Juxtaposition

"Only the method of which we speak allows us to go beyond idealism as well as realism, to affirm the existence of objects inferior and superior to us, while at the same time in a certain sense interior to us, to make them coexist together without difficulty

(Henri Bergson, L'evolution Créatrice 86).

"Since such is its fundamental reason, we must study and learn that myriad phenomena and numberless grasses [things] exist over the entire earth, and each of the grasses and each of the forms exists as the entire earth. These comings and goings are the commencement of Buddhist practice. When you have arrived within this field of suchness, it is a single grass, a single form. The forms are understood and not understood, the grasses are grasped and not grasped... Entire being, the entire world, exists in the time of each and every now. Just reflect: right now, is there an entire being or an entire world missing from your present time, or not?

(Dōgen, "Uji" The Heart of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō 49-50).
0 Comments

"Seishinshugi" Lecture 2

In this second lecture, (really part two of the first lecture) Soga Ryojin asks the question, "What is Spiritualism?" Spiritualism here refers to Kiyozawa Manshi's Seishinshugi (精神主義) movement, which was committed to view the world from the standpoint of Shinshu Buddhist faith. At its core, Seishinshugi refuses to denigrate so-called "worldly truth" (俗諦) in favor of "ultimate truth" (真諦), arguing that as far as Shinshu is concerned, worldly truth flows out of ultimate truth, and in its most honest manifestation leads the practitioner to realize the bankruptcy of the jiriki path (loosely identified with a religious or ethical morality).

So what is Kiyozawa Manshi's spiritualism? Soga says,

精神主義は、自家一自分、自己の精神、心の中に満足を求めるものである...やはり心を開いて、眼を開いて、そうしてこの天地万物というものを、上手に利用する...自分は閉鎖主義を唱える者ではない。自分は四面開放の眼を常に開いている者である、と...大体"精神主義”というのは外物を追うたり、他人に服従したりして、自主自由を失うて煩悶していると、そういうことをしない。そういうことを避けるのが、“精神主義”である...精神主義が外物や他人と縁をきって、自分だけの閉鎖主義でいく、と、そういうものでもない。やはりこう、広く他人と交際し、また広く外物を学ぶ、学問もし、外物をたくみに利用していく、と...こういうのが精神主義の目的とするところである(37-38)。


Spiritualism is, seeking to be fully satisfied within one's own home, one's individual self, one's heart, one's spirit... That is, to open one's heart, open one's eyes, and by so doing, skillfully use all that is in heaven and on earth..."You (the spiritualist) are not one that urges/preaches exclusivism. You are one whose eyes are constantly opened to all directions and possibilities" he says... Basically, "Spiritualism" is not chasing after external things, or, having submitted oneself to others being worried about the loss of our independence and freedom. Escaping/evading of all that sort of thing is what "Spiritualism" is..."Spiritualism is cutting one's (karmic) ties to external things and to other people and going one's own way" is not it either. In the end, socializing with a broad range of people, learning about a wide range of external things, even academic study of them, to skillfully and cleverly make use of external things... it is in just this that the aim of Spiritualism is to be found.


So according to Soga, Kiyozawa's Spiritualism involved a broad range of activities ranging from social discourse, to academic study, and even to perhaps a kind of scientific engagement with the world around us. In other words, becoming a more authentic spiritual being does not mean retreating into an inner world cut off from the things and people around us, but instead being more open and engaged; opening our eyes, quite literally, in all directions. There's an interesting lesson in this because I feel that for many, religious or spiritual practice has become identified with cutting oneself off from everything not seen as "spiritual."

What Kiyozawa seems to be arguing is that making distinctions between what is "spiritual" and what is "profane" is another kind of
jiriki practice based on the belief that worldly truth is diametrically opposed to ultimate truth. In fact, the two truths theory means precisely that both terms are truths: not that one is false and the other real. Given that fact, living out worldly truth does not mean blindly chasing after material possessions or submitting to every whim, but being satisfied within one's self, and being actively interested and engaged in others and the world around us.

In the next excerpt, we'll see what Soga says about the relationship of Spiritualism to Idealism, Kant, and self-realization..
0 Comments

"Self Realization" Lecture 1

Today I would like continue with this first lecture from "Salvation By Other Power," skipping ahead to his discussion about Amida's "directing of virtue" or eko 「廻向」. As we will see in the following passage, Soga links the directing of virtue to the nembutsu, to shinjin, and then interestingly, to "self realization" or jikaku 「自覚」.

The Digital Dictionary of Buddhism notes that "self realization" is one of the three kinds of enlightenment; the other two being "realization for others" and "complete and perfect realization." Self realization, the entry says, is an arhat's realization, the second a bodhisattva's, and a Buddha's realization encompasses all three.

この如来の廻向ということですね。ただ如来の廻向と、ただ漠然として如来の廻向と。そうでなしに、お念仏が如来の廻向だ、如来の廻向はお念仏。南無阿弥陀仏が如来の廻向だ。ただ如来廻向、そういうことでない。お念仏が如来の廻向、そうですね。お念仏という、そういうものを一つ押さえて、これが如来廻向と、これが廻向であるということは、これは信心といいます。(18)


So, about this phrase "Buddha's directing of virtue," (some say) "It's just a Buddha's directing of virtue," or, "It's just a vague expression about directing of virtue." That's not the case at all; the nembutsu is directing of virtue, and directing of virtue is the nembutsu. (Saying) "Namu Amida Butsu" is directing of virtue. This is not any ordinary "Buddha's directing of virtue." Now, about the nembutsu being the directing of virtue, or the Buddha's directing of virtue, putting it simply, it is shinjin.



So far, Soga Ryojin is elaborating on Shinran's own argument about birth in the Pure Land through the nembutsu: namely that the conditions for that birth were fulfilled by Amida (in his causal stage as a bodhisattva) and that those 'roots of good' are directed to us foolish beings through the nembutsu, and consequently, in shinjin.

信心の自覚といいましょう。信心は自覚です。自覚の信というものによって、はじめてこの如来の廻向、南無阿弥陀仏が如来の廻向であるということが、はじめて明らかに、身をもって証明することができるのである、そういうわけであります。(18)


Or perhaps I should say, it is the self realization of shinjin: shinjin is self realization. The reason that from the outset, through the entrusting facet of self realization the "Buddha's directing of virtue," and "The nembutsu is the Buddha's directing of virtue," is clear to us is because it can be verified in our own bodies.



Wow. This is just such a hard hitting statement! It's clear that this is Soga Ryojin's unpacking of the implications of the directing of virtue. I think it can be summarized in this way -- Shinran argues that the cause of our rebirth and assured enlightenment is through Amida's directing of virtue. Now, because enlightenment is transformative, there has to be some sign, or trace, of that change. However, because we are foolish beings who are assured of rebirth while still stuck in samsara, the "clear witness within" as the DDB puts it speaks to us from our embodied experience as we realize shinjin.

So for us foolish beings, enlightenment is not accompanied by signs and wonders but witnesses to us from within our lived existence.

自分自身が、自分自身の、身をもって、心をもって、身と心の一切をもって証明する。それが自覚の証明というものでありましょう。(19)


We can, we with our bodies, and with our hearts; with our hearts and bodies as one verify this. This, surely, is the verification of our "self realization."

0 Comments

"Clouds and Mists"

While searching for something else entirely in the wonderful keyword-searchable (!) electronic edition of the Shinshu Seiten (真宗聖典), I came across what might be the original source of Kiyozawa Manshi’s evocative image of light and dark; being covered over and being illuminated by the light of the Vow...

如来、世に興出したまうゆえは、ただ弥陀本願海を説かんとなり。五濁悪時の群生海、如来如実の言を信ずべし。よく一念喜愛の心を発すれば、煩悩を断ぜずして涅槃を得るなり。凡聖、逆謗、ひとしく回入すれば、衆水、海に入りて一味なるがごとし。摂取の心光、常に照護したまう。すでによく無明の闇を破すといえども、貪愛・瞋憎の雲霧、常に真実信心の天に覆えり。たとえば、日光の雲霧に覆わるれども、雲霧の下、明らかにして闇きことなきがごとし。信を獲れば見て敬い大きに慶喜せん、すなわち横に五悪趣を超截す。一切善悪の凡夫人、如来の弘誓願を聞信すれば、仏、広大勝解の者と言えり。この人を分陀利華と名づく。弥陀仏の本願念仏は、邪見憍慢の悪衆生、信楽受持すること、はなはだもって難し。難の中の難、これに過ぎたるはなし


Sakyamuni Tathagata appeared in this world Solely to teach the ocean-like Primal Vow of Amida; We, an ocean of beings in an evil age of five defilements, Should entrust ourselves to the Tathagata's words of truth.When the one thought-moment of joy arises, Nirvana is attained without severing blind passions; When ignorant and wise, even grave offenders and slanders of the dharma, all alike turn and enter shinjin, They are like waters that, on entering the ocean, become one in taste with it.The light of compassion that grasps us illumines and protects us always; The darkness of our ignorance is already broken through; Still the clouds and mists of greed and desire, anger and hatred, Cover as always the sky of true and real shinjin.But though light of the sun is veiled by clouds and mists, Beneath the clouds and mists there is brightness, not dark. When one realizes shinjin, seeing and revering and attaining great joy, One immediately leaps crosswise, closing off the five evil courses.All foolish beings, whether good or evil, When they hear and entrust to Amida's universal Vow, Are praised by the Buddha as people of vast and excellent understanding; Such a person is called a pure white lotus.For evil sentient beings of wrong views and arrogance, The nembutsu that embodies Amida's Primal Vow Is hard to accept in shinjin; This most difficult of difficulties, nothing surpasses.


“Hymn of True Shinjin and the Nembutsu” KGSS II:101-102

I have always wondered about this last passage - what does it mean to say that in shinjin the nembutsu is "hard to accept"? The Japanese is 信楽受持すること、はなはだもって難し。The subjectivity here is a little vague as it is not evidentially clear whether it is the "evil sentient beings" who are the subject of 信楽受持すること or whether it is the nembutsu (taken as a subject) which finds the accepting difficult...From a quick glance at the grammar it seems that the difficulty is on the end of the Vow, not on the part of us "evil sentient beings."

And another thing, "shinjin" here is being used to translate shingyo (信楽). I like to render it as "entrusting with joy" but if you look up this phrase in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism you get: "faith as joy," "confidence," "without a doubt," and "seeking the bliss of enlightenment," all of which have affective shades of meaning that are not found in the phrase shinjin 信心. (There is yet a third phrase that gets translated as "shinjin" in the Collected Works, but that's a topic for another day.)

I am sure that Shinran, being the careful man that he was, would use the same kinds of characters to render the same sorts of ideas consistently through a text - especially for such a crucial term as shinjin. Which leads me to think that another way of reading what Shinran is trying to say here is that what is difficult to (literally), "receive and hold on to" is entrusting with joy.

Given that one of the meanings of juji 受持 is receiving or keeping the Buddha's teaching, and that the previous stanza praises those who hear and entrust themselves to the Vow, it would be a strange reversal in the next breath to say such an act is "the most difficult of difficulties."

Unless of course, it hinges on a distinction between "foolish beings" and "evil sentient beings"...
0 Comments

On Salvation and Repentance

新年明けましておめでとうございます!今年もよろしくお願い致します。

Happy New Year of the Tiger everyone!

Speaking of tigers, before returning to translating excerpts from “Salvation by Other Power,” I think we should pause to think a little bit about what salvation and repentance might mean for Shin Buddhists.

I think it is safe to say that the these terms have a different valence for Shin Buddhists than for those of other religions. Given the different end goals for each religion, this should not be anything surprising -- in fact it’s just a necessary consequence of a religion’s development.

As such, salvation for Shinran meant being grasped by the working of Amida’s Vow such that his birth in the Pure Land was assured. Having attained the state of what is variously described as “equal to Maitreya,” “rightly assured,” or the “stage of non-retrogression,” the path to enlightenment opens up, free of any obstacles to practice. In essence, salvation here does not mean being made perfect, but rather being brought to a place where you can perfect yourself and work to help others do the same.

I think this aspect helps clarify why Shinran speaks so frankly about what he sees as his enduring failings. He famously writes in the Kyogyoshinsho,

I know truly how grievous it is that I, Gutoku Shinran, am sinking in an immense ocean of desires and attachments and am lost in vast mountains of fame and advantage, so that I rejoice not at all at entering the stage of the truly settled, and feel no happiness at coming nearer the realization of true enlightenment. How ugly it is! How wretched!


Or again in the Tannisho,

I know nothing at all of good or evil. For if I could know thoroughly, as Amida Tathagata knows, that an act was good, then I would know good. If I could know thoroughly, as the Tathagata knows, that an act was evil, then I would know evil. But with a foolish being full of blind passions, in this fleeting world- this burning house- all matters without exception are empty and false, totally without truth and sincerity. The nembutsu alone is true and real.

For Shinran, and for the Shin tradition, I think that salvation means coming to grips with how deeply flawed we are because of our past karma, and because of our desires and attachments, and being grateful for the working of Amida’s Vow which reaches out to us because of our wretchedness, rather than despite it.

So, paradoxically, the closer we are to salvation, the deeper our awareness of our flaws. Similarly, repentance would not be a singular act proceeding somewhat like this:

sin--->guilt---->repentance---->salvation

But an ongoing process in which we continually repent our past evil acts, as they become clear to us through the working of the Vow, and as we say the nembutsu in gratitude.

This is indeed the age when beings should perform repentance, practice meritorious conduct, and recite the Buddha's Name. In a single utterance of the Name of Amida Buddha, karmic evil that would involve one in eighty billion kalpas of birth-and-death is eliminated. Even a single utterance is thus; the person who practices the constant saying of the Name, is none other than the one who is always performing repentance. KGSS VI:75

0 Comments

"Salvation By Other Power"

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I will be trying my hand at translating and commenting on short passages from works by Soga Ryojin. The particular text that I have been working with recently is 『他力の救済ー清沢満之師「他力の救済」についてー』、 文明堂刊 (1975) or, On Kiyozawa Manshi’s ‘Salvation by Other Power.’

Today’s selection comes from the first of five lectures transcribed in this volume, and is concerned mostly with introducing Kiyozawa Manshi, and situating Soga Ryojin’s relationship to the man he calls “teacher.” One fascinating aspect of this lecture is the care and respect with which Soga speaks of Kiyozawa Manshi, and the hesitancy with which he justifies his “authority” to speak about his teacher. He is careful not speak with any assertiveness (preferring でしょう to です for instance), uses a lot of hesitation markers (like まあ) and a great deal of polite language. It’s an interesting example of how scholarly argumentation in Japanese differs from the style I was taught in the US. Soga’s hesitancy is not a marker of his confidence (or lack thereof) in his interpretation-if anything, it shows how much he has internalized his teacher’s way of thinking and is entering into a dialogue with it, rather than engaging in a polemical debate.

This means that it’s not until the middle part of the lecture, Soga turns to look at the source of this phrase, “salvation by other power.” He mentions the curious fact that Kiyozawa Manshi wrote the piece bearing this title on the occasion of Shinran’s 誕生会 or birthday celebration in 1903, but it was never included in his Collected Works. It appears that it was commissioned by one Ohashi Tetsuei(?) (大橋徹映), who Soga Ryojin speaks very highly of who apparently used it within his own temple and practice (6-7). Googling his name brings up links to a number of scholarly articles written by him, but not much by way of biography. However, I did find a reference to him on a Korean database naming him as 眞宗大谷派本願寺朝鮮開敎監督 (True Pure Land Otani Honganji Korean Mission Director) which may go some way to explaining why Soga says of him that “after a while his name was no longer heard so prominently, a truly regrettable thing” (7). It would be interesting to know if there has been much written about Shinshu mission work on the Korean Peninsula in the late 1800s and early 20th century...

In any case, Soga mentions that he is reading from an early draft Kiyozawa Manshi’s handwritten text, and the first 3 lines are as follows:

我、他力の救済を念ずるときは、我が世に処するの道開け、我、他力の救済を忘るるときは、我が世に処するの道閉づ。


我、他力の救済を念ずるときは、我、物欲の為に迷さるること少く、我、他力の救済を忘るるときは、我、物欲の為に迷さるること多し。


我、他力の救済を念ずるときは、我が処する所に光明照し、我、他力の救済を忘るるときは、我が処する所に黒闇覆ふ。

Roughly translated, it goes;

In the moment we believe in salvation by other power, the path out of this suffering world opens up; in the moment we forget salvation by other power, the path out of this suffering world closes up.


In the moment we believe in salvation by other power, the desires that lead us astray lessen; in the moment we forget salvation by other power, the desires that lead us astray multiply.


In the moment we believe in salvation by other power, the spaces we endure are illuminated by unhindered light; when we forget salvation by other power, the spaces we endure are mantled by ignorance.


I have translated here as believe, though strictly speaking it has the connotation of remembrance: in this case, the remembrance (念) of the Buddha (仏) Amida. So, another way of rendering the opening of each line would be to say, “In the moment we remember Amida’s salvation by other power...” In any case, what’s important to note here is that Kiyozawa Manshi is saying that it is in the moment of true remembrance of the Buddha - if you like, in the one moment of shinjin in which we say the nembutsu - that the path to salvation opens, illuminated by Amida’s unhindered light.

In the next installment, we’ll see more of what Soga has to say about the moment of shinjin, but for the moment I’ll just point out that there are two important assumptions at work here:
  1. Salvation comes to us, as it were, from outside ourselves, but,
  2. It’s working is felt within us, in the places and spaces in which we are struggling with samsara.


0 Comments

Introducing Soga Ryojin

I have been meaning to write something about Soga Ryojin for some time, and I feel that now is as good a time as any to give him his due. Soga Ryojin (曽我量深, 1875-1971), along with Kiyozawa Manshi, Kaneko Daiei, and Yasuda Rijin are the finest modern Shinshu thinkers, though only Kiyozawa Manshi, arguably, has much profile outside of Japan. To rectify that, I shall be presenting and translating brief snippets of Soga Ryojin and Kaneko Daiei as I read through their work (much of it for the first time) and share my initial impressions.

First, a little background on Soga Ryojin. The Wikipedia entry is quite scanty, the Japanese article is of course longer but quite aphoristic - almost like a treasured collection of Dharma one-liners like this one:

浄土は言葉の要らぬ世界である 人間の世界は言葉の必要な世界である 地獄は言葉の通じない世界である


“The Pure Land is a world that has no need of words, the human world is one in need of words; hell is a world in which words cannot be understood.”


Born in 1875 in Niigata Prefecture to a Shinshu temple family, he attended religious high school and in 1899 entered “graduate school” at Shinshu University. When in 1901 the school was modernized and moved to Tokyo under Kiyozawa Manshi, he moved with it. At first, Soga was critical of Kiyozawa’s thought, and in 1902 published some harsh critiques of Kiyozawa’s “spiritual awareness”(精神主義) as too passive. However Kiyozawa soon won him over and by 1903, Soga became one of his disciples.

Over the next few years, Soga began to develop a very existential interpretation of what “faith” or shinjin meant in the Shinshu tradition. In such works as “Dharmakara Bodhisattva” he argued that the core of the Dharmakara-becoming-Amida story is that it acts as a symbol of the Vow working within human beings to bring them to enlightenment. Faith, then, is nothing less than the birth of the bodhisattva in our own hearts, and salvation the dynamic calling voice of Dharmakara from the “depths of our being” urging us towards awakening.

The conservative Honganji establishment were not too pleased with his interpretations and in the face of a rather hostile climate towards critical innovations (for instance, his friend Kaneko Daiei was stripped of the priesthood for allegedly publishing a heretical Neo-Kantian inspired interpretation of the Pure Land) he felt compelled to resign in 1930. He eventually returned to Otani University during WWII and even became president in 1961, but he always maintained a critical distance from the more conservative trends of the Shinshu orthodoxy, all the while lecturing, writing and publishing almost to the year he died.

The works that I will be introducing are mostly transcriptions of his lectures, including the “Lectures on the Tannisho” he gave in 1942. I hope in doing so I can convey a sense of the depth of feeling and startling insight with which Soga Ryojin approached Shinran, Kiyozawa Manshi and his faith, and contribute a little bit to the translation of his many works.

It goes without saying that all translations are my own, and all the errors, omissions and misreadings thereof.
0 Comments

Of Itself: The Ethics of Spontaneity

This is Part Three of a three-part series on ethics. Be sure to check out Part One and Part Two (Dogen) as well.

In contrast to Dogen, Shinran takes a different tack when it comes to knowing “what to do.”How different? Well, he says flat out that he has no clue - and what’s worse, that he has no hope of ever even having one.

Part of the reason for this is his thoroughgoing conviction that he is a deluded being filled with blind passions,

"I know truly how grievous it is that I, Gutoku Shinran, am sinking in an immense ocean of desires and attachments...How ugly it is! How wretched!" (Kyōgyōshinshō, III, # 113).

This vast, raging ocean of desires cannot be controlled or tamed as one would like, for, as he says, “I am such that I do not know right and wrong and cannot distinguish false and true” (Hymns of the Dharma-Ages, I, #116).

Why? Because “Good thoughts arise in us through the prompting of good karma from the past, and evil comes to be thought and performed through the working of evil karma” (A Record in Lament of Divergences, I, #13). This means that previous behaviors have established for us the patterns of our actions in the present, and that our actions in the present are the fruits of unknown actions in the past, which in turn lead to unknown results in the future.

We cannot know what is now motivating us to perform a certain action, and neither can we know what the results of our actions are going to be. The workings of karma are hidden from us, and are so complex that we cannot know what the good, or right, thing to do would be. Later in that passage he tells Yuien that, “If the karmic cause so prompts us, we will commit any kind of act.” Evil in our lives coming from past lives embroiled in samsara, and the karma accumulated through countless transmigrations in the past, mean that there we are stuck in samsara with no way out.

We, under the illusion of autonomous agency, cannot effect any kind of change in our samsaric circumstances because in mappō (末法), one cannot know what is right from what is wrong because our karma conditions us such that we will do what we do for reasons we do not fully understand. There is no way out of this impasse from within the self, because we are akunin (悪人), or evil beings, and to deeply and truly realize this about ourselves opens up the way to shinjin. The only way out, therefore, is to relinquish our reliance on self-power and entrust ourselves fully to the Vow; most especially the 18th Vow which in The Larger Pure Land Sūtra goes;

If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment.

Amida’s Pure Land represents the Easy Path for those, like Shinran himself, who cannot walk the difficult Path of Sages. It is out of Amida’s boundless compassion that he has selected the Easy Path to bring all those, living in this time of mappō, to be reborn in his Pure Land. All we need do is entrust ourselves to the working of the Vow; “The moment you entrust yourself...to the Vow, so that the mind set upon saying the nembutsu arises within you, you are immediately brought to share in the benefit of being grasped by Amida, never to be abandoned” (Tannishō, I, #1).

Entrusting is critical, because one cannot bring themselves to be born in the Pure Land through choosing to do what is right, and shunning what is wrong;

For if I could know thoroughly, as Amida Tathāgata knows, that an act was good, then I would know good. If I could know thoroughly, as the Tathāgata knows, that an act was evil, then I would know evil. But with a foolish being full of blind passions, in this fleeting world - this burning house - all matters without exception are empty and false, totally without truth and sincerity” (Tannishō, I, Postscript).


There is no way for a person living in this age of mappō to know thoroughly and absolutely, what acts are good, and what acts are evil. In our foolish and deluded existence, everything that we do will turn out to be empty and false because we are not living in the clear light of wisdom. For Shinran, the nembutsu alone (Namu Amida Butsu) is true and real, because it arises out of the practitioner’s entrusting (信心, shinjin) which is “directed to them from Amida’s sincere mind” (KGSS, III.I, #4).

Shinjin transforms our former mental and emotional state, in what Shinran calls eshin (廻心), or the change of heart that comes from overturning or discarding the mind of self-power (SSZ, II). Once we have overturned our old mental habits of reliance upon our own self-power, and begin to break down the ego, the threefold mind opens up within us: the sincere mind, entrusting with joy, and the aspiration for birth. From the standpoint of the old mind, that is, the mind before the experience of shinjin, being assured of salvation from this world would be cause for great rejoicing, but from the standpoint of the person with shinjin, in sincere mind, this joy is tempered by the knowledge that, “We are filled with all manner of greed, anger, perversity, deceit, wickedness, and cunning, and it is difficult to put an end to our evil nature” (SSZ, II). This deeply reflective knowledge is accompanied by a deep and decided belief that one is a “foolish being of karmic evil caught in birth-and-death” with no hope of ever escaping from the world of samsara on their own, a deep reliance on Amida’s Vows and in that reliance, Amida’s working comes to be so of itself (自然法爾, jinen hōni) (SSZ, II).

For Amida’s working to be manifest “of itself,” we need to get ourselves out of the way. This means abandoning the conviction that we are “good people” and that we know what is right. As my advisor says, stop being “do-gooders” and let good happen in the world. For Shinran, the problem is not that we human beings have an imperfect moral or ethical code, the problem is that we have imperfect human beings whose actions are necessarily imperfect.

Therefore, it is only by relying on the naturally compassionate and ethical working of Amida’s Vow that good can happen in the world. Good happens, we just need to get our “selves” out of the way long enough for it happen.

0 Comments

Tangling Vines

This is Part Two of a three-part series on Buddhist Ethics. Be sure to read Part One and look for Part Three on Shinran to follow soon.

My late master, old buddha, said, 'Gourd vines entangle with gourd vines.' This teaching has never been seen or heard in the various directions of past and present. My late master alone spoke it. 'Gourd vines entangle with gourd vines' means that buddha ancestors master buddha ancestors; buddha ancestors merge with buddha ancestors in realization. This is transmitting mind by mind. (Kattō)


In the “Tangling Vines” fascicle of the Shobogenzo, Dōgen lays out a fascinating description of what Zen “transmission” entails. Now “transmission” here means the passing on of the right Dharma and by extension, the mantle of enlightenment from master to student. As Dōgen sees it, the Zen insistence on a transmission “outside of the scriptures” is based on the apocryphal story of the transmission of the Dharma from Shakyamuni Buddha to Māhākashyapa. One day, the Buddha prepared to give a sermon on Vulture Peak to a large audience of monks, nuns, laypersons, bodhisattvas and celestial deities. When he ascended his seat, he sat in silence, then he took up an udumbara flower he had by his side, held it up and twirled it, and gave a wink. His audience of thousands sat there mystified, but Māhākashyapa alone broke into a smile. Seeing it, Shakyamuni Buddha said, “I have the treasury of the eye for the truth (shōbōgenzō), the wondrous heart of nirvāna. I entrust this to Māhākashyapa” (Enlightenment 182).

The orthodox interpretation takes this story as describing an esoteric encounter and transmission between these two individuals. Māhākashyapa alone understood what Shakyamuni Buddha meant by twirling the flower because of the secret communication that passed between them at that moment. The audience was left out of it completely, because they did not possess the key, or the means to understand what language it was that Shakyamuni Buddha spoke to Māhākashyapa. The transmission forms a closed loop which excludes all those not privy to its secrets. Dōgen takes another look at the story and says that what passed between Shakyamuni Buddha and Māhākashyapa was not esoteric, but intimate ().

In the case of the esoteric language, understanding or not understanding is a case of possessing the right knowledge or lacking that knowledge. You either know what the symbols, gestures, words really mean, or you are not privy to that knowledge. The knowledge required to decipher esoteric language is external to the content to be deciphered; it is applied to the content to be understood and then the meaning is revealed. Thus an external relationship holds among the person, the knowledge sought, and the content to be deciphered. It is much like finding a treasure map, anyone with the map in their possession can uncover the hidden treasure. Once decoded, the esoteric language is readily interpreted. For Dōgen however, intimacy arises from a genuine encounter between individuals, and is thus highly personal, and at the same time, is flexible and open enough to accommodate others who may be brought in to the relationship. There is nothing fixed or determined about intimacy, rather it is an opening up of the self to others and vice versa. Dōgen also says,

When you know yourself, you know intimate action... 'Intimate' means close and inseparable. There is no gap. Intimacy embraces buddha ancestors. It embraces you. It embraces the self. It embraces action. It embraces generations. It embraces merit. It embraces intimacy” (Enlightenment 183).


So what does all this have to do with ethics? Well, it means quite simply that like the transmission of the dharma, the key lies not in uncovering some secret code to conduct that will be applicable in all situations, but rather comes out of intimacy. That is, through a deep self knowledge and an intimate knowledge of the other. In fact, Dōgen thinks this intimacy should be so intense that self and other should be entangled like twining vines.
Tangling does more than just bring two persons closer together, tangling is such that once entangled, each person becomes something of what the other is. In his view, the encounter between persons does not leave any one unchanged, because intimacy or entangling cannot but be transformative. The phrase “Gourd vines entangle with gourd vines”, suggests that in entangling, like tangles with like, because in entangling, there is a mutual and reciprocal exchange of “skin, flesh, bones, and marrow.” The phrase “skin, flesh, bones, and marrow” comes from the story of Bodhidharma's transmission of the Dharma to his successor Huike, in which the understanding of each of Bodhidharma's four students is successively characterized as attaining Bodhidharma in his skin, flesh, bones and marrow (Huike being the fourth in the series);

“These are the ancestor's words. All four students had attainment and understanding. Each one's attainment and understanding is skin, flesh, bones, and marrow leaping out of body and mind: skin, flesh, bones, and marrow dropping away body and mind” (Moon 169).


So a true encounter between persons involves this fleshly entanglement where one’s very flesh and bones, one’s incarnate self tangles inseparably with the other. Ethical action, therefore, does not happen from a distance but can only take place from within this lived, fleshly intimacy. This means that ethical action comes from sharing in a deep way, the thoughts, passions and experiences of those towards whom we act, and includes a call to all of us to understand before we judge; to entangle ourselves and get stuck in, like tangling vines, rather than pulling away and distancing ourselves. That may mean opening ourselves up to pain, suffering and loss, but as Dōgen so eloquently argues, a true encounter must risk nothing less than our whole selves.

Works Cited

Enlightenment Unfolds: The Essential Teachings of Zen Master Dōgen. Ed., and trans., Kazuaki Tanahashi. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1999.

Moon In A Dewdrop:Writings of Zen Master Dōgen. Ed., and trans., Kazuaki Tanahashi. New York: North Point Press, 1985.

0 Comments

Stuck on Empty(ness)

There’s something odd going on in the blogosphere.

Reading the responses to recent, excellent posts on white privilege in the Buddhist blogosphere, I couldn’t help that feel that something was awry. While most of what I read was pretty standard fare, a few of the comments stuck out to me. As I thought about it, what irked me about them was not that they advocated for one position over another, but that they consistently argued that both sides were at fault somehow, and in so doing seemed to imply that the appropriate Buddhist response to conflict or disagreement is to equally recognize the failings of all parties involved. Let’s call this the “non-dualist” approach.

So, for instance, in the Skip Gates affair, one blogger argued that both the police officer and Gates were at fault; the officer for not leaving once he realized Gates was indeed who he said he was, and Gates for being angry and expressing his displeasure at his treatment by this particular officer. In sum, if they had both been more mindful, the affair would not have escalated as it did. Sounds fair enough, right?

Well, I think I have to call shenanigans on this wishy-washy pablum for the following reason: being Buddhist doesn’t mean not taking sides, particularly when there is a wrong or injustice that needs correcting. The fact that this is not self evident to some Buddhists means that, plainly put, they are fixated on their own conception of emptiness.

So what is the Mahayana conception of emptiness? Emptiness (
(Skt. śūnyatā, , not to be confused with , which is non-being) is defined by the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism as,

The distinctive Mahāyāna Buddhist view of existence, wherein all phenomena are understood to arise in dependence upon each other, and thus there is no phenomenon that has independent, determinable, or permanent existence; nor do any phenomena possess any sort of unchanging inner nature 自性 (Skt. śūnyatā, śūnya, śunyatva; Tib. stong pa nyid, svabhāva-śunya).



And closely related to non-duality
(Skt. advaita, 不二) also defined as “The unity of all things, the one reality, the universal Buddha-nature.” Now, what may be happening is that these sons and daughters of good families think that the impermanence and interdependence of our concepts of good or evil, the universality of Buddha nature, and the good old Madhyamika eight-fold negation means that these concepts are unreal.

Yes, sure, they are “unreal” in the sense that they are co-dependently arisen and like all things void of unchanging inner nature, but that doesn’t mean that in this Saha (
娑婆) world those concepts don’t have real effects. A tree may be impermanent and void of self but when it topples over onto your car, the effects are very real and very material.

The Problem

I think the issue is best encapsulated by looking at the famous
Ten Ox-Herding Pictures. It would appear that for many Buddhists in the West (particularly those of a Zennist persuasion) the goal is getting to the 8th of the Ox Herding Pictures with that wonderful empty circle, which means ignoring that there are two more pictures to go!

Once you reach that beautiful
samadhi of non-discrimination you have to come back to the real world and get stuck back into samsara. We have to go beyond emptiness, and the experience of emptiness, and to paraphrase Dogen, exhaust emptiness fully because attachment to emptiness is just as great a danger as attachment to permanence.

When Shakyamuni Buddha preaches the sutras is he in a particular samadhi? In the
Larger Pure Land Sutra for example, Shakyamuni’s samadhi is described in this way by Ananda;

The Tathagata dwells to-day in the state of a Buddha, probably the Tathagata dwells to-day in the state of a Jina, in the state of omniscience, in the state of a Mahanaga; and he contemplates the holy and fully enlightened Tathagatas of the past, future, and present


Crucially, Shakyamuni is no longer in that samadhi when he teaches Ananda about Dharmakara and his bodhisattva career. Sure, from the point of view of that samadhi, both right and wrong views have no substantiality, but in the world of samsara, they have all the substantiality in the world. Claiming that right and wrong are only relative views does nothing to alleviate the suffering of sentient beings in this world, and does not come close to being an effective approach to ethical praxis.

So what do we do? How do we get to work in samsara while respecting emptiness and non-duality? In short, what does a Buddhist ethical praxis look like? Look out for
Part Two (Dogen) and Part Three (Shinran) to come in the next few days, where I take a stab at laying it out.
0 Comments

No-one Goes to the Pure Land

In the “Shinjin” chapter of the KGSS, Shinran writes,

謹んで往相の回向を案ずるに、大信有り。大信心はすなわちこれ、長生不死の神方、欣浄厭穢の妙術、選択回向の直心、利他深広の信楽、金剛不壊の真心、易往無人の浄信、心光摂護の一心、希有最勝の大信、世間難信の捷径、証大涅槃の真因、極速円融の白道、真如一実の信海なり。


Which in the Collected Works of Shinran is translated,

Reverently contemplating Amida's directing of virtue for our going forth, I find there is great shinjin. Great shinjin is the superlative means for attaining longevity and deathlessness. It is the wondrous way to awaken aspiration for the pure and rejection of the defiled. It is the straightforward mind directed to us through the selected Vow. It is shinjin* that actualizes Amida's profound and vast benefiting of others. It is true mind that is diamondlike and indestructible. It is pure shinjin by which a person easily reaches the Pure Land where no one goes. It is the mind that is single, realized by the person who is grasped and protected by the compassionate light. It is great shinjin, rare and unsurpassed. It is the quick path difficult for people to accept. It is the true cause of attaining great nirvana. It is the white path by which all virtues are fulfilled instantly. It is the ocean of shinjin that is itself suchness or true reality.


The puzzler for me is the sentence, “It is pure shinjin by which a person easily reaches the Pure Land where no one goes.”

Now if you read that sentence as meaning, “It is pure shinjin by which a person easily reaches the Pure Land, where they could not go otherwise” the implication is perfectly in line with Shinran’s conception of the relative merits of jiriki and tariki. As in, one cannot be born in the Pure Land relying purely on the merit they believe they can accumulate on their own.

However, the sentence can also be read as saying no-one goes to the Pure Land. As in, at all. Ever. That can’t be right, can it? In fact, the sutras that Shinran copiously quotes from in the rest of this chapter describe in great detail just how many uncountable millions of billions of disciples, arhats and bodhisattvas are in fact happily residing in the Pure Land at this very moment. So, how did they get there?

I think the clue lies in just what Shinran means by “goes.” If we take a closer look at the original sentence, we find that the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism renders 易往 as “easy to be reborn in (the Pure Land), 無人 as “absence of individual existence” or better for our purposes “uninhabited” and 浄信 as “pure faith.” Putting it all together the sentence very crudely reads, “easy to be reborn in the Pure Land absent of individual existence [or, uninhabited] (of pure faith).” Refining it a bit further, “By pure faith one is easily reborn in the Pure Land (that is) absent of individual existence.”

So we have some interesting options here:
  1. No one goes to the Pure Land on their own steam.
  2. No one goes to the Pure Land at all.
  3. One goes to the Pure Land, if by going we mean no individual, existent “one” goes (or one is reborn without an individual existence), and by Pure Land we also mean no individual, existent Pure Land, and only because Amida directs to them the virtue of their going.
If we take option 3, then the original sentence makes perfect sense; there is no one to go, and no destination either, and both subject and object of going disappear in a neat doubling of Mahayana negation.

**Of course, all this is contingent on my very crude and amateurish translation of the kanbun original, and I am by no means proficient in this regard. I am also curious if anyone can find Suzuki’s rendering of this passage - I would like to know what he says but I don’t have a copy at hand**

What do you all think?

Addendum:

Inagaki renders the sentence this way,

[T]he Pure Faith for easy attainment of birth in the Pure Land which, nevertheless, very few gain.



This translation is interesting because it connects with Shinran’s claim that even though shinjin is the easy path, it is still very difficult to accept.
0 Comments

A Cognitive Nembutsu?


Recently I have been going through back issues of the excellent Pacific World journal, and came across this article (PDF link) by Richard Payne in the 2005 issue. I was intrigued because as Payne explains,

The Japanese Buddhist term “nenbutsu” (念仏) derives from the Sanskrit buddhānusmṛti, which—like nenbutsu—means to think about the Buddha, to keep the Buddha in mind. In addition to keeping the Buddha in mind by recitation, one can also keep the Buddha in mind by visualization (119).


To be sure there must be some kind of cognitive work going on in the practitioner that would be different in each case; recitation would entail a kind of different work from visualization. Payne makes this more clear as he argues that the florid visions of the Pure Land as recounted in the Larger and Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha sutras engage all the “sensory modalities” in building a world, rather than simply describing it (120,121).

I’m with him so far, but he soon makes two claims that I am struggling to understand. The first;

The forms of nenbutsu seem to correspond to the different main sensory modalities and learning styles. Visualization practices of remembering the Buddha would perhaps be more effective for those whose dominant sensory modality is vision. Similarly, recitation would be more appropriate for those having the auditory sensory modality dominant (124).


I can understand that one may be oriented towards learning in a particular sensory modality, but I cannot translate that learning orientation towards spiritual practice. Unless this theory of sensory modalities is meant to imply not just a preference for learning style but also everyday cognitive orientation I don’t see how a preference for the auditory translates into a practice of oral nembutsu.

What’s more, Payne argues that “what we see in the rise of a visionary religious culture is largely motivated by the spread of graphic cognition” (128). Drawing this from a discussion of the transformation of Greek culture by the introduction of writing found in Ong and others, he argues that writing stands in as one level of abstraction or interpretation from a visionary experience (that is, the experience of visualizing Amida and the Pure Land) and that writing affords a degree of elaboration of memories and experiences not afforded by oral practices of recitation and memorization. This affordance found in writing allows for the elaborate, complex and intricate visual forms that we see in the sutras and in items like mandalas.

More disturbingly, Payne also writes,

If we consider these as having their origins in different stages of the development of human cognition—Homeric epics in the mythic-narrative stage of cognitive development, and Pure Land and Prajñāpāramitā sutras as well as tantric maṇḍalas in the graphic stage—then certain characteristics of each style of (what I am loosely calling) “literature” makes sense (130).


Now, I don’t see how Shinran’s defense of the oral nembutsu reflects a difference in cognitive modality, rather than salvific efficacy. If we are talking about cultures in the “graphic stage” I don’t see how we can separate say Shinran and Shan-tao vis-a-vis their respective approaches to the nembutsu. Of course writing makes it possible to have as fantastically detailed a visual mediation manual as one finds in Shan-tao, but Shinran was just as literate as Shan-tao so his advocacy of orality needs to be better explained than simply as the result of “learning style.”

The second claim is this,

An important implication that is worth noting at this point is the transformation of vocal nenbutsu from a practice in which one engages into an experiencing of the sound of the nenbutsu passively, that is, as coming to one from Amida. I believe that it was Rennyo who emphasized that one is not simply to recite the name of the Buddha Amida, but rather that the goal is to hear the Buddha Amida reciting the nenbutsu. So recitation is no longer experienced as an activity that I am undertaking, but rather becomes transformed into an experience that comes to me (123).


Leaving aside the question of how a recitation that issues from one’s own lips can be experienced “passively,” I think the deeper claim Payne want to make about the difference between oral and visual nembutsu is that the oral is passive while the visual is active. Shinran does says several times in the KGSS that the nembutsu is not an act (as in a good act that if done enough times will lead to rebirth) and that it is directed to us through the working of Amida’s Vow but there is nothing to suggest that in “hearing the name” or reciting the name that the nembutsu simply bounces off us like a ball tossed at a brick wall.

What’s being left out here is the responsivity of the nembutsu! In the visual nembutsu it is the vision one experiences of Amida and his attendant bodhisattvas, and in the oral nembutsu, well, as Soga Ryōjin (link in Japanese) puts it,

The great summons of the Tathâgata’s calling voice is namely the nembutsu. [People tend] to keep apart, as if they were two separate substances, Amida’s Primal Vow and their own faith, namely the entity that calls and the entity that responds. Among the Tathâgata and the self, they take the former as the caller and the latter as the respondent. However, as long as there is this opposition between caller and respondent, one cannot pretend that the total self has come to self-awareness...My aspiration is truly Amida’s Primal Vow, the calling voice is the answering voice.



0 Comments