The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states, “ ‘All existences’ without exception possess the Buddha nature” (issai shujō kotogoloku busshō o yūsu). However, in the Busshō (Buddha Nature) chapter of the Shabōgenzō, Dōgen reinterprets the Chinese in an ingenious manner to read, “All existences are the Buddha nature” (issai shujō shitsu u busshō). In this way he rejected the view, held, for example, by the Consciousness-Only school, that the Buddha nature is a “seed” or psychic potential that evolves in a linear fashion from latency to realization, and instead identifies it with the unchanging, ultimate truth, designated as Suchness (Skt. tathatā, Jap. shinnyo), Emptiness (Śūnyatā, kū), or the Dharma nature (dharmatā, hosshō). This Buddha nature, being identified with “all existences,” exists nowhere apart from the destruction and coming-into-being of the phenomenal world in the present moment, or absolute now.

Because this “now” is absolute, and because “there is no time that has not arrived,” Buddhahood is not a potential that will unfold in the future, but can be realized only in the present moment. In other words, attaining Buddhahood is not, in Dōgen’s view, a gradual evolving from potential to realization associated with a linear view of time. In this way, he was able to resolve the contradiction that had originally puzzled him. “The Buddha nature and becoming a Buddha always occur simultaneously, he concluded. This view wipes out at a single stroke any metaphysical gap between practice and enlightenment: Whenever one sits in meditation, he simultaneously enters the realm of Buddha. Dōgen called this the “kōan realized in reality,” or genjō kōan.

Viewing time and enlightenment in this way, Dōgen found himself unable to accept the historical view of three-period thought, according to which the Dharma becomes obscured with the passage of time. “Time does not pass,” he believed, and the Dharma does not decline; wherever one sits in meditation, he is contemporaneous with Buddha.

In the Bendōwa (A Story of the Way) chapter of Dōgen’s major work Shōbōgenzō (The Eye and Treasury of the True Dharma), we find the following exchange:

QUESTION: Is it possible to obtain the proof of enlightenment by this practice [of zazen] even during this evil latter age?

ANSWER: The doctrinal schools emphasizing names and appearances distinguish between the True, Counterfeit, and Final Dharma ages, but in True Mahayana (Zen) we find no such distinction. It teaches that all who practice will attain the way.

[Shinran, the founder of the Jōdo-Shin or True Pure Land sect, put absolute stress on the idea of “other-power.”]

Shinran’s emphasis tariki [other-power] even extended to the nembutsu itself. Honen had stressed repeated recitation of the nembutsu to purify oneself of evil karma and to assure one’s rebirth. He himself appears to have chanted sixty thousand, and later seventy thousand, nembutsu a day. Shinran, on the other hand, felt that excessive preoccupation with the number of recitations placed too much emphasis on one’s own endeavors. A single nembutsu uttered with faith would ensure one’s rebirth; subsequent callings-on-the-name were meaningful as expressions of gratitude. …

What evolved [from Shinran’s teaching] differed not only from Honen’s doctrine but virtually from the whole of Buddhism: a teaching in which the principles of karmic causality and merit accumulation, as well as aspiration and endeavor for enlightenment, were in effect set aside and superseded by faith in the original vow. And even the fact that one had faith, Shinran held, was not due to one’s own will to believe, but to one’s being grasped (seshu) by Amida’s compassion.

Hōnen’s views on the subject apparently derived in part from a peculiar work called the Mappō tōmyō ki (A Lamp for the Age of the Final Dharma), generally attributed—in error, it is now thought—to Saichō (Dengyō Daishi, 766-822), founder of the Japanese Tendai sect. The treatise suggests that as the world moves farther and farther away from the time of the historical Buddha, human capacity to observe the monastic precepts inevitably declines, until, by the time of mappō, no one will be capable of keeping the precepts at all. In that age, it says, the “monk without precepts” or the “monk in name only” who merely shaves his head and dons a robe, presenting the appearance of a monk, is the treasure of the world and a true merit-field for the people; he is a lamp for the age of the Final Dharma. By the end of the Heian period, the monastic precepts were often honored more in the breach than the observance, and the Mappō tōmyō ki was widely interpreted to justify the laxity of the Buddhist clergy as no fault of its own, but an unavoidable consequence of the degenerate age.

The word mappō had been popularized by Genshin (942-1017) in his Ōjōyōshū (Essentials of Rebirth), and by the late Heian period it began to exercise a morbid fascination on the public mind. The mappō doctrine provided a way to account for the horrors multiplying daily, but at the same time instilled a new fear with its implications of an age when the Dharma would be lost. …

The first of the Buddhist leaders of the Kamakura period to formulate a doctrine specifically in terms of mappō thought was Hōnen Genkū-bō (1133-1212), founder of the Japanese Jodo or Pure Land sect. As a young man, Hōnen had studied at the prestigious Tendai institution on Mount Hiei, outwardly still prosperous but inwardly divided by ugly power struggles. The corruption he saw around him and his acute reflection on his own spiritual shortcomings confirmed in him the belief that “already the age is that of mappō, and its people all are evil.”

Hōnenk’s teaching set in motion a powerful new force in the realm of Japanese religion. Moreover, being first among the Buddhist leaders of the Kamakura period to propose a religion specifically for the age of the Final Dharma, Hōnen in large measure defined the vocabulary of contemporary mappō thought. Anyone else who took up the theme would be virtually compelled to address the issues he had raised: the nature of the time and the people’s capacity, whether people could attain enlightenment through their own efforts, whether monastic precepts remained valid in the Final Dharma age, difficulty versus ease of practice, and so forth.