in a reliquary. This image is peculiar to the LOTUS
SUTRA(SADDHARMAPUNDARIKA-SUTRA) and indicated
that Ganjin probably interpreted the vinaya in a man-
ner consistent with Tendai teachings that enabled him
to “open and reconcile” HINAYANAteachings of the
MAINSTREAMBUDDHIST SCHOOLSwith those of Ma-
hayana so that no contradiction occurred. Moreover,
Japanese monks were also ordained with the fifty-
eight rules from a Mahayana text, FANWANG JING
(BRAHMA’SNETSUTRA). In this case, the Mahayana
precepts were intended to supplement those found in
the vinaya, thereby giving the practitioner a Mahayana
perspective. As a result, virtually the entire history of
Buddhist precepts in Japan could fall under the rubric
of Mahayana precepts.
A decisive break with the rules of the vinaya oc-
curred when SAICHO(767–822), founder of the Tendai
School, argued that his monks should use the fifty-
eight Mahayana precepts of the Brahma’s Net Sutrafor
their ordinations. Saicho’s main objective was to free
his monks from administrative control of his adver-
saries in the Buddhist schools of Nara. His commit-
ment to traditional standards of monastic discipline is
revealed in a provision that Tendai monks “provi-
sionally receive the Hnayana precepts” after twelve
years on Mount Hiei. Because Saichodied before the
court accepted his proposals, Tendai monks were left
without clear instructions on how the terse precepts of
the Brahma’s Net Sutrawere to be interpreted when
they were the main basis of monastic discipline.
According to the Brahma’s Net Sutra,when the ma-
jor precepts of the sutra were violated, confession, fol-
lowed by a sign from the Buddha, served to restore
the precepts. If a person did not receive a sign, the
precepts could be received again. When esoteric Bud-
dhist practices were used, a DHARANI(magical spell)
might be sufficient to remove the karmic conse-
quences of wrongdoing. Some later Tendai monks
such as Annen (late ninth century) argued that the
esoteric Buddhist precepts were predominant, but
these were so abstract that they offered little concrete
guidance to monks. Several centuries later, Tendai
monks argued that the principles of the Lotus Sutra,
a vague set of recommendations, were sufficient to
serve as precepts. Such interpretations meant that the
Buddhist order of monks and nuns played little or no
role in enforcing the precepts. In some cases,
monastery rules might play a role in providing stan-
dards for behavior, but Tendai monastic discipline
went into general decline.
A number of monks made efforts to revive monas-
tic discipline. Monks such as Shunjo(1166–1227) trav-
eled to China and brought back the practice of using
ordinations based on the vinaya but interpreting the
precepts in a Mahayana manner based on Tiantai
teachings. Ninku (1309–1388) tried to strengthen
monastic discipline by emphasizing stricter adherence
to the Brahma’s Netprecepts. Instead of relying on the
terse precepts found in that sutra, he wrote detailed
subcommentaries on the text, basing his interpretation
of the precepts on a commentary by the de facto
founder of the Chinese TIANTAI SCHOOL, ZHIYI(538–
597). Koen (1263–1317) was the center of another
group based at Kurdani on Mount Hiei that tried to
revive monastic discipline by reviving Saicho’s twelve-
year period of sequestration on Mount Hiei. At the end
of the sequestration, a ritual called a “consecrated or-
dination” was conducted in which a monk and his
teacher affirmed that they had realized buddhahood
with this very body through their adherence to the pre-
cepts. Myoryu (1637–1690) and Reiku (1652–1739)
used Saicho’s statement allowing monks to “provi-
sionally receive the Hnayana precepts” to argue that
the vinaya could be used to supplement the Brahma’s
Net Sutra.
The issues and approaches that appeared in Tendai
affected other schools in a variety of ways. Many Zen
monks also strove to revive the precepts by using “Ma-
hayana precepts.” Eisai (1141–1215), often considered
the founder of Rinzai Zen, deemed the precepts from
the vinaya to be the basis of Zen and wrote several
works on them. DOGEN(1200–1253) used a unique set
of sixteen Mahayana precepts for ordinations and
wrote extensively on monastic discipline. The various
Pure Land traditions interpreted the precepts in sev-
eral ways, sometimes citing the DECLINE OF THE
DHARMA(mappo) as a reason why they were no longer
valid, as in the case of Shinshu. However, the various
branches of the Jodo school continued to use precepts
in their ordinations even though monks frequently
were not required to follow them. For NICHIREN, ad-
herence to the Lotus Sutraserved as the precepts. In
addition, the establishment of an “ordination platform
of the original teaching” played a role in Nichiren’s
later thinking; the concept, however, was not clearly
defined and has been interpreted in a variety of ways
by later thinkers. Eison, founder of the Shingon Ritsu
tradition, used a Mahayana self-ordination to establish
a new lineage that followed the vinaya.
In the last few centuries, few Japanese monks have
followed any set of precepts closely. However, discus-MAHAYANAPRECEPTS INJAPAN