Taking Tendai Seriously: How Nichiren Practiced What Zhiyi Preached

Taking Tendai Seriously: How Nichiren Practiced What Zhiyi Preached

I recently found myself listening to a Tendai morning service, followed by a 45-minute lecture on Nichiren by a Tendai teacher. I was struck by several things. First, their use of "Om Ah Hum" - quite resonant and beautiful, yet surprising since it has no connection whatsoever with the Lotus Sutra. Second, and more troubling, were the significant misunderstandings about Nichiren and the mistakes made throughout the lecture.

Here was the praxis Nichiren studied at Mount Hiei. Here was what he chose not to continue. And here, ironically, was a contemporary Tendai teacher mischaracterizing why.

The conventional narrative about Nichiren gets this precisely backwards. We tend to frame him as a doctrinal innovator who broke from Tendai to create something new. The reality is far more interesting: Nichiren was perhaps the most orthodox Tendai practitioner precisely because he took the tradition's philosophical core seriously enough to let it determine his method.

The Irony at the Heart of Tendai

By the time Nichiren arrived at Mount Hiei in the mid-13th century, Tendai had become a remarkably complex tradition. The esoteric Buddhism (Mikkyo/Taimitsu) brought back by Ennin and Enchin in the 9th century had become fully integrated into Tendai practice. Elaborate rituals, Sanskrit seed syllables, visualization practices, mandala ceremonies - these weren't peripheral additions but central technologies for transformation.

"Om Ah Hum" represents this perfectly. Each syllable purifies and transforms one aspect of ordinary existence into its enlightened equivalent: Om for body (nirmanakaya), Ah for speech (sambhogakaya), Hum for mind (dharmakaya). Used constantly in Tendai liturgy - for consecrating offerings, blessing food, purifying one's three gates before meditation - this mantra embodies a sophisticated theory of practice. You need methods to purify karma, to gradually transform ordinary consciousness, to achieve realization through accumulated merit and skillful means.

But here's the irony: at the same time Tendai was developing and practicing this elaborate esoteric praxis, it was teaching radical non-duality rooted in Zhiyi's core insights. Zhiyi taught the three truths, ichinen sanzen (three thousand realms in a single thought-moment), and the mutual possession of the ten worlds. Most crucially, he taught bonno soku bodai (defilements ARE enlightenment) and shoji soku nehan (birth-and-death IS nirvana) - those radical "soku" formulations that assert identity rather than transformation. Japanese Tendai elaborated these into the full hongaku (original enlightenment) doctrine: you already ARE what you're seeking to become.

Tendai simultaneously taught these profound non-dualist insights - from Zhiyi's foundational work through to the developed hongaku doctrine - while maintaining complex purification practices. It proclaimed that defilements ARE enlightenment while practicing elaborate methods to purify defilements. It taught that birth-and-death IS nirvana while performing rituals to transcend samsara.

Nichiren looked at this contradiction and made a choice.

The Methodological Reform

What Nichiren rejected wasn't Tendai's doctrine - it was the failure to take that doctrine seriously in practice. If we truly believe bonno soku bodai, if we genuinely accept that defilements ARE enlightenment, then why are we layering elaborate purification methods on top? If shoji soku nehan - if birth-and-death IS nirvana - then why all these practices aimed at transcending samsara? If the Lotus Sutra itself teaches our inherent completeness through ichinen sanzen and the mutual possession of the ten worlds, why do we need Sanskrit mantras for purification?

The question isn't whether "Om Ah Hum" works - it's whether it's necessary given what Zhiyi taught and what Tendai claims to believe. The Mikkyo praxis, however powerful, subtly undermines these radical non-dual insights by implying you need to become something you aren't yet, that buddhahood is achieved through graduated purification rather than recognized through direct practice.

---

The kanji 即 (soku) has several Buddhist philosophical meanings depending on context which expresses a unique concept of non-dual identity:

·       immediately, instantly

·       "is" (but not simple equivalence)

·       "is identical with"

·       "is none other than"

·       "is not separate from" "are not two"

The philosophical meaning of 即 indicates that two apparently distinct phenomena are actually non-dual aspects of the same reality - not that they're identical in a reductive sense, but that they're inseparable manifestations of the same underlying suchness.

For example, in 煩悩即菩提 (bonno soku bodai):

·       Not "defilements become enlightenment" (which would be 煩悩成菩提)

·       Not " defilements equal enlightenment" (simple equation)

·       But " defilements are enlightenment" - expressing their non-dual nature

The challenge is that English lacks a single word that captures this Madhyamaka/Tiantai concept of non-dual identity. "Suchness-identity" or "are not-two" might be more accurate philosophically, but they're awkward in English.

---

Nichiren's reform was thus methodological, not doctrinal. He asked: what would Tendai practice look like if we actually practiced what Zhiyi preached? What if we took bonno soku bodai, shoji soku nehan, and ichinen sanzen absolutely seriously as the basis for method, not just theory?

His answer: just chant the daimoku. Just engage the Gohonzon. You're already complete.

The Three Great Secret Dharmas

This reframing clarifies what Nichiren actually contributed. His genuine innovation wasn't philosophical - virtually all of his doctrinal teaching is squarely within the Zhiyi/Saicho Lotus-centered framework. Nor did he invent new practices - elements like chanting the daimoku already existed in Tendai. Instead, his unique contribution was radical simplification and exclusivity: the Three Great Secret Dharmas as the complete and sufficient practice.

The Gohonzon as focus of devotion, daimoku as practice, and kaidan as sacred ground - these are his formulations for how to actually enact Zhiyi's radical non-dualism in the mappo era. They're not new doctrines but new methods for practicing what Zhiyi taught and what Tendai had elaborated theoretically.

The Gohonzon particularly exemplifies this. It's not an external object to be worshiped dualistically, but rather a focus for engaging one's own buddha-nature directly. It manifests the mutual possession of the ten worlds, making Zhiyi's abstract philosophy tangible and practicable. You don't chant TO it so much as you chant WITH it, recognizing the non-duality of subject and object, practitioner and practice.

Similarly, the daimoku wasn't Nichiren's invention. Zhiyi himself taught that a sutra's title contains the entirety of that sutra - that Myoho Renge Kyo contains the complete Lotus Sutra. Zhiyi had also ranked the Lotus as the supreme, perfect, and complete teaching of the Buddha. People had been chanting the title of the Lotus for centuries before Nichiren.

Nichiren's radical move was one of logical consistency: if the Lotus Sutra is the perfect and complete teaching (as Zhiyi taught), and if the daimoku is the essence of the Lotus (as Zhiyi taught), then nothing could be more efficacious and powerful than chanting the daimoku. This becomes THE practice that anyone can do anywhere, anytime. What more is needed? Whereas Tendai treated daimoku as one practice among many elaborate rituals, Nichiren asked: why not make this the sole practice? It's already complete.

Implications for Understanding Nichiren

This perspective has significant implications for how we approach Nichiren Buddhism. It means Nichiren scholarship must be done within the broader Tiantai/Tendai context, not as a separate tradition. Understanding Zhiyi and Saicho isn't just historical background - it's the actual doctrinal content. Nichiren is the practitioner who said, "let's actually DO this," not the philosopher who created something fundamentally new.

It also means we should read Nichiren's critiques of other schools differently. When he criticized Pure Land or Zen or Shingon, he wasn't claiming they were philosophically wrong so much as practically misguided. They either weren't based on the supreme teaching (the Lotus Sutra) or, in Tendai's case, they were failing to practice what they preached doctrinally.

Most importantly, this reframing positions Nichiren as radical orthodoxy rather than heterodoxy. He took the tradition's deepest insights so seriously that he was willing to strip away everything else - even practices that worked, even methods that were revered - in order to practice with complete consistency.

What This Means for Practice

When I study Tendai liturgy now, I'm not looking at something Nichiren rejected as wrong. I'm seeing what he considered unnecessary overlay on top of an already complete teaching. "Om Ah Hum" isn't heretical - it's just an addition that, from his perspective, obscures the directness and completeness of the Lotus-centered Tiantai system.

This also clarifies what we're doing when we chant daimoku. We're not performing some uniquely Nichiren practice that's separate from the broader Buddhist tradition. We're enacting Zhiyi's core Tiantai teachings in their most direct form - taking seriously the doctrine that defilements ARE enlightenment, that birth-and-death IS nirvana, that we already embody what we seek, that the three thousand realms are immanent in this very moment.

Nichiren didn't give us a new Buddhism. He gave us a way to practice the old Buddhism with absolute consistency and radical simplicity.

Perhaps that's the most orthodox thing anyone could do.