I wrote this essay as the midterm paper for Japanese Buddhism taught by Dr. Kieko Obuse in 2015. The paper may look difficult for those who know nothing about Japanese Buddhism, but for those who are familiar with the subject it may have some interesting points. And for general readers who get interested in Buddhism, investing time and effort for this essay can bring them an understanding of why Japanese Buddhism is so unique and colorful.
In studying Japanese Buddhism, when we come to the period called Kamakura (1185–1333), we have many things to learn and discuss. That is because in this period major schools of Buddhism came into being and persisted until now. We can say that Kamakura is the most colorful period for Buddhism in Japan. Some says understanding Kamakura Buddhism is more or less equivalent to understanding Japanese Buddhism as a whole. I am doubtful about this statement at first, but now I incline to agree with that.
When we talk about Kamakura Buddhism, the most striking issue is that why or how new Buddhist movements occurred, and what was the differences from the old ones. Scholars usually call the new movements “Kamakura New Buddhism,” and they try to figure out in what way this ‘New’ features characterize Buddhism at the time. To me, the word ‘New’ itself is problematic, because there was nothing particular new in Buddhism in this period. However, there was some change in social situations that makes alternative ways of response to that change possible. We can regard this circumstance as new. But if ‘change’ is equal ‘new,’ everything is always new for everything is ever-changing. So, I will not use the word ‘New’ in my vocabulary, but my main point still is how this ‘New’ characterizes Kamakura Buddhism, or in my words, “what make Kamakura Buddhism Kamakura as such.”
There are three notions I will deal with in this essay: (1) mappō, the belief in the Final Age of Dharma, (2) hongaku, the doctrine of “original enlightenment,” and (3) hijiri, holy men. With these three factors, I will demonstrate their significance contributing to Kamakura Buddhism, as well as their interrelations that have not been mentioned by scholars.
Mappō, the psychological factor
There is a belief, among Buddhist adherents, that the purity of the Buddha’s teachings has degenerated over time. From the doctrinal point of view, this is not merely a belief, but a fact that everything is subject to change and decay including the doctrine itself. All Buddhists accept this fact, but how fast this condition is can be a significant factor of social dynamics, as we shall see.
Japanese Buddhists, as well as Chinese, believe that the Dharma undergoes three stages: the true Dharma (shōbō, zhengfa), the semblance or imitation Dharma (zōbō, xiangfa), and the final Dharma (mappō, mofa). This elaborated idea came from China, but its basic origin can be traced back to India. The earliest textual evidence appears in Cullavagga of the Vinaya in the Theravāda canon. The Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda that unless he allowed women to enter the monastic order, the teachings would have survived for one thousand years, otherwise “five hundred years, Ānanda, will the Good Doctrine abide.” This shows that the Dharma degenerates anyway, whether fast or slow is up to accelerating factors.
However, Theravāda traditions seem to take one thousand as the basis of five thousand years of Sākyamuni’s teachings. In Manorathapūranī (ca. fifth century CE), the commentary of Aṅguttaranikāya, Buddhaghosa elaborated the five phases of the Dharma, one thousand years each. At the end of the first millennium, attainments disappear. At the end of the second millennium, practices disappear. The third, learning disappears. The fourth, monastic life disappears. And the last millennium, relics disappear as well as anything related to Buddhism. We can see here, even in Theravāda traditions, there is a belief that after a certain period of time no matter how we practice we cannot gain any enlightenment.
The idea of Dharma degeneration has a relation, in some way, with cosmological idea of human life span and the rotation of the four eons (kalpas) as described in Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandhu (ca. fifth century CE). There is a passage showing that the Buddha appears only at the time when human life drops from 80,000 to one hundred years because of the worsening of the five defilements; it becomes difficult to teach the Doctrine to human beings—some call this “theory of the Five Defilements” (Marra 1988: 28-9).
With this line of reason, the degeneration of Dharma is linked to the degeneration of human ability to realize the Dharma. In Indian context nobody went so far to formulate the theory into three phases. This idea was formed in China to express the degeneration of time. Perhaps, it was a consequence of the Buddhist suppression in China in 574, the time when Buddhist temples, statues and sutras were confiscated and destroyed. The idea of the Latter Age and the search of salvation spread through the activities of the sect of the Three Stages (San-chieh-chiao) established by Hsin-hsing (540–594) and the Pure Land school led by Tao-ch’o and Shan-tao (613–681). Both sects believed that a particular type of Buddhism was required by people of the Last Dharma Age, who were too ignorant to be able to find salvation by themselves.
Although there was a common belief that the Dharma would decline somehow, there was no consensus on when it would be. The Chinese and the Japanese perceived it in totally different way. I will not go into details in this point. In summary, there are many theories to pinpoint the starting year of each period, especially the beginning of mappō. Everyone seems to feel that the Last Dharma Age has already come, if not about to come. For example, Saichō (767–822), the founder of Japanese Tendai, never claimed that his age was already in mappō, but he said he was living in the end of the Imitation Dharma Age, so mappō was nearly to come, in contrast with Prince Shōtoku (573–621) who identified himself in mappō time.
In the late Heian period, mappō was felt to be the product of a deep inner crisis, because of, I think, the political instability and natural calamities. Genshin (942–1017), a Tendai monk who advocated the Pure Land teaching, showed an awareness that he was already living in such a dreadful period in his Ōjōyōshū. Genshin himself personally suffered from the political change that caused the conflict between Buddhist and Imperial Laws. He saw the decline of his own school, so he turned his attention to the power of the savior Amida. Coincidently with these social and political change, the most Buddhists in Kamakura period held that the First Dharma Age ended in 552 and the Final Dharma Age started in 1052. So, people in this period believed they were already in mappō. And this belief significantly shaped the way how Buddhism expressed in this period.
Hōnen (1133–1212), the founder of Jōdo-shū, no longer thought the full enlightenment was possible, so he rejected all traditional practices except nembutsu, the recitation of Amida Buddha’s name—Namu Amida Butsu. All other practices were seen as useless. Shinran (1173–1262), the founder of Jōdoshin-shū, pushed a bit further. He denied any human effort that could bring about salvation. Salvation are not reached by our own practice but only by Amida’s grant, and with Amida’s compassion we are all saved and the Pure Land is guaranteed, so we just chant nembutsu to express gratefulness for Amida. Moreover, Shinran made a radical shift by initiating married priesthood that survives and widely spreads in Japan until today.
Nichiren (1222–1282), the founder of Nichiren-shū, used mappō in the opposite direction. He urged his followers to imitate the bodhisattva ideal of perseverance and self-sacrifice. In this Final Age everyone must be the man of Superb Action, ready to give his life if necessary. This made Nichiren-shū more combative and nationalistic than other schools. The Zen founders in Kamakura period did not take mappō seriously, they thought practice could be done and enlightenment was still available. However, they instead dealt with the idea of hongaku (original enlightenment) as we shall see later on.
Interestingly, the Chinese term mofa, from which mappō comes, is not the translation of the Sanskrit term which means “destruction of the Dharma” (sadharmavipralopa), but from paścimakāla which means “latter time.” This term occurs especially in the Mahāyāna Sūtras to describe the time after the Buddha’s passing away. So, it does not necessarily imply a final period of the Dharma, as sadharmavipralopa does.
Jan Nattier also shows this. After her examination of paścimakāla in Tibetan and Chinese contexts, Nattier found that “this phrase was originally intended to be read in the sense of a latter or future age, not as a ‘final age’ in the superlative sense.” However, I think it does not matter where mappō comes from or what it means. The point is everyone accepts the Dharma will decline anyway, and everyone sees the traditional way of practice is somewhat out of date or impractical. With anxiety of uncertainty in social circumstances, people use the idea of mappō to justify their beliefs and practices. That is why I see mappō as the psychological factor in Kamakura period.
Hongaku, the philosophical factor
In Mahāyāna tenets, there is a doctrine that influences Japanese Buddhism especially in Kamakura period. It is hongaku, the doctrine of original enlightenment, which had dominated Tendai school since the eleventh century. This idea firstly appeared in Dasheng Qixin Lun, known as Awakening of Faith, probably composed in China around the sixth century. The Awakening of Faith posited a distinction between the potentiality to become a buddha that was inherent in every sentient being (benjue/hongaku, original enlightenment) and the process through which that potential for enlightenment has to be put into practice (shijue/shikaku, actualized/acquired enlightenment).
This idea probably was introduced to Japan by Kūkai (774–835) who systematized the doctrines of esoteric Buddhism. Kūkai utilized a commentary of the Awakening of Faith and esteemed it because of the emphasis on original enlightenment (hongaku), especially the concept of non-duality. After the death of Kūkai, the concept of hongaku was passed to the Tendai school on Mt. Hiei. In Tendai, this concept was promoted at first in tandem with the teachings of the Lotus Sūtra. Near the middle of the Kamakura period, the concept was combined with the teachings in the second half of the Lotus, which resulted in the thorough affirmation of the actual world.
So, in medieval Japan “original enlightenment” lost its original meaning and came to be interpreted as an affirmation of things just as they are. All beings not merely have the potential for enlightenment, but all beings are enlightened inherently. There is no longer a distinction between the absolute and conventional reality. This idea is commonly expressed by “All dharmas are the buddhadharma” and “The defilements are none other than enlightenment” and “Saṃsāra is none other than nirvāṇa.” (We can see that the influence of Nāgarjuna is significant, but it is not my point here.)
How the idea of hongaku affected Buddhism in Kamakura period? For the fact that most prominent founders of new schools in this period had their root in Taidai school, all of them were familiar with this concept, but they reacted to hongaku in different ways. Hōnen saw the strong emphasis on the originally inherent nature of enlightenment was dangerous, because it can lead to a neglect of practice as he witnessed in the corruption on Mt. Hiei at the time. We can say that Hōnen opposed to the Tendai concept of hongaku, because he insisted in the relative dualism and rejected the actual world. He held that even the most competent person could not be delivered from illusion as long as he lived in this world. So, he advocated rebirth in the Pure Land. In this Pure Land, enlightenment is assured for all. I think the belief in mappō made Hōnen held this position. He suffered from the uncertainty and bad situation in his time. With this emotional state plus the belief that it was not the suitable time to practice for immediate salvation, he postponed the salvation to the next life. However, if we look closely, for Hōnen enlightenment is something assured. We do not need to do anything else, just chanting nembutsu (one time is enough) and waiting for rebirth in the Pure Land and getting enlightened there. My equation is that doing nothing related to enlightenment but getting enlightened eventually is equivalent to we are enlightened already. In my view, although Hōnen explicitly opposed to the idea of original enlightenment, he endorsed the idea implicitly and emotionally.
On philosophical and practical ground, Shinran did not go too far from Hōnen. He denied human effort towards enlightenment and believed that we all will be enlightened eventually in the Pure Land according to Amida’s grace. Therefore, you do not need to concern about enlightenment now, just live your life as you are (my interpretation). If the monastic life is useless for salvation, you had better have wife and family. That is the way our lives go (or our situation allows us to be). The enlightenment is assured in the future not now. With this line of reasons, we all more or less have the seed of enlightenment inherently.
The idea of hongaku in Nichiren’s teachings is somewhat uncertain. Some say his doctrine hardly differs from Tendai thought. Some distinguish his more practically focus on original enlightenment than Tendai, which is more theoretical. Some say Nichiren’s emphasis on hongaku is questionable. For the reason that Nichiren took the Lotus, which affirms we all end up in Buddhahood, as the ultimate source, we can say that Nichiren believed in the line of hongaku idea.
The most interesting treatment of hongaku, I think, comes from Zen schools. In Jōtō Shōgakuron, a recently discovered work belonging to the Daruma-shū tradition, there are three sections concerning: (1) a history of Ch’an school, (2) a gloss on “the mind itself is the Buddha,” and (3) about “Whatever is searched for is obtained.” We can see here that the idea of hongaku is established firmly in Zen’s thought. However, Daruma-shū, the school founded by Dainichi Nōnin (ca. 12th century), went to the extreme that rejected monastic disciplines as necessary. Eisai (1141–1215), the founder of Rinzai-shū, saw the lack of discipline was unacceptable. He went to China and brought back a lineage of Ch’an school. In his Propagation of Zen in Defense of the Country (Kōzen gukokuron), Eisai criticized the doctrine of Daruma-shū which stated that “there are no precept to follow, no practices to engage in. From the outset there are no passion; from the beginning we are enlightened.” Eisai regarded such doctrine as a false view of emptiness. It is not clear from my readings whether Eisai believed in hongaku or not. I think he possibly held the original notion of Chinese benjue, the original enlightenment which must be actualized by practice.
The one who has a radical interpretation of this issue is Dōgen (1200–1253). In an attempt to reconcile practice and original enlightenment, he turned the concept of causality upside down. The practices do not lead to enlightenment, but the practices themselves are the expression of the enlightenment already inherent. We practice not to be enlightened, but we are enlightened so we practice.
Does the belief in mappō have anything to do with the idea of hongaku? As far as my readings go, I have not seen anyone who relates these two notions. I will try to do this. If we understand the belief in mappō as an emotional anxiety, we can see hongaku as a therapy. The Pure Land schools take mappō seriously, and seem to oppose the idea of hongaku. But, in order to stay away from despair in our incapability, they adopt the strategy that salvation is assured in the Pure Land. This is equivalent to we are by all means enlightened. We can see hongaku in disguise here. On practical ground, Nichiren is very close to the Pure Land, but more aggressive. Zen may not take mappō seriously, but they believe confidently in hongaku. To reconcile the idea with practices, they use rationalization (or skillful means if you like) to justify hongaku thought.
Hijiri, the social factor
Can the idea of mappō and hongaku explain Kamakura Buddhism, for the fact that these two ideas had been formed for a long time before this period? I do not suggest that these two ideas appear obviously in this period and barrenly in other time. In fact, the ideas were not new at all to Kamakura Japan. How these ideas shape Kamakura Buddhism? In my view, the ideas alone cannot do anything, but social situation makes them manifest. And those who play the role for this manifestation are usually called hijiri, holy men. This type of monk started to appear significantly in Kamakura period. Jacqueline Stone recognizes explanations of new Kamakura schools at least in three way: (1) the Tendai hongaku thought as the ‘womb’ or intellectual matrix of the new schools, (2) the development of sectarian traditions independently out of the activities of hijiri, holy men outside the formal monastic establishment, and (3) the responses to fears about the degenerate Final Dharma age (mappō). But, the one who advocates the hijiri theory, and makes the picture understandable is Kenji Matsuo.
Matsuo shows that before Kamakura period, Buddhism was in the hand of official monks who were permitted to enter the Buddhist order by the emperor and supported by the government. So, the main duty of these monks was exclusively for the emperor and the state. For the sake of purity, they could not work with women and the sick (especially lepers), conduct funerals, raise religious funds; and they typically wear white cloth. With these restrictions, some monks who believed that Buddhism can also benefit all people tried to free themselves from the state control. Most of these monks are characterized as the new movements, such as Hōnen, Shinran, Eisai, Nichiren, Dōgen, Myōe, and Eizon. Matsuo calls these monks tonseisō (reclusive monks) in contrast with kansō (official monks).
Some of significant moves of these new schools are that they established the orders that included secular believers and they permitted women to receive ordination. They also engaged in rituals regarded as impure, and typically dressed in black. Matsuo also describes Buddhism led by official monks as “community religion” and Buddhism led by reclusive monks as “personal religion.” What he calls “personal religion” is the religion for all people regardless of their differences. And simply because these new orders formed by reclusive monks were established during Kamakura period, he calls these movements “Kamakura New Buddhism.” I read this ‘New’ as a new style of religious approaches. And I find Matsuo’s idea understandable and less problematic.
How does this hijiri relate to mappō and hongaku then? I do not see them as causes and effects, but as a suitable coincidence. Tendai school had flourished and become a center of Buddhism in the previous period. Many monks went to study there and got the idea of mappō and hongaku inevitably. This is like seeds of new movements. When the social situation changed, like suitable conditions were ready for the growth of the seeds, then they broke through and grew. “Why Kamakura, not other periods?” I think this question is ill-formed, because it is about ‘how’ not ‘why,’ and the reasons I have shown above can answer to ‘how’ question perfectly.
Conclusion and personal reflection
I must admit that I do not pretend to understand the whole thing comprehensively. It is just my speculation from limited materials I used. I try to make the whole story coherent and understandable. To do so, I skipped some controversial argumentations about the subject, such as Toshio Kuroda’s Marxist idea about hongaku which he regards as the ideological views of the ruling classes or typical view of kenmitsu ideology. This might make my account too simple or naïve than it should be. For the fact that I know little about Japan’s history and culture and have very limited understanding in Japanese religion, I can only analyze the issue by associating with what I have known. That is the ‘how come’ of my Three Factors Theory (if it can be called one).
In my view as a Buddhist, what I have learned from this study is remarkable. The belief in the Final Age of Dharma has nothing to do with historical facts, but rather it reflects an emotional uncertainty. If we really believe the true teaching no longer exists, why we adhere to this religion? This emotional state presses us to find some reasonable solution, and the belief in the Pure Land or hongaku thought is one of the most effective ways to deal with this anxiety. In Kamakura period, these solutions were the right thought emerging in the right time and implemented by the right persons. So, we can see Kamakura Buddhism as it was.
Notes