burn it, it will give off only the fragrance of dung. You may pile up a lot of great lies and call them the teachings of the Buddha, but they will never be anything but a gateway to the great citadel of the hell of incessant suffering.
Nichiren was referring to the "deep" involved ceremonies and initiations of the Mikkyo teachings, which he felt were simply a lot of "smoke" that had little to do with achieving enlightenment in ones present form. Esoteric teachers like Kobo Daishi and Jikaku Daishi felt that Buddhists couldn't save others until they had mastered themselves, but Nichiren saw that that was simply a way to dodge the responsibility of living in the real world and teaching other people to reveal their Buddhahood in their present form even as one does so oneself. The only teaching that clearly reveals this is the Lotus Sutra.
Ennin and a legend of an encounter in Tang China
Source for information on Saicho and Kukai: http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/438.pdf
Another Biography of Ennin: http://www.hieizan.or.jp/enryakuji/econt/access/mother/koso/ennin.html
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/400.pdf
index | Nichiren | Kobo | Dengyo
Starting place for further study:
Link to Tendai Sect issues page
- >http://www.tendai-lotus.org/teachings/mikkyo.htm"
- Edwin Reischauer
- ISBN: 0826074006 Publisher: Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, John (Ennin's diary)
- Ibid
- http://www.hieizan.or.jp/enryakuji/econt/access/mother/koso/ennin.html