The Lotus Sutra tells us that the emptiness of things is precisely why there is the prospect of universal buddhahood—the teaching of the One Vehicle that all beings have the capacity to become buddhas.
I. Introduction
One of the questions about Rissho Kosei-kai’s Buddhism I’ve often been asked is the place of emptiness in its teachings and practice. “Emptiness,” or śūnyatā in Sanskrit, is a concept that is often encountered in Buddhism, particularly those traditions of Tibet, Northeast Asia, and Vietnam. “Realizing” or “awakening” to the “emptiness” of all things is said to be a critical point on the path to buddhahood, especially in the Perfection of Wisdom family of Buddhist sutras and their commentaries. Many people encounter the concept of emptiness in the Heart Sutra, perhaps the most famous and well-known Buddhist text, which declares the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara’s awakening to be the “emptiness” of the constituents that make up the human being, and furthermore that “Form is itself emptiness; emptiness is itself form.” The sutra tells us that this awakening frees one from all suffering and distress. The importance of realizing emptiness on the Buddhist path is also reinforced in popular types of Buddhist meditation, in which ascertaining the emptiness of self and other, or “nonduality,” is taught to be the key to freeing oneself from anxiety and worry and improving the quality of one’s life by severing attachments and obsessions. Emptiness is the reality of things in our world, and discerning this would seem to be an important (if not primary) goal of Buddhist practice.
People who explore Rissho Kosei-kai Buddhism discover, often to their surprise, that emptiness is not a primary topic in Rissho Kosei-kai teachings, and that realizing emptiness doesn’t seem to have the same priority in practice as it does in other types of Buddhism they have experienced. Given what they may have learned from other sources about Buddhism or studied with other Buddhist groups, this contrast can be puzzling, and prompts the question “Where is emptiness in Rissho Kosei-kai?” This is a question that will require some consideration to answer. First, since Rissho Kosei-kai’s teachings and practices reflect the strong influence of the Lotus Sutra, understanding the place of emptiness in Rissho Kosei-kai teachings and practices should begin with apprehending the role of emptiness in the Lotus Sutra, which I think is sorely misunderstood. Although the text offers no explanations or philosophical exegeses of emptiness, emptiness of all things is an integral but hidden element of what the text teaches, most notably the notion of universal buddhahood as the “One Vehicle” in the first half of the sutra, and the “eternal life” of the Buddha in the second half of the sutra.
Realizing emptiness is a latent component within both of the spiritual insights that the sutra teaches people to attain: recognizing the potential to become a buddha within oneself and others, and fathoming the eternal life of the Buddha—realizing all phenomena as the omnipresence of all-pervading truth. To use a metaphor, emptiness is “under the hood,” like the engine of a car, which is not visible from the outside but nevertheless the driving force of the automobile. This is certainly an audacious claim, but the Lotus Sutra is nothing less than a bold religious text. Once we understand the role of emptiness in the Lotus Sutra, we’ll be in a much better position to discuss the place of realizing emptiness in Rissho Kosei-kai teachings and practices.
First, however, we’ll have to gain a sense of just exactly what this strange Buddhist notion of “emptiness” means. Accordingly, I will explore the question of the place of emptiness in Rissho Kosei-kai Buddhism over several installments of this column. This time, I will consider what “emptiness” means in Buddhism and look at the role of emptiness in the first half of the Lotus Sutra, with particular attention to its concept of the “One Vehicle”—the potential of all sentient beings to become buddhas. Next time, we’ll look at the place of emptiness in the latter half of the Lotus Sutra, and then in the third installment, we’ll explore the specific role of emptiness in the framework of Rissho Kosei-kai teachings and practice.
II. What Is “Emptiness”?
What is “emptiness”? Now, this is a huge question! Because of the diversity of Buddhism, “emptiness” has been understood in many different ways, and we could spend the rest of the essay considering this question alone. I will take the most basic approach, looking at emptiness in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, where it is an important focus, and the related Mādhyamaka philosophical school, which synthesized the concept of emptiness in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and greatly influenced how Buddhists understood emptiness. And finally, we’ll consider a more contemporary take from the late Thich Nhat Hanh.
Emptiness, or śūnyatā in Sanskrit, is most closely associated with Mahāyāna Buddhism, but the origins of the concept go back to the earliest layers of the Buddhist tradition. The word “empty” (śūnya) may have derived from the root śvi, which means “to swell,” coming to mean “empty” because something that swells is thought to be hollow inside, and India mathematicians used the word śūnya to indicate the concept of zero (Nagao 1991, 209). In the early layers of Pali scriptures the notion that something is “empty” appears in discussions of the lack of an independent and inherently existing self in things, including within the five aggregates—the constituents that make up the living being. In the Mahasuññata Sutta, in the collection of the Middle Length Discourses, the Buddha teaches “internal emptiness,” the emptiness of the sense faculties, “external emptiness,” the emptiness of the objects of the sense faculties, and the emptiness of both—the emptiness, or absence of an inherent, independently existing self, of both the subject and the object. “Abiding in emptiness” is to live in a state without grasping the sense of inherent existence within oneself or the external world (Sakabe 1974, 364–65; for the text of this sutra see Bhikku Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi 1995, 971–78).
In Mahāyāna texts, especially the Perfection of Wisdom sutras, which began circulating in the first century BCE, emptiness becomes a primary concern of doctrine and practice. Emptiness in the Perfection of Wisdom is far more thoroughgoing, negating the notion of fixed essences in any phenomenon. While earlier Buddhism saw the person or thing as devoid of independent, inherent existence, Buddhists held that the most minute components of existence, a group of seventy-five dharmas, or “elements,” had intrinsic, unique natures, or svabhāva. These Buddhist “elements” included phenomena that we normally consider emotions or experiences, such as anger or faith. The Perfection of Wisdom sutras thoroughly reject this notion, holding that everything, all the way down, is “empty,” changeable, and ephemeral, and emphasize the relativity and relationality of conceptions and views as well. These sutras provide a series of similes and metaphors for the emptiness of things, saying that all phenomena exist like dreams, mirages, space, reflections in water, echoes, shadows, dew drops, bubbles, lighting, and so forth (Gethin 1998, 237). What the Wisdom sutras also do is to incorporate this realization into the Buddhist path in a new way. Seeing the emptiness of things is the perfection of wisdom—the last of six practices that bodhisattvas cultivate—and this realization also facilitates the bodhisattva’s ability to compassionately act in the world freely and without the obstructions of attachments or conceptionality. Thus, for Mahāyāna the realization of emptiness becomes a crucial turning point on the Buddhist path, and in Mahāyāna forms of vipaśyanā, or analytical meditation, the goal for the practitioners is the realization of emptiness.
The Buddhist exegete Nāgārjuna (approx. 2nd century CE) and his later followers in the Mādhyamaka (“middle way”) Buddhist philosophical school synthesized the ideas of the Perfection of Wisdom literature into a coherent system of thought that strongly influenced later Buddhists. Nāgārjuna clarified emptiness as the Buddha’s teaching of dependent origination—that anything arisen from causes and conditions was “empty,” and thus absent any inherent independent existence or nature, a middle way between the extremes of “eternalism,” on the one hand, and “annihilationism” on the other (ibid., 237). But since any view is relative and never final, Nāgārjuna even applied the concept of emptiness to itself, arguing that emptiness was not a thing or an existent, and despite emptiness being the truth of the way things exist, he avoided reifying emptiness into an Absolute (ibid., 239–40).
Notwithstanding the Mādhyamaka’s reticence to reify emptiness, according to Nagao, the negation of emptiness also implies an affirmation—the fact that seeing emptiness is seeing the reality of things. He notes that when the sutras discuss emptiness, they often use paradoxical and absurd expressions that contain both negations and affirmations, often first with the presentation of a negation, followed by the negation of the negation. He gives the example of a statement that appears in the sutras: “A bodhisattva is not a bodhisattva and that is why there is a bodhisattva.” The first half of the sentence is the negation of emptiness, but the second is an affirmation indicating that emptiness, just as it is, is being. This implied affirmation, rejected or often denied in Mādhyamaka’s systemization of the teachings, was developed by the Yogācāra, or “Consciousness Only” school of Buddhist philosophy, who saw the Mādhyamaka approach as an overnegation. Nagao observes that this group equated emptiness with various notions of an Absolute, including “suchness” (tathatā), the “limit of reality” (bhūta-koṭi), ultimate truth (paramārtha), and dharma realm, or “dharma element” (dharma-dhātu) (Nagao 1991, 215–16). However, when discussing Buddhism in East Asia, it should be noted that understandings of emptiness were often influenced by the Da Zhidu lun (Commentary on the Great Perfection of Wisdom), which despite being in the Mādhyamaka tradition, uses many of these same affirmative terms for the Absolute, and does not hold to the same uncompromising avoidance of positive statements and affirmative language to talk about ultimate reality. Attributed to Nāgārjuna, some scholars hold that it may be a partial composition of the Lotus Sutra translator Kumarajiva (344–409/413).
Since the concept of buddha nature plays a central role in Rissho Kosei-kai teachings and practice, we should take a moment to consider the relationship of emptiness to buddha nature. This has been a much-debated issue within Buddhism, even up to the present day. The concept of buddha nature has provided a great challenge to Buddhist exegetes, especially those that emphasize the primacy of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras or take the Mādhyamaka perspective, because the sutras that specifically teach buddha nature often describe it as concrete and inherent, or even as a fully awakened buddha within living beings. One of the most famous sutras that teaches buddha nature—the Mahāyāna version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, famous for declaring that “All beings without exception possess buddha nature”—describes buddha nature as ever abiding, pure, truly existent, virtuous, discernable, true, and affirmable (Tagami 2015, 82). It also describes buddha nature as the true self. If so, the concept of buddha nature would seem to contradict dependent origination and run counter to the thoroughgoing notion of emptiness held by the Mādhyamaka, in which emptiness even negates itself as the “emptiness of emptiness.” However, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra also paradoxically indicates that buddha nature is dependent origination by identifying it with the twelve links of dependent origination (twelve causes and conditions) and the wisdom to which its contemplation gives rise:
And furthermore, my good children, there are two types of views that sentient beings give rise to: the first is the view of permanence, and the second is the view of annihilation. These two views are not called the Middle Way. The Middle Way is neither permanence nor annihilation. Neither permanence nor annihilation is the wisdom of observing the twelve links of dependent origination. This wisdom of observation is called the buddha nature. [. , ,] Good children, the wisdom that observes the twelve links of dependent origination is the seed of Supreme Perfect Awakening. For this reason, the twelve links of dependent origination are called buddha nature. (T12.374.524c–524a)
Passages like this, while still puzzling, provide the basis for reconciling buddha nature with emptiness. Over time Buddhist exegetes proposed various solutions, some of which understand emptiness in the case of buddha nature to be emptiness of defilement and delusion, but in some way not-empty of the qualities of a buddha. Other solutions took buddha nature to mean the luminous and pure character of consciousness itself—references to which, while infrequent, can be found in the early layers of Buddhist sources. Another perspective understands buddha nature as a way of talking about emptiness in a kataphatic way—articulating what can be positively said about the sacred using affirmative language, including metaphors and imagery. This is basically how it is understood in dGe lugs pa sect, led by the Dalai Lama (Williams 2009, 113). Another solution was to see buddha nature as the ultimate reality and true middle way that transcends but includes the provisional existence of phenomena in the moment with the ephemerality of its emptiness. We can think of this as the “negation of the negation” of emptiness, of which Nagao writes.
A contemporary understanding of emptiness that captures both the negation of emptiness and the possibility of grasping it affirmatively is that of the late Thich Nhat Hanh. For him, it is important to ascertain exactly what things are empty of. Phenomena is not “nothingness,” “nonbeing,” or “non-existence,” but the absence of one specific thing: “empty of a separate self.” That is to say, empty of a self separate from everything else in existence (Hanh, 30). Basing himself in causation and the principle of dependent origination, Thich Nhat Hanh explained that we exist through our relationality with every other thing—a kind of endless regression of causal relationships that constitute our existence. This is his concept of “interbeing.” We “inter-are.” And because we are empty of a separate self—which is to say, we have no separate independent existence—this means that we are “full of everything” (Hanh, 33). One exercise he used in order to get his students to realize this was by asking them to see what was within a leaf or piece of paper precisely because it was “empty”:
Everything—time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat, and even consciousness—is in that sheet of paper. Everything coexists with it. (Hanh, the other shore, 29)
What the teaching of emptiness means is that no single substance is the basis of reality, but that reality is essentially relationality, and because everything exists relationally, nothing has a fixed identity or nature. This is how the leaf or piece of paper, in Thich Nhat Hanh’s understanding, is “full” of everything: its existence is an entire cosmos of intersecting causes and conditions. Sometimes Thich Nhat Hanh referred to this as a thing’s “ultimate dimension.”
Thich Nhat Hanh’s affirmative understanding of emptiness is a good jumping-off point for exploring the place of emptiness in the Lotus Sutra, to which we now turn.
III. Emptiness in the First Half of the Lotus Sutra
In the view of Gene Reeves, translator of what is perhaps the most popular English version of the Lotus Sutra, the Lotus Sutra is not much concerned with the concept of emptiness (Reeves 2010, 190). Certainly, in contrast to the Perfection of Wisdom sutras, we do not find any extended discourses on emptiness in the Lotus Sutra. In fact, we find what appears to be a criticism of preoccupation with emptiness. This admonition comes in the form of a self-criticism enunciated by the Buddha’s disciple Shariputra in the beginning of chapter 3:
“When the World-Honored One [Shakyamuni Buddha], knowing my mind,
Uprooted my wrong ideas by expounding nirvana,
I rid myself completely of distorted views
And attained realization of the teaching of emptiness.
In my innermost heart, I then told myself,
‘I have attained extinguishment.’
But I have now become aware
That this is not true extinguishment.” (Rissho Kosei-kai 2019, 86–87)
Shariputra was content with his realization of emptiness, which allowed him to see through his distorted views about reality and abandon them, but he wrongly assumed that this was “true extinguishment.” In other words, the sutra is warning that realizing emptiness falls short of the ultimate goal of practice. To be clear, the text is recognizing that awakening to emptiness allows one to eliminate their “distorted views,” that is to say, learned ideas and conceptions about the world that do not accord with its reality. Shariputra’s fault was to assume that such a realization was the terminus of learning.
The Lotus Sutra’s admonition to not mistake the realization of emptiness for the ultimate goal of practice appears again in chapter 4, in a similar self-criticism by the four great disciples Subhuti, Maha-Katyayana, Maha-Kashyapa, and Maha-Maudgalyayana.
“We, the leaders of the sangha, are worn with years. Believing that we had already attained nirvana and that there was nowhere further for us to go, we did not go on to pursue Supreme Perfect Awakening. Since long ago, the World-Honored One has been teaching the Dharma, and all the while we have sat in our places, our bodies growing tired and inert, and our thoughts intent only upon emptiness, the absence of all attributes, and nonproduction.” (Ibid., 121)
Here too, the disciples reproach themselves for stopping at the realization of emptiness and refraining from pushing further onward to a higher realization. The four specify in somewhat greater detail what they mistakenly took as the highest awakening: “the absence of attributes,” and “nonproduction.” The cognition of emptiness is a great leveler. Seen from the standpoint of emptiness, all things become as if the same; since they are all characterized by emptiness, their uniqueness and differentiation vanish. From the standpoint of emptiness, things are “nonproduced” because they don’t come into existence ex nihilo, from nothing. All things arise from causes and conditions, and thus, instead of something coming into existence for the first time, any existence is better understood as a new combination or coming together of things. Nothing ever arises or extinguishes in an ultimate sense, but only changes form. We can think of this as something like the law of the conservation of mass in chemical reactions. Mass is neither created nor destroyed, as the materials in the reaction only change form.
These are critical passages of the Lotus Sutra, and we must read them carefully. They are not a rejection of the teaching of emptiness. The notion of emptiness as the way things exist is not being critiqued. What is being criticized is taking the realization of emptiness as the consummate awakening and the final goal of the path, and perhaps taking emptiness’s partial negation of phenomena too broadly in a way that numbs one’s ability to be sensitive to the suffering in the world and undermines one’s aspirations to take proactive steps to eliminate suffering. If we explore the sutra carefully, we will discover that “emptiness” appears as many as twenty-seven times in Kumarajiva’s translation of the Lotus Sutra, and in at least one place the text refers to emptiness as “ultimate reality,” literally, the “true attribute” or characteristic of things, (Chn., shixiang; Jpn., jissō 実相; see Rissho Kosei-kai 2019, 246). We can also find several passages in the text that urge us to practice in pursuit of the realization of emptiness. The text is very explicit in chapter 14, where it says that great bodhisattvas must perceive all things as emptiness (ibid., 246). In passages such as these, meditating on the emptiness of things is a way of seeing the equality or equanimity therein, overcoming attachments, and allowing the bodhisattva to engage deeply in the work of leading and helping others. Perhaps the most well-known example of the sutra’s discussion of seeing the emptiness of all things is in chapter 10, which teaches that the practitioner of the Lotus Sutra must bring together compassion, forbearance, and the realization of the emptiness of all things (see Rissho Kosei-kai 2019, 213).
While I would agree that the Lotus Sutra does not provide any philosophical discourses on emptiness, to say that the Lotus Sutra is unconcerned with emptiness is an overstatement. Emptiness is very much in the Lotus Sutra, but we just don’t easily see it. In fact, I would argue that emptiness is very important for two of the Lotus Sutra’s central teachings: the assertion of universal buddhahood known as the One Vehicle (or alternatively the One Buddha Vehicle) in chapter 2, and its declaration of the “eternal life” of the Buddha in chapter 16. Both of these teachings are predicated on the emptiness of all things. In the first case, universal buddhahood, or the One Vehicle, is the practical soteriological implication of emptiness. It is precisely because of the emptiness of all things that all beings possess the potential to become buddhas. Perhaps because we are accustomed to speaking of the “One Vehicle” and “buddha nature,” we miss the fact that from the standpoint of the Lotus Sutra what we are talking about is emptiness, but in a positive, kataphatic way. But this would also seem to be a step beyond the realization of emptiness that the Buddha’s shravaka disciples already had, because they could not perceive the potential for buddhahood in themselves or other people that emptiness entails.
Emptiness as the Universal Potential for Buddhahood.
Kumarajiva’s translation of the Lotus Sutra, the Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮華経, which became the basis for the Lotus Sutra tradition in East Asia now practiced by people around the world, tells us that the emptiness of things is precisely why there is the prospect of universal buddhahood—the teaching of the One Vehicle that all beings have the capacity to become buddhas. This critical statement comes near the end of chapter 2:
“The buddhas, the most honored of beings,
Know that since all things are ever without fixed nature,
The seeds of buddhahood sprout from proper conditions.
Therefore, they expound the One Vehicle.” (Ibid., 77)
This is a very short and easily overlooked passage, but it has been crucial to Lotus Sutra traditions, long considered one of the sutra’s most important portions. Here, the sutra speaks of emptiness as the absence of any fixed nature in things, literally “no nature” or wuxing 無性 in Chinese. “No-nature” is the assertion of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and the Mādhyamaka that nothing has an inherent, fixed, or unchanging nature. Why? Because all things arise, exist, and change in dependence upon other things. In other words, their existence is relational, not substantial. For us sentient beings, this means that none of us is locked into any permanent state of the heart and mind or moral status. Who we are is not set in stone. And it is precisely because of this that we can change—that we can become buddhas (the teaching of the One Vehicle). This passage is critically important because even though the sutra insists repeatedly that all sentient beings can become buddhas, this is perhaps the only place where the sutra gives us any indication of why all people can become buddhas. The sutra appears to be saying that the cause of buddhahood is “no nature”—emptiness. In other words, if we talk about this capacity as “buddha nature,” then the equation we arrive at is affirmative, paradoxical assertion that “no-nature” is “buddha nature”! And this is why, then, we can become buddhas given the proper conditions. In other words, becoming a buddha is the workings of dependent origination.
There is another reason that increases the importance of this passage that is also not readily apparent. In his translation, Kumarajiva, an expert in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and Mādhyamaka thought, may have already reconciled the emptiness of phenomena and the affirmative assertions of buddha nature discourse for us. Let me explain: In some of the extant Sanskrit versions of the text, admittedly all centuries later than the root text that Kumarajiva translated (and which we do not have), this “non-nature of dharmas” reads literally as “the nature of dharmas is ‘luminous’ or ‘radiant’ (Skt., prabhāsvara)” (See Ueki 2008, 120–21). This is very much the kind of statement seen in the sutras that teach buddha nature and is rarely found in the Perfection of Wisdom literature, with the exception of the Eight-Thousand Line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, where it is part of the explanation of the emptiness of the mind (Fujita 1988). Nevertheless, if Kumarajiva’s root text read as above (we can’t be entirely sure), then it means he understood this assertion of luminous purity common in buddha nature texts as emptiness, as I discussed above.
In any case, this passage in Kumarajiva’s Lotus Sutra establishes the understanding that takes the universal capacity for buddhahood as a practical soteriological consequence of emptiness, and because of this, becoming a buddha is an issue of dependent origination—having the proper conditions. I think this is also consistent with the parables, metaphors, and analogies that follow, illustrating the teaching of the One Vehicle.
As Japanese scholar Kōtatsu Fujita explains:
What could this kind of doctrinal thought (the Lotus Sutra’s One Vehicle) possibly be based on? According to the general ideas of Mahayana Buddhism, it is none other than “emptiness” (śūnyatā). It must be said that only through the concept of the nondiscrimination of emptiness is it possible to both severely criticize and simultaneously encompass the teachings of the various schools of early Buddhism. (Fujita 1969, 396)
It is not the goal of the Lotus Sutra to present a rigorously systemized theory of emptiness, but instead essentially to expound emptiness as the One Vehicle. “It can be concluded that the One Vehicle is nothing other than the practical expression of the concept of emptiness” (ibid., 399). The One Vehicle is the pragmatic implication of “no nature”—in accord with dependent origination, we can become buddhas with the “proper conditions.” “Proper conditions” suggests skillful means—the appropriate teachings and guidance from the Buddha, and of course our sincerely diligent practice. Given this, the reason why the Lotus Sutra spends so much time lauding skillful means, so much so that it confuses Shariputra in chapter 2, should become clear. Because the capacity for buddhahood is the absence of any fixed nature, attaining buddhahood is possible, but it is entirely dependent on the proper conditions—skillful means. Hence, in its early chapters, the sutra stresses the paramount importance of skillful means.
For this reason, when we rephrase the Lotus Sutra’s One Vehicle and notion of all living beings as future buddhas with the term “buddha nature,” what we are doing is realizing “no-nature” as “buddha nature.” This may be a difficult paradox for people, because we usually think of buddha nature in a positive sense, as a presence of virtues rather than an absence, or, at the very least, of limitless potentiality. However, I think what the sutra does with its notion of the One Vehicle is see the absence of one thing—fixed nature—as the potentiality for everything else, which reminds us of Thich Nhat Hanh’s understanding of emptiness. How can a “nothing” be a “something?” Try to think of it like this: potential implies an openness. A bumper crop starts with an empty field ready to accept seeds, and the utility of a cup is the void within it, which makes it able to receive and hold liquid. The usefulness of a sheet of paper comes from the fact that it is blank. We must never forget that “emptiness” is not “nothingness” but a specific kind of void: an absence of unchangeability, and conversely, this implies unlimited potentiality.
I think we can go further here. The absence of any fixed nature, of any inherent and independent existence, is because we come into existence through myriad causes and conditions. If we were to try to count all of these factors, it would prove impossible because ultimately every event and phenomenon in the universe plays a part in our existence—if not directly, then indirectly. Thus, as Thich Nhat Hanh explained, we are “full of” everything else in existence. Our existence is relational—“interbeing,” as Hanh called it. Thus, emptiness means that we are the world. For these reasons I must disagree with Gene Reeves. Yes, the Lotus Sutra is not concerned with giving us any detailed discourses about emptiness, but the One Vehicle’s assertion of universal buddhahood is fully predicated on and a practical soteriological consequence of the truth of emptiness. So is the critical importance of skillful means, of having the “proper conditions” to become buddhas.
The Lotus Sutra’s Metaphors and Similes for the Realization of the One Vehicle—Dependent Origination at Work through the Proper Conditions
In the following chapters of the Lotus Sutra, “no nature-as-buddha nature” is portrayed in increasingly kataphatic terms, but for the most part, it follows the understanding of universal buddhahood established in chapter 2: that the fundamental potentiality we have is manifested through a process of the proper conditions, that is, attaining buddhahood is a function of dependent origination. In the parable of chapter 4, “Faith and Understanding,” the potential is the poor son’s ability to overcome his lack of self-confidence and grow in capacity and wisdom, which is likened to an aptitude inherited from one’s parents. His self-doubt and low self-esteem are not immutable. The “proper conditions” are the rich man’s (i.e., the Buddha’s) skillful development of the poor man’s potential by giving him progressively more challenging tasks and responsibilities, as well as showing him fatherly love and concern. The inherited capacity for buddhahood would seem to be a reified thing, but since this is asserted for all sentient beings, it is a consequence of life itself. In chapter 5, “The Parable of the Medicinal Herbs,” the absence of fixed natures are the capacities for the various plants to grow and blossom. The “proper condition” is the great cloud (the Buddha) that provides nourishing and refreshing rainwater. The analogy in chapter 10, “Teachers of the Dharma,” perhaps comes closest to reifying the potential for buddhahood—here as thirst-quenching subterranean waters that a parched inhabitant of a high plateau digs for. The proper conditions are the perseverance of the prospector as a metaphor for diligent practice, but also the way in which indications of the goal—the increasing moistness of the soil—encourage the man to dig ever deeper.
In chapter 8’s Parable of the Gem in the Robe, a wealthy man slips a priceless precious gem into the hem of his drunk friend’s robe. The gem is often interpreted as a metaphor for buddha nature, but here too, the sutra makes it clear that this capacity for awakening is a function of dependent origination, and nothing like the inherent, fully awakened buddha within the mind of the sentient being that we sometimes see described in buddha nature sutras. First, as the sutra explains through the voice of Ajnata-Kaundinya, the gem is not a physical thing, but actually their forgotten aspiration to become buddhas, which was planted within them by the Buddha, from whom they had received the teachings many lifetimes in the past. The gem represents the “seeds of goodness” planted by the Buddha. In other words, the gem itself is actually the result of the proper conditions—skillful means—provided by the Buddha. And, now again in the present, it is the proper conditions—the assurance of buddhahood received from Shakyamuni Buddha—that cause them to rediscover this capacity for buddhahood. Second, the sutra oddly tells us that the drunk man is guided to exchange the gem for whatever he needs. He does not keep the gem. The value of the gem is not inherent but relational—its worth is only realized when he exchanges it for other things. Here too, the kataphatic discourse of the sutra is faithful to its explanation of the One Vehicle—that because living beings are without any fixed nature, the buddhas know they can attain buddahood if provided the proper conditions—skillful means. Therefore, they teach the One Vehicle.
IV. Emptiness and Buddha Nature
Let me close with a challenging thought: If perceiving the potential of oneself and others to become buddhas—that is, seeing the limitless capacity of oneself and others for transformation, growth, and self-perfection—is seeing the “everything else” that remains after negating the notion of any “fixed nature,” then seeing buddha nature would essentially entail being aware of “emptiness.” While it is well-known that the Lotus Sutra itself doesn’t actually use the word “buddha nature,” it has long been asserted that seeing this potentiality for buddhahood in others is the same as seeing “buddha nature.” As the Commentary on the Lotus Sutra, perhaps the oldest extant commentary on the Lotus Sutra, describes, when in chapter 20 Bodhisattva Never Unworthy of Respect (also translated as “Never Disparaging”) reveres everyone he meets as a future buddha, he is revering their buddha nature (Abbott 2013, 141). If this is so, and the capacity for buddhahood—buddha nature—is the consequence of no-fixed nature, then seeing buddha nature would include seeing “no-fixed nature”—in other words, the realization of emptiness would be, ipso facto, integral to awakening to buddha nature. The sutra itself provides indications of this interpretation when Shakyamuni Buddha gives assurances of buddhahood to his various disciples, beginning with Shariputra, after they have awakened to their capacity to become buddhas. I strongly suspect that the context for this pattern in the sutra were common explanations of the path of practice, which held that disciples receive detailed prophecies of buddhdahood from the Buddha upon reaching several milestones of practice, including realizing the emptiness of all things. Here in the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni’s bestowal of assurances of buddhahood upon the disciples who awakened to the universal capacity for buddhahood suggests that realizing emptiness is part of, or, contained within the realization of the potential for buddhahood. But I think this would be no simple intellectual grasp or conceptual understanding of buddha nature, but a transformative insight. In the words of Shariputra: “For today I know that I am truly a child of the Buddha, born from the words of the Buddha and come to life through his Dharma. Indeed, I have attained my share of the Buddha Dharma” (Rissho Kosei-kai 2019, 85).
In following installments, we’ll take a look at the second half of the Lotus Sutra and then proceed to consider the place of emptiness in the teaching and practices of Rissho Kosei-kai.
References
Abbott, Terry. 2013. “The Commentary on the Lotus Sutra.” In Tiantai Lotus Texts, edited by Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai, 87–149. Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai America.
Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Wisdom.
Daban niepan jing 大般涅槃経 [The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra]. In vol. 12, Taishō shinshū daizōkyō [The Buddhist canon, Taishō period new edition], edited by Junjirō Takakusu and Kaigyoku Watanabe, 365–74. Issai Kyō Kankōkai, 1924–32.
Da zhidu lun 大智度論 [Commentary on the Great Perfection of Wisdom]. In vol. 25, Taishō shinshū daizōkyō [The Buddhist canon, Taishō period new edition], edited by Junjirō Takakusu and Kaigyoku Watanabe, 57–756. Issai Kyō Kankōkai, 1924–32.
Fujita, Kōtatsu. 1969.“Ichijō to sanjō” 一乗と三乗 [The One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles].”In Hokke shisō 法華思想 [Thought of the Lotus Sutra], edited by Ōchō Enichi, 352–405. Heirakuji.
Fujita, Masahiro. 1988. “Hassenju hannya kyō dai isshō shinshō honjō setsu” 『八千頌般若経』第一章 の心性本浄説 [On the Theory of the Innate Purity of the Mind in Chap. 1 of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra].” Indo bukkyō gaku kenkyū 37: 31–36.
Gethin, Rupert. 1998. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. 2017. The Other Shore: A New Translation of the Heart Sutra with Commentaries. Parallax Press.
Nagao, Gadjin M. 1991. Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. State University of New York Press.
Rissho Kosei-kai International. 2019. The Threefold Lotus Sutra: A Modern Translation for Contemporary Readers. Kosei Publishing.
Sakabe, Akira. 1974.“Kū to hannya haramitsu”空と般若波羅蜜 [On the Relationship between Śūnyatā and Prajñāpāramitā]. Indogaku bukkyōgaku kenkyū 22, no. 2: 362–67.
Tagami, Taishū. 2015. Nehankyō wo yomu 涅槃経を読む [Reading the Nirvana Sutra]. Kodansha.
Ueki, Masatoshi. 2008. Bonkanwa taishō gendaiyaku hokekyō 梵漢和対照•現代訳法華経訳 [The Lotus Sutra: A Sanskrit-Chinese-Japanese Comparison and Modern Japanese Translation], Vol. 1. Iwanami Shoten.
Williams, Paul. 2009. Mahāyāna Buddhism: Doctrinal Foundations. 2nd ed. Routledge.
Dominick Scarangello obtained his PhD from the University of Virginia in 2012. His interests include Lotus Sutra Buddhism in East Asia, Japanese religion, and religion and modernity. Dr. Scarangello has taught at the University of Virginia and was the Postdoctoral Scholar in Japanese Buddhism at the University of California, Berkeley (2013–14). Presently, he is the International Advisor to Rissho Kosei-kai and coordinator of the International Lotus Sutra Seminar.
