If this question is about who the first known human being on the planet was to teach about the eternal nature of life, then the answer to this question is the author of the Lotus Sutra. That is probably the reason many people say that the original Buddha was Shakyamuni.

As it says in the 'Expedient Means' chapter of the Lotus Sutra, this is a teaching that can only be shared and understood between Buddhas. People throughout history have read the Lotus Sutra and failed, even on rereading it several times, to understand its depth and most important messages. The messages are definitely there, though, and can be seen clearly AFTER you've gotten it. A lot of help that is. It is just as it says in the 'Expedient Means' chapter: "This Law is not something that can be understood through pondering or analysis. Only those who are Buddhas can understand it." No matter how much you flex your brain muscle, no matter how many times you read the teachings of a Buddha, you won't see "the Law," as he calls it, there unless you're already a Buddha.

But how does one become a Buddha if it can't be done through pondering or analysis? That's where Nichiren came in, giving us a practice based on this one profound teaching that, when done with passion, determination, and discipline, will lead us to Buddhahood. Nichiren understood the Lotus Sutra at a depth far beyond most people, even other Buddhist priests. He was a Buddha, and he gave us a method by which we can attain the same level of Buddhahood as him. Without him, the Lotus Sutra, as profound as it is, is of little use. Without Nichiren, the meaning hidden in the depths of the Lotus Sutra would be lost. It was Nichiren's enlightened mind that saw and pulled forth the profundity contained within the Lotus Sutra. This is the reason others say that the original Buddha was actually Nichiren.

So why don't we subscribe to either answer?

We don't even subscribe to the question. What purpose does it serve to even ask such a question if not to deify a particular person and subjugate everyone else? It seems that everywhere we turn people are always trying to find enlightenment outside of themselves. Can't we just buck up and take responsibility for things, for the happiness of living beings, ourselves?

Does it even matter who was first? What if the "first" person was wrong about something? Does that mean that no subsequent Buddha can improve on the first Buddha's teachings because the original Buddha was the one we're all supposed to be following? And if the original Buddha was so superior to us all, then that person has inherently failed at being a Buddha by Shakyamuni's own definition, since the purpose of a Buddha's advent is to make all living beings equal to them. So then the "original Buddha" couldn't even be called a Buddha.

The original Buddha question implies that there was a single "true" Buddha, born with the specific purpose of teaching the inhabitants of this world about Buddhism so that they can become Buddhas as well. Subsequent Buddhas are then lesser Buddhas than the "true" Buddha. This theory comes from the sutras itself, but we think this viewpoint is the result of an unenlightened understanding of Buddhism. For instance, in the 'Expedient Means' chapter of the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni explains to the assembly that the Buddhas appear in this world for one reason alone: to "open the door of Buddha wisdom to all living beings." To interpret this as meaning that there is a Buddha soul out there targeting humans and saying to itself "I'm going to go there and teach Buddhism to those ignorant and unenlightened people" is to miss the entire point of what Shakyamuni is saying there.

Can we even know the answer in all honesty? Do we even know who wrote the Lotus Sutra or that it wasn't a collaborative work that was improved upon as it was passed down? Do we even know that the Lotus Sutra was first? Can we go back to the cave man days and see if there wasn't an early version of a Lotus-Sutra-like teaching painted on a cave wall somewhere?

There is something to be learned from the history of Buddhism itself. Shakyamuni taught the Lotus Sutra, which was correct but couldn't be used or understood by most people, and then Nichiren came along later to help us all out. The lesson here is that when people attain enlightenment, they try as hard as they can to teach it to other people with varying degrees of success. Of course the Lotus Sutra is one of the most profound teachings that has ever been taught, but then Nichiren came along and made it better. This is how it works. When you look at religion prior to Shakyamuni, or even Shakyamuni's own pre-Lotus Sutra teachings, you can see clearly that he was building on the teachings of others and even on himself. His teachings became gradually better and better as he developed. Nichiren, too, was building on not just the Lotus Sutra but also on Tientai's teachings, Dengyo's teachings and, again, his own teachings. As Nichiren's Buddha nature developed and became stronger so, too, did his teachings.

Nichiren says that the enlightenment attainable through pre-Lotus Sutra teachings is less than the level of enlightenment attainable through Lotus Sutra teachings. Now we'll say that the level of enlightenment attainable through the Lotus Sutra is less than the level of enlightenment attainable through Nichiren's teachings. In other words, the level of enlightenment attainable by human beings becomes ever greater as Buddhas appear in our world and build on the work of previous Buddhas and themselves reach higher and higher levels of enlightenment.

Nichiren says that the original Buddha is the Gohonzon, Namu-Myoho-Renge-Kyo.* In other words, the original Buddha is our own Buddha nature -- the one within us all. The buck stops there. That is the answer. We don't need to try to figure out what he "really" meant by that. We don't need to read into what he said by saying that even though the original Buddha was the enlightenment within Shakyamuni, Shakyamuni was the original Buddha because he was the person who was one with it. Or that Nichiren was really the original Buddha because he was one with it. Buddhism isn't Christianity or deism anymore. There is no son of God who is also God. We're all one with Myoho-Renge-Kyo when we chant and attain enlightenment. It is the enlightenment within each of us that allows us to teach other people. And as we become more and more enlightened, OUR teachings become better and better, meaning more and more capable of leading others to ever higher levels of enlightenment.

Each Buddha that appears in the world appears for the sole purpose of "caus[ing] living beings to awaken to the Buddha wisdom."

The debate over a question such as this is a pre-Lotus Sutra debate. Both Nichiren and Shakymuni said to discard the earlier sutras, that they would only lead to confusion. They said this with good reason, so let's follow their suggestion. It is time now that we learn to embrace the teaching that Buddhahood is equally inherent in us all and accept our responsibility to become the True Teachers of Buddhism, the fathers of this world, the pillars of Earth, each wholly responsible for the enlightenment of the beings in this world.

* Any references Nichiren made to the true Buddha, original Buddha, or Buddha of the "Life Span"' chapter are actually referring to the Gohonzon, as is expressed by the following passages:

"Therefore, the two Buddhas, Shakyamuni and Many Treasures, are Buddhas who are functions [of Myoho-renge- kyo]. It is Myoho-renge-kyo that is the true Buddha." (Nichiren - "The True Aspect of All Phenomena", WND 384)

"Though this mandala has but five or seven characters, it is the teacher of all Buddhas throughout the three existences and the seal that guarantees the enlightenment of all women." (Nichiren - "On Offering Prayers to the Mandala of the Mystic Law", WND 414)

"Concerning the debt owed to the Law, the Law is the teacher of all Buddhas. It is because of the Law that the Buddhas are worthy of respect. Therefore, those who wish to repay their debt to the Buddha must first repay the debt they owe to the Law." (Nichiren - "The Four Debts of Gratitude", WND 44)

"Now that we have entered the Latter Day of the Law, an object of devotion should be made of the original Buddha flanked by his original attendants..." (Nichiren - "On Establishing the Four Bodhisattvas as the Object of Devotion", WND 977)

"Those who have received either the teachings prior to the Lotus Sutra or the theoretical teaching may in a certain sense attain the stage of perfect enlightenment, but when seen in terms of the true Buddha of the 'Life Span' chapter of the essential teaching, such people are still in the company of the deluded or in the rank of worthy persons." (Nichiren - "The Entity of the Mystic Law", WND 428)

"The wise men and scholars of the various schools are first of all confused as to [the nature of the Buddhas of ] their own school, and more fundamentally, they are ignorant of [the Buddha of ] the 'Life Span' chapter of the Lotus Sutra." (Nichiren - "The Essence of the 'Life Span' Chapter" WND 183) He could not have been saying that all of these Buddhist scholars were ignorant of the "Life Span" chapter itself or of Shakyamuni. The Lotus Sutra is and was widely known and adhered to among Buddhist scholars. Nichiren must either be talking about his own teaching of chanting Namu-Myoho-Renge-Kyo or something more ethereal, like the Buddha nature.

"In the more than twenty-two hundred years since the Buddha’s passing, no one has yet fully explained and spread the Lotus Sutra exactly as the sutra teaches. ... Those who become Nichiren’s disciples, however, can understand it without difficulty. In the entire land of Jambudvipa, there has never before been a hall or pagoda that produced the image of Shakyamuni Buddha of the 'Life Span' chapter of the Lotus Sutra. How could such an image fail to appear now?" (Nichiren - "The Unmatched Blessings of the Law" WND 974) From the context of this writing, this passage could only be referring to one of three things: Nichiren's own teachings over those over Shakyamuni (people can only understand Shakyamuni through Nichiren), the propagation of the phrase Namu-Myoho-Renge-Kyo itself, or the Gohonzon Nichiren inscribes (which, again, has Namu-Myoho-Renge-Kyo down the center).

"During this period of twenty-two hundred and more years, worthy rulers and sage rulers have honored painted images or wooden images of Shakyamuni, the lord of teachings, as their principal object of devotion. But although they have made depictions of the Buddhas of the Hinayana and the Mahayana teachings; of the Flower Garland, Nirvana, and Meditation sutras; of the theoretical teaching of the Lotus Sutra and of the Universal Worthy Sutra; of the Mahavairochana and the other True Word sutras; and of the Buddhas Shakyamuni and Many Treasures of the 'Treasure Tower'chapter, the Shakyamuni Buddha of the 'Life Span' chapter has never been depicted in any mountain temple or monastery anywhere. It is very difficult to fathom why this should be." (Nichiren - "On Rebuking Slander of the Law and Eradicating Sins" WND 439)

FEEL THE EARTH TREMBLE

Site Map Copyright

Home Learn About Buddhism Religion Science Members' Submissions NBAA Bookstore