It will now be clear why “dialectic” is an appropriate term to describe Tamura [Yoshirō]’s theory. First Tendai original enlightenment thought establishes the “thesis” of absolute nonduality: ordinary worldlings, just as they are, are the originally enlightened Buddha. Then in a counterreaction, out of soteriological concern and as a sort of “skillful means,” Hōnen asserts the “antithesis” of duality: the Buddha is “Other,” and salvation is both temporally and spatially removed from the present world. Shinran, Dōgen, and Nichiren represent “synthesis.” They are the ones shown as uniting the best in both “nondualistic” and “dualistic” systems, retaining the philosophical subtleties of Tendai hongaku thought while obviating its moral ambiguities and tendency uncritically to affirm the world by a renewed emphasis on practice and an acute existential awareness of human limitations. Tamura’s theory unites elements of both the “matrix” and “radical break” positions, arguing that the thought of Shinran, Dōgen, and Nichiren was neither simply an extended development of original enlightenment thought nor merely a reaction against it, but contained elements of both. Using as its organizing principle the question of the relationship between the absolute and the relative, the nondual and the dual, and the Buddha and the ordinary worldling, Tamura’s scheme provides a useful framework for considering both similarities and differences in the thought of these three figures and their common basis in Tendai hongaku doctrine. It represents the most comprehensive treatment thus far of the relationship of original enlightenment thought to the new Kamakura Buddhism, and subsequent studies, this one included, must inevitably be indebted to it. Nevertheless, as do earlier theories, it presents certain problems, to which we shall now turn. (Page 92)

Tamura [Yoshirō] acknowledges the presence of certain passages strongly suggestive of hongaku thought even in unimpeachable documents from the latter part of Nichiren’s career. Nichiren writes, for example, that “this world is the [Buddha’s] original land; the pure lands of the ten directions are defiled worlds that are its traces, or, “Śākyamuni of wondrous awakening (myōkaku) is our blood and flesh. Are not the merits of his causes (practice) and effects (enlightenment) our bones and marrow? ” However, Tamura says, on close examination such writings, “while maintaining nondual original enlightenment as their basis, in fact emerge from it.” Nichiren’s “Śākyamuni of wondrous awakening” is no mere abstract, all-pervasive Dharma-body but also encompasses the virtues of the reward-body Buddha who has traversed practice and attainment, as well as the concreteness of the manifested body, the historical Buddha who appeared in this world. Nor was Nichiren content merely to assert that this world is the Buddha’s pure land; he attempted actually to realize the pure land in this present world through bodhisattva conduct, by spreading faith in the Lotus Sūtra. As in the case of Dōgen, Nichiren’s emphasis on the concrete (ji) is not the affirmation of the phenomenal world seen in medieval Tendai hongaku thought but an emphasis on action that “restored the dynamic power of practice in the actual world.” Like Dōgen, Nichiren maintained the ontological nonduality of the Buddha and living beings as his basis, but “descended” to confront the relative distinctions of the world. (Page 91)

In Tamura [Yoshirō]’s view, Nichiren ultimately arrived at a position extremely similar to Dōgen’s; however, Nichiren’s relationship to original enlightenment thought must be understood as undergoing change and development over the course of his career. Nichiren’s early writings suggest that he was at first strongly drawn to hongaku ideas, especially the identification of the pure land with the present world. His earliest extant essay, written at age twenty, reads:

When one attains the enlightenment of the Lotus Sūtra, then one realizes that one’s body and mind that arise and perish are precisely unborn and undying. And the land is also thus. Its horses, cows and the others of the six kinds of domestic animals are all Buddhas, and the grasses and trees, the sun and moon, are all their holy retinue. The sūtra states, “The dharmas dwell in a Dharma position, and the worldly aspect constantly abides.”

Nichiren ‘s early writings often employ this nondual standpoint to attack the exclusive nembutsu doctrine of Honen, which he saw as antithetical to the traditional Tendai vision of a Buddhism united in the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra. However, as Nichiren himself grew more exclusivistic in his claims for the sole validity of the Lotus and more critical of other teachings, he came into conflict with the authorities. Beginning around the time of his first exile (1261-1264), Tamura says, Nichiren became less concerned with monistic hongaku thought and increasingly attentive to problems in the realm of relative distinctions, such as time and human capacity. This can be seen in his growing concern with such issues as comparative classification of the Buddhist scriptures; the age of mappō, the capacity of beings living in that age; and the karma of the specific country of Japan. Nichiren’s writings from this time also show an emerging sense of his own mission as the “votary of the Lotus” (Hokekyō no gyōja), who propagates its teachings even at the risk of his life. Especially from the time of his exile to Sado Island (1271-1274), he became critical of the nondual Taimitsu tradition that had formed the basis of his earlier thought. (Page 90-91)