788 james l. ford
Jōkei argued for the middle way between the disputed positions and
often appropriated the phrase fusoku furi (“neither the same
nor different”) or similar equivalents (e.g., fuichi fui ) to find
a compromise resolution. For example, with respect to the difference
between Dharma-characteristics and Dharma-nature, he writes:
What person of wisdom, then, insists only on identity or only on differ-
ence?... The true principle (shinri) and its existing phenomenal charac-
teristics are neither identical nor different.... Thus, in our school, the
most profound understanding resides in this teaching of “neither iden-
tity nor difference” (fusoku furi).^7Jōkei thus denies the absolute validity of either view; instead, both are
indeed true from a particular perspective. He applied the same “mid-
dle way” principle to the differences between the one vehicle teaching
and the three vehicle teachings.
Second, Jōkei took a significant step in overcoming the apparently
irreconcilable divide between the doctrine of universal buddha-nature
and the Hossō classification of beings (i.e., the icchantika problem).
He did so by resorting to the miraculous power and compassion of the
buddhas and bodhisattvas, whose vow to save all beings must surely be
fulfilled. In one instance, he responds to an interlocutor who wonders
about those beings (icchantikas) who don’t possess the untainted seeds
necessary to realize awakening:
The vow common to all buddhas of the three worlds is the unrestricted
vow to save all sentient beings.... If those without the nature [of enlight-
enment] were rejected, how could it be the great undifferentiating
compassion?^8In other words, although there are beings classified as icchantikas,
their karmic destiny can and indeed must be annulled by the miracu-
lous ability and compassion of the divine beings whose very power
is inspired by their selfless vow to lead all sentient beings to buddha-
hood. Jōkei cites the esoteric dhāraṇī of Kannon as evidence of this
inconceivable power (see below).
Jōkei was followed by Ryōhen, who is well known for his bril-
liant treatise, the Kanjin Kakumushō, which elaborated and extended
beyond some of Jōkei’s reform efforts. In particular, Ryōhen addressed
(^7) Hossōshū shoshin ryakuō zokuhen, NDZ 63, 401b: 1–13.
(^8) NDZ 63, 412a:11–16.