[In his Nichiren-shū kōyō (Manual of the Nichiren Sect), Nichiren scholar Shimizu Ryōzan] characterizes Myō hō ren ge kyō as not the name of the sutra, but the secret name of Mahāvairocana¹, the Omnipresent Buddha; not the substance of the reason of all dharmas, but the secret substance of Mahāvairocana; not the principle of the cause and effect of the One Vehicle, but the secret principle of Mahāvairocana; not the action that creates belief by destroying all doubt, but the secret action of Mahāvairocana; not the teaching of the twenty-eight chapters, but the secret teaching of Mahāvairocana. Further, Shimizu states that though Honzon is one of the three objects of Kanjin (i.e., where Kanjin is the wisdom of the believer, Honzon is the object of belief; where Kanjin is the practice, Honzon is the enlightenment), such a method of distinguishing between the two does not express the final concept of the Nichiren School. In ultimate meaning the School considers Kanjin identical with Honzon, Honzon identical with Kanjin. Thus, he claims, there is really no difference between practice and enlightenment, since all cause and effect, the self and others are the secret Oneness of Mahāvairocana.

Perhaps a final comment will clarify what Shimizu is saying. The full title of the Hoke-kyō used in recitation is, as we know, Namu Myō Hō Ren Ge Kyō. Namu, broadly a term of adoration, is written in two characters, and Myō Hō Ren Ge Kyō, the proper title of the sutra, is written in five characters. When we consider the two characters of Namu in their reference to the five characters of Myō Hō Ren Ge Kyō the reciprocal relation between Kanjin and Honzon becomes clear. The two characters are the wisdom of the believer, the five characters the object of belief. The two characters are the practice, the five characters are the enlightenment. Thus we have the Honzon of Myō Hō Ren Ge Kyō existing in the Tathāgata; and the Kanjin of Namu belonging to the practices. However, as we are repeatedly assured, there is no difference between object and subject, practice and enlightenment, self and others, since all are identical with Mahāvairocana. Consequently there is no real distinction between the Tathāgata and the practices, the two being unified in Namu Myō Hō Ren Ge Kyō. The Namu of the practitioner is identical with the Namu of the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata’s practice, and with his enlightenment without beginning. The two characters of Namu mean the absolute Oneness of object and subject, of self and others, of the practitioner and the Tathāgata. Thus the five characters are identical with the seven characters of Namu Myō Hō Ren Ge Kyō; these seven characters are identical with the two characters of Namu; these two characters are identical with the “one momentary mind” of the believer; and this “one momentary mind” is identical with the whole substance of Mahāvairocana.

1

Mahāvairocana is the Eternal Śākyamuni. The Sutra of Contemplation of Universal Sage, the concluding sutra in the threefold Lotus Sutra, contains this:

The ethereal voice will then immediately reply, saying: “Śākyamuni Buddha is Vairocana – the One Who Is Present in All Places.

 return