The  Jurisprudence  of  the  Nation  Protecting  Sutras:  Utopia,  the  Dharma  and  

Buddhism  in  Japan  

Andrew  Lindsay  

 

I.  Introduction  

According  to  legal  theorists  such  as  Spinoza,  Locke  and  Hobbes,  the  purpose  

of  law  is  to  maintain  the  salus  populi,  that  is,  the  health  and  safety  of  the  population.  

This  is  done  by  simultaneously  upholding  the  sovereignty  of  law  (the  notion  that  no  

one   is   above   the   law)   and   the   law   of   sovereignty   (that   the   sovereign   has   an  

obligation   to   ensure   the   general   health   and   safety   of   the   population). 1     An  

alternative  vision  of   law  comes   in   the   form  of  a   contribution   from  theorist  Walter  

Benjamin.  For  Benjamin,  the  aim  of  positive  law  is  merely  to  preserve  the  state,  and  

law  as   the  exemplary  arbiter  of   justice  within   the  state.   In  other  words,   instead  of  

preserving  human   life  and  property,   law’s  raison  d’ètre   is   to  preserve   itself  within  

the   state   apparatus.     For   the   utopian   thinker   this   description   of   the   law   is  

reasonable.   For   the   utopian   thinker,   conventional   law   is   an   imperfect   system,   a  

device  that  is  by  in  large  a  hindrance  to  the  creation  of  a  more  perfect  community.2  

Benjamin  contended  that  “there  is  a  law…  perfect  and  true”  but  “we  will  never  know  

it”.  Therefore,  Benjamin’s  challenge  to  us  is  to  accept  this  reality,  the  limitations  of  

                                                                                                               1  See  Adam  Sitze,  The  Impossible  Machine :  A  Genealogy  of  South  Africa’s  Truth  and  2  See  James  R.  Martel,  “The  One  and  Only  Law:  Walter  Benjamin,  Utopianism,  and  the  Second  Commandments.”  In  Law  and  the  Utopian  Imagination,  23-­‐59.  Stanford  University  Press,  2014.    

human   understanding   in   accessing   the   truth   of   the   world.3  Although   Benjamin’s  

legal  theory  is  divergent  from  the  conventional  understanding  of  law,  it  is  markedly  

similar   to   one   non-­‐Western   legal   system,   notably   that   of   the  Nara   (710-­‐794)   and  

Heian  periods  (794-­‐1185)  in  Japan.    

James  Martel   a   prominent   Benjaminian   scholar,   presses   us   to   question   the  

relationship  between   law  and  utopia  and  the  possible  contradictions  at  play  when  

both   concepts   are   integrated.   He   primarily   asks   what   can   be   gleaned   if   law   is  

thought  about  from  the  perspective  of  imagining  societies  and  forms  of  practice  that  

do   not   yet   exist   through   utopian   thought.4  When   both   legal   theory   and   utopian  

thought  are   integrated,  we  are  challenged   to   think  about   the  ways   that  utopia  can  

assist   in   improving   the   human   situation.   For   Martel,   utopian   thought   is   useful  

specifically   because   it   begins   with   a   basic   rejection   of   how   things   conventionally  

operate,  thereby  opening  up  a  whole  host  of  new  possibilities.    

In   this   essay   I   will   examine   the   relationship   between   law   and   utopia   by  

looking   at   four   particular  Buddhist   scriptures:   the  Myoho   renge   kyo   (Sutra   of   the  

Lotus  Blossom  of  the  Fine  Dharma,  better  known  simply  as  the  Hokke  kyo,  the  Lotus  

Sutra),  the  Konkomyo  kyo  (Sutra  of  the  Golden  Light),  the  Ninno  gokoku  hannya  kyo  

(the   Prajnaparamita   Sutra   Explaining   how   Benevolent   Kings   Protect   Their  

Countries,  or  simply,  the  Ninno  kyo)  and  the  Kegon  kyo  or  the  Flower  Garland  Sutra.  

The  former  three  scriptures  are  collectively  known  in  Japan  as  the  “three  sutras  for  

the  protection  of   the   country”  or  Chingo  kokka  kyō   in   Japanese.  However,   all   four  

sutras  were  significant  in  the  scholarship  of  priests  in  the  Nara  and  Heian  periods.                                                                                                                  3  Law  and  Utopian  Imagination,  pp.  24  4  Ibid.  pp.  23  

Mahayana   Buddhist   thought   is   particularly   well   suited   for   examining   this  

relationship   and   its   implications.   Mahayana   Buddhism,   particularly   in   Japanese  

Tendai,   Shingon   and  Zen,   is   devoted   to   the  main   issue   that  Martel   notes   connects  

utopianism   and   the   law   –   that   is,   “how   to   question   what   we   take   as   basic   and  

unchangeable  reality  and,  further,  how  to  act  in  ways  that  are  lawful  and  just  even  

as  we   don’t   have   access   to  what   reality   really   is.”5  I   argue   that   these   sutras   offer  

something   unique   to   our   understanding   of   law   and   utopia.   Namely,   they  

demonstrate  that  it  is  possible  to  abandon  the  conventional  understanding  of  law  as  

a   tool   to   augment   human   self-­‐preservation.   Instead  of   propping  human   life   at   the  

center  of  law  as  the  object  of  preservation,  Japan  under  the  guidance  of  these  sutras  

prioritized   the  preservation  of  Buddhist   teachings.   In  doing  so,  as   is   the  case  with  

Benjaminian  legal  theory,  abandons  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  function  of  

law  within  the  state.  

To  unravel   the  relationship  between   law  and  utopia   in   the  context  of   these  

sutras   it   is   crucial   to  understand   the  underlying   legal   theory   and  utopian   thought  

present  within  the  scriptures.  In  this  essay  I  will  attempt  to  outline  their  legal  theory  

and   determine   sovereign   obligations   according   to   such   a   legal   theory.   I   will   also  

attempt   to   explicate   a   properly   Japanese  Mahayana   sense   of   utopia,  mapping   the  

potential  influence  that  it  can  have  our  understanding  of  legal  theory.  I  maintain  that  

in  the  four  scriptures,  and  Japanese  Mahayana  Buddhism  as  a  whole,  there  is  a  legal  

theory.  This   legal   theory  can  be   reduced   to  one  aim,   the  preservation  of   the   ideas  

taught   by   the  Dharma  King,   the  Buddha.   I   argue   that   utopia   presented  within   the  

                                                                                                               5  Ibid.  pp.  24  

Ninnyo   kyo   and   Japanese   Mahayana   Buddhism,   particularly   in   Zen   and   Shingon,  

emphasizes   that   the   world   is   not   what   it   appears   to   be   (similar   to   Benjamin’s  

understanding  of  idolatry).6  Notions  of  permanence  obstruct  human  understanding  

of   the  world   around   it.   Consequently,   any   “truth”   that  we   see   in   the  world   is   not  

truth  but  a  non-­‐reality  contingent  upon  concepts  of  desire,  self  and  permanence.  To  

escape   these   untruths   means   attaining   enlightenment.   Similar   to   Martel’s  

understanding   of   Benjaminian   reality,   in   Mahayana   Buddhism,   “it   is   we   idolaters  

who  live  in  a  phantasmic  utopia;  reality  itself  can  only  be  dimly  imagined  via  acts  of  

utopian   imagination.” 7  Unlike   Benjamin’s   legal   theory,   which   did   not   find   an  

actualized  place  in  the  formation  of  a  state  legal  system,  the  doctrines  of  the  Chingo  

kokka  kyō  and  the  Kegon  kyo  were  central  in  the  organization  of  the  Japanese  state.  

Other   than   just   the  Heian  and  Nara  periods,  works   such  as  Brian  Victoria’s  Zen  at  

War   and   D.T.   Suzuki’s   seminal   work   Essays   in   Zen   Buddhism   reveal   that   their  

influence  remained  central   in  the  organization  of   law  in   Japanese  society  well   into  

World  War  II.  However,   the  results  were  not  as  one  would   imagine.   Instead  of   the  

formation   of   a  more   perfect   community  with   greater   political   representation   and  

greater   justice,   religion  merely  was  used  as  a   tool   to   justify   imperial   rule.     I   claim  

that   preserving   the   divine   in   the   form   of   Buddhist   doctrine   became   synonymous  

with  preserving  the  state,  obstructing  the  potential  of  the  dharma  (law)  to  be  used  

in   an   unconventional   way.   The   utopian   law   of   Japanese   Mahayana   Buddhism  

                                                                                                               6  For  more  on  Benjamin’s  understanding  of  idolatry  see  James  Martel’s  Textual  Conspiracies:  Walter  Benjamin,  Idolatry  and  Political  Theory.  Ann  Arbor,  Michigan:  University  of  Michigan  Press,  2011.    7  Law  and  Utopian  Imagination,  pp.  25  

reverted   in  practice   to   the  central  aim  of  conventional   law  according   to  Benjamin,  

that  is,  human  and  state  self-­‐preservation.    

By   looking   at   the   sutras   for   the   protection   of   the   country,   in   constellation  

with   Benjamin’s  work,  we   are   given   an   opportunity   to   reflect   on   law   and   utopia.  

These  works   can   push  us   to   imagine   the   implications   of   law   and  utopian   thought  

disconnected  from  some  of  the  “truths”  that  we  believe  come  part  and  parcel  with  

concepts  of   law.  They  present  a  new  vision  of  reality  resting  on  one  absolute,   that  

reality   remains   unknowable   to   mere   humans.   This   vision   attempts   to   usurp   the  

conventional  interpretations  of  law  that  many  view  as  infallible.    

 

 

II.  The  Critique  of  Violence  

 

Before   contemplating   the   four   sutras   it   is   necessarily   to   have   a   grasp   on  

Benjamin’s  understanding  of  conventional  law.  In  the  Critique  of  Violence,  Benjamin  

asks  whether   violence   can   be   used   as   a   “moral  means   even   to   just   ends.”8  As   the  

hypothetical  basis  for  the  study,  positive  law  is  used  because  there  is  a  “fundamental  

distinction   between   kinds   of   violence   [in   positive   law]   independently   of   cases   of  

[its]   application.”   This   distinction   is   between   sanctioned   violence   (violence  

                                                                                                               8  Benjamin,  Walter.  “Critique  of  Violence.”  In  Reflections:  Essays,  Aphorisms,  Autobiographical  Writings,  277–300.  New  York:  Schocken  Books,  2007.    

legitimated   by   the   state   to   uphold   the   law)   and   unsanctioned   violence   (violence  

from  non-­‐state  actors  that  threaten  the  legitimacy  of  the  state).9    

Benjamin’s  study   into  positive   law  reveals   that   the  system  of   legal  coercion  

that   manifests   itself   in   positive   law   takes   up   a   form   similar   to   the   image   of   the  

automaton   in   Theses   of   the   Philosophy   of   History.10  In   this   text   a   chess   machine  

masquerading  as  an  automaton  is  revealed  to  be  controlled  by  a  hunchback  through  

a   series   of   mirrors.   This   image   reflects   Benjamin’s   opinion   that   in   historical  

materialism,  forces  that  are  labeled  as  natural  are  often  shams  controlled  by  human  

intentionality.  Historical  materialism  isolates  a  single  moment  in  the  past  and  holds  

it  exceptionally.  “To  articulate  the  past  historically  does  not  mean  to  recognize  it  the  

way  it  really  was.  It  means  to  seize  hold  of  a  memory  as  it  flashes  up  in  a  moment  of  

danger.”11  This   propping   up   of   the   past   as   the   historical   standard,   this   “seiz[ing]  

hold   of   a  memory”,   good   or   bad,   acts   as   a  means   of   solidifying   the   certainty   that  

guides  the  conventional  understanding  of  the  current  historical  moment.  

Legal  ends  can  only  be  maintained  by  setting   legal  power  as   the  exemplary  

example  of  power  within  the  state.  This  is  comparable  to  Benjamin’s  understanding  

of  the  “storm  of  progress”.  Within  the  storm  a  distinct  moment  in  the  past  is  held  as  

an  exceptional  moment,  trapping  humanity  in  the  coercion  of  fate.  Here  supremacy  

of  legal  power  is  the  “historically  acknowledged”  moment.  Benjamin  notes:  “Indeed,  

it  strives  to  limit  by  legal  ends  even  those  areas  in  which  natural  ends  are  admitted  

in  principle  within  wide  boundaries,  like  that  of  education,  as  soon  as  these  natural                                                                                                                  9  Reflections.  pp.  279  10  Benjamin,  Walter,  Illuminations:  Essays  and  Reflections.  New  York,  Shocken  Books,  1998.  11  Benjamin,  Illuminations.  pp.  255  

ends  are  pursued  with  an  excessive  measure  of  violence,  as   in  the   laws  relating  to  

the  limits  of  educational  authority  to  punish.”12  

The  force  of  legal  coercion  extends  itself  over  all  human  life,  even  in  matters  

with  wide  definitions  of  justifiable  conduct.    “The  act  of  fixing  frontiers”  for  conduct  

yet  to  be  acknowledged  within  state  power  is  key  to  understanding  legal  forces.13  In  

reproducing   the   forces   that   limit  humanity   to  accept  predefined   interpretations  of  

what   can   be   transformed   in   reality,   the   absolute   legal   power   of   the   state,   like  

progress,  takes  the  place  of  the  historical  “origin”  point,  the  exemplary  moment  that  

can   neither   be   escaped   nor   destroyed.   The   power   of   this   moment   is   maintained  

through  a  “monopoly  of  violence”  in  the  hands  of  law.  When  violence  exists  outside  

of  law  it  threatens  the  supremacy  of  legal  ends  over  natural  ends.  As  such,  it  must  be  

internalized   to   such   a   significant   degree   that   external   violence   is   in   essence  

immunized   from   the   state.14  Through   the   threat   of   sanctioned   violence,   legal  

supremacy  is  maintained.  In  other  words,  law  is  preserved  for  no  other  end  than  for  

its  continued  propagation.  This  understanding  of  law  is  important  if  one  is  to  be  able  

to   appreciate   the   contributions   of   the   nation   protecting   sutras   and   their  

jurisprudence.  

 

III.  Aporia  and  the  Emptiness  of  the  Dharma  

                                                                                                               12  Ibid.  13  Reflections,  pp.  296  14  For  more  on  immunity  see  Roberto  Esposito’s  Immunitas:  The  Protection  and  Negation  of  Life.  Polity,  2011.    

Any   jurisprudence   within   these   four   sutras   must   be   compatible   with   the  

fundamentals  of  Mahayana.  The  basis  of  this  doctrine  is  that  interpreting  reality,  as  

it  appears,  causes  suffering  while  truly  understanding  its  nature  leads  to  freedom.15  

Donald   Lopez,   a   preeminent   authority   on   Buddhist   studies   notes   that   within   the  

texts,   to   be   freed   from   suffering   (samsara)   the   belief   in   a   permanent,   indivisible,  

atomistic  self  must  be  abandoned.    He  asserts  that  the  constituents  of  the  “person”  

(body  and  mind)  including  the  five  aggregates  (pleasure,  pain,  etc.)  are  the  effects  of  

past   actions,   the  blossoming  of  karmic   seeds  planted  by  past   action   (virtuous  and  

non-­‐virtuous  deeds).  These  aggregates  comprise  of  only  mere  personhood.  Each  of  

them  is  impermanent,  only  lasting  an  instant.  As  a  result,  nothing  is  with  clinging  to.  

The   most   important   conclusion   to   be   drawn   from   the   impermanence   of   the  

aggregates,   the   mind   and   body   is   that   there   is   no   self.   The   “person”   is   simply   a  

collection   of  mental   and   physical   constituents,   among  which   is   the   process   called  

consciousness.    However,   this  understanding  of   the  self  as  empty   leaves  exposed  a  

critique   of   the   second   step   in   the   dharma’s   legal   theory.   If   the   conventional   self  

should  be  abandoned,  why  do  the  Devas  and  offer  to  preserve  it  by  increasing  salus  

populi?  When   the  sutra   is   read   in  conversation  with  Nagarjuna’s  understanding  of  

the  Middle  Way,  an  answer  emerges.    

  To   understand   the   emptiness   of   all   phenomena   is   to   see   the   truth   in   all.  

Nagarjuna   is  considered  the  major  contributor  to  the  contemporary   interpretation  

of   sunyata   (emptiness).   His   Treatise   on   the   Middle   Way   is   credited   with   the  

                                                                                                               15  For  more  on  the  basics  of  Mahayana  see  Donald  S.  Lopez    Junior’s.  Buddhism:  An  Introduction  and  Guide.  Penguin,  2001.    

formulation   of   an   enlightenment   that   rests   on   dependent   origination   (the  middle  

way  between  privation  and  gratification),  a  term  equated  to  emptiness.    Dependent  

origination  defines  the  self  as  that  which  does  not  depend  on  any  other.  Therefore  

anything   that   exists   autonomously   can   be   said   to   have   “self”.   The   self   that  

masquerades  as  reality  according  to  Nagarjuna  is  ignorance.  Therefore  emptiness  is  

not   necessarily   the   absence   of   existence   but   the   absence   of   a   particular   existence  

that  claims  selfhood.  The  dharma  rejects  all  notions  of  permanence  outside  of  itself.  

Remember,   its   aim   is   not   preservation  of   the   salus  populi   but   the   rejection  of   any  

claims  to  self  outside  of  itself.    

Sunyata   is   stressed   in   many   Mahayana   scriptures   beginning   with   the  

Prajnaparamita  sutras  (such  as  the  Sutra  of  humane  kings  above).  It  transcends  the  

early   position   of   the   “non-­‐self”,   highlighting   that   not   even   charms   have   an  

ontological   permanent   existence   in   their   own   right.16  Emptiness   therefore,   has  

major  emphasis  on  the  relational  aspect  of  existence.  As  a  result  emptiness  becomes  

a  toll  used  to  free  us  from  the  false  notions  that  are  held  as  truth  within  our  minds.  

However,  to  assert  that  all  dharma  are  empty  does  not  mean  that  they  do  not  exist,  

but   instead   identifies   them   as   existences   that   should   not   be   understood   as  

perceivable  objects.17  An  absolute  understanding  of  sunyata  therefore,  would  entail  

the  renunciation  of  a  duality  between  self  and  non-­‐self,  emptiness  and  permanence.  

 

 

                                                                                                                 16  Buddhism:  An  Introduction  and  Guide  17  Ibid.  

III.  The  Law  of  the  Dharma  King  

 

I  will  begin  by  attempting  to  answer  the  question  of  whether  there  is  a  legal  

theory  underlying  the  nation  protecting  sutras.  In  assessing  the  sutras  positive  law  

can   be   found.   But   also   a   religious   legal   theory   is   unearthed   that   opposes   the  

dominant  view  of  early  Buddhist  studies  claiming  that  Buddhism  was  empty  of  an  

understanding  of   law.  The  Buddha  according  to  more  contemporary  scholarship   is  

interpreted  as  a  lawgiver  whose  jurisprudence  is  a  source  of  significant  knowledge.  

The   scriptures   that   I   will   analyze   offer   a   vision   of   law   that   exists   primarily   to  

preserve   and   propagate   the   dharma.   This   vision   exists   in   opposition   to  

manifestations  of   law  that  act  to  supplant  the  individual  desires  of  sovereigns  that  

preserve   selfness   and   permanence.   However,   this   understanding   outlines   that   in  

preserving  the  transcendental  dharma,  individual  and  state  well-­‐being  is  assured.  

In  this  section,   I  will  argue  that   in  these  four  scriptures  the   intrusion  of  the  

dharma   into   positive   law   does   not   separate   it   from   human   interpretation   and  

intervention  but   instead  strives  to  reduce  the   interference  of  sovereign  desire  and  

ultimately  fails.  In  two  steps  law  is  reduced  to  the  sum  of  those  things  that  augment  

the  propagation  of  Buddhism,  legitimating  royal  rule  and  ultimately  reinforcing  the  

hold  of  conventional  truths  instead  of  opposing  them.    

 

 

 

 

The  Sutra  of  Golden  Light  

 

The   obligations   of   the   sovereign   were   most   significantly   discussed   in   the  

Sutra   of   the   Golden   Light.18  This   text   was   indispensable   in   the   solidification   of   a  

Japanese   Buddhist   state   in   the   Nara   and   Heian   periods.   The   sutra   begins   with   a  

summation   of   Buddha’s   life   and   a   pronouncement   of   the   Buddha   as   not   only   a  

historical  figure  with  human  form,  but  also  a  transcendental  one  taking  the  form  of  

absolute  truth  in  the  universe.19  In  the  Sutra  the  Buddha  is  omniscient,  omnipresent  

and  declares  that  enlightenment  is  available  for  all  humanity.  The  sutra  is  a  prajna  

sutra  that  aims  to  disseminate  wisdom  to  all.  It  claims  that  all  people,  from  kings  to  

servants,   are   compelled   to   act   according   to   reason   when   exposed   to   wisdom.   In  

other  words,  wisdom  is  the  means  through  which  enlightenment  occurs.  The  sutra  

specifically   refers   to   the   four  Deva  Kings  who   visited   the  Buddha   to   pay   homage.  

The  Four  Deva  Kings  with  great  humility  addressed  the  Buddha:  

‘Most   Revered   One!   When,   in   some   future   time,   this   Sutra   of   the  Golden  Light   is   transmitted  to  every  part  of  a  kingdom—to  its  cities,  towns,   and   villages,   its  mountains,   forests,   and   fields—if   the   king   of  the  land  listens  with  his  whole  heart  to  these  writings,  praises  them,  and  makes  offerings  on  their  behalf,  and  if  moreover  he  supplies  this  sutra   to   the   four  classes  of  believers,  protects   them,  and  keeps   them  from  all  harm,  we  Deva  Kings,  in  recognition  of  his  deeds,  will  protect  the  king  and  his  people,  give  them  peace  and  freedom  from  suffering,  prolong  their  lives,  and  fill  them  with  glory.20  

 

                                                                                                               18  William  Theodore  De  Bary.  Sources  of  East  Asian  Tradition:  Premodern  Asia.  Columbia  University  Press,  2008.  pp.  673  19  Sources  of  East  Asian  Tradition.  Pp.  674  20  William  Theodore  De  Bary,  Sources  of  Japanese  Tradition:  From  Earliest  Times  through  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Columbia  University  Press,  2001.  Pp.  107    

Here  we  note  that  the  Four  Deva  Kings  promise  the  Buddha  that  when  the  Sutra  is  

transmitted   to   “the   kingdom”,   the   inhabitants   of   the   84,000   cities,   towns   and  

villiages  of  the  world,  through  offerings  and  reverence  to  the  Sutra  of  Golden  Light  

by   their   rulers,   then   the   Deva   Kings   will   preserve   peace,   relieve   suffering   and  

prolong  their  lives.  The  Buddha  replies:  

‘‘Know   ye,   Deva   Kings,   that   the   84,000   rulers   of   the   84,000   cities,  towns,  and  villages  of   the  world  shall   each  enjoy  happiness  of  every  sort  in  his  own  land;  that  they  shall  all  possess  freedom  of  action  and  obtain   all   manner   of   precious   things   in   abundance;   that   they   shall  never   again   invade   each   other’s   territories;   that   they   shall   receive  recompense   in   accordance   with   their   deeds   of   previous   existences;  that  they  shall  no  longer  yield  to  the  evil  desire  of  taking  the  lands  of  others;  that  they  shall  learn  that  the  smaller  their  desires  the  greater  the   blessing;   and   that   they   shall   emancipate   themselves   from   the  suffering  of  warfare  and  bondage.  The  people  of   their   lands   shall  be  joyous,   and   upper   and   lower   classes  will   blend   as   smoothly   as  milk  and  water.  They  shall  appreciate  each  other’s  feelings,  join  happily  in  diversions   together,   and,  with   all   compassion  and  modesty,   increase  the  sources  of  goodness.”21  

 The   Golden   Light   Sutra   challenges   the   sovereigns   of   the   world   to   substitute  

conventional  desires  for  self  and  state  preservation  for  transmission  of  the  Golden  

Light.  Yet,  by  abandoning   the   immediate  desire   to  preserve   the  self,   comforts   that  

come   with   the   preservation   of   the   self   happen   to   be   augmented   as   well.   This  

doctrine’s   legal   theory   can   be   boiled   down   to   one   aim,   preservation   of   the   self  

through   the   prioritization   of   the   dharma   (law).  Unlike  Western   law,   the   dharma’s  

focus  isn’t  to  accrue  the  maximum  health  and  safety  of  citizens  of  the  state,  neither  

is   it   to  preserve   the  state  or  positive   law  as   the  central  arbiter  of   justice  within   it.  

Here  the  primary  aim  of  the  dharma  is  to  the  end  the  suffering  of  all  sentient  beings  

through  self-­‐sacrifice.                                                                                                                      21  Sources  of  Japanese  Tradition.  pp.  107  

  The  dharma  also  emphasizes  equality  through  non-­‐differentiation  as  a  means  

of   not   only   enlightenment,   but   also   social   liberation.   Kings   and   servants   alike   are  

compelled  to  obey  the  golden  light  of  reason.  The  absence  of  differentiation  in  this  

dharma  was  understood  as  universal  and  as  such  the  sovereign  who  disobeyed  the  

Law   would   be   punished   equal   to   that   of   any   citizen.22  This   light   of   the   dharma  

imbues  wisdom  providing  the  means  through  which  individuals  (and  the  state)  are  

able  to  achieve  wisdom’s  highest  expression,  self-­‐sacrifice.    The  text  climaxes  with  a  

parable  in  which  the  Buddha  demonstrates  self-­‐sacrifice  in  form  of  offering  his  life  

to   feed   a   hungry   tiger.23  Here,   the   sutra   expounds   renunciation   of   the   self   and  

rejection   of   immediate   self-­‐preservation   for   the   preservation   of   others   as   the  

highest  virtue.  

When  Tenmu  seized  the  throne  in  672,  this  sutra  was  significant  in  his  efforts  

to   propagate   Buddhism.   Tenmu   understood   the   scripture   as   promoting   a   form   of  

kingship  contingent  on  divine  right,   instead  of  mere   lineage.24  This  divine  right   for  

Tenmu   was   based   on   the   sovereign’s   accruement   of   religious   merit   instead   of  

genetics.   Due   to   this   merit,   the   realm   would   enjoy   peace   and   harmony   from   the  

spread  of   the  dharma  and   its  spillover   influence  on  public  morality.25  The  political  

aspects   of   this   sutra   were   interpreted   to   promote   the   state   and   religion  

simultaneously,   and  were  very  appealing   to   rulers  during   the  Nara  period  despite  

the   rejection   of   a   traditional   importance   of   lineage.26  Later,   the   sutra   was   widely  

                                                                                                               22  Ibid.  pp.  103  23  Ibid.  pp.  104  24  Ibid.  pp.  105  25  Ibid.  pp.  106  26  Ibid.  

distributed   in  all   the  provinces   in  741  by  Emperor  Shomu  and  became  one  of   the  

major  instruments  of  state  ideology.27  

 

 

The  Flower  Garland  Sutra  

The  Flower  Garland  Sutra  or  the  Kegon  Sutra  is  one  of  the  least  understood  

of   the   political   sutras.   It   is   claimed   that   it   was   preached   as   a   sermon   when   the  

Buddha  made   no   attempt   to   simplify   the   dharma   for   those  without   the   ability   to  

immediately   understand   it.   This   difficulty   is   often   held   as   the   reason   for   it   not  

attaining  the  prominence  of  the  Sutra  of  the  Golden  Light.28  However,  this  sutra  was  

incredibly   influential   for   the  understanding  of   law   in   the  Nara   and  Heian  periods.  

Dependent  origination   is   the   term   that  most   concretely  expresses   the  overarching  

teaching  of   this  dharma,  which   is   to  recognize  the   interdependence  of  all   things.  29  

The   recognition   of   this   dependence   produces   an   understanding   of   differentiation  

within  the  elements  of  the  universe.  

In   the   sutra   a   Buddhist   state   is   described   that   reinforces   the   universal  

diversity   present   within   human   expression.   As   a   result,   the   Kegon   pronounces   a  

significantly  more  decentralized   state  as  was  described   in   the  Sutra  of   the  Golden  

Light.   This  maxim  of   interdependence   is   the   glue   that   ties   together   the  myriad   of  

cultures   present  within   this   state   sowing   the   seeds   for   hierarchies,   egalitarianism  

and  diversity  to  exist.  

                                                                                                               27  Ibid.  pp.  105  28  Ibid.  pp.  108  29  Ibid.  

The  final  section  of  the  sutra  describes  the  pilgrimage  of  Sudhana,  a  traveler  

who  shares  the  dharma  of  the  Flower  Garland  with  those  that  he  encountered.  That  

is   until   invited   by   the  Buddha  Maitreya   into   Great   Tower   of   Vairocana.   The   sutra  

explains  that  this  tower  is  the  place  where  the  interdependence  of  all  things  in  the  

cosmos  could  be  observed.  The  tower  is  the  place  where  all  Buddhas  live  amicably,  

as  such;  it  is  the  location  where  a  single  kalpa  permeates  all  kalpas  without  losing  its  

personality  and  uniqueness:  

This  is  the  place  [The  Tower  of  Vairocana]  where  all  the  buddhas  live  peacefully.  This  is  the  dwelling  place  where  a  single  eon  permeates  all  eons  and  all  eons  permeate  one  eon  without   loss  of  any  of   their  own  characteristics.  This  is  the  dwelling  place  where  one  land  permeates  all  lands  and  all  lands  permeate  one  land  without  loss  of  any  of  their  own  characteristics.   This   is   the   dwelling   place   where   one   sentient   being  permeates   all   sentient   beings   and   all   sentient   beings   permeate   one  sentient  being  without  loss  of  any  of  their  own  characteristics.  This  is  the   dwelling   place  where   one   buddha   permeates   all   buddhas   and   all  buddhas   permeate   one   buddha   without   loss   of   their   own  characteristics.30        

Simultaneously,  the  tower  is  also  described  as  the  place  where  a  single  instance  of  

thought   is   simultaneously   understood,   without   respect   of   its   origin   in   time   and  

space.   Consequently,   this   description   of   the   tower   presents   a   more   radical  

interpretation   of   legal   understanding   and   the   historical  moment.   Each  moment   in  

time  or  space  is  citable  with  respect  to  any  other.  Since  one  moment  exists  in  all,  the  

possibilities  for  revision  are  infinite.    

This   is   the  dwelling  place  where   in   a   single  moment   of   thought   one  can  travel  to  all  countries.  This  is  the  dwelling  place  where  all  sentient  beings  manifest   all   of   their   prior   lives.   This   is   the   dwelling   place   of  concern  for  the  benefit  of  everyone  in  the  world.  This  is  the  dwelling  place  of   those  who   can   go   everywhere.  This   is   the  dwelling  place  of  

                                                                                                               30  Ibid.  pp.  109  

those   who   are   detached   from   the   world   and   yet   constantly   remain  there  to  teach  other  people.31    

The   exemplary   historical   and   jurisprudential   moment   that   colors   Benjamin’s  

understanding   of   conventional   law   can   be   escaped   according   to   the   sutra’s  

invocation  of  the  Tower  of  Vairocana.  The  storm  of  progress,  the  presence  of  law  or  

a  moment  of  history  as   the  archetype   from  which   future  progress   is  based  can  be  

usurped.  Time  and  space  are  understood  as  fully  citable  moments  without  respect  to  

chronology   and   can   be   used   by   the   enlightened   to   spur   others.   This   is   similar   to  

Benjamin’s   description   of   a   constellation,   a   non-­‐chronological   time   that   does   not  

exist   as   “beads   on   a   rosary”   and   but   where   each   era   can   be   grasped   to   form   a  

relationship  with   another   past,   present   or   future.   These   discrete  moments   do  not  

have   to   be   immediately   connected   spatially   or   temporally.   They   can   be   even   be  

“separated  by  thousands  of  years.”32  

  The   final   sentence   in   the   referenced   excerpt   of   the   sutra   suggests   that   this  

perfect  realm  of  Buddhahood  exists   in   the  current  world   if  understood  absolutely.  

To   obtain   this   absolute   understanding   sovereigns   must   “turn   the   wheel   of   the  

dharma”   throughout   the   land.   The   Flower   Garland   Sutra   in   this   regard,   although  

containing  the  seeds  for  a  revisable  reinterpretation  of  law  and  time,  also  appealed  

to  a  religious  ideal  that  echoed  the  dominant  state  ideology  that  desired  unification  

and   stability.   Emperor   Shomu  was   very   attracted   to   this   particular   text   especially  

during   the  Nara   Period,   a   time  where   the   clergy   and   landed   gentry  were   often   in  

                                                                                                               31  Ibid.  32  Benjamin,  Illuminations.  pp.  263  

conflict.33  The   construction   of   the   Great   Buddha   was   developed   with   this   sutra  

particular   in   mind.   The   Great   Buddha   was   a   means   of   accruing   harmony   and  

prosperity   for   the   state   and   its   subjects.   There   was   no   mention   is   made   of   the  

material  or  spiritual  welfare  of  the  great  aristocratic  families  in  the  decree  ordering  

the  construction  of  the  Great  Buddha.  What  was  emphasized  instead  is  the  fruit  of  

cooperation   on   the   part   of   all   devout   Buddhists,   a   project   carried   out   not   only  

through   imperial   and   aristocratic   patronage   but   also   through   the   labors   of   the  

humblest  peasant.  Buddhism  became   interpreted  as  a  means   through  which  merit  

could   be   accrued   through   religious   work,   trickling   from   the   emperor   to   the  

everyman  equally  for  the  purpose  of  enlightenment.34  

 

The  Lotus  Sutra  

The   Sutra   on   the  White   Lotus   of   the   Sublime  Dharma   is   perhaps   the  most  

influential   sutras   in   all   of   the   Mahayana   tradition.   The   text   has   been   used   as   a  

political   tool   for   maintaining   the   dominant   state   ideology,   however;   in   the   20th  

century   in   particular,   the   text   was   interpreted   as   a   template   for   subverting   the  

status   quo.   James   Shields   claims   that   the   sutra   has   been   embedded   in   a   political  

struggle   as   it   has  been  used   to   authorize   competing   claims   for   sovereignty  within  

traditionally   Buddhist   understandings   of   the   institutional   structures.35  For   the  

                                                                                                               33  Kasahara,  Kazuō,  Paul  McCarthy,  and  Gaynor  Sekimori.  A  History  of  Japanese  Religion.  Kosei  Pub.  2001,  pp.  67  34  Hall,  John  Whitney.  The  Cambridge  History  of  Japan.  Cambridge  University  Press,  1993.  pp.  46-­‐7  35  James  Shields,  “Political  Interpretations  of  the  Lotus  Sutra.”  Accessed  December  1,  2014.  https://www.academia.edu/5561693/Political_Interpretations_of_the_Lotus_Sutra.  

Tendai   and   Nichiren   sects   of   Mahayana,   the   Lotus   Sutra   is   the   primary   test  

supporting   the   respective  doctrines.  The  appeal  of   the  Lotus  Sutra   comes   from   its  

twin  promise  of  universality  through  the  acceptance  of  a  variety  of  paths  to  the  way  

and  a   single  absolute   law   that  exists   to  protect   those  who  subscribe   to   it   and  will  

punish   those   who   don't.   Shields   claims   that   the   Sutra   is   at   once   inclusive   and  

exclusive,  a  tension  that  presents  itself  in  many  of  the  conflicts  over  interpretation.  

Before  Tendai  and  Nichiren,  the  Lotus  Sutra  was  understood  as  having  the  potential  

to  protect   the  spiritual  authority  of   the   imperial   family  and   the  realm.  The  debate  

surrounding   the   Lotus   sutra   relates   to   its   ability   to   be   used   to   preserve   the   sixth  

century  court  of  the  Japanese  empire.  From  then  monasteries  were  created  with  the  

express  purpose  of  reciting  the  sutra.    

Daniel   Boscaljon   highlights   the   utopian   vision   present   within   the   Lotus  

Sutra’s  image  of  the  jojakkodo,  a  radiant  land  of  eternal  tranquility  that  houses  the  

Buddha  and  all  of  the  buddha  lands.36  In  the  description  in  the  Lotus  Sutra,  this  pure  

land   besides   having   the   traditional   features   of   most   pure   lands   (crystal   roads,  

perfectly  flat  topology,  joy  in  all  inhabitants)  the  roads  of  the  land  are  crisscrossed  

in   eight   directions,   marked   by   golden   ropes.   Boscaljon   notes   this   feature   as  

especially  important  because  of  the  symbol  of  the  eight-­‐spoked  wheel  represent  the  

dharma.  The  spokes  illustrate  the  way  that  the  law,  “radiating  from  the  enlightened  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           36  Melissa  Anne-­‐Marie  Curley,  “Fruit,  Fossils,  Footprints:  Cathecting  Utopia  in  the  Work  of  Miyazawa  Kenji”  in  Hope  and  the  Longing  for  Utopia:  Futures  and  Illusions  in  Theology  and  Narrative.  Wipf  and  Stock  Publishers,  2014.  

body  that  established  itself  at  the  center”,  guides  the  jojakkodo.37  Our  current  world  

is  devoid  of  such  features  according  to  the  sutra  and  that  the  Buddha  arranges  visits  

to   it   from  other  buddhas  by   “swapping  out   the  bad  place   for   the  good  place”.  The  

Buddha  notes:  

The   saha   world   thereupon   immediately   changed   into   a   place   of  cleanness   and   purity.   The   ground  was  made   of   lapis   lazuli,   jeweled  trees   adorned   it,   and   ropes   of   gold   marked   off   the   eight   highways.  There   were   no   villages,   towns   or   cities,   great   seas   or   rivers,  mountains,  streams  or  forests.  …  the  members  of  this  assembly  alone  were   gathered   there,   all   heavenly   and   human   beings   having   been  moved  to  another  region.38    

This  description  although  appearing  to  reinforce  the  duality  between  this  world  and  

ours   ultimately   aims   to   usurp   such   distinctions.   The   jojakkodo   is   revealed   to   be  

already  present  within  our  world.  Later   in   the   text,   the  Buddha  explains  explicitly  

that   the   suffering   that   exists   in   this   world   is   a   fantasy   and   that   if   it   perceived  

correctly,  our  world  is  a  pure  land.39    

The   one   law   of   this   immanent   utopia   can   be   reduced   to:   freedom   from  

suffering  exists   in   an  absolute   interpretation  of   reality.  The  presence  of   the   eight-­‐

spoked  wheel  at  the  center  of  this  jojakkodo  means  the  presence  of  this  dharma  at  

the   center  of   the  world.  Boscaljon  noting  Tanaka  explains   that   the   transformation  

from  the  conventional  understanding  of  reality  to  the  absolute  can  only  take  place  

with  “the  harmony  of  imperial  law  and  Buddhist  in  Japan  (the  center  of  the  world),  

the  construction  of  a  seat  of  authority   from  which   law  will  be  disseminated  at   the  

base  of  Mount  Fuji  (the  center  of  Japan),  and  the  subsequent  spread  of  the  Buddhist                                                                                                                  37  Hope  and  the  Longing  for  Utopia:  Futures  and  Illusions  in  Theology  and  Narrative.  pp.  99  38  Ibid.  39  Ibid.  pp.  100  

law   from   this   epicenter   to   the   eight   centers   of   the   earth   …   [resulting   in]   the  

unification  of   the  world.”40  This   law  radiates  outward   to   the  world  by  establishing  

peace   from   a   stable   state   center.   This   utopian   vision   of   the   law   according   to   the  

Lotus   Sutra   is   uncompromisingly   totalitarian,  with   Japan   assuming   the   role   of   the  

enlightened  state  in  the  center.    

 

The  Sutra  for  Humane  Kings  

The   Scripture   for   Humane   Kings   was   pivotal   in   the   construction   of   a  

Buddhism  that  was  overtly   imperial   in   its  discourses  and  aims.41 Bukong  Jingang’s  

translation   of   the   scripture   integrated   Buddhist   and   earlier   Chinese   notions   of  

divine  sovereignty  by  emphasizing  the  notion  of  emptiness.  Disseminated  to   Japan  

in   the   ninth   century,   this   imperial   Buddhist   discourse   served   as   a   foundation   of  

Kukai's  Shingon  interpretation  of  the  role  of  the  sovereign.42    

The  text  is  directed  to  the  rulers  during  the  age  of  the  decline  of  the  dharma.  

The  Buddha  told  King  Prasenajit:  

"I  warn  you  and   the  others,   that   after  my  extinction   in   eighty  years,  eight   hundred   years   and   eight   thousand   years,   when   there   is   no  Buddha,  no  Teaching,  no  Community,  no  male  or  female  lay  devotees,  this   scripture's   three   jewels   will   be   entrusted   to   all   the   kings   of  states."43      

The  Buddha  then  goes  on  to  lay  blame  for  the  age  of  decline  on  the  kings:  

                                                                                                               40  Ibid.  pp.  101  41  Orzech,  Charles  D.  “Metaphor,  Translation,  and  the  Construction  of  Kingship  in  The  Scripture  for  Humane  Kings  and  the  Mahāmāyūrī  Vidyārājñī  Sūtra.”  Cahiers  d’Extrême-­‐Asie  13,  no.  1  (2002):  55–83.  doi:10.3406/asie.2002.1177.i  war  42  Cahiers  d’Extrême-­‐Asie.  pp.  58  43  Ibid.  pp.  64  

After   the   five   turbulent   eras   bhiksu,   bhiksum,   the   four   classes   of  disciples,  the  heavenly  dragons  and  all  of  the  eight-­‐fold  spirit-­‐kings,  the  kings  of  states,  the  great  officers,  the  heirs  apparent  and  princes  will  be  haughty   [and   hold   themselves   in]   great   esteem   and   extinguish   and  smash  my  Teaching.  Openly  making  laws  to  control  my  disciples  —  the  bhiksu  and  bhiksum  —  they  will  not  permit  people  to  leave  the  family  to   practice   the  Way,   and   further   they   will   not   permit   the  making   of  Buddhist  images.44      

Here   the   Buddha   attributes   the   rulers’   desires   for   selfness   as   the  means   through  

which   the  dharma  becomes  extinguished   in   the  world.  By   creating   laws   that   stifle  

the  freedom  of  the  sangha  (the  monastic  community)  to  propagate  the  dharma  the  

age  of  decline  hastens.  The  Buddha  highlights  some  of  the  specific   laws  that  states  

will   use   to   restrict   the   sangha.   They   include:   the   creation   of   superintendents   to  

register  monks,  withholding  individual  rights  to  leave  the  sangha  and  preventing  the  

making  of  images  of  the  Buddha.  The  former  two  of  these  predictions  came  to  pass  

within  the  Nara  and  Heian  periods,  while  the  latter  took  place  within  the  Meiji  era.    

  In  essence,  the  sutra  preaches  that  sovereigns  have  an  obligation  to  protect  

the   sangha   and   propagate   the   dharma.   If   rulers   revere   the   independence   of   the  

sangha   then   “supernormal  assistance   is  dispatched   in   the   form  of   five  greatpower  

bodhisattvas.”45  The  sutra  also  introduces  the  notion  that  the  humane  king  is  on  the  

bodhisattva  path.  These  kings  are  referenced  as  “womb  of  the  sages”  because  their  

acts  of  piety  represent  their  place  on  the  bodhisattva  path.    The  kings  who  have  the  

will  to  leave  the  womb  will  “transform  the  people  in  their  lands.”46  Also,  this  king  is  

forbearing,  meaning   that   the  king  when  hearing  good  or  bad  news   is  not  quick   to  

emotion  but  patient  and  acts  on  reason  alone.                                                                                                                    44  Ibid.  45  Ibid.  pp.  65  46  Ibid.  pp.  67  

In  contrast  to  the  view  that  Buddhism  solely  serves  the  state,  the  sutra  posits  

that   the   state   and   Buddhism   obtain   mutual   benefit   by   cooperating.   Since   the  

humane  king  propagates  the  dharma  he  is     ‘‘humane”  and  because  he  has  emerged  

transformed   out   of   the   womb   he   has   transformed   himself   and   become   king.47  

According  to  the  text,  “The  humane  king’s  ability  is  to  protect.  What  is  protected  is  

the  state.  This  is  possible  because  the  humane  king  uses  the  Teaching  to  order  the  

state…    The  humane  king  is  he  who  is  protected.  Because  he  uses  the  Highest  Perfect  

Wisdom,   the   humane   king   is   tranquil   and   hidden.   Thus,   if   he   uses   his   ability   to  

propagate  the  Teaching,  the  king  is  able  to  protect  [the  state],  and  it  is  the  Highest  

Perfect  Wisdom  which  is  the  [method  of]  protection.”48  

 

V.  The  Four  Sutras  in  Conclusion:  The  jurisprudence  of  the  dharma  

When  these  four  sutras  are  read  in  constellation,  that  is,  without  reverence  to  

their   respective   spatial   and   temporal   contexts,   an   underlying   jurisprudence   is  

revealed.   This   jurisprudence   can  be   boiled  down   to   one   law  with   the   potential   to  

manifest  itself  in  two  steps.  A  law  that  at  once  immediately  requires  abandoning  the  

notion  of  self-­‐preservation  in  preference  for  propagating  the  dharma.  This  aspect  of  

the   law   instead  emphasizes  self-­‐sacrifice.  By  preserving   the  dharma   instead  of   the  

self,   the   well-­‐being   of   the   state   and   its   citizens   is   inadvertently   maintained.  

Ultimately,   this   well-­‐being   has   the   potential   to   spur   the   enlightenment   of   other  

states  if  lead  by  a  stable  center.  The  second  step  of  this  law  involves  the  potential  of  

this  decentralization  to   lead  to   totalitarianism.  This   totalitarianism  manifests   itself                                                                                                                  47  Ibid.  48  Sources  of  Japanese  Tradition.  pp.  112  

in  the  basic  anxiety  of  exclusivity  that  exists  with  the  interpretation  of  these  sutras  

since  the  Nara  period.    

The  Golden  Light  Sutra,  Lotus  Sutra  and  Sutra  for  Humane  Kings  in  particular  

emphasize   this   vision   of   the   law.   The   substitution   of   conventional   desires   for   the  

preservation  of   the  dharma  is  of  particular  relevance.  All   four  sutras  also  press  an  

immanent  vision  of  absolute  reality  within  this  world.    

A   renunciation   of   duality   is   key   in   this   presentation   of   this   jurisprudence.  

Selfness   and   impermanence,   conventional   and   absolute   reality,   are   a   few   of   the  

dualities  that  have  to  be  overcome  for  an  understanding  of  this  jurisprudence.  The  

contradictions   that   exist   with   such   a   radical   reinterpretation   of   law   and   its  

manifestations  in  the  forms  of  the  perpetuation  of  the  status  quo  and  dominant  state  

ideology  are  only  apparent.  The  state  and  sovereign  enlightenment  that  these  texts  

describe   must   be   contingent   upon   a   pharmacological   understanding   of   these  

concepts.49  Just  as   too  much  of  a   cure  can  become  a  poison  and  vice-­‐versa,   so   can  

this   jurisprudence   can   be   used   within   the   political.   At   once   it   can   be   used   to  

decentralize  the  power  of  the  sovereign  at  the  heart  of  state  political  organization,  

and  can  it  also  prop  up  self-­‐preservation  and  the  state  as  well.  This  jurisprudence  is  

radical   as   it   provides   the   theoretical   (and   theological)   tools   to   usurp   prolonged  

stagnancy  and  the  potential  to  facilitate  radical  democracy.  

 

 

                                                                                                               49  For  more  on  the  Pharmakon  read  Derrida’s  chapter  “Plato’s  Pharmacy”  in  Dissemination.  A&C  Black,  2004.