hakamaya noriaki - thoughts on the ideological background of social discrimination - p. 339

7/31/2019 HAKAMAYA Noriaki - Thoughts on the Ideological Background of Social Discrimination - p. 339

1/17

339

Thoughts on the IdeologicalBackground of Social Discrimination

HAK AM AYA Noriaki

THIS ESSAY IS ONE in a series of essays I have published this year

criticizing the idea of original enlightenment.1

One factor thatmakes the criticism of original enlightenment so difcult is thatso many inuential intellectuals routinely and with such utter condencerepeat the idea that this doctrine represents the mainstream and quintes-sence of the Buddhist tradition. From there they go on to claim thatbecause the idea permeates the whole of Japanese culture, the ideals ofpeace and harmony were able to take rm hold in Japan. Rejecting thedoctrine of original enlightenment then becomes tantamount to rejectingthe best ofif not even the whole ofJapanese culture. I am not resort-ing here to hyperbole. One nds examples of such thinking everywhere,as for example in the following newspaper column by Umehara Takeshi:

[In contrast to my earlier ideas I now think that] Japanese Buddhism,while having the appearance of Buddhism, was greatly inuenced by pre-Buddhist indigenous religion and thus became something quite distinct.Or perhaps it is better to say that Japanese Buddhism is the truly genuinedevelopment of the Mahayana Buddhist traditionthat Japan wasalready, in a latent form, a Mahayana country, so that with the introduc-tion of Buddhism the latent became manifest as Japan developed into anEka-MahayanaBuddhist nation, unique in the world.

[Prince Shtoku, who deserves the utmost credit for establishingBuddhism in Japan, tried to employ people of talent in governmentofces and to break the shackles of the clan system.] To accomplish thishe needed a philosophy of equality and unity, which Prince Shtoku dis-covered in the rmldev Sutraand the Lotus Sutra, considered to bethe only sutras that teach Ekayana Buddhism. Prince Shtoku later calledthis Eka-Mahayana. He demonstrated that the doctrine oftathgata-


2/17

340

garbhawas the other side of the coin of Ekayana thought. After this,

Japanese Buddhism developed along the lines of the tathgata-garbhaand Ekayana Buddhism advocated by Prince Shtoku.I especially wish to emphasize the uniquely Japanese development of

this Ekayana Buddhismwhere, unlike Indian or Chinese Buddhism,the doctrine of the Buddhahood of mountains, rivers, grasses, andstreams evolved. In other words, the Buddhistespecially MahayanaBuddhistdoctrine of equality went beyond humanity, to encompassthe whole of the natural world, beginning with animals and plants. Inthis sense, though we often focus on the Buddhist assertion of humanequality alive in the national polity of Japan today, it is the extension ofthis equality to mountains, rivers, grasses, and treesunique to JapaneseBuddhismthat is truly important, for it can stave off the destruction ofnature resulting from the anthropocentric ideas so strong in European

thought. Ours is a doctrine essential to the future of humanity.2

I hardly need mention that what Umehara calls Ekayana Buddhismor tathgata-garbhaBuddhism is what I mean by the doctrine of orig-inal enlightenment. If we follow his line of argument, we may well end upin the deluded notion that the Japanese alone, thanks to the doctrine oforiginal enlightenment, have enjoyed a history of peace and equality, freeof war and slaughter. This kind of blithely authoritative attitude, com-pletely indifferent to the facts of the matter, combined with a loose logicthat mixes indigenous religiosity with Ekayana Buddhism (the problemlying not in the claim that Japanese Buddhism was strongly inuenced bypre-Buddhist indigenous religiosity, but that prior to the introduction of

Buddhism Japan was already a latently Mahayana country), are all typicalof the abuse perpetrated by a group of inuential intellectuals who con-ceive of everything in terms of the doctrine of original enlightenment.

It is not the purpose of this essay to go after Umeharas ideas. I leavethat for another time. My aim is to show how the doctrine of originalenlightenment is representative of the very sort of establishment ideologythat has been instilled in us unremittingly up to the present day, where itis typied in thinkers like Umehara. The primary focus of my critique is,therefore, the institutionalized and authoritarian character of the doctrineof original enlightenment. In so doing, the critique runs the risk of beingitself politicized and removed from its academic moorings. There arealready some who claim that my criticisms are too hasty and lacking in

scholarly rigor. They say that I have strayed from my own eld of exper-tise and trespassed into the territory of others in an attempt to cause

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI


3/17

havoc; or that I split hairs over trivial details, throw out the baby with the

bath, miss the whole picture, and so on. Nothing would please me morethan if the publication of this essay would provoke direct criticism of myideas without getting tangled up in tangential issues. I say this because Iam convinced that Prince Shtokus constitutional mandate to valueharmonyusually lauded as a Buddhist sentimentis, in fact, political.

Actually, I do not see any reason to make a big fuss over the critiqueof the doctrine of original enlightenment. Quite the contrary, I believethat a simply unbiased look will disclose its authoritarian and institutionalnature. I cannot resist repeating the words of Motoori Norinaga, whohad the following to say when asked why he was more critical ofConfucianism than Buddhism:

Buddhism is a disorderly and composite tradition, and of course differsfrom the Way. Its harm is obvious and easily seen, and has already beenargued by the Confucian scholars in China and in contemporary times bythe Shintoists of our own country. There is thus no need to burden our-selves with repeating these arguments all over again. Confucian thought,in contrast, is not as obviously harmful or as obviously loathsome.Lacking this sort of reputation, and with explanations and doctrines that,on the surface, seemed entirely in keeping with the Principle (dri7),these teachings have long been commonly believed. Even among thelearned, there were none who did not base themselves in this thought. Inmodern times one occasionally nds Shintoists who criticize this way ofthinking, but by failing to plumb the depths of what they are criticizing,they eventually slip back into the selfsame Confucian beliefs. Of old few

have truly understood this mistake, and hence, because the Way seems atrst glance to be without harm, the depth and measure of its harm sur-passes that of Buddhism.3

It is the obvious harm of the doctrine of original enlightenment,then, that I shall endeavor to point out in this essay. As to the question ofthe depth and measure of the harm of the Confucian Way, I will leavethat for another day.

In his discussion ofkirigamiin St Zen,4 Ishikawa Rikizan provided aconcrete and exhaustive investigation of how, in a Japanese cultural climate

that placed great value on secret transmissions, kirigami played asignicant role in the development of the St community from medieval

IDEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF DISCRIMINATION

341


4/17

times. These kirigamiare only one example of social discrimination. I

would like, from a religious point of view, to take up the doctrinal contextthat engenders and sustains such social discrimination. Because a religiouspoint of view entails personal opinion, and because the ideas presentedhere have yet to be adopted by the Joint Conference of the SpecialSection of the St Doctrinal Advisory Committee (of which I am amember and to which I address these remarks), I have tried to restrictmyself to questions of ideological background in order to refrain fromintroducing too many individual and idiosyncratic speculations of myown. The thoughts are mine, of course, but I have tried to keep the con-clusions of the Joint Conference in mind as I express them.

Since its rst meeting in January of this year (1985), the JointConference has held ten sessions focusing on the problem of karma. Inorder to keep our topic in focus we have been studying the question ofkarma in the three times (X%) as presented in the rst chapter of theShushgi.5 The Shushgi, a fundamental statement of doctrine for Stmembers, does not itself use the language of social discrimination. The

work does not date from the beginning of the St sect, but is rather acollection of materials from Dgens Shbgenzcompiled by uchiSeiran (18451918) during the Meiji period and later ofcially recog-nized by the Stsh.6 This was why the Committee decided to broadenour investigation and look for discriminatory language not only in theShushgibut in its source, the Shbgenz, as well. There we found only ahandful of examples, such as ca^la (sendara), eunuch (Skt.

a^ha, Jpn. mon), and pa^aka(funan#C), although it turnedout that even these terms were not Dgens own but only appeared incitations from other works.7 Even so, the fact that they were repeated wasenough to merit an investigation into their place in the overall context ofthe work. We found that they are not examples of strong discrimination,and that compared to other Chinese and Japanese Buddhist texts

whether of the same era, earlier, or laterDgens works are conspicuousfor their lack of discriminatory language. Still, we did not feel condent toclaim infallibility for our founder in this regard or to rest easy with thefortunate outcome of our study of the Shushgiand the Shbgenz. For,once the Shushgihad been completed and was adopted as a text withinthe Stsh, we do in fact nd a conspicuous use of discriminatory lan-

guage by St preachers who used the work, as indeed it is still used tothis day. Matters have now gone far beyond anything that a simple recog-

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

342


5/17

nition of these facts can repair. I believe we have come to a point where

we must question the very meaning of our religion, and thereby, perhapsfor the rst time, clarify the nature of the religious issues involved.

I believe that by focussing on the issue in this way a determination ofthe relationship between the Shushgi, the Shbgenz, and the discrimi-natory language used by Stsh preachers can be expressed in terms thatdraw it beyond the connes of the St community and its doctrinesomething that I consider absolutely crucial. Aside from questions sur-rounding the compilation of the Shushgi, we need to determine whetherthe teachings of the St preachers who have used this ofcially recog-nized text for generations actually bears any resemblance at all to DgensShbgenz. For what we nd in these sermons is often the sort of easyanswers to suffering and wisdom that Dgen resisted his whole life. Letme clarify the point with a citation.

As is well known, immediately after his return to Japan from ChinaDgen undertook a sharp critique of a number of questions then currentamong Japanese Buddhists; this critique makes up the Bendwa chap-ter of the Shbgenz. Regarding the popular notion of eternal mind andperishable phenomena,8 he wrote:

Question: Some have taught that One should not fret over the constantux of life and death. There is an extremely simple path to freedom fromthe cycle of life and death: by knowing the eternal, unchanging mind.This means that although the body dies the real essence of the mindnever perishes. When you realize that the essence of the mind is not sub-

ject to the cycle of life and death and only exists temporarily in the body,you perceive that it continues to live on in various places without ceasing.It is constant and never changes throughout past, present, or future. Toknow this is to be released from the cycle of life and death. The cycle oflife and death is put to an end, and when the body dies you enter theocean of true being. When you merge with this ocean of being you pos-sess the same cardinal virtues as the Buddhas and Tathagatas. Even if youcomprehend this in your present life you nevertheless are different froma holy man because of the delusions accumulated in your former lives. If

you fail to understand this [i.e., the unchanging and eternal nature ofthe mind] you will revolve forever within the cycle of life and death.

Without further delay we should grasp the minds immutability. Whatgood is spending your entire life sitting quietly, without doing any-thing? Is such a view in accordance with your interpretation of the Wayof the Buddhas and Patriarchs?


343


6/17

Answer: What you have just said is certainly not the Buddhist Dharma

but rather the view of the non-believer Senika.9

Among the various dialogues in the Bendwa,this section on theeternal mind and perishable phenomena is the longest, an indication of

just how much effort Dgen put into its critique. Dgen goes on at somelength to criticize the idea of this eternal mind that some have taught,but what is important to note here is that this critique was directedtowards the doctrine of original enlightenmenta contagion spreadingthroughout the Japanese Buddhist world from its center on Mt. Hiei.

The rst to clearly make this point was the great Tendai scholarHazama Jik;10 more recently Yamauchi Shuny has also given attentionto this issue from the St point of view.11 Since Yamauchis is a pioneer-

ing work within the St tradition, we may assume that the controversyhas only just begun to unfold. Here I shall illustrate the signicance of thepassage apropos of the question of karma as it relates to the preaching ofSt evangelists.

I cannot emphasize enough the fact that the ideas Dgen condemnedas the view of the non-believer Senika constitute the doctrine of theeternal mind and perishable phenomena,12 and that this doctrine is, infact, none other than the doctrine of original enlightenment. Is it notironic that this idea, criticized by Dgen, has from his time up to the presentbeen accepted as the mainstream of Japanese Buddhism, even amongSt believers who revere Dgen as their founder?

The idea of original enlightenment refers to a fundamental enlight-

enment that transcends the phenomenal world.13

All people are by natureprimordially endowed with this enlightenment, which exists eternally.Since the doctrine implies that, at a level preceding awareness, the phe-nomenal transformations of samsara remain, it is of a single piece with theidea of eternal mind and perishable phenomena.

It would appear, on the surface of things, that such a doctrine is adirect expression of equality, based on the recognition of a universalunderlying enlightenment shared by all people. This is no more than acomplete delusion. This simplistic and one-dimensional notion of originalenlightenment asserts that truth lies in a monistic, underlying enlighten-ment, which turns out to be the dominant force behind the perpetuationof social discrimination. Even more alarming is the fact that, because of

its longstanding predominance in the mainstream of Japanese Buddhism,the doctrine of original enlightenment is often considered to be thecentral

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

344


7/17

philosophy of Buddhism. I have not the condence to speak of other

Buddhist denominations, but would like at least to clarify the facts as faras the St sect is concerned. In a sense the clarication is superuous,since even a cursory perusal of the sermons on the Shushgibrings oneagain and again up against the very thing that Dgen was criticizing. Inany case, I wish to cite a few examples to illustrate the point.

In ShhNo. 390, published by the St at the beginning of theTaish era, we nd a sermon on the fourth section of the rst chapter ofthe Shushgi. That chapter itself reads:

In general, the principle of cause and effect is clear: without any doubtthose who do evil fall and those who cultivate virtue ascend; if cause andeffect ceased to exist or were invalid, there would be no appearance ofthe Buddhas in the world, and the Patriarch would not have come fromthe West.

The sermon on this passage reads as follows:

The original foundation of the cosmos is one reality, the same and equal,with no separation between even the most minute particles; however,within the true essence of that one reality, same and equal, a single greatspiritual force exists of its own power. That spiritual power manifests a

wondrous function based upon the law of the universe that has notchanged from past to present; that law is called the principle of cause andeffect. From the great universe above to a single blade of grass or treebelow, all things are born and nurtured according to this rule of causeand effect. Likewise with our physical bodies and minds, our sufferings

and joysnothing exists that is not according to this law. Actions in thepast become the root cause that invites the fruits of the present; manifoldcauses and manifold effects ow continuously and without pause, with-out beginning or end. However, there are various differences in the fruitsbecause there are myriad disparities () in the root causes; hence those

who do evil fall and those who cultivate virtue ascend. The environmentof those who give rise to an evil mind and practice evil gradually degen-erates, their position falls, and the nation becomes deled; in contrast,the position of those who give rise to a virtuous mind and cultivate virtueascends and the world becomes pure. Thus we must resign ourselves tothe fact that the reason that we are born into this world and experience

various and myriad punishments and rewards is entirely due to the caus-es and conditions of past lives.14

This is a good example of a deceptive logic that, starting from onereality, the same and equal as the original foundation of the cosmos,


345


8/17

suddenly jumps to accepting present disparities as the result of the

karma of former lives. This insipid passage is also a splendid example ofwhat Dgen had criticized as the teaching of the heretical Senika. In spiteof the fact that the portion of the Shushgithat is being commented uponis itself directly lifted out of the Jinshin inga chapter of theShbgenz,15 the preacher ends up contradicting the teaching presentedthere by Dgen. In fact, the Jinshin inga does warn against denyingcause and effect, and teaches the need for a deep belief in the principle ofcause and effect. But it does notteach the acceptance of present disparitiesas the fruit of accumulated karma. On the contrary, Dgen argues thatthe idea of an ocean of true being lying at the base of the cosmos, from

which the various disparities arise and to which they again return, is itself

the denial of cause and effect. For example:[Those who] deny this world say that though the form is in this world, inthe end the [true] nature is the same as that ofsatori. This is because our[true] nature is the mind, and the mind is not the same as the body. Thisinterpretation is that of the non-believers. They also say that upon a per-sons death there is assuredly a reuniting with the ocean of true beingand regardless of whether one cultivates the Buddha-dharma one natu-rally returns to this ocean of awakening and there is no more cycle ofbirth and death, and hence there is no afterlife. This is the understandingof the non-believers. Even if [those who assert this] have the appearanceof the monk, if they hold such false views they are not a disciple of theBuddha, for this is truly a heresy. From the rejection of cause and effect

comes the error of denying this world and the future world. The rejec-tion of cause and effect comes from the failure to meet and study withtrue good friends. If one spends time with a true good friend false viewssuch as the rejection of cause and effect cannot occur. We should acceptand have deep faith in these compassionate teachings of our PatriarchNgrjuna.16

There are, of course, complex doctrinal questions involved in deter-mining just what kind of cause and effect Dgen is advocating here,17 butit is clear that in this passage from his later years (as was the case in his ear-lier Bendwa), he is emphatically rejecting the teaching of an eternalmind and perishable phenomena. It is equally clear that he holds thisteaching of original enlightenment to be a denial of cause and effect. The

same point is made in the Daishugy chapter, though with a somewhatdifferent accent.18 Throughout his life, Dgen maintained this critique of

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

346


9/17

eternal mind and perishable phenomena or original enlightenment, and

did so by relating it explicitly to the question of cause and effect. But letus return to the sermons on the Shushgi.

Harada Sogaku (18711961) had the following to say in a sermon onnearly the same portion of the Shushgicited above:

In order to clearly understand the principle of truly empty and pro-foundly existent OWU and the principle of the non-existent natureof cause and effect F[, we must above all know the truth of themonistic absolute s. Immediately upon knowing the dharma ofthis monistic absolute, the principle of the true character of imperma-nence, no-self, and nirvana will be clearly resolved and thereupon one

will conclusively obtain the seal of the one realityso|. Therefore,one must rst know the teaching of the three seals [of impermanence,no-self, and nirvana], for in ignorance of the three seals it is entirely futileto attempt to understand the path of the Buddhist patriarchs, that is, theseal of the one reality. In St we call this seal of reality the true natureof the transmission or the most important matter of cause and condi-tion.19 In order to aid us in perceiving, accepting, and believing this,

we express it in our Mahayana Zen as a distinction between the true (sh) and the provisional (hen).

True means nondiscriminating equality; it is the aspect of the non-substantial (mush[). Provisional means the myriad differences andmanifold distinctions; it is the aspect of both temporal and spatial causalnecessity. Thus the true points to the essential content, while the pro-

visional points to the variety of appearances. In other words, the one

refers to principle, the other to things. But the principle and the thingsare never two, but together constitute the true fact of the one absolute(suO). In todays language we would speak of phenomena-in-true existence, and true existence-in-phenomena. This is thepurport of our Mahayana Zen. The path to satoriis what effects theGreat Awakening to this fact. In the Shushgithis is called the preceptsof the Buddha (bukkai[w).20

At the risk of repeating myself, the idea that if you know the truth ofthe monistic absolute you will immediately resolve the principle of thetrue character of impermanence, no-self, and nirvana and conclusivelyobtain the seal of the one reality is nothing other than the extremelyquick path to the freedom from the cycle of life and death that Dgen

criticized in the Bendwa as an utterly facile and worthless way tothinkor better, to not-think. Without the slightest hint of discomfort


347


10/17

one sits there and simply announces that the true is the provisional and

the provisional is the true, that discrimination is none other than equalityand equality none other than discrimination. This is the very kind ofextremely quick path that Dgen found so completely disgusting. Butfar from being dismissed from the St circle as a heretic, Harada Sogaku

was held up as its representative.No doubt the reason the very ideas that Dgen criticized managed to

become central to St lies in the fact that the mainstream of JapaneseBuddhism itself has long been dominated by the doctrine of originalenlightenment. Whether consciously or unconsciously, St simplyallowed itself to be swept along with the current rather than followDgen and swim against it. This resulted in a formulation of doctrinebased on ideas like the ve ranks, which Dgen himself had despised.21

I believe this also to be the reason that such works as the Tsan-tung-chi(Jap. Sandkai, 8th c., T. 48.327ab) and the Pao-ching-san-mei(Jap.Hkyzanmai, 9th c., T. 47.515ab) came to occupy important positionsas scriptures within the St. (Indeed, Haradas ideas coincide perfectly

with what we nd in the Sandkaiand the Hkyzanmai.)Kishizawa Ian (18651955), a great lecturer on the Shbgenzand

representative gure of St during the Meiji era who gave a teishonthese two texts, explained the doctrine as a secret teaching of St. Forexample, in the Sandkaiwe read:

The spiritual spring is pure in its brightness, while the streams ow indarkness; attachment to phenomena is originally delusion, but enlight-

enment is also not to agree with the principle.And now Kishizawas teishon the passage:These four lines reveal the profound meaning of the Sandkai. If just thismuch is absorbed, one has nished the reading of the Sandkai. If theBuddha-dharma, the cosmic truth, is realized, philosophy and practicehave also thereby been exhausted.

This Sandkaiis extremely important in our doctrinal tenets, and inthese few words the oral transmission of the St is exhausted.22

It may be true that this is how the oral transmission of St doctrinebased on the idea of enlightenment is completed, but merely absorbingthis teaching and returning to the ocean of true being, quickly and simplyperfecting the truth of the universe and thereby exhausting the whole of

philosophy and practice is, once again, the very thing that Dgen con-demned. If practice were fullled by merely absorbing this truth, then the

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

348


11/17

seated meditation that Dgen stressed would also be unnecessary. But

this is the kind of teaching that, in direct contradiction to Dgens inten-tions, took precedence in the St sect. Kishizawa continues:

The spiritual source is pure in its brightness. The spiritual source ofcourse refers to the source of the water. Its ow is dispersed through thetributaries, which can then be followed back to the spiritual source. Thesource and its tributaries are one. The cause of the Buddhas arises fromconditions, and the stem that arises from conditions is twisted to becomethe six-foot-long gilded body [of the Buddha-image], and the six-foot-long gilded body is twisted to become the stem. For this reasonBuddhism teaches equality on the one hand and discrimination on theother. One aspect of the mind of the Indian sage [kyamuni Buddha] iscalled equality while the other is called discrimination, and this applies to

social class as well. That is, [phenomenal differences in social] class +nondiscrimination [of the spiritual source] = the mind of the Indian sage.The two aspects becoming one is what is called the mind of the Indiansage. I have said this before, but thinking that if I repeat myself perhaps

you will be able to understand it, I have said it again.23

What Kishizawa has to say is not so difcult that it bears repeating.The spiritual source he described is structured exactly like the ocean oftrue being that Dgen singled out as the view of the heretic Senika:When you merge with this ocean of being you possess the same cardinal

virtues as the Buddhas and Tathagatas. Far from being hard to under-stand, its goal and essence belong to that extremely quick path that

Dgen had censured.Of course, if Kishizawa wants to exaggerate the difculty in order tomask its simplicity, that is up to him. But it was this very simplicity thatallowed such slogans as discrimination is equality and equality is dis-crimination to be bandied about without the slightest reection. It isprecisely because there is no thought involved that people could babblethis nonsense on and on without a care in the world, oblivious of the factthat they were helping to absolutize existing patterns of discrimination.Immediately after the remark just cited, Kishizawa makes a dim-wittedattempt to give an example of the ridiculous equation he had dreamedup, social class + nondiscrimination = the mind of the Indian sage:

The master of this home [where I am giving this teish] is not simply hisve-foot-tall body. The masters body, I need hardly remind you, is com-prised of the members of the family, and the whole household participates


349


12/17

in it. The fortunes and misfortunes of the master are the fortunes and

misfortunes of the family. When the Tokugawa bakufu perished, Edowas destroyed. And when Edo was destroyed, the Japan that the bakufuhad ruled up to that time was also destroyed. The Japan of the bakufu era

was the body of the Tokugawa bakufu. Because the Tokugawa bakufuwas destroyed, the Japan that was the body of that bakufu was alsodestroyed. With the Meiji Restoration, the Japan that is the body of theMeiji Emperor appeared. It is not simply that Edo became Tokyo. Tokyo

was born with the new Meiji Emperor. It is the Japan that arose simulta-neously with the Meiji Emperor. Japan is the body of the Meiji Emperor.In the same way, the body of kyamuni Buddha is kyamunis world.kyamunis body is pure. The extent of the Tathagatas wisdom and theTathagatas virtuous qualities are said to be the body of the Buddha. TheBuddhas body is the world of the Tathagatas wisdom and theTathagatas virtuous qualities. That world is called the pure land of greatbliss.24

I dont mean to nitpick such a crude argument, but how in the worlddo we get from Japan is the body of the Meiji Emperor to the body ofkyamuni Buddha is kyamunis world? The metaphor seems to sanc-tion and excuse just about any social situation in any time or place with-out any need for critical reection. We need to pause and consider howsuch patterns of thinking can lead us from bowing to the inevitability ofkarma to resigning ourselves to social discrimination.

That social discrimination permeates the language of St preachersis clear. I wish to argue that the doctrinal background to this way of

thinking is the establishment and popularization of the doctrine of origi-nal enlightenment on Mt. Hiei from the Kamakura period onward.Before we move on to a discussion of this point, it may serve our purposeto cite the example of yet another esteemed teacher. The following is notbased directly on the Shushgi, but comes from a general dharma talk by

Arai Sekizen (18641924). The talk opens like this:

The universe is in essence a spiritual dynamic ({). Its origin is trulyempty and eternally quiescent, but because it is a spirit moving continu-ally and without rest, its deepest workings are also continually and cease-lessly changing. Yet within those changes there is a fundamental law thatunites past and present. It is called the law of original cause and relatedeffect. The effect necessarily follows from the cause, and that effect againbecomes a cause that is tied to a new effect. In this way the cause becomesan effect and the effect a cause, in inexhaustible and innite succession.

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

350


13/17

The beginning of this world, the movement of the sun and moon, the

changing of the four seasons, the blooming of the owers and the fallingof the autumn leaves, the drifting of the clouds and the downpour of therains, the movement of the breezes and the ow of the streamsall ofthis activity takes place in complete accord with the law of cause and effect.So, too, with our birth into this world and our death. There is nothing

whatsoever that is not controlled by this law of cause and effect.25

This sounds more like Sakhy philosophy than a Buddhist dharma talk;but then again, in Japan, thanks to the doctrine of original enlighten-ment, this kind of thing has come to be considered properly Buddhist. 26

Arai starts with the proposition of a truly empty and eternally quies-cent origin that is said to be the foundation of the universe, not a merephilosophical notion but a deep functioning in constant ux. Its par-ticular changes and movements are not arbitrary but are controlled by alaw that admits of no exceptionsin effect absolutizing discrimination.This is the same as the doctrine of original enlightenment in theAwakeningof Mahayana Faith, the main source for the ideas of essence and func-tion in East Asian Buddhism.27 It is also the same doctrine that Dgenspent his entire life criticizing.

I didnt choose this talk of Arai Sekizens because it is unique orunusual, but because it is so typical of what one nds everywhere. Theillustrious position he holds within St only makes his remarks all themore convincing and thus once again illustrates that the dominant view inSt is more in line with the doctrine of original enlightenment la The

Awakening of Mahayana Faith than it is with Dgen. If a teacher isarmed with this kind of doctrinal arsenal, it is a simple matter to inict theabsolutization of social discrimination on unsuspecting believers.

As to how the doctrine of original enlightenment could become sormly established within the mainstream of Japanese Buddhism, a certainconsensus was reached in our study group. First of all, questions wereraised concerning the foundational Buddhist ideas of impermanence andemptiness and how the radically different notion of tathgata-garbhainIndia, the land of Buddhisms birth and development, opposed it. Wenext considered how in the fourth to fth century in China this sametathgata-garbhathoughtsimilar to and yet not Buddhismcame tobe established within the Buddhist community as the tradition of original

enlightenment. A similar development within the history of the ChineseChan school was also discussed.28


351


14/17

With a few modications the doctrine of original enlightenment took

root in Japan along the same lines of its development in China. Despite afew distinctive twists, such as the oral teachings on the kirigami, theJapanese version can clearly be traced back to Chinese Buddhism and theoverwhelming inuence of theAwakening of Mahayana Faith. For exam-ple, the Rybu shint nizu,29 traditionally ascribed to Kkai but today uni-

versally considered an apocryphal text of the Kamakura period, wascomposed in an atmosphere in which the idea of original enlightenmentenjoyed a great popularity, centered on Mt. Hiei. Although this work isthoroughly Japanese in form, as was the kirigami, the inuence of theAwakening of Mahayana Faithis unmistakable. But whatever forms theidea of original enlightenment took in order to enter and then dene themainstream of Japanese Buddhism, Dgens censure remains: this is not acorrect interpretation of Buddhism.30

Where shall we locate the Shushgiwithin St once we have under-stood that the preachers who worked from the text used it to foster socialdiscrimination based on the doctrine of original enlightenment andcounter to the ideas of Dgen? This remains an important and vexingproblem inasmuch as the work has served as the main text for St house-holders since the Meiji era. I foresee the debate on this question continu-ing for some time. In my own view, no matter how closely the Shushgirelies on the Shbgenz, as a compilation it lacks coherent philosophicalform and can in no way be compared to the straightforward style of theShbgenz. But to say that it is a collection of extracts does not mean that

there is no pattern to it (be it political or religious), which is why thecommittee has seen the need to study the situation of Japanese Buddhismin the Meiji period surrounding its compilation.31

In Okabe Kazuos report it was noted that the St university was setup in Azabu in 1882, the St institutional rules were codied in 1885,the rst edition of the Gyji kihan (Manual of Religious Ceremonies)

wa s published in 1889, the St Fuskai (St Support Assembly)formed around uchi Seiran (the compiler of the Shushgi) in 1887, andin 1890 the Shushgiwas ofcially recognized by the St. I was person-ally struck how during this time of institutional consolidation, the doctri-nal background of those who supported Meiji Buddhism after theanti-Buddhist movement was marked not only by the idea of original

enlightenment but also by their Confucian training. Original enlighten-ment and Chu-hsi style Confucianism show a similar structure in that

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

352


15/17

both place a fundamental importance on the idea of principle (7),

making it easy to imagine how they could join hands in the Meiji intellec-tual world of government-sponsored universities and national priorities.

Chu-hsi studies, begun by Hayashi Razan and adopted by the bakufuas the educational foundation of the government, based its support forthe social order of the day on the concept of principle as the natural orderof the universe. Meantime the St sectlike all of Japanese Buddhism,maintaining the illusion of being Buddhist by crowding under theumbrella of original enlightenment theoryjustied its support for theofcial government education of the bakufu by seeing it as a phenome-nal world grounded in an underlying principle, a function of a deeperessence, a provisional expression of the true, a specic social dis-crimination outweighed by a universal human equality. It is hardlysurprising that the language of social discrimination should be present inabundance. But however deeply St participated in this justication ofsocial discrimination through recourse to religious doctrine, Dgen him-self had been absolutely opposed to the doctrine of original enlighten-ment that spawned this insensitive and thoughtless way of reasoning, and

was consistent throughout his life in condemning it.The contradiction does not promise to resolve itself quickly, nor can

I do much here to advance the discussion. I would, however, like to devotethe remainder of my remarks to a question related to this contradiction,and to do so, as I mentioned at the outset, from a religious point of view.

One of religions most momentous concerns is the problem of death.

Although it may appear off the point, I would like to begin by citing aremark by Motoori Norinaga. One of Norinagas students once askedhim about death: Buddhism and Confucianism teach the doctrine ofcause and effect or the principle of Heaven and Earth and thereby givepeople peace of mind, but does Shinto have [any teachings that impart]such peace of mind? I cite the end of Norinagas reply:

Some would say that Shint has no [teachings that impart] peace ofmind, but even among the one or two people out of a thousand whohave some understanding of such matters, the question of what becomesof us after we die remains a difcult one to answer. Yet this is the rstthing everybody worries about, which is altogether natural.

Buddhism is grounded on awareness of this fact. And so, when theysense the approach of death, even those who do not normally believe inthe Buddha are driven by their insecurity to follow this path. This is a


353


16/17

natural and reasonable human sentiment.

Nor is it unreasonable that people do not understand Shint, whichgives no assurance as to what happens after a person dies. Peace of mindin Shint means that everybody, the good as well as the evil, will go tothe land of darkness (yomi no kuni). It does not mean, as the ancient

writings make clear, that the good will be reborn in a good place.But if this is all we have to say, Confucianists and Buddhists alike will

dismiss it as utter folly. And even the foolish will reject it, since they areused to hearing the teachings of the Buddha. Buddhists are able toaccommodate human emotions in a most engrossing way in their teach-ing of peace of mind after death, and Confucianists have the principle ofHeaven and Earth as a truth to teach. People are used to such Buddhistand Confucian teachings, and as a result believe them.

In Shint, however, peace of mind means that the good and the evilalike go to the land of darkness, but there is no principle to this truth andso nobody accepts it. Indeed such a principle would be beyond peoplescomprehension. Confucian or Buddhist teachings, while engrossing, arein fact designed to entice people. In ancient days, before people in ourcountry had heard of the teachings of Confucius or Buddha, people werenot so calculating and simply believed that they would go to the land ofdarkness after death. They had no feeling about this other than sorrow,and yet neither did they have any doubts; nor did anybody ask for a ratio-nal explanation. For although the land of darkness is a deled and evilplace, that is where each of us is to go after we die. This is why there isnothing more sorrowful in this world than death. But Confucianism andBuddhism give all sorts of reasons as to why such intense sorrow need

not bring them to grief. This is obviously not the true way.32

Norinagas criticism gives a superb look at the character of theBuddhism of his time, a Buddhism that was entirely colored by the doc-trine of original enlightenment.33Apart from a few anonymous monks

who shared the sufferings of the people, Buddhism in Japan at thattimeand all the way up to todaytook the doctrine of original enlight-enment as its foundation and from there encouraged people to accepttheir karma, giving all sorts of reasons as to why such intense sorrow neednot bring them to grief. The sermons of the St preachers on theShushgi, expounding their knowledge of the principle of cause andeffect, thus led to a complete indifference towards others and in this

way supported oppressive controls over them. The sermons also illustratehow the same principle was designed to entice people.

HAKAMAYA NORIAKI

354


17/17

I am certain the true Buddhism taught by kyamuni had nothing

whatsoever to do with this sort of cleverly manufactured explanation, butrather, through a deep understanding of impermanence, opened the wayto increasing ones awareness of the suffering of others. I also believe that,not only in the case of Buddhism but for religion in general, the depth ofa religion is measured by the depth of the suffering that it brings to light.

Dgen also spoke of the awareness of impermanence that comes at thetime of death and, awakened to the true suffering of this world, wrote:

When one suddenly experiences impermanence [at the time of death],neither kings, ministers, relatives, servants, wives and children, nor trea-sures can save one. There is only a single thing that will carry over to theland of Darkness (yomi), and what will follow one is just this good andevil karma.34

This is completely different from the use of cause and effect to explain awayanothers lot in life; it represents a deep acceptance of ones own karma.

I fear I may have given the impression of maligning St Zen. In linewith my belief that the depth of a religion is measured by the depth of thesuffering that it brings to light, I therefore wish to make a proposal forconsideration of the Religion Section of the Buraku Liberation ResearchCenter Religion Group, not as a political issue but as a religious problem.I realize that the question I am about to raise is a difcult one, but thisdoes not exempt us from taking it up in religious discussion.

In the introduction to his Human Liberation and Karma, KomoriTatsukuni gives a biting account of his mothers habit of accepting her

misfortunes and ignorance as due to deep karma.35 I want to askwhether we should lay all the blame on her own mistaken understandingof the Buddhist doctrine of karma. I most certainly would not. Far moreignorant and far more to blame are those preachers who simply tell oth-ers to accept your karma, and make no attempt at a deep understandingof their own karma. In this sense, when I read that his mother understoodthe depths of her suffering as due to deep karma, I can only believe thatshe was in fact in touch with an extremely deep and noble religious truth.36

If one is given to deception, there is no better place to exercise it thanat the juncture of religion and politics. It is my fervent hope that in thefuture we will be better able to face this juncture together, honestly and

without deception.

[Translated by Jamie Hubbard]


355

hakamaya noriaki - thoughts on the ideological background of social discrimination - p. 339

Documents