The Radical Buddhism Project - User contributions [en]

SG34BHU

2026-08-31T16:27:42Z

James:

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈仏教と平和運動〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「仏教と平和運動」『国民仏教聖典』秀文閣書房、1934年（昭和9年）.
Seno’o Girō. “Bukkyō to heiwa undō” 仏教と平和運動 [“Buddhism and the Peace Movement”]. ''Kokumin Bukkyō seiten'' 国民仏教聖典. Tokyo: Shūbunkaku Shobō, 1934.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「仏教と平和運動」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、389–392頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Bukkyō to heiwa undō” 仏教と平和運動. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 389–392. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG34BHU-T|English translation]]

'''{{size|150%|仏教と平和運動}}'''

一

暗澹たる暴風雨と狂奔する怒濤が漸く静まって、明朗平穏な大凪の航海が恵まれた朝の喜びは全人類共同のない悦びである。平和へ！　平和の光明は全人類共同の希望であり、人生創造の航路を導く北極星であらねばならぬ。

もとより人類の歴史はあまりにも多く闘争の斑痕で汚されてはをる。悠久五千年の人類史中、統計によれば、暗黒の闘争史十三年に対して平和の日線は僅かに一年といふ比例を刻んだ悲しい史実ではあるが、しかしながら、それにも拘らず平和は過去に於ても現在に於ても又将来に於ても、依然として全人類を導く雲の柱であり文化の彼岸に通ずる白道である。目覚めた幾多の先輩たちは、それゆゑにこそ自ら聖愛の十字架を背ふて、理想する平和境への不朽の路標とはなってくれたのである。

仏陀、キリスト、等々は平和運動への典型的先覚だが、この外あらゆる殉教者の血涙は一滴として平和運動への犠牲でないものはなかった。現代、全世界に渦まく一見好ましからざる階級闘争の如きも、もしハイゲートの地下静かにマルクスの真意をたたけば、彼等の全努力も亦全人類救済を希願したる平和の社会建設への科学的社会運動であること勿論である。

もとより、闘争或は戦争はしかく簡単に絶滅しうるものではない。又絶対的に罪悪視されるべきものでもない。否、人生には屡々剣の解決を必要とする場合があるが、それは実に平和保障のための止むをえざる場合に限られるべき権道であって、決して人生の常道ではない。小は一家の問題から大は国際関係に及んで、闘争或は戦争が、いかに人生を不安、焦燥、恐怖、絶望にみちびき経済或は文化の破滅をもたらす忌避すべき行動であるかは贅言の要はない。戦争は、戦争の残虐性に心から憎悪を感ずる人類的良心のみに許されるべき最後的行動であって、平和運動こそ全人類永遠の共同工作でなければならぬ。

二

凡そ、どの宗教でも平和を高調せぬ宗教はない。就中、平和の宗教は仏教に於てその極点を見出しうるやうである。「衆の離轢するを見れば能く和合せしめよ」と戒められた仏陀の和平精神は、七千巻の大蔵経典、仏門の全面に流露してをる。現在分立せる十三宗五十六派の法幢もその紋様こそ異れ、一つに平和高調の宗是に外ならない。

伝教の叡山に於ける「円頓戒壇」の建立も、弘法の高野に描いた「金胎の曼荼羅」も、或は法然親鸞の「倶会一処」の理想も、道元の「即心是仏」も日蓮の「皆帰妙法」もそれは思弁して、現代宗派的暗闘の武器に堕したりとはいへ、その立宗の精神は明かに仏教の有する「和」の思想の時代的高揚でないものはなかった。仏教のかかる平和思想は、仏教日本の生みの親である聖徳太子の有名な十七憲法の劈頭に早くもその精彩が発揮されてをる。

「和を以て貴しと為す」
「篤く三宝を敬せよ」――其れ三宝に帰せざれば何を以て枉れるを直さん――

等々これら一連の文句の如きは、仏教の平和思想を物語る不朽の金文字でなければならぬ。

では、仏教の平和思想の根底は一対何か？

三

仏教の信仰は「帰依三宝」の形式を最もよしとする。今この「三宝」について平和思想を求めるとせう。仏宝としての仏陀の人格とその一生がいかに平和の典型であったかは語るべき事実である。また「法宝」は、後で説明する如くこれまた他宗教の追随を許さぬ条理正しき平和の仏教であって、この仏教の実践形態である「僧宝」こそは仏教の平和運動を高調するに最も適切な軌範であらねばならぬ。

「僧」即ち「僧伽」とは衆団とか和合とかの意味である。今でこそ一人でも二人でも僧生活は許されてをるが、厳密には「僧伽」は四人以上の共同生活を必要としたのである。「僧伽」の同人は居室を同じうし、乞食を同じうし、分配を平等にし、苦楽を分ち、互譲して諍をたち、和合してひたすら真理の実践にいそしんだ団体であった。ここに「帰依僧宝」の意識は平和運動の最も具体的な軌範として光ってをる。仏陀は「五逆罪」の一つに破和合の罪を加へてをられるが、平和破壊の言動は一切罪悪の根源でなければならぬからである。

然らば、「法宝」は平和運動に対して如何なる教義を示してをるか。仏教は「法宝」として「真如」「縁起」或は「無我」等々の世界観をもってをる。「真如」は諸現象の根本を平等一如と見るところに平和運動への示唆をもつ。また「縁起」とは一切の孤立性・絶対性を否定して相関的に成立して発展し消滅する世界観であるから、独善も排他も許さない。個人と社会、国家と世界等すべて一脈一体の生命体として強く共同和合への努力を叫ぶのである。「無我」また然りだ。「我」の否定とはかかる「縁起」的関係を無視する迷妄独断の開眼であって、無我生活とはまさしく共同社会的平和運動の意味でなければならぬ。

仏陀が自ら「僧伽」の一員となって、早くより「四方共有」の思想を提唱して共同社会の建設に努力されたのもこの為である。又「四性平等」の巨弾を放って当時の階級社会の否定運動を試みられたのもこの為であったのだ。

かかる関係的世界観である「無我」「縁起」の認識は、更に生かされてをる各自の生活反省となり、感謝と奉仕の思想は油然として湧き、ここに仏教独特の「恩」の思想は生れて大乗仏教を大成し、「事々無礙法界」の大哲学も創作されれば「願作仏、即度衆生」の菩薩精神の結晶としては法華経、大無量寿経等々の大文章も創作されて仏教の平和思想はいかんなく高揚されたのである。

かの「不殺生戒」の如きもかかる平和思想の一表現であって、不殺生戒は人間諸種族の平等と和合の運動に止まらず、恩の観念はあらゆる生命体の生活権平等の認識と融合して、よく生物愛護の運動となり、これが徹底のためには「不食肉戒」さえも設定せられるに至った如き、よしかかる戒律は現在実行不可能だといふも、いかに仏教精神が平和愛好のそれであるかを証明して余りあるであらう。

かくは言ふものの、仏教にも剣の教義は厳として存在する。かの焔々たる劫火の中に剣を案じて屹立する不動明王の如きは、仏教の有する剣の教義の典型的象徴である。剣の仏教は涅槃経、仁王経、大薩遮経等々にいくらでも挙げることができるが、しかし乍ら剣の教義はひとり一殺多生大衆解放の目的に於てのみ認容されるは、特に仏教に於てさうであって、これまた思想の逆説的教義であらねばならぬ。

四

観じ来れば、平和運動は仏教徒に課せられた世界的使命である。翻って、現代社会を正視すれば、まさに末法の爛熟、弱肉強食の修羅の世界そっくりであるが、かかる現代、仏教徒はいかに平和運動を実践すべきであらうか。その中心目標は何におかれるべきであらうか。それは従来の如き平和と愛の観念的提唱で事足るものであらうか。もし現代、力の制裁を要すれば一殺多生の利剣は何人の上に、或はいかなる社会現象、いかなる国際関係の上に下されるべきであらうか？

之を要するに、あらゆる不和と闘争は我執生活の必然的産物である。我執生活は宇宙の関係的真理をわきまえぬ迷妄の表現である。従って仏教のもつ「縁起」の思想、「無我」の実践こそ、あらゆる我執、絶対主義を否定する批判の剣であり愛の摂取であって、全平和運動の根本綱領でなければならぬ。

（昭和九年『国民仏教聖典』）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG34BHU

2026-08-31T16:27:19Z

James: Created page with "{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__ {{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈仏教と平和運動〉}} '''Original publication:''' 妹尾義郎「仏教と平和運動」『国民仏教聖典』秀文閣書房、1934年（昭和9年）. Seno’o Girō. “Bukkyō to heiwa undō” 仏教と平和運動 [“Buddhism and the Peace Movement”]. ''Kokumin Bukkyō seiten'' 国民仏教聖典. Tokyo: Shūbunkaku Shobō, 1934. '''Source text:''' 妹尾義郎「仏教と平和運..."

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈仏教と平和運動〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「仏教と平和運動」『国民仏教聖典』秀文閣書房、1934年（昭和9年）.

Seno’o Girō. “Bukkyō to heiwa undō” 仏教と平和運動 [“Buddhism and the Peace Movement”]. ''Kokumin Bukkyō seiten'' 国民仏教聖典. Tokyo: Shūbunkaku Shobō, 1934.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「仏教と平和運動」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、389–392頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Bukkyō to heiwa undō” 仏教と平和運動. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 389–392. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG34BHU-T|English translation]]

'''{{size|150%|仏教と平和運動}}'''

一

暗澹たる暴風雨と狂奔する怒濤が漸く静まって、明朗平穏な大凪の航海が恵まれた朝の喜びは全人類共同のない悦びである。平和へ！　平和の光明は全人類共同の希望であり、人生創造の航路を導く北極星であらねばならぬ。

もとより人類の歴史はあまりにも多く闘争の斑痕で汚されてはをる。悠久五千年の人類史中、統計によれば、暗黒の闘争史十三年に対して平和の日線は僅かに一年といふ比例を刻んだ悲しい史実ではあるが、しかしながら、それにも拘らず平和は過去に於ても現在に於ても又将来に於ても、依然として全人類を導く雲の柱であり文化の彼岸に通ずる白道である。目覚めた幾多の先輩たちは、それゆゑにこそ自ら聖愛の十字架を背ふて、理想する平和境への不朽の路標とはなってくれたのである。

仏陀、キリスト、等々は平和運動への典型的先覚だが、この外あらゆる殉教者の血涙は一滴として平和運動への犠牲でないものはなかった。現代、全世界に渦まく一見好ましからざる階級闘争の如きも、もしハイゲートの地下静かにマルクスの真意をたたけば、彼等の全努力も亦全人類救済を希願したる平和の社会建設への科学的社会運動であること勿論である。

もとより、闘争或は戦争はしかく簡単に絶滅しうるものではない。又絶対的に罪悪視されるべきものでもない。否、人生には屡々剣の解決を必要とする場合があるが、それは実に平和保障のための止むをえざる場合に限られるべき権道であって、決して人生の常道ではない。小は一家の問題から大は国際関係に及んで、闘争或は戦争が、いかに人生を不安、焦燥、恐怖、絶望にみちびき経済或は文化の破滅をもたらす忌避すべき行動であるかは贅言の要はない。戦争は、戦争の残虐性に心から憎悪を感ずる人類的良心のみに許されるべき最後的行動であって、平和運動こそ全人類永遠の共同工作でなければならぬ。

二

凡そ、どの宗教でも平和を高調せぬ宗教はない。就中、平和の宗教は仏教に於てその極点を見出しうるやうである。「衆の離轢するを見れば能く和合せしめよ」と戒められた仏陀の和平精神は、七千巻の大蔵経典、仏門の全面に流露してをる。現在分立せる十三宗五十六派の法幢もその紋様こそ異れ、一つに平和高調の宗是に外ならない。

伝教の叡山に於ける「円頓戒壇」の建立も、弘法の高野に描いた「金胎の曼荼羅」も、或は法然親鸞の「倶会一処」の理想も、道元の「即心是仏」も日蓮の「皆帰妙法」もそれは思弁して、現代宗派的暗闘の武器に堕したりとはいへ、その立宗の精神は明かに仏教の有する「和」の思想の時代的高揚でないものはなかった。仏教のかかる平和思想は、仏教日本の生みの親である聖徳太子の有名な十七憲法の劈頭に早くもその精彩が発揮されてをる。

「和を以て貴しと為す」
「篤く三宝を敬せよ」――其れ三宝に帰せざれば何を以て枉れるを直さん――

等々これら一連の文句の如きは、仏教の平和思想を物語る不朽の金文字でなければならぬ。

では、仏教の平和思想の根底は一対何か？

三

仏教の信仰は「帰依三宝」の形式を最もよしとする。今この「三宝」について平和思想を求めるとせう。仏宝としての仏陀の人格とその一生がいかに平和の典型であったかは語るべき事実である。また「法宝」は、後で説明する如くこれまた他宗教の追随を許さぬ条理正しき平和の仏教であって、この仏教の実践形態である「僧宝」こそは仏教の平和運動を高調するに最も適切な軌範であらねばならぬ。

「僧」即ち「僧伽」とは衆団とか和合とかの意味である。今でこそ一人でも二人でも僧生活は許されてをるが、厳密には「僧伽」は四人以上の共同生活を必要としたのである。「僧伽」の同人は居室を同じうし、乞食を同じうし、分配を平等にし、苦楽を分ち、互譲して諍をたち、和合してひたすら真理の実践にいそしんだ団体であった。ここに「帰依僧宝」の意識は平和運動の最も具体的な軌範として光ってをる。仏陀は「五逆罪」の一つに破和合の罪を加へてをられるが、平和破壊の言動は一切罪悪の根源でなければならぬからである。

然らば、「法宝」は平和運動に対して如何なる教義を示してをるか。仏教は「法宝」として「真如」「縁起」或は「無我」等々の世界観をもってをる。「真如」は諸現象の根本を平等一如と見るところに平和運動への示唆をもつ。また「縁起」とは一切の孤立性・絶対性を否定して相関的に成立して発展し消滅する世界観であるから、独善も排他も許さない。個人と社会、国家と世界等すべて一脈一体の生命体として強く共同和合への努力を叫ぶのである。「無我」また然りだ。「我」の否定とはかかる「縁起」的関係を無視する迷妄独断の開眼であって、無我生活とはまさしく共同社会的平和運動の意味でなければならぬ。

仏陀が自ら「僧伽」の一員となって、早くより「四方共有」の思想を提唱して共同社会の建設に努力されたのもこの為である。又「四性平等」の巨弾を放って当時の階級社会の否定運動を試みられたのもこの為であったのだ。

かかる関係的世界観である「無我」「縁起」の認識は、更に生かされてをる各自の生活反省となり、感謝と奉仕の思想は油然として湧き、ここに仏教独特の「恩」の思想は生れて大乗仏教を大成し、「事々無礙法界」の大哲学も創作されれば「願作仏、即度衆生」の菩薩精神の結晶としては法華経、大無量寿経等々の大文章も創作されて仏教の平和思想はいかんなく高揚されたのである。

かの「不殺生戒」の如きもかかる平和思想の一表現であって、不殺生戒は人間諸種族の平等と和合の運動に止まらず、恩の観念はあらゆる生命体の生活権平等の認識と融合して、よく生物愛護の運動となり、これが徹底のためには「不食肉戒」さえも設定せられるに至った如き、よしかかる戒律は現在実行不可能だといふも、いかに仏教精神が平和愛好のそれであるかを証明して余りあるであらう。

かくは言ふものの、仏教にも剣の教義は厳として存在する。かの焔々たる劫火の中に剣を案じて屹立する不動明王の如きは、仏教の有する剣の教義の典型的象徴である。剣の仏教は涅槃経、仁王経、大薩遮経等々にいくらでも挙げることができるが、しかし乍ら剣の教義はひとり一殺多生大衆解放の目的に於てのみ認容されるは、特に仏教に於てさうであって、これまた思想の逆説的教義であらねばならぬ。

四

観じ来れば、平和運動は仏教徒に課せられた世界的使命である。翻って、現代社会を正視すれば、まさに末法の爛熟、弱肉強食の修羅の世界そっくりであるが、かかる現代、仏教徒はいかに平和運動を実践すべきであらうか。その中心目標は何におかれるべきであらうか。それは従来の如き平和と愛の観念的提唱で事足るものであらうか。もし現代、力の制裁を要すれば一殺多生の利剣は何人の上に、或はいかなる社会現象、いかなる国際関係の上に下されるべきであらうか？

之を要するに、あらゆる不和と闘争は我執生活の必然的産物である。我執生活は宇宙の関係的真理をわきまえぬ迷妄の表現である。従って仏教のもつ「縁起」の思想、「無我」の実践こそ、あらゆる我執、絶対主義を否定する批判の剣であり愛の摂取であって、全平和運動の根本綱領でなければならぬ。

（昭和九年『国民仏教聖典』）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG32NNU

2026-08-31T15:48:16Z

James:

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動」『新興佛教』1932年（昭和7年）7月.
Seno’o Girō. “Nōson no kyūhaku to nōson jiin no undō” 農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動 [“The Crisis of the Countryside and the Rural Temple Movement”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō'' 新興佛教, July 1932.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、316–324頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Nōson no kyūhaku to nōson jiin no undō” 農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 316–324. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG32NNU-T|English translation]]

'''{{size|150%|農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動}}'''

'''{{size|120%|農村の自覚と農本文化の建設}}'''

{{tpage|316}}

A　農村問題はスバラシクやかましい問題となってきた。たしかに、だれもが考へねばならん問題だ。

B　その対策については色々講究されてをるが、一寸見当がつかんらしいぢゃないか。これまでの労働争議や小作争議がかなりやかましい問題であったが、こんどの農村問題ばかりは、何だか社会が根こそぎから返されるやうなキツイ衝動を感じた。過般の農民××のごとき[もの]もその一つの現はれぢゃなからうか。

A　何しろ、農村問題は全国の大半をしめる農家の死活問題だ。その上、それは、都市の生命線の問題でもあるだけに、全社会の胃袋の問題だから、さうした感じのするのが当然だらう。この頃「窮迫せる農村の実相」と題した朝日新聞の報道をよんでをると、働きもせんねエ連中が、白米の飯を腹一杯かきこんでゐる生活が、何だか罪悪でもあるかに考へられるほどだ。

B　あれで見ると、各県とも農家一戸あたりの負債は平均八九百円だ。全日本では農村は実に五十億円といふ莫大な負債に手足をしばられてをるわけなのだね。

A　一戸あたり八九百円の負債といへば、たいしたことでもないやうだが、米の値もずゐぶん安くなり唯一の資源が枯渇したのだ。その上今でも資金融通の道もまるで運用されないから困難は一倍だ。ぼられ都市にしぼられる。二重の搾取と、おまけに、おなじ所得の商工業者にくらべて二倍乃至三倍の公租公課の負担をさせられて、豊作の年でさへ豊年地獄といふ皮肉な苦しみをなめねばならず、凶作ときては去年の東北地方の惨状だ。どの道、今は農村の八方ふさがりだ。お百姓さんが畦道に立って思案にくれるといふのも尤もだ、と思ふ。

{{tpage|317}}

B　あの新聞に「低利資金の有難迷惑」と題して、こんな話がのってゐた。神奈川県の例では、ある小作農が低利資金を借りに役場にいったら、役場では彼の滞納を低利資金から差引いて、現金の代りにマイナスの勘定書がわたされた、といふことだ。山梨県の例では、「一人当り五十円づつ借りるために田舎の山の中から県庁と勧銀支店へ十人で八回通ったので旅費、べんとう代が二十円づつになって結局三十円を借り、五十円を返済せねばならなくなったから、とんだ高利貸となった」といふことだ。こんなことばかりはあきれてものは云へぬ。金金、カネの始末だ。現在、農民ほど恵まれてゐないものはないやうである。

A　全くだ。第一、汗水しぼって作りあげたお米が自分の口にはいらないで麦や粟だ。それも充分には食へん者さへあるといふんでは無茶だ。東北地方では娘を売って借金の利息を払ったり小作米を納めたりする農家さへあるといふぢゃないか。ところが都市の上流階級を見ると、栄耀栄華おもひのままの生活ぢゃないか。考へれば不合理千万な世の中だ。これでは多少でも社会主義に目覚めて見ると、このままではすまされん問題なはずだ。

B　だが、歴史を見ると百姓は元来が宿命的だからした生活者ではないのだらうか。

A　原始共産社会以後、階級社会にあっては、農民階級は不幸にして其の観があった。しかしながら、それゆゑに今後もこのままに被支配階級であらねばならん道理はない。不合理は早晩清算されずにはをらぬ。今度こそ働く者がさげすまれ働かない者が威張った、あべこべの人類の前史が清算される日がきたのだ。

B　しかしさうした根本的清算が現在の政治家でやれるだらうか。当面の対策さへもがハッキリしないんではないか。農村の立て直しは一寸むづかしいぞ。或は農村はこのまま窮乏から滅亡へと追ひやられるのぢゃあるまいか。

A　じょうだん言っちゃ困る。農村は全人類の生命線ぢゃないか。農村が滅亡する日は人類が滅亡する日だ。君は人類がこのまま滅亡すると思ふかい。人類が生存するかぎり農村は滅亡するもんぢゃない。滅亡させられるもんでもない。農村は不滅だ。農村のこの窮迫こそは農村復活への陣痛だ。そして、それは同時に課せられたる……

{{tpage|318}}

都市偏重の片輪文明の清算期であり新しき農村文化の再建期だと思ふ。もとより、この再建は現在の政治家の、あの名利にたゞれた手などで出来るものではない。それだけ大地に立つ農民それ自身の自覚と自力的努力によってのみ可能なんだ。

B　都会といへば、この頃の都会生活は全く欺瞞と虚栄、不安と焦燥の連鎖劇みたいだ。ほがらかな落ちつきや醇厚な人情など味ふことは一寸むづかしい。マルクスだったか「都会は資本主義の墓場だ」といったが、全くロボットの行列場のやうだ。目覚めた人間のいつまでもたへうる生活ぢゃない。都会は農村の自覚に比例して制限され整理されるであらうが、改造される新社会にあっては農村の地位はどうなるんだらうか。

A　僕は将来の社会は文化的に統制された農本的共同社会でなければならんと思ふ。

B　農本的共同社会といふのは農業本位に統制された共同社会といふ意味か？

A　その通りだ。

B　機械文明は否定するのか。

A　反対だ。大衆的農本的に活用するのだ。農本社会といってもそれは原始共産社会とはちがふ。機械がわるいのではない。機械が大衆性を奪はれ一部の階級の利益のために使用されたり、極端に一切を機械化するところに弊害が生じるのだ。今後はまだまだ農業技術にも機械は応用されねばならぬ。

B　どうして農業本位の社会にせんならんのか。

A　たとへば積木をするにしても、積木が安定するためには上部よりも下部がより広大ならん。ピラミッドのやうな状態に積まれなくちゃいけない。もし之と反対に下部の方が狭小だと不安定になって少しの動揺がきても崩れるだらう。社会の安泰平和も全くこれとおなじ道理だ。農本的階級が上部を支へきれぬほどに窮弱した場合は、必ずや一大動揺が起って再びピラミッド型に復帰せねばやまぬはずである。では社会の根本的階級とは何だ。いふまでもなくそれは労農階級なんだ。わけて農民階級なんだ。見給へ、人類生活の必需品を、衣食住の大半はすべて農林業者の手によらぬものとてはないぢゃないか。五穀はもとよりだ。建築用の材木や織物も畳表も、茶もコーヒーも酒も醤油も味噌も砂糖も、みんな農民の汗の結晶がもとだ。農村はたしかに人類社会の生命線であり根柢であり、ありがたい母性的存在なんだ。

{{tpage|319}}

ところが、十九世紀の産業革命以後、商工業は相因果して急速度に発達して今日の資本主義社会をつくりあげた。そしてブルジョア文明は完成され爛熟したが、之に反比例して徐々に社会的根柢である農民階級はちぢまってきて、ここに逆立したピラミッド型の社会ができあがったんだ。日本でも明治革命以来、十指にみたぬ財閥のつみこんだ五六十億の財産こそ、その間に全農村が背負ひこまされた五六十億の負債なんだ。だから、かうした社会に動揺と不安が連続するのはあたりまへのことなんだ。

B　これぢゃ崩すといふよりも、自然に崩れるのが道理だ。必然性といふやつだね。道義的に考へて見ても、ありがたいお百姓さんを奴百姓とさげすんできたのは、まるで母親をあまっちょと呼ぶどら息子にも似た話だから、こんな社会は到底制裁されねばならん不義な社会だ。

A　その通りだ。さてここで農村は巨大な「る」ブル階級の重圧にたへきれなくなって未曾有の大動揺がおこり、社会は再び正しいピラミッド型の農本的共同社会に本質的な立て直しが要求されてきたのだ。だから、それを見きわめないでやる、いかなる窮状打開策も結局は一時の弥縫策であって、完全に社会的動揺と不安をとりのけるものではない。といって、眼前の対策としてのモラトリアム等そのもろもろの政策を無用といふのではないが……。

B　たしかに、それは道理のやうだ。だがさうした自覚をもって改造運動をやってをるものが果して幾人あるだらうか。第一肝心な農民からが大部分は自覚精神のない頼他的な救済を、全くあてにもならぬ救済をあてにしてをるぢゃないか。

A　いやいやないどころか、各方面にさうした機運は根強くうごいてをる。しかしまだまだ農民一般の眠りの深いのは事実だ。

B　どうして、さういふ風に自己自身の立場や使命がわからないんだらうか。

A　それには色々な原因があるだらう。封建時代から資本主義社会へかけての叩きつけと圧制による原因だが、今一ツは寺院佛教が吹きこんだ他力本願の幻想的安心や自力門の吹きこむ観念生活や、或は服従道徳、等……

{{tpage|320}}

々の影響だと思ふ。何にしても、農民が、農民自身の手にある支配的権威と、農園に漂ふ神聖なる愉悦を忘れて、いつまでも奴隷的根性や都市的享楽が清算されないかぎりは、農村の救済も前途遼遠だ。

B　坊さんも罪の生活をつづけたものだ。一体、常識的に考へても、人を助けるのが、佛様だとして見れば、被支配階級の解放運動のときは宗教家こそ率先してやるべきであったはずだ。それが反って圧制の補助的役割をつとめてきたとはひどいよ。

A　東北地方では、犬に橇をひかせるのに犬の鼻先きに鮭の切れをさしだしてひっぱらせるさうだが、坊さんはあの世の極楽をさきにして民衆にセッセと働かせたが、現代こそ真理の前に欺瞞の清算される時がきたんだ。農村の復活とともに宗教家も自覚めて宗教の本質的運動をやる目がきたんだ。母親が我ままな子供に乳房を与へぬことによって彼を行儀することができるやうに、田園に立って人類の生命線をガッシリ掴んでをる農民の自治的自覚と全国的統制によっては、世の不合理を完全に革正して、人類生活に最もふさはしい農本的共同社会を実現することはキット可能だ。農民は眠った獅子だ。一たび目覚めて吼え立って見る。それこそ断然百獣の王様だ。だが、かうした権威をもってゐながらも、一切をはぐくむやさしい母性的生活者でもあるところにイワンの話ぢゃないが、農本社会のありがたさがあり、永遠性があり、そして勝利があるんだ。

B　農村の社会的地位はよくわかった。農村が奴隷的生活から解放されて、完全に自治的共同社会の主人公になるときこそ全人類の真の平和が将来する日だといふこともうなづけた。

ここで問題を農村寺院の方へむけてゆくが、滅亡の前夜にある農村寺院は、果してどういふ運命をもってをるもんだらうか。農村の復活と共に復活するだらうか。それともマルキシズムのいふやうに宗教は完全に消滅するもんだらうか。

A　それは問題だ。だがマルキシズムを完全に信ずることのできない僕には、ブルジョア階級の滅亡は信じられるが、佛教そのものの消滅は考へられない。ブルジ……

{{tpage|321}}

ョアー社会では宗教の本質は滅亡するが、農本社会は科学的社会観のみで組み立てられない社会だ。農本社会は、科学文明と精神文化とが大自然の母胎で、渾然と融合した文化社会で、言ひかへれば、自然への文化的復帰であって、自然の単なる科学的征服ではない、と思ふ。

君は共産主義者が高調する「三・一五」の歌をしってるかい。

B　ウン、あれは彼等が血と泪で歌ふ歌だ。

A　歌は理論ではない。全人格的な生活の表現だから最も真実なものだ。その中に「われらは君に誓ふ、党のため倒れたる渡政同志よ」といふところがあるが、あれなどは科学的に批評すればナンセンスぢゃないか。もう死んで、をりもせん「渡政」に誓ったり、「山宣」に呼びかけたりするのは、一体どういふ意味なんだ。

B　まさか先生たちは「渡政」や「山宣」の死後の霊を認めてをるわけでもあるまい。

A　もとより死後の個的霊魂などあらうはずはないが、それにも拘らず、人間はああ叫びかけずにはみられない、超科学的な心霊的要請があるんだ。あの歌詞から見ても、「渡政」や「山宣」はその同志にとっては偉大なる人格的価値だが、この価値の世界に宗教の根はおりてをるのだ。もとより物質的規定をはなれるものでないが、また一面物質を価値づける精神作用も認められるのだ。かく物質と精神とを止揚し綜合する世界観、人生観こそ佛教の中道思想であり農本的共同社会はこの中道思想による社会再建を試みる農本社会の復活であるのだ。言ひかへれば円融観的社会の再建だ。

B　円融観とは？

A　自然と人生とがあたたかく調和された社会観のことだ。

B　円融観！　いかさま、いい言葉だ。では農村寺院はあのまま存続するのか。

A　共同生活は搾取のない社会だから、現在のやうな搾取関係に立つ寺院など存続するはずはない。伽藍そのものは残っても内容はスッカリ清算されるであらう、そして佛教在家生活の中にとけこんでゆくだらう。伽藍は全農村共有の道場として管理されて、葬式ばかりでなく、全……

{{tpage|322}}

色々な公的事業に開放されるやうになるであらう。

B　それらの問題については、もっと説明をきかねばならんが、さしあたり、農村寺院はどう生活したらよからうか。

A　先づブル精神を根本的に清算せねばウソだ。そして寺院と自己とを全農村の前にいさぎよく投げ出して、佛教本来の無所有の信念に帰り率先して共同社会実現へと実践運動を促進さすことだ。できるならば自ら百姓生活を始めて、生活的に農民と呼吸を完全に一致さしつつ前にいった農本社会の理想をグングンと農村の大地にうゑつけることだと思ふ。

B　しかし、それは不可能なんだ。百姓しようにも寺院の田地はたいてい小作にかけてあるから、それを取り返すとなると小作人の死活問題がおこるし、さりとて年貢はろくろく納めてくれないし、寺院も今となっては立つ瀬がないんだよ。

A　それは僕も承知してをる。それは佛教の本領を忘れて長い搾取生活をつづけてきた寺院への当然の因果なんだ。だから「できるなら」といったのだが、実際問題として一般の農村寺院にやれることは、さっき言ったやうに寺院を農村へ差しだし僧侶は農村の下男を以て任ずる底の捨てきった覚悟をさだめてから、さしあたり農村の利益になる仕事を力の許すかぎりグングンやることだ。たとへば托児所、農家副業の研究と指導、各種産業組合の指導担当、日曜学校や図書館の開設、青年男女の教導を目的とする村塾の開設、妻君の仕事としては裁縫の指導など、少し本気でやる気になって考へると、仕事はかなりあるやうに思はれる。

B　村塾など、一寸面白いが、お寺さんが下男とは一寸ひどいね。

A　いや、この覚悟は更生するもののだれもが持たねばならぬ尊い覚悟なんだ。バイブルの「主たらんと欲せば僕たるべし」なんだ。それは無我愛からして自然の態度だ。

B　それはいいとして、そんなことで食って行けるだらうか。

A　どうせ食へんのぢゃないか。この場合、食へうる唯一の道がこれだと思ふのだ。これまでみんなが支配的立場をねらって、みんながドン詰りに落ちたのが今の資本主義社会ぢゃないか。共同社会とは支配的存在を許さ……

{{tpage|323}}

ぬ、みんなが働き合ふ会社だ。そしてそれへ導く先覚者こそは自らこの下男的態度をもってやらぬことには、とてものこと、我利々々の伝統は革新されるものではない。僕は、真情をこめてやれば、この生活ならキット全体を動かして窮状打開の根本信念をつくりうると信ずる。

B　一通りの覚悟ぢゃやりきれまい。

A　もとよりだ。不出世の釈尊でさえ本願成就には血のにじむ六年の苦行を要したのだ。新社会実現といった大事業が、インチキな筆の先きや口の先きで出来あがってたまるものか。すべては血涙の努力だ。僕はこの頃、農村寺院の僧侶諸君の立場は現在働き出すには最も都合のよい立場だと思はれて、羨しくてたまらないのだ。思案にくれるどころか、今こそ佛陀を背負ひ度胸をすえて窮乏の耕地に立ち「先憂後楽」の生活にはれてやる好個の機会ではないか。先月井上君が紹介した「芋代官」「芋地蔵」の故事――石州大森の代官、井戸正朋氏が享保の大饑饉に命をもって窮民につくした義挙のごときは、今こそ農村寺院が率先して実践せねばならぬ行動ではあるまいか。

B　それは農村窮乏の実際をしらない、おめでたい英雄主義的空想ではないのか。

A　批評は君の自由だ。だが僕は実践の可能を信ずるのだ。つい先頃も、北海道の同志から耕地提供の申出があったから調査した上で八月上旬には一家をあげて移住して、雪の国の大地に身をもって佛教精神を植ゑつけようと覚悟して勇んでゐるんだが、不幸にして計画が先方から中絶されてガッカリした。だが今もさうした耕地を求めてゐる。僕等が寺院佛教の否定といふものも、つまりはかうした正しい生活への更生を望むことなんだ。

B　新興佛教は寺院のブチ壊し運動だとおそれてをる寺院もあったぞ。

A　それは誤解だ。全佛徒は佛陀のみ名に於て手をとって共同社会実現へ努力しようといふのが本意なんだ。農村は農民の自覚と結束とによってキット復活するであらうが、この時こそまた佛教更生へのチャンスでもあらねばならんのだ。既成佛教は都市とともにほろぶが、佛教の更生は新興農村を通じて可能だ。否、佛教のための佛教でなく、農村復活の指導力として先駆するところに佛教的使命があるのだ。もし全国的に配置されてをる農村……

{{tpage|324}}

寺院が革新して組織的に活動をはじめたら、それこそ鬼に鉄棒で、この効果たるや少くないと思ふ。

B　さう聞くと、お寺のない村はないが、これらがうまく連絡をとって組織的に運動をやりだしたらそれこそたいしたものだ。わかった坊さんも随分あらうから、やればやれるだらう。

A　教祖や宗祖の生活をしのべば、やらずにはをられんはずなんだ。やらんとすれば、結局、まことの信仰がかれてをるんだ。お経には「渇仰恋慕」とかいてあるが、実践のない恋慕とてはないはずだ。僕は佛教精神を一言にして常に「無常より信愛へ」と考へてをる。明日をはかれん朝露の運命をおもふときに、生くる日の思ひでに信愛一日の生活にも永遠のよろこびが味ひたい。ましてや共同社会実現への契りあった努力においてをやだ。たとへ失敗しても、実践された失敗は成功への一歩接近だ、それこそ「臆病にては叶ふべからず」だ。君、歩み出さねばウソだぞ。嘆息は恥辱だ。戯論は終決だ。傍観は罪悪だ。お互の立場と能力に応じて直接に間接に啓蒙に実践に、農本的共同社会実現へ努力すべきぢゃないか。……君、どうしたんだ、いやに考へこんだぢゃないか？……

B　さう云ふから、火の消えたやうな僕の村の様子がまざまざと胸にうかんできたんだ。君、米を作った百姓が米が食へない、何んと不合理の話ぢゃないか!!

（昭和七年「新興佛教」七月号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG32NNU

2026-08-31T15:47:48Z

James: Created page with "{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__ {{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動〉}} '''Original publication:''' 妹尾義郎「農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動」『新興佛教』1932年（昭和7年）7月. Seno’o Girō. “Nōson no kyūhaku to nōson jiin no undō” 農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動 [“The Crisis of the Countryside and the Rural Temple Movement”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō'' 新興佛教, July 1932. '''Sourc..."

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動」『新興佛教』1932年（昭和7年）7月.

Seno’o Girō. “Nōson no kyūhaku to nōson jiin no undō” 農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動 [“The Crisis of the Countryside and the Rural Temple Movement”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō'' 新興佛教, July 1932.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、316–324頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Nōson no kyūhaku to nōson jiin no undō” 農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 316–324. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG32NNU-T|English translation]]

'''{{size|150%|農村の窮迫と農村寺院の運動}}'''

'''{{size|120%|農村の自覚と農本文化の建設}}'''

{{tpage|316}}

A　農村問題はスバラシクやかましい問題となってきた。たしかに、だれもが考へねばならん問題だ。

B　その対策については色々講究されてをるが、一寸見当がつかんらしいぢゃないか。これまでの労働争議や小作争議がかなりやかましい問題であったが、こんどの農村問題ばかりは、何だか社会が根こそぎから返されるやうなキツイ衝動を感じた。過般の農民××のごとき[もの]もその一つの現はれぢゃなからうか。

A　何しろ、農村問題は全国の大半をしめる農家の死活問題だ。その上、それは、都市の生命線の問題でもあるだけに、全社会の胃袋の問題だから、さうした感じのするのが当然だらう。この頃「窮迫せる農村の実相」と題した朝日新聞の報道をよんでをると、働きもせんねエ連中が、白米の飯を腹一杯かきこんでゐる生活が、何だか罪悪でもあるかに考へられるほどだ。

B　あれで見ると、各県とも農家一戸あたりの負債は平均八九百円だ。全日本では農村は実に五十億円といふ莫大な負債に手足をしばられてをるわけなのだね。

A　一戸あたり八九百円の負債といへば、たいしたことでもないやうだが、米の値もずゐぶん安くなり唯一の資源が枯渇したのだ。その上今でも資金融通の道もまるで運用されないから困難は一倍だ。ぼられ都市にしぼられる。二重の搾取と、おまけに、おなじ所得の商工業者にくらべて二倍乃至三倍の公租公課の負担をさせられて、豊作の年でさへ豊年地獄といふ皮肉な苦しみをなめねばならず、凶作ときては去年の東北地方の惨状だ。どの道、今は農村の八方ふさがりだ。お百姓さんが畦道に立って思案にくれるといふのも尤もだ、と思ふ。

{{tpage|317}}

B　あの新聞に「低利資金の有難迷惑」と題して、こんな話がのってゐた。神奈川県の例では、ある小作農が低利資金を借りに役場にいったら、役場では彼の滞納を低利資金から差引いて、現金の代りにマイナスの勘定書がわたされた、といふことだ。山梨県の例では、「一人当り五十円づつ借りるために田舎の山の中から県庁と勧銀支店へ十人で八回通ったので旅費、べんとう代が二十円づつになって結局三十円を借り、五十円を返済せねばならなくなったから、とんだ高利貸となった」といふことだ。こんなことばかりはあきれてものは云へぬ。金金、カネの始末だ。現在、農民ほど恵まれてゐないものはないやうである。

A　全くだ。第一、汗水しぼって作りあげたお米が自分の口にはいらないで麦や粟だ。それも充分には食へん者さへあるといふんでは無茶だ。東北地方では娘を売って借金の利息を払ったり小作米を納めたりする農家さへあるといふぢゃないか。ところが都市の上流階級を見ると、栄耀栄華おもひのままの生活ぢゃないか。考へれば不合理千万な世の中だ。これでは多少でも社会主義に目覚めて見ると、このままではすまされん問題なはずだ。

B　だが、歴史を見ると百姓は元来が宿命的だからした生活者ではないのだらうか。

A　原始共産社会以後、階級社会にあっては、農民階級は不幸にして其の観があった。しかしながら、それゆゑに今後もこのままに被支配階級であらねばならん道理はない。不合理は早晩清算されずにはをらぬ。今度こそ働く者がさげすまれ働かない者が威張った、あべこべの人類の前史が清算される日がきたのだ。

B　しかしさうした根本的清算が現在の政治家でやれるだらうか。当面の対策さへもがハッキリしないんではないか。農村の立て直しは一寸むづかしいぞ。或は農村はこのまま窮乏から滅亡へと追ひやられるのぢゃあるまいか。

A　じょうだん言っちゃ困る。農村は全人類の生命線ぢゃないか。農村が滅亡する日は人類が滅亡する日だ。君は人類がこのまま滅亡すると思ふかい。人類が生存するかぎり農村は滅亡するもんぢゃない。滅亡させられるもんでもない。農村は不滅だ。農村のこの窮迫こそは農村復活への陣痛だ。そして、それは同時に課せられたる……

{{tpage|318}}

都市偏重の片輪文明の清算期であり新しき農村文化の再建期だと思ふ。もとより、この再建は現在の政治家の、あの名利にたゞれた手などで出来るものではない。それだけ大地に立つ農民それ自身の自覚と自力的努力によってのみ可能なんだ。

B　都会といへば、この頃の都会生活は全く欺瞞と虚栄、不安と焦燥の連鎖劇みたいだ。ほがらかな落ちつきや醇厚な人情など味ふことは一寸むづかしい。マルクスだったか「都会は資本主義の墓場だ」といったが、全くロボットの行列場のやうだ。目覚めた人間のいつまでもたへうる生活ぢゃない。都会は農村の自覚に比例して制限され整理されるであらうが、改造される新社会にあっては農村の地位はどうなるんだらうか。

A　僕は将来の社会は文化的に統制された農本的共同社会でなければならんと思ふ。

B　農本的共同社会といふのは農業本位に統制された共同社会といふ意味か？

A　その通りだ。

B　機械文明は否定するのか。

A　反対だ。大衆的農本的に活用するのだ。農本社会といってもそれは原始共産社会とはちがふ。機械がわるいのではない。機械が大衆性を奪はれ一部の階級の利益のために使用されたり、極端に一切を機械化するところに弊害が生じるのだ。今後はまだまだ農業技術にも機械は応用されねばならぬ。

B　どうして農業本位の社会にせんならんのか。

A　たとへば積木をするにしても、積木が安定するためには上部よりも下部がより広大ならん。ピラミッドのやうな状態に積まれなくちゃいけない。もし之と反対に下部の方が狭小だと不安定になって少しの動揺がきても崩れるだらう。社会の安泰平和も全くこれとおなじ道理だ。農本的階級が上部を支へきれぬほどに窮弱した場合は、必ずや一大動揺が起って再びピラミッド型に復帰せねばやまぬはずである。では社会の根本的階級とは何だ。いふまでもなくそれは労農階級なんだ。わけて農民階級なんだ。見給へ、人類生活の必需品を、衣食住の大半はすべて農林業者の手によらぬものとてはないぢゃないか。五穀はもとよりだ。建築用の材木や織物も畳表も、茶もコーヒーも酒も醤油も味噌も砂糖も、みんな農民の汗の結晶がもとだ。農村はたしかに人類社会の生命線であり根柢であり、ありがたい母性的存在なんだ。

{{tpage|319}}

ところが、十九世紀の産業革命以後、商工業は相因果して急速度に発達して今日の資本主義社会をつくりあげた。そしてブルジョア文明は完成され爛熟したが、之に反比例して徐々に社会的根柢である農民階級はちぢまってきて、ここに逆立したピラミッド型の社会ができあがったんだ。日本でも明治革命以来、十指にみたぬ財閥のつみこんだ五六十億の財産こそ、その間に全農村が背負ひこまされた五六十億の負債なんだ。だから、かうした社会に動揺と不安が連続するのはあたりまへのことなんだ。

B　これぢゃ崩すといふよりも、自然に崩れるのが道理だ。必然性といふやつだね。道義的に考へて見ても、ありがたいお百姓さんを奴百姓とさげすんできたのは、まるで母親をあまっちょと呼ぶどら息子にも似た話だから、こんな社会は到底制裁されねばならん不義な社会だ。

A　その通りだ。さてここで農村は巨大な「る」ブル階級の重圧にたへきれなくなって未曾有の大動揺がおこり、社会は再び正しいピラミッド型の農本的共同社会に本質的な立て直しが要求されてきたのだ。だから、それを見きわめないでやる、いかなる窮状打開策も結局は一時の弥縫策であって、完全に社会的動揺と不安をとりのけるものではない。といって、眼前の対策としてのモラトリアム等そのもろもろの政策を無用といふのではないが……。

B　たしかに、それは道理のやうだ。だがさうした自覚をもって改造運動をやってをるものが果して幾人あるだらうか。第一肝心な農民からが大部分は自覚精神のない頼他的な救済を、全くあてにもならぬ救済をあてにしてをるぢゃないか。

A　いやいやないどころか、各方面にさうした機運は根強くうごいてをる。しかしまだまだ農民一般の眠りの深いのは事実だ。

B　どうして、さういふ風に自己自身の立場や使命がわからないんだらうか。

A　それには色々な原因があるだらう。封建時代から資本主義社会へかけての叩きつけと圧制による原因だが、今一ツは寺院佛教が吹きこんだ他力本願の幻想的安心や自力門の吹きこむ観念生活や、或は服従道徳、等……

{{tpage|320}}

々の影響だと思ふ。何にしても、農民が、農民自身の手にある支配的権威と、農園に漂ふ神聖なる愉悦を忘れて、いつまでも奴隷的根性や都市的享楽が清算されないかぎりは、農村の救済も前途遼遠だ。

B　坊さんも罪の生活をつづけたものだ。一体、常識的に考へても、人を助けるのが、佛様だとして見れば、被支配階級の解放運動のときは宗教家こそ率先してやるべきであったはずだ。それが反って圧制の補助的役割をつとめてきたとはひどいよ。

A　東北地方では、犬に橇をひかせるのに犬の鼻先きに鮭の切れをさしだしてひっぱらせるさうだが、坊さんはあの世の極楽をさきにして民衆にセッセと働かせたが、現代こそ真理の前に欺瞞の清算される時がきたんだ。農村の復活とともに宗教家も自覚めて宗教の本質的運動をやる目がきたんだ。母親が我ままな子供に乳房を与へぬことによって彼を行儀することができるやうに、田園に立って人類の生命線をガッシリ掴んでをる農民の自治的自覚と全国的統制によっては、世の不合理を完全に革正して、人類生活に最もふさはしい農本的共同社会を実現することはキット可能だ。農民は眠った獅子だ。一たび目覚めて吼え立って見る。それこそ断然百獣の王様だ。だが、かうした権威をもってゐながらも、一切をはぐくむやさしい母性的生活者でもあるところにイワンの話ぢゃないが、農本社会のありがたさがあり、永遠性があり、そして勝利があるんだ。

B　農村の社会的地位はよくわかった。農村が奴隷的生活から解放されて、完全に自治的共同社会の主人公になるときこそ全人類の真の平和が将来する日だといふこともうなづけた。

ここで問題を農村寺院の方へむけてゆくが、滅亡の前夜にある農村寺院は、果してどういふ運命をもってをるもんだらうか。農村の復活と共に復活するだらうか。それともマルキシズムのいふやうに宗教は完全に消滅するもんだらうか。

A　それは問題だ。だがマルキシズムを完全に信ずることのできない僕には、ブルジョア階級の滅亡は信じられるが、佛教そのものの消滅は考へられない。ブルジ……

{{tpage|321}}

ョアー社会では宗教の本質は滅亡するが、農本社会は科学的社会観のみで組み立てられない社会だ。農本社会は、科学文明と精神文化とが大自然の母胎で、渾然と融合した文化社会で、言ひかへれば、自然への文化的復帰であって、自然の単なる科学的征服ではない、と思ふ。

君は共産主義者が高調する「三・一五」の歌をしってるかい。

B　ウン、あれは彼等が血と泪で歌ふ歌だ。

A　歌は理論ではない。全人格的な生活の表現だから最も真実なものだ。その中に「われらは君に誓ふ、党のため倒れたる渡政同志よ」といふところがあるが、あれなどは科学的に批評すればナンセンスぢゃないか。もう死んで、をりもせん「渡政」に誓ったり、「山宣」に呼びかけたりするのは、一体どういふ意味なんだ。

B　まさか先生たちは「渡政」や「山宣」の死後の霊を認めてをるわけでもあるまい。

A　もとより死後の個的霊魂などあらうはずはないが、それにも拘らず、人間はああ叫びかけずにはみられない、超科学的な心霊的要請があるんだ。あの歌詞から見ても、「渡政」や「山宣」はその同志にとっては偉大なる人格的価値だが、この価値の世界に宗教の根はおりてをるのだ。もとより物質的規定をはなれるものでないが、また一面物質を価値づける精神作用も認められるのだ。かく物質と精神とを止揚し綜合する世界観、人生観こそ佛教の中道思想であり農本的共同社会はこの中道思想による社会再建を試みる農本社会の復活であるのだ。言ひかへれば円融観的社会の再建だ。

B　円融観とは？

A　自然と人生とがあたたかく調和された社会観のことだ。

B　円融観！　いかさま、いい言葉だ。では農村寺院はあのまま存続するのか。

A　共同生活は搾取のない社会だから、現在のやうな搾取関係に立つ寺院など存続するはずはない。伽藍そのものは残っても内容はスッカリ清算されるであらう、そして佛教在家生活の中にとけこんでゆくだらう。伽藍は全農村共有の道場として管理されて、葬式ばかりでなく、全……

{{tpage|322}}

色々な公的事業に開放されるやうになるであらう。

B　それらの問題については、もっと説明をきかねばならんが、さしあたり、農村寺院はどう生活したらよからうか。

A　先づブル精神を根本的に清算せねばウソだ。そして寺院と自己とを全農村の前にいさぎよく投げ出して、佛教本来の無所有の信念に帰り率先して共同社会実現へと実践運動を促進さすことだ。できるならば自ら百姓生活を始めて、生活的に農民と呼吸を完全に一致さしつつ前にいった農本社会の理想をグングンと農村の大地にうゑつけることだと思ふ。

B　しかし、それは不可能なんだ。百姓しようにも寺院の田地はたいてい小作にかけてあるから、それを取り返すとなると小作人の死活問題がおこるし、さりとて年貢はろくろく納めてくれないし、寺院も今となっては立つ瀬がないんだよ。

A　それは僕も承知してをる。それは佛教の本領を忘れて長い搾取生活をつづけてきた寺院への当然の因果なんだ。だから「できるなら」といったのだが、実際問題として一般の農村寺院にやれることは、さっき言ったやうに寺院を農村へ差しだし僧侶は農村の下男を以て任ずる底の捨てきった覚悟をさだめてから、さしあたり農村の利益になる仕事を力の許すかぎりグングンやることだ。たとへば托児所、農家副業の研究と指導、各種産業組合の指導担当、日曜学校や図書館の開設、青年男女の教導を目的とする村塾の開設、妻君の仕事としては裁縫の指導など、少し本気でやる気になって考へると、仕事はかなりあるやうに思はれる。

B　村塾など、一寸面白いが、お寺さんが下男とは一寸ひどいね。

A　いや、この覚悟は更生するもののだれもが持たねばならぬ尊い覚悟なんだ。バイブルの「主たらんと欲せば僕たるべし」なんだ。それは無我愛からして自然の態度だ。

B　それはいいとして、そんなことで食って行けるだらうか。

A　どうせ食へんのぢゃないか。この場合、食へうる唯一の道がこれだと思ふのだ。これまでみんなが支配的立場をねらって、みんながドン詰りに落ちたのが今の資本主義社会ぢゃないか。共同社会とは支配的存在を許さ……

{{tpage|323}}

ぬ、みんなが働き合ふ会社だ。そしてそれへ導く先覚者こそは自らこの下男的態度をもってやらぬことには、とてものこと、我利々々の伝統は革新されるものではない。僕は、真情をこめてやれば、この生活ならキット全体を動かして窮状打開の根本信念をつくりうると信ずる。

B　一通りの覚悟ぢゃやりきれまい。

A　もとよりだ。不出世の釈尊でさえ本願成就には血のにじむ六年の苦行を要したのだ。新社会実現といった大事業が、インチキな筆の先きや口の先きで出来あがってたまるものか。すべては血涙の努力だ。僕はこの頃、農村寺院の僧侶諸君の立場は現在働き出すには最も都合のよい立場だと思はれて、羨しくてたまらないのだ。思案にくれるどころか、今こそ佛陀を背負ひ度胸をすえて窮乏の耕地に立ち「先憂後楽」の生活にはれてやる好個の機会ではないか。先月井上君が紹介した「芋代官」「芋地蔵」の故事――石州大森の代官、井戸正朋氏が享保の大饑饉に命をもって窮民につくした義挙のごときは、今こそ農村寺院が率先して実践せねばならぬ行動ではあるまいか。

B　それは農村窮乏の実際をしらない、おめでたい英雄主義的空想ではないのか。

A　批評は君の自由だ。だが僕は実践の可能を信ずるのだ。つい先頃も、北海道の同志から耕地提供の申出があったから調査した上で八月上旬には一家をあげて移住して、雪の国の大地に身をもって佛教精神を植ゑつけようと覚悟して勇んでゐるんだが、不幸にして計画が先方から中絶されてガッカリした。だが今もさうした耕地を求めてゐる。僕等が寺院佛教の否定といふものも、つまりはかうした正しい生活への更生を望むことなんだ。

B　新興佛教は寺院のブチ壊し運動だとおそれてをる寺院もあったぞ。

A　それは誤解だ。全佛徒は佛陀のみ名に於て手をとって共同社会実現へ努力しようといふのが本意なんだ。農村は農民の自覚と結束とによってキット復活するであらうが、この時こそまた佛教更生へのチャンスでもあらねばならんのだ。既成佛教は都市とともにほろぶが、佛教の更生は新興農村を通じて可能だ。否、佛教のための佛教でなく、農村復活の指導力として先駆するところに佛教的使命があるのだ。もし全国的に配置されてをる農村……

{{tpage|324}}

寺院が革新して組織的に活動をはじめたら、それこそ鬼に鉄棒で、この効果たるや少くないと思ふ。

B　さう聞くと、お寺のない村はないが、これらがうまく連絡をとって組織的に運動をやりだしたらそれこそたいしたものだ。わかった坊さんも随分あらうから、やればやれるだらう。

A　教祖や宗祖の生活をしのべば、やらずにはをられんはずなんだ。やらんとすれば、結局、まことの信仰がかれてをるんだ。お経には「渇仰恋慕」とかいてあるが、実践のない恋慕とてはないはずだ。僕は佛教精神を一言にして常に「無常より信愛へ」と考へてをる。明日をはかれん朝露の運命をおもふときに、生くる日の思ひでに信愛一日の生活にも永遠のよろこびが味ひたい。ましてや共同社会実現への契りあった努力においてをやだ。たとへ失敗しても、実践された失敗は成功への一歩接近だ、それこそ「臆病にては叶ふべからず」だ。君、歩み出さねばウソだぞ。嘆息は恥辱だ。戯論は終決だ。傍観は罪悪だ。お互の立場と能力に応じて直接に間接に啓蒙に実践に、農本的共同社会実現へ努力すべきぢゃないか。……君、どうしたんだ、いやに考へこんだぢゃないか？……

B　さう云ふから、火の消えたやうな僕の村の様子がまざまざと胸にうかんできたんだ。君、米を作った百姓が米が食へない、何んと不合理の話ぢゃないか!!

（昭和七年「新興佛教」七月号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31SBU

2026-08-30T17:56:46Z

James: Created page with "{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__ {{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――〉}} '''Original publication:''' 妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月. Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一..."

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG31SBU-T|English translation]]

{{tpage|255}}

'''{{size|150%|新興佛教運動の進路}}'''

'''{{size|120%|――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――}}'''

此の小篇は新興佛教運動を決心した今年頭、たまたま佛教思想普及協会から「青年佛教者と既成教団」といふ題で所信を求められたに対して執筆したものである。頁数に制限があって簡約を余儀なくされたが、何しろ私にとつては新運動の記念すべき第一声であつたから、このままわが「佛旗」の巻頭にかかげることにした。

一

既成各教団が現大衆生活と没交渉の空虚極まる残骸的存在であることは、今更いふまでもないことだ。否、ただに一ヶの残骸的存在であるばかりでなく、反つて、搾取階級の一連環となつて百パーセントの阿片的役割をつとめて罪のうはぬりを続けてをる事も、否定しがたき眼前の事実ではないか。

我等は記憶する。かつて都新聞紙上に、増上寺の某貫主が尖鋭化し行く労資問題の根本解決策として、「労働者に因果応報の理を納得せしめて、安心立命せしめるにある」と言つたといふ報道を。近くは、大阪のさる宗教家が美しき袈裟衣をつけて一日貧民窟を巡回し「物慾を離れろ、そこに安心が恵まれる」と、一片のパンにもあへぐ幾多の貧民に諭し廻つたといふ話など、挙げきたれば現代佛教者一般の誤診顚倒を裏書する事実は枚挙に暇がないであらう。

だが思へ、われらの教祖佛陀は果してどうであつた？　かの階級打破、四姓平等の主張は、一体既成佛教団の態度といかに天地雲泥の相異を示してをるか。或は、互に一鉢の食に平等自治の生活をつづけられた生活のごとき、そもそも何を現代人に示唆するものであらう。

かくして思へ、佛陀の真精神と全然離反逆行してをる現既成教団が、現在より、将来へ向って辿るべき必然的運命はそもそも何かを。而して、真理と愛とへの憧憬を

{{tpage|256}}

その特色とすべき青年佛教者は、かかる既成教団に対していかに行動すべきであるかを。然り、それらは最早論議の範囲外であらねばならぬ。ただ一語。「一日も速かなる滅亡と、それへの運動とで再び佛教をして現代に生命づけんとする真剣なる青年佛教者に課せられた使命ではあるまいか。

二

ここに於て、私は真面目なる青年佛教者に二つの運動を提唱する。

その第一は、全既成教団を否定し、直爾に佛陀に帰り、新しく佛陀のみ名による新興佛教青年同盟を実現することだ。その第二は、佛陀の愛と認識とに従って、現資本主義経済組織を否定して、共産共栄の新社会建設運動に邁進することだ。

三

現代人の求むる寂光土が死後に於てでなく、この現実生活に於てであることは言ふまでもない事だ。そして現生活の平安が経済生活を無視して不可能であり、而して、眼前に見る行き詰まつた現社会生活の圧迫不安の原因が、あきらかに資本主義経済組織に基因してをることも、最早あらためて説明するまでもないことだ。

見ればわかる、この問題をぬきにした観念的教化運動の実績を。日々綱紀粛正、日々思想善導、日々教化総動員、等々この数年間を支配階級はどんなに大々的努力を払ひつづけたか。先年は、所謂「国民精神作興」の御詔書までもいただいて、教育者を先頭に一斉射撃のごとき猛運動は行はれたのだ。だが見よ、その効果はどうであつた。エロ、グロ、ナンセンス等々の頽廃性や、彼等の恐るる左傾思想は反って津波のごとき勢を以て流行しつつあるのが現実ではないか。

これに関して宗教家は今こそと時を得顔に叫び廻つた。即ち、それら無効果の根本原因は宗教を無視したる教育であつたからだと。斯くして宗教の声は今や朝野にわたってかまびすしく喧伝されるに至つた。だがまた見よ、見のがすべからざるは当の宗教界一般の内幕だ。俗にもましたものの俗悪！　かかる腐敗しきつた既成教団の現実を以てして何の厚顔ぞ。

このままの宗教運動の権威と功果とを押売りしようと

{{tpage|257}}

は一体、寺院佛教は何に向って頭をさげてをるのだ！　佛陀か！　否々、まことには、金持の檀家の前にではないか。

金だ！　金、さうだ金だ！　みづからは金、物質――即ち利潤本位物質万能の資本主義に叩頭せずしては生活も説法もできないことを自覚しながら、他に向つてはむしろ物質をさげすみたる精神生活――あやしげなる法悦を強要しようとする。これが厚顔無恥でなくて当世どこにより以上の厚顔無恥の標本が発見されようぞ。

とは言へ、もとより吾々は独り宗教家が物資に追従するをのみ非難しようとするものではない。そこにこそ人間生活のどうにもならぬ宿命的なる半面の約束を認めざるをえないのだ。だから非難しようとする要点はそれでなく、それにも拘らず物資に喘ぐ大衆の困乏を無視軽蔑してただ観念的に大衆を物資外に誘導して、当面の困乏に対して忍従を強ひ、反って物資に困らざる少数支配階級に都合よき阿片的御用宗教を得々弁じ立ててをるその不義なる態度をこそである。

佛陀成道二十七年のことであつた。ある日、一人の高弟は饑餓に苦しむ一青年に精神力の偉大さを鼓吹して彼の心をひき立てようとした。その時之を見られた佛陀は高弟をたしなめて急ぎ一鉢の食物をもたらし与へしめられたといふ事だ。

佛陀の教へは単なる観念運動にとどまるべきでなかつた。飢には食を、寒さには衣を、まことに人生無常の認識に出発して共存共栄の信愛生活そのものの中にこそ永遠の相を見たのではなかつたか。「真理は具体的だ」、空虚なる観念の殿堂に佛陀の精神は存在せぬはずであつた。

かくして現資本主義経済組織を顧みれば、まさしく同胞をして我利闘争を余儀なくせしめ、結果は常に大衆生活を不断におびやかす最も非社会的なる組織ではないか。畢竟、佛陀の精神に離反逆行する組織であって、真剣なる求道者の率先改造に志さざるをえない眼前の大問題であらねばならぬはずである。

四

しかしながら、現既成教団に果してこの大運動へ奮起の果断が求められようか。私は信ずる、それは高利貸に向つて全財産を慈善事業に提供せよと強要するにも等し

{{tpage|258}}

い不可能なる注文だと。松にからんで延び上つた藤は、松を離れて独立しては立てぬはずであるからだ。

新しい酒は古い革袋にもらぬ譬へ。腐敗しきつた古池は、まづその汚水も泥土もすっかりかへ出さぬかぎり、新しき泉は湧いてこぬ筈であらう。まことに既成教団こそ少々の濾過作用くらいで現大衆の渇乏要求を充足すべく、あまりにも沈澱腐敗した汚水泥土にも等しき存在である。だからこそ、既成教団一切は否定せねばいけないのだ。而して、直爾に佛陀本来の泉口を温ねて、再び湧出する滾々たる愛と真理の泉流を汲んで以て、同胞相愛、共産共栄への社会実現を期成すべきだといふのである。

時代は不断に推移し、文化は次第に変遷しゆくが宇宙人生の実相だ。佛教とてその例外ではない。常に時代相応の変革を見せてこそ永遠の価値たりうるものであらねばならぬ。現既成教団の依経のごときも――大日経、首楞厳経、或は阿弥陀経、般若経、法華経等々いづれもの大乗経典は、皆かかる人文発展の過程に立って創作された時代相応の経典で、その目的は其の当時すでに硬化したる過去の佛教をば、その時代の大衆生活の中に復活せしめようとしたる佛教復古運動の産物であつたことは最早争へぬ事実と見なして然るべしだ。かくして吾国に見た鎌倉時代の新佛教運動のごときも畢竟おなじ佛教復古運動であつたのだ。

現代は、日蓮聖人を日本佛教の復古運動者の殿としてすでに六百五十年を経過した。その間、研究は釈尊の歴史を三千年前より二千五百年前の事実と書きかへた。十九出家三十成道を二十九出家三十五成道と訂正した。大乗非佛説は幾多の証明をもつて動かぬ学説となってきた。信仰は盲信であってはならぬ。かかる時代に処しての我等は各宗々祖の立宗の精神をこそ学べ、いつまでも時代不相応なる形態を墨守することを以て宗祖への忠義立てとのみ思ふことは、反って宗祖適時の悲願をそこね、延いては佛陀出世の本願を乱して世に長く佛教の価値を失墜せしめる罪業の外何ものでもないと信ずる。まこと一切経は佛陀の愛と認識――空観――とより分化した一大文化体系だ。佛陀の愛と認識に帰るものにとつては、もはや大同小異なる各宗の形式に拘泥して、いつまでも排他自揚の宗派的偏見をつづくべきではないと思ふ。

青年佛教者よ！　佛陀は、そして、現代は我等に何を

{{tpage|259}}

待望してをるか。

青年佛教者よ！　断然、因襲を捨てよ。而して、佛陀に帰れ。一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ！　而して、握手策励、燃ゆる愛と冷静なる認識とに従って、現代不安の根本基因たる資本主義社会改造へと進出せよ！　これぞ時代救済に必要なる名実そろった佛教復古運動であり、吾等に待望されたる唯一の使命であらねばならぬ。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』四月創刊号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:52:39Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==
<span id="Page_255"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 255|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 255</div>

'''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement'''
'''—Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan 青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,

<span id="Page_256"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 256|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 256</div>

ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are—

<span id="Page_257"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 257|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 257</div>

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity—

<span id="Page_258"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 258|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 258</div>

for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect

<span id="Page_259"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 259|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 259</div>

of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:52:21Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==
<span id="Page_255"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 255|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 255</div>

'''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement'''
'''—Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan 青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,

<span id="Page_256"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 256|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 256</div>

ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are—

<span id="Page_257"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 257|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 257</div>

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity—

<span id="Page_258"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 258|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 258</div>

for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect

<span id="Page_259"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 259|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 259</div>

of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:50:50Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==
<span id="Page_255"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 255|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>

'''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement'''
'''—Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan 青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,

<span id="Page_256"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 256|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>

ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are—

<span id="Page_257"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 257|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity—

<span id="Page_258"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 258|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>

for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect

<span id="Page_259"></span><span style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em;">[[SG31SBU#Page 259|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</span>

of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:49:12Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==
{{opage|255}}

'''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement'''
'''—Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan (青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,

{{opage|256}}

ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are—

{{opage|257}}

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity—

{{opage|258}}

for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect

{{opage|259}}

of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:47:18Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, "The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!"}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==
{{opage|255}}

'''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement'''
'''—Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan 青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,

{{opage|256}}

ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are—

{{opage|257}}

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity—

{{opage|258}}

for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect

{{opage|259}}

of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:47:01Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ―― [“The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!”]. ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==
{{opage|255}}

'''The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement'''
'''—Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan 青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,

{{opage|256}}

ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are—

{{opage|257}}

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity—

{{opage|258}}

for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect

{{opage|259}}

of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement —Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!—

2026-08-30T17:45:59Z

James: James moved page The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement —Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!— to SG31SBU-T

#REDIRECT [[SG31SBU-T]]

SG31SBU-T

2026-08-30T17:45:59Z

James: James moved page The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement —Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!— to SG31SBU-T

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, "The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner!"}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」『新興佛教の旗の下に』創刊号、1931年（昭和6年）4月.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere” 新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――; The Course of the Revitalized Buddhism Movement: Return Together beneath the Buddha’s Great Banner! ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' (新興佛教の旗の下に), inaugural issue (April 1931).

'''Source text:''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教運動の進路――一斉に佛陀の大傘下に帰れ――」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、255–259頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō undō no shinro: Issei ni Butsuda no dai-sanka ni kaere.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 255–259. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==
'''[p. 255]'''

I wrote this short piece at the beginning of this year, when I had resolved to launch the Revitalized Buddhism movement, in response to a request from the Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought<ref>The Society for the Promotion of Buddhist Thought (Bukkyō Shisō Fukyūkai 佛教思想普及会) was an interwar lay association devoted to promoting modern, nonsectarian Buddhist thought. In early 1931, it solicited Seno’o’s views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects” (Seinen Bukkyōsha to Kisei Kyōdan (青年仏教者と既成教団), “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Seno’o regarded the resulting essay as the “first declaration” of his new movement and reprinted it at the beginning of the inaugural April 1931 issue of Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni 新興仏教の旗の下に).</ref> to state my views on the topic “Young Buddhists and the Established Buddhist Sects.” Space limitations forced me to be brief, but since this was, after all, my memorable first declaration of the new movement, I have decided to reproduce it here unchanged at the beginning of our ''Buddhist Banner''.

=== 1 ===

It hardly needs saying that the established Buddhist sects today are utterly empty, moribund institutions, completely disconnected from the lives of the masses. Indeed, they are not merely moribund institutions. Is it not an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they have actually become links in the chain of the exploiting classes, playing a one-hundred-percent opiate role and thereby compounding their guilt?<ref>Seno’o’s characterization of established religion as “opiate-like” (阿片的) deliberately invokes the socialist critique of religion as a means of reconciling the oppressed to existing social conditions. The expression recalls Marx’s famous characterization of religion as “the opium of the people,” though Seno’o’s immediate target is not religion or Buddhism as such, but institutional Buddhism functioning in support of class domination.</ref>

We remember reading in the ''Miyako Shimbun'' that an abbot of Zōjōji once proposed, as a fundamental solution to the increasingly acute conflict between labor and capital, that “workers should be made to understand the principle of karmic retribution and thereby attain peace of mind.”<ref>Zōjōji 増上寺 in Shiba, Tokyo, is a major Jōdo-shū (Pure Land) temple and historically served as a funerary temple of the Tokugawa shogunal family. According to a report in the Miyako Shimbun, one of its abbots advocated teaching workers the principle of “karmic retribution” (inga ōhō 因果応報) as a means of resolving worsening labor-capital conflict. Seno’o condemns such appeals to karma as a distortion of Buddhist teaching that encourages workers to understand poverty and inequality as consequences of individual karma rather than as social conditions subject to collective transformation.</ref> More recently, we heard of a certain religious figure in Osaka who donned beautiful priestly robes and spent a day making the rounds of a slum, admonishing the many poor people there who could scarcely obtain a piece of bread: “Free yourselves from material desire, and there you will find peace of mind.” Were we to go on, there would be no end to the examples confirming the mistaken diagnosis and topsy-turvy thinking of contemporary Buddhists.

But consider this: what was our teacher, the Buddha, actually like? How vastly different from the attitude of the established Buddhist sects was his call to break down class distinctions and establish equality among the four castes!<ref>Shisei 四姓 (“four castes/classes”) is the conventional East Asian Buddhist rendering of the four varṇa: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. Modern Japanese Buddhists frequently invoked the Buddha’s rejection of hereditary status distinctions as evidence of Buddhism’s fundamentally egalitarian character. Seno’o radicalizes this familiar claim by juxtaposing Buddhist equality with modern class hierarchy.</ref> Or consider the life of equality and self-governance in which all shared alike from a single alms bowl. What does such a life suggest to people today?

Consider, then, what inevitable fate awaits, now and into the future, the established Buddhist sects that have so completely betrayed and run counter to the true spirit of the Buddha. And consider how young Buddhists, whose defining characteristic should be their yearning for truth and love,…

'''[p. 256]'''

…ought to act toward such established sects. Yes, these are matters that should by now lie beyond debate. '''There is only one answer: “Their destruction as quickly as possible, and a movement toward that end.” Is this not the mission entrusted to serious young Buddhists who seek once again to bring Buddhism to life in the modern age?'''

=== 2 ===

At this point, I propose two courses of action to all serious young Buddhists.

The first is to reject all established Buddhist sects, return directly to the Buddha, and establish a new Revitalized Buddhist Youth League in the Buddha’s name alone. The second is, in accordance with the Buddha’s love and insight, to reject the present capitalist economic system and advance toward a movement to construct a new society of communal ownership and shared prosperity.<ref>Kyōsan kyōei 共産共栄 literally combines “common/shared production or property” (kyōsan 共産) with “shared prosperity” (kyōei 共栄). Although kyōsan 共産 already carried an unmistakable association with communism, Seno’o’s compound is not the standard term kyōsan shugi 共産主義 (“communism”). The formulation allows him to articulate a Buddhist social ideal of common ownership and mutual flourishing while simultaneously placing the movement within contemporary socialist discourse.</ref>

=== 3 ===

It goes without saying that the Pure Land of Tranquil Light sought by people today is not something to be found after death, but here in this actual life.<ref>Jakkōdo 寂光土, more fully jōjakkōdo 常寂光土 (“Land of Eternally Tranquil Light”), is the highest Buddha-land in Tiantai/Tendai cosmology and became especially important in the Nichiren tradition. Seno’o characteristically relocates the Buddha-land from a transcendent or postmortem realm to the material conditions of present human life.</ref> And peace in our present lives is impossible if economic life is ignored. Nor does it need further explanation that the oppression and anxiety of our present society, now visibly at an impasse, are clearly rooted in the capitalist economic system.

Just look at the results of idealistic campaigns for moral edification that ignore this problem. Day after day: tightening public discipline; day after day: “guiding” thought; day after day: total mobilization for moral instruction. How enormous the efforts the ruling classes have poured into such campaigns over the past several years! Some years ago they were even graced with the so-called Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit, and with educators in the vanguard they launched a furious campaign resembling a coordinated barrage.<ref>The Imperial Rescript on the Promotion of the National Spirit (Kokumin Seishin Sakkō ni Kansuru Chōsho 国民精神作興ニ関スル詔書) was issued on November 10, 1923, in the aftermath of the Great Kantō Earthquake. Calling for frugality, moral discipline, and loyalty to the imperial state amid mounting social unrest, it became an important reference point for official campaigns of moral edification (kyōka undō 教化運動) during the 1920s. Seno’o invokes the Rescript as an example of state-sponsored “spiritual” reform that sought to address social disorder through moral discipline rather than structural economic change.</ref> But look at the results! Is it not a fact that decadence—“''ero, guro, nansensu''” [erotic, grotesque, nonsense]—and the leftist thought they so fear have instead spread with the force of a tsunami?<ref>Ero, guro, nansensu (“erotic, grotesque, nonsense”) was a popular early-Shōwa expression for forms of mass culture associated with sexuality, sensationalism, absurdity, and urban decadence. Conservative critics frequently treated such phenomena as symptoms of moral and social disorder.</ref>

At this, religious figures seized their opportunity and began shouting triumphantly that the fundamental reason these efforts had failed was an education that ignored religion. And so the call for religion has come to be loudly proclaimed throughout official and private circles alike. But look again! What must not be overlooked is the inner reality of the religious world itself. A vulgarity surpassing even the vulgar! Given the reality of these utterly corrupt established Buddhist sects, what shamelessness!

And yet they would presume to peddle the authority and supposed efficacy of religious movements just as they are.

'''[p. 257]'''

What, after all, does temple Buddhism bow its head before? The Buddha? No, no! In truth, does it not bow before its wealthy parishioners?

Money! Money—yes, money! While fully aware that they themselves cannot live or preach without bowing down before money and material things—that is, before a capitalism centered on profit and the omnipotence of material wealth—they nevertheless seek to force upon others a “spiritual life” that despises material things, together with some dubious state of religious bliss. If this is not brazen hypocrisy, where today could one possibly find a more perfect specimen of it?

That said, of course, we do not intend simply to condemn religious figures for their dependence on material things. Precisely here we must acknowledge one inescapable fact of human life. That is not the point of our criticism. What we condemn is their unjust attitude: despite this reality, they ignore and despise the suffering of the masses who struggle for material necessities; they seek, through purely idealistic preaching, to lead the masses away from material concerns; they compel them to endure their immediate deprivation; and all the while they smugly expound an opiate-like, establishment religion convenient for the small ruling class that suffers no material want.

It was twenty-seven years after the Buddha’s awakening. One day, one of his leading disciples tried to raise the spirits of a young man suffering from hunger by preaching to him about the greatness of spiritual strength. Seeing this, the Buddha admonished the disciple and had him quickly bring the young man a bowl of food.<ref>Seno’o alludes to a story preserved in the Dhammapada-aṭṭhakathā (commentary on Dhammapada 203; cf. the Chinese Chuyao jing 出曜経, Taishō vol. 4, no. 212). Twenty-seven years after his awakening, the Buddha encounters a hungry farmer who has spent the day searching for a lost ox and refuses to preach to him until he has been fed. The episode is associated with the verse Jighacchā paramā rogā (“Hunger is the greatest illness”; Dhammapada 203). Seno’o adapts the story—his version makes the hungry man a “young man” and has a senior disciple exhort him on the power of the spirit—to ground his materialist argument in Buddhist tradition: immediate physical needs cannot simply be subordinated to moral or spiritual exhortation.</ref>

The Buddha’s teaching was never meant to remain a merely idealistic movement. Food for the hungry, clothing for the cold: beginning from the recognition of life’s impermanence, did he not perceive the eternal precisely within a life of mutual love and trust, of coexistence and shared prosperity? “Truth is concrete.”<ref>The dictum “truth is concrete” echoes a formulation prominent in Marxist and Leninist dialectical thought. Its appearance here encapsulates Seno’o’s insistence that Buddhist truth must be realized in material and social practice rather than abstract doctrine.</ref> The spirit of the Buddha could never have resided in some empty palace of abstractions.

When we turn, then, to the present capitalist economic system, do we not find an utterly antisocial system that forces our fellow human beings into a struggle for private gain and consequently subjects the lives of the masses to constant insecurity? In the end, it is a system that betrays and runs counter to the spirit of the Buddha. Its transformation is therefore an urgent problem before our very eyes—one in which sincere seekers of the Way must take the lead.

=== 4 ===

But can we really expect the established Buddhist sects to summon the courage and determination necessary to rise up for this great movement? I believe that would be as impossible a demand as insisting that a moneylender donate his entire fortune to charity…

'''[p. 258]'''

…for a wisteria vine that has grown by entwining itself around a pine cannot leave the pine and stand independently.

New wine cannot be poured into old wineskins.<ref>An allusion to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38). Seno’o repurposes the Christian image to argue that a revitalized Buddhism cannot be contained within inherited sectarian institutions.</ref> Unless all the filthy water and mud are first emptied from a putrid old pond, no fresh spring can well up. Indeed, the established Buddhist sects have become like stagnant, putrid water and mud, far too corrupted for a little filtration to satisfy the thirst and deprivation of the masses today. This is precisely why all the established Buddhist sects must be rejected. We must instead return directly to the original wellspring of the Buddha, draw once more upon the ever-flowing fountain of love and truth, and work toward the realization of a society founded upon mutual love among our fellow human beings, communal ownership, and shared prosperity.

The times move ceaselessly forward and culture gradually changes: such is the true character of the cosmos and human life. Buddhism is no exception. Only by continually transforming itself in accordance with the times can it possess eternal value. Consider even the scriptures upon which the present established sects base themselves—the ''Mahāvairocana Sūtra'', the ''Śūraṃgama Sūtra'', the ''Amitābha Sūtra'', the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras'', the ''Lotus Sūtra'', and the other Mahāyāna scriptures. All were scriptures created in response to their respective ages over the course of human cultural development. Their purpose was to revive, within the lives of the masses of their own times, a Buddhism of the past that had already become rigid. It is surely no longer disputable that they were products of Buddhist revival movements. Likewise, the new Buddhist movements that appeared in Japan during the Kamakura period were, in the final analysis, Buddhist revival movements of precisely the same kind.

Today, six hundred and fifty years have already passed since Nichiren, the last of Japan’s Buddhist revivalists. During that time, scholarship has rewritten the history of Śākyamuni, moving him from three thousand years ago to twenty-five hundred years ago. It has corrected the tradition that he renounced household life at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, replacing it with renunciation at twenty-nine and awakening at thirty-five. The theory that the Mahāyāna scriptures were not directly preached by the Buddha has, through abundant evidence, become an established scholarly position.<ref>The “Mahāyāna Is Not the Buddha’s Teaching” theory (daijō hibussetsuron 大乗非仏説論) holds that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the historical Buddha and thus are not direct records of his preaching. Anticipated in the Edo period by Tominaga Nakamoto 富永仲基 (1715–1746) in Shutsujō Kōgo (出定後語, 1745), the position became a major controversy in modern Japanese Buddhist studies through Murakami Senshō 村上専精 (1851–1929), especially his Daijō bussetsuron hihan 大乗仏説論批判, 1901. By Seno’o’s time, the historical development of Mahāyāna literature was widely accepted in academic Buddhist studies. Seno’o turns this historical-critical insight against sectarian orthodoxy: if Buddhist scriptures themselves arose through historical processes of adaptation, fidelity to Buddhism requires renewed adaptation to the conditions of the present.</ref>

Faith must not be blind faith. Living in such an age, we should learn from the spirit in which the founders of the various sects established their teachings. To imagine that loyalty to those founders requires us forever to preserve forms unsuited to the times is, I believe, actually to betray their fervent aspiration to respond to the needs of their own age. Ultimately, it disrupts the Buddha’s original purpose in appearing in this world and constitutes nothing less than an offense that causes Buddhism to lose its value in the world for generations.

Indeed, the entire Buddhist canon constitutes a vast cultural system differentiated from the Buddha’s love and insight—insight into emptiness.<ref>Seno’o here glosses ninshiki 認識 (“cognition,” “recognition,” or “understanding”) with kūkan 空観, the Buddhist “contemplation/insight into emptiness.” His pairing of ai 愛 (“love”) and ninshiki 認識 is characteristic: Buddhist awakening entails both an affective commitment to others and a correct apprehension of reality.</ref> For those who return to the Buddha’s love and insight, there is no longer any reason to cling to the forms of the various sects, whose differences are minor beside their fundamental similarities, or endlessly perpetuate sectarian prejudices of exclusion and self-exaltation.

Young Buddhists! What do the Buddha—and the modern age—expect…

'''[p. 259]'''

…of us?

'''Young Buddhists! Resolutely cast off the shackles of tradition. Return to the Buddha. Return together beneath the Buddha’s great banner! Join hands and spur one another onward; guided by burning love and clear-eyed insight, advance toward the transformation of capitalist society, the fundamental cause of the anxieties of our age! This is the Buddhist revival movement—in name and in reality—required for the salvation of our age, and it must be the one mission entrusted to us.'''

(Shōwa 6 [1931], inaugural April issue of ''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'')

<references />

SG31SBE

2026-08-30T17:20:55Z

James:

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈新興佛教への転身〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身 [“Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism”]. Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG31SBE-T|English translation]]

{{tpage|260}}

'''{{size|150%|新興佛教への転身}}'''

一、既成宗団と資本主義の否定

B　君はこんど日蓮主義をやめて、新興佛教運動とかをやるといふが、本当か。

A　本当だ。

B　何の目的でやるんだ。

A　第一は堕落した既成教団を排撃して佛教の真価を現代に発揮したいのだ。第二は分裂した佛教を統一して、醜い宗派争ひを絶ちたいのだ。第三は佛陀の精神に反する資本主義経済組織の改造運動に参加して、愛と平等の理想社会を実現したいのだ。

B　そんなことは不可能ではないか。空想に終りはせぬか。

A　空想ではない。既成佛教団の破滅も、資本主義の倒壊も、もう時機の問題だと心得てをる。

B　資本主義の改造はともかくも、そんなに新たに宗教運動をやらなくても、従来の日蓮主義を一そう徹底してはだめなのか。わけて君はこれまで日蓮主義の地盤を築いてきてゐるのだから、惜しい気はしないか。

A　真理の前には打算はできぬのが僕の気性だ。今は、新運動を決行する外僕の道はなくなつた。従来の日蓮主義は色々な意味に於て行き詰つてをる。無論他の佛教団もだが。この際どうしても根本的な革命をねらぬことには佛教は復活せぬと思ふ。丁度、資本主義に少々の修正くらゐでは駄目なと一ツやうに、宗団の堕落も病膏肓に入つてゐるからさ。

B　それは時勢に阿附する出来心ではないか。

A　君は僕の長い信仰生活を知つてる筈だがね。

B　もう随分と長いことだ。一体、何年になるかね。

A　僕が日蓮主義の信仰をえたのは明治四十四年だ。

{{tpage|261}}

そして雑誌『若人』を発刊して日蓮主義を鼓吹しだしたのは大正九年の秋からだ。だから、公的な伝道生活は十二ヶ年、私的な信仰生活は実に二十一ヶ年の長年月だ。そして信仰の熱意だけでは何人にもひけをとらぬつもりで今日まで、信仰とその宣伝に全生命をささげてきたのだから、一時の出来心などで鞍替へするには、なんぼなんでも忍びぬ因縁ではないか。

B　さう聞けばさうだ。三日連れ添ふても相手はなかなか忘れられぬといふからね。では、よくよくの覚悟だらうが、それにしても断然、日蓮聖人も捨てるとは、よく思ひきつた決断だね。

A　とんでもないことだ。日蓮聖人に対する渇仰の心は年と共に高まつてくる。今から顧みると過去の信仰生活など、まるで遊戯であつた。僕の胸に少しでも愛の心が深まり、それに従つて、少しでも具体的な菩薩行を励まうとすればする程日蓮聖人の御生涯が、お言葉がひしひしと骨まで沁みこむやうに感じられる。全くあんな偉い人はないと信じてをる。

B　それでは、どうして日蓮主義をやめるのか。

A　やめると言へば、やめるやうにも見られるが、僕としては日蓮聖人の旧套を捨てるので、反つて、その精神を現代に復活するのだと思つてる。日蓮聖人の根本精神を現代に復活させようと専念すればするほど、この新興佛教運動の可能と、そして、ただこれのみが最も時代に適応した唯一の救済運動であつて、広く、全佛教の復活はかかつてこの運動に発見されると、僕は固く確信してきたのだ。

B　旧套を捨てるといへば、尤ものやうに聞えるが、言葉はどうでも、実際には日蓮主義を否定するのだらう。

二、日蓮主義の復活だ

A　その通りだ。

B　そんなに日蓮主義を否定しても日蓮聖人に反逆とはならないか。

A　さうだ。日蓮主義も時代の必要によつて起つた一つの形式だ。聖人開教の歴史や、遺された幾多の文献に徴して見ても、形式を革めることに不都合はない。否、客観的情勢に応じて改革してこそ、まことに日蓮聖人の精神に触れたものと考へられる。聖人は実にすぐれた開

{{tpage|262}}

明的叡智の持主で、決して株を守つて兎を待つたり、柱に膠して琴を弾ずるやうな融通のきかぬ保守的な人格ではなかつた。

孟子が孔子を評して「聖の時なる者」といつたが、それにもまして、わが日蓮聖人は時機を見る典型的な聖者であつた。「一切のことは国と時によるべし」とか、「法華経は一法なれども機により時に随つて、その行ひ万差なるべし」とか、「彼の国によかりし法なれば、必ずこの国にもよかるべしと思ふべからず」とか、挙げればきりもないが、これらに就いて見るやうに、聖人の宗教は批判の宗教である。批判は自己清算でも忠実でなくてはウソではないか。けだし、孔子が、「択んで仁にをらずんば焉んぞ知を得ん」といつたのも、ここらの消息ではあるまいか。

三、佛教の本質

B　少しは肯ける。

A　元来、佛教の本質がさうなのだ。「佛」とは「結ばれがほどけた」意味だといはれる位で、一定の型にこだはらぬところが特色である。それがまた解脱でもあるのだ。少し専門的に説明して見ると、佛教は「我」と「我所」、即ち個我と私有とを否定して、「無我」と「無所有」とを説かれた教へである。佛教の三原則として知られてをる有名な三法印――諸行無常・諸法無我・涅槃寂静のさいごのごときも、結局、「空」の一字に納まるので、甲乙と執着せぬ、従つて、場所によれば、甲でもあり乙でもありうる変通自在の法を説かれたものである。法華経の法師品には「一切法空」と説き、方便品には諸法実相と名づけて、いはゆる如是相・如是性・如是体云々とかの十如是の理を示して因縁による変化性を説明されてゐる。だから「法は無性なり、佛種は縁によりて起る」とも説いてある。また、法華経の序論である無量義経には、

「是の如き無相は相ならず、相ならずして相なきを名づけて実相となす。菩薩かくの如き真実の相に安住し已つて発するところの慈悲明諦にして虚しからず、衆生の所に於て真に能く苦を抜く」

と説明してあるが、つづめて言へば特定の立場――「無立場」といふ立場を否定した「無立場」の立場、畢竟、一切に執せられぬ立場に立つて、時処位に応じて変通す

{{tpage|263}}

る態度にこそ徹底した慈悲は現はれ、よく大衆を救済しうるものだと道破されたものである。従つて、日蓮主義も、無相実相の佛教哲理の例外でないから、時と場所、事情によつてはこれも揚棄して差支へないはずであつて、問題は、その時代の文化と照応して、改革すべき相当の理由があるならば思ひきつて改革してこそ佛教の本領にかなひ日蓮聖人の御精神に参到しえたものと思ふべきではあるまいか。

B　さう言はれて見ると、日蓮聖人のとられた形式でも、時勢の推移によつては改革して差支へぬわけだね。

四、形式は変化する

A　その通りだ。早い話が、卵について見ても、白味と黄味と別々の場合は、殻はなくてはならぬ大事な外形だが、もし親鳥にはぐくまれて中に雛が出来てくると、それは不必要な反対物となつてくる。そしてこれを破壊せぬことには新しき生命は出てこぬわけではないか。

B　マルクスのいふ唯物弁証法的な説明だね。

A　だれが云つたつて真理に二つはない。実に「時」といふやつは不思議な力で、一人や二人の考へではどうにもならぬ必然性をもつて迫る。だから日蓮聖人は『撰時鈔』といふ論文の冒頭には「夫れ佛法を学ばん法は、必ず先づ時を習ふべし」と筆を下して、「時鳥は春を送り鶏は暁をまつ、畜生すら猶かくの如し、何に況んや佛法を修行せんには時を糾ざるべしや」と説き、「されば機に随つて法を説くと申すは大なる僻見なり」と論じてをられる。実に徹底した識見ではないか。機といふのは個性といふ意味だから、この文は個々の個性を対象として、いはゆる「応病与薬」式の個人的救済運動を否定して、超個人的に社会一般の客観的情勢を対象として、その時代に適する社会的救済方法を主眼とせねばならぬといふ鉄案なのだ。

B　社会科学のいふところとよく似てをるね。

A　まだよく似たところは、現代の大衆的闘争の可能を説明するものに、こんな御遺文もある。『聖愚問答鈔』の一節だが、

「今の世は濁世なり、人の情もひがみゆがんで権教謗法のみ多ければ正法弘まりがたし。此の時は読誦書写の修行も観念工夫修練も無用なり。只折伏を行じて力

{{tpage|264}}

を責めよとなり、取捨その旨を得て一向に執する事なかれ」

何と徹底した宣言ではないか。佛教だといへば、すぐ坐禅工夫を連想したり、無抵抗主義を考へたりしがちな人々には、こんな文章は或は天魔の逆宣伝でもあるかに思はれるだらうが、実社会をまともに見抜いてくると、この宣言のごとく、現今のいはゆる修養などがいかに反つて阿片的役割をつとめて、あたら有為の青年を去勢してゐるか知れぬのだから、こんな時代には何としても堂々たる闘争によらずしては天国は地上には築かれぬやうに考へられる。さりとてに闘争のための闘争でも困るから、「取捨その旨を得て」とあるあたりは全く行きとどいた教言ではないか。

B　さう言はれると、今まで自分たちが見た佛教はまるで見当ちがひのやうにも思はれるぞ。

A　遠慮なく言つて、全く見当ちがひの処が多いのだ。それが推移する時代に無意識で、或は意識しても御用宗教の悲しさで、百年一日、形式ばかりの説法をくりかへされたおかげなのだ。見給へ、あの宗門の時代錯誤ぶりを。社会はナッパ服だらうが、モーニングだらうが、人格に差別なくますます機会均等となりつつあるのに、率先してさらすべき宗門内では、今に衣の色合ひやら僧階の差別やらウルサイこと限りなしである。社会では日々社会政策が徹底しつつあるのに、宗門では一体何をやつてをる？

B　その点同感だ。形式は時代に応じて改革せねばならぬことがよくわかつた。結局、時代の上に佛教を復活さすために、時代相応の形式に盛つて行かうといふ運動だね。

五、新興佛教運動の眼目

B　ところが、君は「南無妙法蓮華経」をやめて、「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」と唱へるといふではないか。

A　さうするのが新興佛教運動の眼目なのだ。かりにも佛教を奉ずる佛弟子たちは、すべて念佛もやめ大日信仰もやめ、既成宗団の形式一切をやめて佛陀の御人格を讃仰した「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」の旗印の下にまづ融合して、そこから新しく社会的に進出を試みようといふのだ。君はこの形式は、全佛教徒に共通する唯一根本の形式として、また同時に佛教統一の方法として、これ

{{tpage|265}}

以上よい方法が他にあると考へるか。但し、この形式はこれまで、真面目な先覚によつて既に提唱されたこともあつたが、時の至らぬためか、まだ勢力がない。しかし勢力のあるなしでなく、現代から将来への佛教界の必然的運命と僕は信じて全霊をこめて一石を置くわけだ。

B　君の願心はよくわかる。しかし僕の腑に落ちないのは、君は「日蓮聖人の精神を生かす」のだといつたが、日蓮聖人は「日蓮の魂は南無妙法蓮華経に過ぎたるはなし」といつてゐられるのだから、もし題目をやめて南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶と唱へる事は、聖人の精神を捨てる事にはなるまいか。

A　尤もの疑問だ。しかしながら、その文章の前には「佛の御意は法華経なり、日蓮の魂は南無妙法蓮華経に過ぎたるはなし」とあるので、つまり、日蓮聖人は一切経のうち法華経が佛陀の根本精神を宿した経典だと信じられたゆゑに、さう申されたのだが、もし、法華経のみが佛陀の根本精神を宿す唯一の経典でないときまつてくれば、むしろ南無妙法蓮華経よりも聖人の渇仰しやまない佛陀のみ名を、「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」とはつきり唱へることが、学的根拠を求めて立宗された聖人の精神に添ふ道でもあつて、決して聖人を冒瀆することにはならない、と僕は信じる。

B　もし、法華経の見方がさうなれば、君の主張は道理だが、では妙法蓮華経は佛教の根本精神でないといふのか。

六、大乗非佛説

A　そこが問題となるのだ。君は近代の佛教界に提唱されてゐる「大乗非佛説」といふ学説を聞いたことはないか。

B　全然噂さをきかないでもないが、内容をよく知らないから、一ツ話してくれ給へ。

A　簡単に話さう。佛教経典は大別して般若経、法華経、阿弥陀経、大日経、楞伽経等々の大乗経典と阿含経等の小乗経典とに分類されてゐた。そして、どちらも佛陀の説法を記録したものと見做されてゐたのが、近来、それらの大乗経典は直接佛陀のお説きになつた経典でないと主張するのが、「大乗非佛説」といふのだ。

B　では、それらの経典はどうして作られたのか。

A　それはさうだらう。佛教も、時代が推移し世態文化が

{{tpage|266}}

進歩するにつれて発展して、時代に適応すべく幾多の新しき経典が後来の佛弟子によつて創作されたのが大乗経典で、従つて、大乗経典は直接佛陀の説法記録でないから「大乗非佛説」といふのだ。つまり発達佛教といふ意味だ。

B　では大乗非佛説の立場から見ると法華経も、発達佛教の一つだから、法華経は佛陀の根本精神でなくなるといふのだね。

A　その通りだ。

B　では日蓮聖人時代には、七千巻からの一切経はすべて佛陀の直接説法の集録と見られてゐた訳だから、それをどうして日蓮聖人は法華経のみをとつて佛教の根本精神だと主張されたのか。

A　それは、経典そのものが、さう説明してをるのだ。わけて日本佛教の母体である天台の教学もさう説明してゐるので、それによると、一切経は佛陀が三十成道八十入滅の五十年間の説法で、これを前後二期に大別して前期を四十二ヶ年とし、法華以前の一切経は四十二年間の説法で、之を爾前経といひ、後八ヶ年の法華経が佛陀の真精神を顕揚された真実の経典で、爾前経はすべて法華経顕揚のために説かれた方便経だと論断されてゐたのだ。

B　それには相当の経証があるのか。

A　さうだ。たとへば法華経の法師品の「わが所説の諸経あり、而も此の中に於て法華最も第一なり」など法華経を最高に価値づけた経文は外にも沢山あるが、わけてその序論としてある無量義経にある「性欲不同なれば種々に法を説き、種々に法を説くこと方便力を以てす。四十余年には未だ真実を顕はさず」といふ文句や、方便品の「正直に方便を捨てて但無上道を説く」のごときは有力な文証だから当時の佛教統一眼には天台の教学も無理からぬ話だつたのである。一方法華経薬王菩薩品に「後五百歳閻浮提に於て広宣流布せん」といふ経証があつて、互に照合されて法華経は末法時代に流布すべき唯一の経典とまで言はれてゐた。そして天台は「後五百歳遠く妙道に沾はん」と末法時代を望んでゐたし、日本に於ける法華経の先駆者であつた伝教大師も亦同じ信念と予言とを示

{{tpage|267}}

してみた。さて、かうした伝統の中に出現して佛教の分裂と堕落とを憤慨して革正統一を畢生の志願とされたのが日蓮聖人なのだ。而も時は佛滅後二千年を過ぎたる末法の初期に当つてゐた。聖人の聡明と熱誠に法華経がどう感応したかは説明するまでもないことであらう。

B　さう聞くと、「法華経の行者日蓮」の自覚には、たしかに必然的約束があるやうに考へられたのは無理ではない。だから、法華経以外の一切の宗派は否定せねばならなかつたといふわけだね。

A　さうだ。この教学に立つ限りに於て、末法に於ては法華経を離れて佛教の精神はなかつたのだ。一寸長いが、聖人が書かれた報恩抄の一節を見ると、この辺の消息がよくわかる。

此等の宗々みな本経本論によりて我も我も一切経をきはめたりと云々。彼の人々云く一切経の中には華厳経第一なり、法華経・大日経は臣下のごとし。真言宗云く一切経の中には大日経第一なり、余経は衆星の如し。禅宗云く一切経の中には楞伽経第一なり、乃至余宗かくのごとし。而も上に挙ぐる諸師は世間の人々各々おもへり、諸天の帝釈をうやまひ衆星の日月に随ふがごとし。我等凡夫はいづれの師々信ずべけれども日蓮が愚案はれがたし。世間をみるに各々我も我もといへども国主は但一人なり二人となれば国土おだやかならず、家に二人の主あれば其家必ずやぶる。一切経も又かくのごとくや有るらん。何れの経にてもをはせ一経こそ一切経の大王にてはをはすらめ。而るに十宗七宗まで各々論師して随はすべき国に七八十人の大王ありて万民をだやかならじ。いかんがせんと疑ふところに、一ツの願ひを立つ。我れ八宗十宗に随はじ、天台大師の専ら経文を師として一代の勝劣をかんがへしがごとく一切経を開きみるに涅槃経に申す「法に依つて人に依らざれ」等云々、中には佛を除き奉りて外の普賢菩薩文殊師利菩薩乃至上にあぐるところの諸人師なり。此経に又云く、「了義経に依つて不了義経に依らざれ」等云々、此経に指すところ了義経と申すは法華経、不了義経と申すは華厳経・大日経・涅槃経等の已今当の一切経なり。されば佛の遺言を信ずるならば専ら法華経を明鏡として一切

{{tpage|268}}

経の心をば知るべきか。随つて、法華経の文を開き奉れば「此法華経は諸経の中に於て最も其上に在」等云々。

B　成る程、そうはつきりした。では、日蓮聖人が「法華経第一」と論定されたのは、決して聖人の独断でなく、ひたすら経典に依つて佛陀の精神を求められた結果であつて、言ひ換へれば、あくまでも客観的に学術的に佛教の根本精神を求められた末、法華経が佛陀の根本精神だとされたわけだね。

A　その通りだ。それについて聖人は「是れひとへに日蓮が智の賢きにあらず、時のしからしむるのみ、春は花さき秋は果なる夏はあたたかに冬はつめたし、時のしからしむるに有らずや」といつて、末法に於ける法華経流布の必然性を説明してをられる。だが、これだけなら問題はないのだが、前述べた大乗非佛説を真とするならば、かうした学的根拠がくづれるから、折角、日蓮聖人が六十年の血涙をもつて宣伝された法華経も時代的清算を受けねばならぬ羽目になつてくるのだ。

B　では、やつぱり日蓮聖人の認識不足といふやつか。

A　君はまだ僕の説明がのみ込めてゐない。認識不足どころか、その当時の佛教革命運動としてはこれが唯一の道であつたのだ。非難しようもない正論であつたのだ。けれども、「時」が推移して、経典に加へられた科学的の研究のもたらした自然の結果で、聖人の認識不足といふべきではない。従つて「必ず先づ時を習ふべし」といはれる聖人は「時」の批判の前には、きつと何の未練をいだかれる方でもないと、僕は信ずる。

七、天台教学の清算

A　「時」といへばまだ問題がある。近代の研究によると佛陀の誕生年代がだいへん変つてきた。

B　三千年前ではなくなつたのか。日曜学校で、僕たちは「昔も昔三千年」と歌つたのを覚えてゐるが。

A　それが、現今では高楠博士によると二千四百九十七年だといはれ、宇井博士によると二千三百九十七年だといはれてきた。

B　学者の勝手の臆測ぢやないのか。

A　さう頭から学問を馬鹿にしてはこまる。それぞれ研究の結果で、いづれによせ、まづ西紀前四五百年の方と見られる。そして、従来十九出家、三十成道、八十入

{{tpage|269}}

滅といはれたのが、二十九出家、三十五成道、八十入滅といふのが定説となつた。

B　では、説法は四十五年間で前に聞いた三十成道八十入滅の五十年説法を基礎とした天台の五時判教学がまたあやしくなるわけだね。

A　仕方もないことだ。法華経八年とすれば爾前経は三十七年となつて「四十余年未顕真実」の文がぐらつくし、爾前経四十二年とすれば、法華経は僅かに三年の説法となる計算だ。

B　しかし、何しろ二千四五百年前のことだから、そんなに細かく計算して見ても、果していづれが真かわかりかねるだらうね。

A　何しろ、印度は歴史の記録がない国だ。さうだから、正確には行くまいが、しかし研究には敬意を表せねばいけない。何しろ星の世界の数字が正確に的中する今日の科学だからね。――まあ、いづれにしても天台教学は清算され従つて日蓮教学も再吟味されねばならなくなつたのは事実である。のみならず、現在、法華経の成立についても、こんな工合にも説かれてゐる。法華経の原形は始めは序品から法師品第十までであつたのが、ついで嘱累品第二十二までが添加され、さらに六品が添加されて現行のやうな二十八品の体裁になつたといふのだ。僕も数回法華経の講義をして見て、文段のくぎりの関係は、そのやうにも感ぜられるが、ともかく、法華経はじめ大乗経典が、発達佛教であることは、現今ではまづ否めぬ定論と見て差支ないであらう。

B　では小乗経典は釈尊みづから書かれたのか。

A　さうではない。やはり小乗経も釈尊の滅後、弟子たちが結集したのだ。

B　それなら、厳密にいへば小乗経も非佛説といへるし、もし、小乗経を佛説といふならば大乗経も共に佛説と見て差支へないではないか。

A　それは一理あることだ。さうした反駁はこれまでも放たれたやうだが、しかし、それは詭弁であらう。佛陀の直接の弟子たちがあざやかな記憶そのままを吐き出して結集したのと、年代を経た孫弟子・孫々弟子たちが、それらの記録を参考して書いた経典とには、おのづから差格をつけるのが本当ではあるまいか。

B　では、発達佛教といふ証拠は十分にあるのか。

A　それは文字や文体や其他種々なる考証によって学

{{tpage|270}}

者が論定してるのだから学的良心は之を承認せざるを得ない。

八、信仰に客観性の必要

B　それは判つた。しかし信仰と学問とは違ふから、たとへ大乗非佛説でも信仰としては大乗非佛説を問題とする必要はないではないか。

A　それも一理だ。俗に「鰯の頭も信心から」といふほどだからね。しかしながらそこが大事なところと思ふ。迷信と正しき信仰との岐路はそこだ。経文に「信心があつても学問がないと迷信をまし、学問があつても信心がないと邪見をます。信心と学問とは円融して生活の本となる」と説かれたが、科学を無視してただ信じるといつた主観的な信心では正しい信仰とはいはれない。内容に客観性がないと社会的な普遍性がかけて、真の満足がえにくくなる。それについて、卑近な例を一つ取つて見よう。ここに天理教信心の老婆があつたとする。彼女はただ信心一巻きでもあつた。ところが学校出の一人息子が信仰を求めるやうになつて先づ老母のやつてる天理信心を研究した。ところが学的に満足がえられないで、彼はかりにキリスト教に走つたとする。すると一家で、一人は「助け給へ！」、一人は「アーメン」となつた場合の家庭の空気はどうだらうか。信仰は主観的なものとして二人が平気でをれるだらうか。二人が自己の信仰に権威を感じて、より忠実であればあるほど他を顧みて互に飽きたらぬある切なさを感じないですむであらうか。ところがもし反対に、学的にも承認されうる信仰であつて、息子も同じ天理教を信じたなれば、たとへ二人は信仰に対する見地や熱心さに相違や深浅はあつても、ともかく家庭一体となつて一ツ信仰生活が送れて、一さう満足がえられるわけではないだらうか。

B　それはその通りだ。信仰といはず、何事も気の合つたといふことは嬉しいことだ。

A　だからさ、信仰の対象が学術的にも道徳的にも芸術的にも正しい内容をもつてをるならば、夫々見地はちがつても、地上に精神的な兄弟姉妹をより多く吸収し包容しえられるわけであらう。ここが信仰にも客観的科学的要素を必要とする所以であつて、わけて現代に於て然りといはねばならない。かりにも日蓮聖人が「佛法とは道理なり」と申されたやうに、道理の上に立つて信仰を

{{tpage|271}}

求めようとする求道者には最早や大乗非佛説を無視して「法華経のみが佛陀の精神」だと信ずることは、それが独断の肯定で、現代から将来へ、いよいよ通用できぬ宗教になると僕は思ふ。

B　宗教がただ主観的信心では駄目だといふことはよくわかつた。また大乗非佛説によると六百五十年前の日蓮教学そのままでは現代人に通用せぬこともよくわかつた。では、若し現代に日蓮聖人がお生れになつたら、例の「諸宗は無得道、堕地獄の根源、法華独り成佛の法」と四ヶ格言を振り廻はして相変らず唱題の一本槍で現代の救済運動はなさらぬだらうね。

A　さうだと思ふ。実は僕がかうした新運動を創めるに及んだのは、「もし現代日蓮聖人が出現されたら何をなさるだらうか」と長い間自問自答した末のことだ。あの学的良心の鋭いお方が、六百五十年後の現代、変つた世相文化や、わけて様々に研究されてきた現代佛教に目を掩ふて昔のままに「諸宗無得道、法華経成佛道」と申されまいし、従つて唱題絶対論もやられないにきまつてゐる。

B　では、どういふ形態をおとりになると思ふか。

A　おそらく、こんどの新運動のやうな形式ではあるまいか。佛教の本質と時代的見地から。

B　諸宗といへば、真宗では大乗非佛説をどう見てるか。

九、愛と平等は佛教の精神

A　現代の真面目な求道者はすべて非佛説論者のやうだ。この頃もその問題で金子大栄師は破門された。少し理性のある者が、だれだつて念佛にいふやうな西方十万億土や他力本願などと今頃、有頂天にありがたがる馬鹿者はないであらう。

B　では阿弥陀佛などどう見るのか。

A　阿弥陀佛は理想される自我だ、西方十万億土は理想される現実だ。法蔵比丘とは人間根本の自我で彼の阿弥陀への修行こそ自我実現の生活を意味する。だから阿弥陀佛に救はれたいといふのは、正しさを求める生活それ自身のよろこびの象徴で、救済とは畢竟愛の生活そのものなのだ。早い話が愛は恐ろしかるべき死線さへ勇敢に活歩する。経に「慈心決定すれば畏れなし」といふものこの道理であらう。

{{tpage|272}}

B　法華経の主意も勿論さうした教へだらうね。

A　その通りだ。法華経の眼目といはれる寿量品の「自我得佛来」もつまりは自我の自覚を讃美したもので、経典は表現こそちがふが、意味はすべて同じである。もし一切経を佛説と見れば、同じ佛説の法華経や無量義経に前にいつた「四十余年未顕真実」とあるのだから阿弥陀経や大日経などはすべて方便経で、まさしく法華経の前に閉捨すべきであらう。だが、発達佛教とすれば一切経は釈迦牟尼佛の自覚内容の説明で、詮じつめれば愛と平等との表象である。この自覚によつて「諸の悪は作すなかれ、衆善は奉行して自ら其の心を浄む、是れ諸の佛教なり」といふのが、全佛教を一貫する規範であらう。

B　さうすると佛教徒のよくやる加持祈禱や御利益信心など断然、佛教の正しい道ではないわけだね。

A　さうだ。厳密な意味に於て、佛教の本来は無神論である。興起行経にこんな説法がのつてゐる。「弟子等よ、茲に三ツの間違つた見解がある。賢い人はその間違ひをたしかめて人に捨てさせようとする。もし其の見解をつきとめて行けば、此の世の作業を否定することになるであらう。三ツとは何かといふに、或る出家は人間がこの世に於て作業するいかなる苦も楽も、不苦不楽も、すべて前生の業に依ると主張する。また或る出家は、それはすべて自在天の創造を因とすると云ふ。また或る者は、すべて因もなければ縁もないと唱へてゐる。」つまり宿命論と、創造神論と、偶然論とを否定して、次いで四諦十二因縁の法を説くのであるが、この私の説く法は、苟くも心あるもの悪口を云ひ、污し、誹り、斥けることの出来ないものである」と。「四諦十二因縁」といふのは、一口にいへば、転迷開悟の道をいふので、人生の苦悩は認識不足から生じるのだから、正しき智慧を完得すべく八正道といふ方法を示されたのだ。だから佛教は正しく現実を見て、正しく実践することをすすめた教へである。「佛陀」といふ言葉からが「定全なる智慧をえた人」といふ意味だ。

B　「創造神論」といふのはキリスト教のゴッドのやうなのだね。

一〇、佛教は無神論なり

B　さうした神様は勿論、現代人は次第に認容しなく

{{tpage|273}}

なつた。それに関してブラウント大司教著『神と資本家』の中にこんな批評があつた。

「神はこの世界から悪をのぞかうと願つて出来ないのか。又は最後に、出来てそれをしたがつてゐるかいづれかである。もし彼が望んでゐて出来ないのであつたらそれは無能であつて神の性質に矛盾する。もしも彼が出来てそれをしようとしないのならそれは悪である。そして、それも神の性質に反するものである。もしも、彼がそれを欲せずかつ出来ないのであつたら、それは悪と無能の二ツである。もし彼が悪をのぞくことを希望し、また出来るのであれば、それは神に与へられてある唯一の想像であるが、それでは地上に悪があるといふことは、どうして起るのか？」と。

A　キリスト教にとつては痛い非難だ。佛教前のバラモン教には、さうした天地創造の神を説いたり、やたら苦行を説いたのだが、佛陀はそれを否定して前のごとく四諦十二因縁の法を説かれた。それについてこんな話もある。スナカタといふ背教者が「佛陀には超人の法がない、充分にすぐれた知見がない、彼は自分の頭で考へたもの、思ひ付きの法を説くのである。而して、その法に依れば、考へさへするものは、正しく苦のない境地に達することができるといふのである」といふ悪口をついて廻つた時、佛陀は高弟舎利弗に向つて言はれることには、スナカタは怒つてそのやうなことを云つたのだが、彼は却つて佛を讃へてゐるのである。「その法に依れば、考へさへするものは、正しく苦のない境地に達することができるといふのである」といふのは、佛を讃へるのである」云々と。これで見るやうに、佛教の極意は、正しく人生の実相を見、正しく思惟し、そして正しく生活することを教へるのだ。

B　しかし日蓮聖人は祈禱されたといふではないか。

A　さうした遺文もあるにはあるが、あつても傍系だ。聖人の本心は『開目鈔』にあるやうに「詮ずるところは天も捨て給へ、諸難にも値へ、身命を期とせん……我れ日本の柱とならん等と誓ひし願やぶるべからず」といつた大道念であつた。現在やつてる加持祈禱など聖人の面よごしだ。

一一、佛陀信仰の正しき意味

B　では「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」と唱へるのは、どう

{{tpage|274}}

いふ意味で唱へるのだ。

A　教父としての釈尊への感謝渇仰で、実在する創造神としてではない。佛教は「法を見る者は佛を見る」といはれたやうに、佛陀の教へに従つて幾分でも真理を認識し体得して悦びを感ずるものは、その理想的体験者釈迦牟尼佛が自然に讃嘆され渇仰され感謝されざるを得ないのである。また、この人格を讃嘆し渇仰し感謝することは、更により深く真理の生活へ自らを導入することにもなるのだ。釈迦牟尼佛を祈つたからとて米櫃に米が湧いてはこぬ。貧乏のときは、佛陀はシツカリ働いて金を儲ける工面をせよと教へられよう。もし現在のごとく経済組織がよくないために働いても働き甲斐のない場合は、先づわるい組織を改造して大衆の福利を保障せよと教へられよう。千遍一律、「稼ぐに追ひつく貧乏なし」などとはいはれない筈だ。病気したら、願掛け祈禱よりも、先づ適当な治療をするやう、病気の原因を内省して、衛生を守るやうにと教へられたのがわが佛陀であるね。

B　さすがに佛陀はマルクス流の学説も心得てゐられるね。

A　それは讃め過ぎだ。マルクスの学説は知られよう筈がないではないか。知られなくたつて佛陀の権威の減損とはならない。何しろ二千五百年も前だ、知られないのが本当ではないか。只佛陀の愛と平等の生活を真実に思ふ者には時処位に適応する認識が自然体得されてくるわけだから、佛教は不断に時代と共に発展してゆくのだ。前に言つた発達佛教もかうした過程であるが、つまり我等は佛教について人生々活の根本基調を学べばいいのだ。そして、その基調に立つとき適宜の生活が展開するので、僕はそれを「無常より信愛へ」と標語してをる。

B　では孔子が「里は仁を美しとす、択んで仁に居らずんば焉んぞ知を得ん」といつたのも、同じ人生観だね。

A　さうだと思ふ。儒教の天も、キリスト教の神も、日本の神道も佛教の佛陀も説明こそ異るが、つきつめれば、根ざすところは同じ聖愛の道に相違ないと僕は思ふてをる。

一二、佛耶二教は融合する

B　いつか帰一協会といふのが起されて神儒佛三教の

{{tpage|275}}

帰一融合が目ろまれたことがあつたが、して見ると、キリスト教とも一致できるわけだね。

A　僕は一致する日が来ると信じてをる。世界各国の言語文字をはじめ文化一般が次第に融合し、わけて経済機構が統一されてくると宗教ばかりいつまでも戦国状態ではをれなくなる。かくて、両者の止揚された新運動が開始されるのではないかと考へる。何しろ人間心霊の奥殿は本来一ツの筈だから、今のやうに反行すべきではあるまい。宗教の本領よりすれば、現在提唱されてをる政治的世界連盟よりも一足早く世界宗教連盟は提唱されて然るべきだ。世界同胞の実現努力が、宗教運動の使命であらねばならぬと僕は信じる。

一三、既成宗団の消滅は必然

B　同感だ。して見ると先づ先づこの場合は佛教の統一運動が先決問題だ。今のままの分裂は、佛教徒の無道念の自己証明以外の何物でもないわけとなる。一体、君、現在佛教は幾派に分裂してをるのか。

A　十三宗五十六派とか聞いた。

B　しかし、統一運動といふが、実際には更に一派を増加することにはならないか。

A　さしあたり一派増加することになつても、それが時代に適応した運動であるならば、それの拡大強化によつて時代錯誤の既成宗団は無力のものから次第に自然に清算消滅して行く。恰も鎌倉時代の新興佛教が奈良平安の既成佛教団の勢力を奪つて自然に解消せしめたやうにだ。

B　すると、こんどの新興佛教運動は現代の要求する佛教の最高形態といふわけだね。

A　前にも述べた通りだ。佛教が佛陀の人格を源泉としてをるかぎり、帰一する道はこれより外にないのではあるまいか。

B　少くとも各宗に共通する無難の方法ではあらう。実際、どの宗門をたたいても、各宗それぞれ相当の教理はあるやうだが、「わが宗こそ佛意を得たり」と排他的自揚してゐては初心の求道者は全くまごつく。而も似たりよつたり現実逃避の阿片的説法ばかりでは現代人は御免蒙るばかりか佛教排撃の声の持主たらしめるも当然だ。

A　朽木は彫るべからず、革命を恐れる必要はない。

{{tpage|276}}

謙抑の典型と見られる親鸞さへもが立宗の時は「釈尊の遺教ことごとく龍宮に入り給ふ」と叫んだではないか。露骨にいへば既成佛教は一切時代錯誤だと排撃したのだ。

一四、新運動の依経について

B　わかつた。君はさつき「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」といつたが、あれは「南無釈迦牟尼佛」ではいけないのか。

A　あれは梵語の正確な使用法では「南無」といふ場合は主格の語尾に「アーヤー」といふ助詞がついて為格になる。かくて我々が「釈迦牟尼佛を敬礼す」或は「釈迦牟尼佛に帰依す」といふ意味が成立するのだが、南無釈迦牟尼佛では釈迦牟尼佛は主格だから、「南無」と主格との関係がつかぬのださうである。この際、佛教統一の新興運動にあたつて、これも正確な使用法にあらためたわけである。

B　それもわかつた。依経はどうなるのか。今度は、法華経とか阿弥陀経とか一ツにきめるわけにはいくまい。さうして、あの大部の一切経全部を携帯することも不可能だし。

A　お経に本末軽重こそあれ、一切経は佛陀の愛と平等の認識とに出発したものと見るからには、一経典のみをとることは、わけて今までの宗派的見地からして不可能のことではあるは君もいふ通りだ。そこで、当座の便宜上、木津無庵師等の編纂された『新訳佛教聖典』を採用することにした。之は一切経の骨子を現代的に選訳した手ごろな訳本である。

B　抄訳に木津師等の個性が反映してゐないか。

A　それは余儀ないことで、もっと修正されたものが欲しいと思ふてをる。できるなら僕等同志の手で編纂した訳本が出したく思ふてをる。

B　さうすると、そこには再び分裂の必然性が胚胎してゐると思はないか。

A　思はぬではない。信者の志向に相異があるのだから経典本位に行けば自然さうなる。だから、今も「無量義は一法より生ず」とか、「性欲不同なれば種々に法を説き」とか、経典が分説された必然性を肯定して、題名から「無量義」と名づけた経典が出来たくらゐであつて、経典本位にすればキツトまた分裂するから、経典に

{{tpage|277}}

よつて佛陀を規定せず、佛陀の人格渇仰に出発して、全経典の本旨を愛と平等の認識に還元して考へれば無理なく統一できはしまいか。要は、経文の信仰から実在のごとく信じられた阿弥陀佛や大日如来などは、すべて釈尊の人格の表象であつたことを確信して、全佛教徒が「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」と帰一することを提唱するのだ。例へば、キリスト教に幾派あつても、アーメンと唱へる信仰の対象――神については一致してをるやうに。

B　日蓮聖人の宗教革命の本意も結局そこであつたのではないか。

A　その通りだ。それに今度大乗非佛説等の現代的批判を加へて一さう醇化し、一方、幾多の俗信迷信によつて腐蝕されたる題目の旧套を取り払つて、最もあざやかなる佛教統一の眼目を鮮明し進んでは世界同胞の精神的契機を決定したいのである。従つてまた「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」の叫びは現実生活の基礎条件である経済組織を克明に批判して、現資本主義経済組織が佛陀の愛と平等の認識に反するものなるがゆゑに、断然、佛陀の愛と平等の名によつて、之が改造に加勢せざるを得なくなつたのだ。

B　その問題はこんどの新興佛教運動の三大眼目の一ツのやうに思はれるが、その説明を聞く前に、新興佛教運動では葬式など、どうするのか。まさか坊さんには頼めまい。

一五、葬儀について

A　戯談ではない。あんな坊主に引導をわたして貰つて何になると思ふか。今日も某大僧正の密葬に参列したが、生前、その恩師を裏切つた某管長が導師となつて金襴の袈裟衣を着飾つた一連の坊さんを従へて読経唱題して引導したのを見た。恩師に声あらば、宝塔中、何を述懐し給ふぞ！　僕は涙のみ流れた。ブルジョアが献上した不労所得の寄附金で美しく飾り立てた本堂で、去勢されたやうな坊主連が昔ながらの鐃鉢のドラ音を立てて、意味も通ぜぬ陀羅尼を長たらしく誦じて勿体がるあたりは、すつかり俳優教役者の出来そこねでも見るやうであつた。切実に恩師を追慕し、恩師の志を新時代に活現させようと覚悟する胸に、どうして、ああした陀羅尼式葬式で満足されるものか。昔はああした形式も時代的価値

{{tpage|278}}

があつたであらうが、もう時代では一から十まで時代錯誤のことばかりだ。まるで栓がぬかれて日の経つたビールのやうに沈澱物がウヨウヨしてをる。畢竟、精神のぬけた葬式だから、ああなるのだ。

B　ではどういふ形式に改正しようといふのか。

A　一体、君は葬式の形式が気になつて成佛できないかい。葬式の形式などは運動さへ充実してくれば運動の過程に即して自然に時代にふさはしき形式が生れてくるものと僕は信じてをる。戦場での仮埋葬がいかに厳粛であるかを見よ、また山宣の葬式がいかに感激ぶかいものであつたかを思へ、問題は生活への正義の意気込みに比例して適当な形式が生れるから、初めから葬式の形式など計算しなくてもいいと思ふ。要点としてはあくまで現代化された簡潔な精神的形式をとること、それだけで適宜したらよいではあるまいか。

B　でも葬式は人生の最後を飾る……。

A　最後は最後にあつて飾られるものではないよ。極端にいへば、葬式などコーヒーのだしがらの処分くらゐに考へてあくまで生ける一日の生活を正義と愛との生活に立て直すことだ。日蓮聖人が「極楽百年の修行は穢土一日の功に及ばず」といはれたのはそこではないか。葬式を最後を飾る儀式と見るへ方などが、まだまだ搾取した罪の財産の幾パーセントかを布施したり寄進したりして、それが殊勝な信心であり、罪ほろぼしとなると心得たブルジョアー的イデオロギーの一変態だと見てよからう。旗上げの前に何の葬式算段ぞ。腕を組んで進む正義の進軍に屍を路頭にさらすは、もとより覚悟の前であれ、心なき千人の讃美歌よりも、同志一人の見帰る涙の手向けを欲しないか、死者は畢竟、死者として葬らしめよ!!　だ。あくまでも、現実生活の中に佛教精神を体得しようとする覚悟こそ、葬式にも血涙をにじませねばならない。

B　よくわかつた。では、つづいて経済組織の改革と新興佛教運動との関係について話してくれないか。

一六、新興佛教と階級闘争

A　今日は話がだいぶ長くなつたから、これはこの次に話すことにしよう。それまで僕が今年正月から三月に亘つて雑誌『若人』で、資本主義を対象として佛教徒のと

{{tpage|279}}

るべき態度に関して所信を発表したが、いづれパンフレットとして発刊するから、それについて研究してくれ。結局、坊さんも資本主義の寄生虫で、一般としては教役者にならざるを得ないのだから、宗教革命も結局はその基礎条件である資本主義の改造によるが一番近道だ。また新運動の目的も生活の実際問題にまで進んでこそ価値があるではあるまいか。

B　では一寸聞くが、結局、「無産運動への合流」といふ階級闘争を是認するわけか。

A　さうだ。

B　君は前に佛教は「空」だ「無立場」だといつたが、階級闘争を是認して無産運動に加勢することは、佛教精神にそむくことにならないか。

A　「空」であり、「無立場」であればこそ、必要に応じて無産運動の加勢が是認されるのではないか。現実に見るこの階級闘争の無視傍観は、ひつきよう自己の生活に無関心以外の何物でもない。問題はいづれに与することが正義なりや、ただそれだけだ。

B　無産運動者がともすれば暴力的に出るが、あれでも正義なのか。

A　無産運動の暴力行動の前に、軍隊、警察等あらゆる権力機関の支配者の厳存を君は認識しないか。かうした現実認識の上に立つて、無産運動者は理想社会の実現のため余儀なく暴力に出ねばならなくなるのだ。

B　君は権力機関の支配者といふが、それは国家の軍隊であり警察であつて一階級に従属したものではあるまい。

A　それは名ばかりだ。事実、軍隊、警察はどの階級が支配してをるかを見給へ。君は事実の前に眼を開かねばウソだ。現在、支配階級の口にする正義や道徳はすべて片手落ちの強者道徳である。でなくしてどうして大衆のドン底生活を無視したあの栄華な生活ができるものか。

B　でも、現在彼等の立場は競争に勝ちえた立場であつて、優勝者があながち不義とは言へまい。

A　もし、それが不義でないならば、現在無産者が組合団結によつて勝たうとすることが、なぜ不義であつて之を許容しないのか。

B　それは現在の社会的秩序が乱れるからではないのか。

{{tpage|280}}

A　現在の社会的秩序は、どの階級のために都合よき秩序なのか。見給へ、現在では正義も道徳もすべて階級的に色どられた正義や秩序であつて、まことの正義ではないのだ。にもかかはらず、教役者たちは或は無意識的に、或は意識的に、まことしやかに百パーセントの御用ぶりを発揮してをるのだ。もし、現支配階級が権力によつて無産運動を圧倒しようとするのが正義ならば、無産運動者が力をもつて、之をハネ返さんとするのも、同じく正義でなければならぬ。もし宗教家が暴力を不義とするならば、先づいづれの階級に向つてその撤回を強言すべきか。若し時に当つて暴力も正義視しうるならば、いづれの運動に正義の本質はより多く包蔵されてをるか。ブルでもない、プロでもないといつた中立的立場の不可能な男でもなく女でもない人間でないと同じことで、観念的正義は現在もう幽霊の世界の消息だ。而して、正義の本質は大衆の福利保障の中に見ねばウソだが、君は一体、どう思ふ。僕は、新興佛教運動の地盤はどうしても新興無産階級の中にのみ可能だと信じてをるのだ。

B　さう聞けば得心がゆく。正義は何かの対立に於て実感されるイデオロギーだ。歴史を顧みると時の弱者に味方した強者との戦ひに於て、正義の真面目は最も輝やかしく認識される。実をいへば、僕も中立といひながら内心飽きたらぬあるものがあつたが、いつまでも現実生活の打算からごまかしの正義観をふり廻してゐるやうに思はれる。その点、猶よく君のパンフレットも読んで見て考へることにする。

A　今まで佛教徒のほとんど全部唯々「ありがたい」といつた観念的保守的信心であつた為、実社会生活問題に盲目でその為に社会主義については何等の研究もせず、一方意識的な反動運動にかどはかされて、頭から社会主義運動といへば、罵悪視して掛るなどは、全く甚しい時代錯誤であるのだ。この点おくれば、僕も阿片の麻酔がさめて、実生活の力が動いて来たのを、心からうれしく思ふてをる。

B　だいぶ得心した。この問題は何れまた例のパンフレットも読んでから、再び談議することにしよう。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』四月創刊二号）

{{tpage|281}}

（その二）

一、経済は生活の基底

B　先月の約束だが、一つ新興佛教が経済組織の改造を必要とする理由を聴きたいものだ。

A　よろしい。僕は今度この新運動の口火をきつてから、今まで頼みにしてゐた同志が脱退してゆく事情の殆んど凡てが、資本主義反対の第三綱領に関してである事実に見ても、経済問題が、人間生活の基質であり、従つて、人間の思想行動はそれによつて規定されがちなものであるかが、一さうハツキリしてきたところだ。だから、経済問題と遊離した単なる教化運動のごときは、一般には、文字通り観念的遊戯であつて、直接間接、現資本主義経済組織改造促進への何等かの貢献でない啓蒙運動は、完全に阿片的罪悪行為だといふ確信をより強めたところだ。そして資本主義が佛教精神に反する我利々々の機構であることは、今更あらためて言ふまでもあるまい。

B　それは、四月五日の新興佛教創立記念講演会での、聴衆のあの共鳴ぶりを見ても、いかに資本主義や既成宗団が社会から見限られてをるかが、僕にもよくわかる。だが、近頃、盛んな希望社や修養団の汗愛運動などは、教化運動として現代的価値があるものとは思はないか。

A　いづれも御用教化団体で、結果は同じであらう。反つて新味ある教化運動だけに青年男女を一時吸ひつけ、阿片の効果を多分に発揮するだらう。だが噂によると、此頃、修養団の内部でもぼつぼつ反資本主義的自覚が起りつつあるとか。また、最近、希望社では社員に月給が支払へないで社員のストライキとなり、裁判沙汰にさへなつたといふことではないか。「下世話に百日の説法も屁一つ」といふ。ふるい諺に「信心も徳の余り」といふ。うまく歌つたものではないか。徳とは利得の意味だから、この諺一つが雄弁に経済問題と既成教化団体との関係を説明してくれる。

{{tpage|282}}

二、全日本佛教青年連盟の時代錯誤

B　君は、四月二日三日の全日本佛教青年会連盟の協議会で、かなり理窟をこねましたといふのは、さうした事に関してか。

A　こねたわけではないが、言ふべきことを言つたまでである。佛教精神に背反する資本主義に対する態度を論定するどころか、佛陀に帰一しようといふ当然の問題さへがゴタゴタして決定できなかつた。それどころか、全日本の佛教青年が連盟して新しく社会に進出しようといふのに、指導原理の必要如何が論議されるといふのだから、闇夜に鉄砲で問題にならなかつたのだ。

B　それは、連盟規約の第二条目的のところに、「......佛教精神の自覚及其の振興を期するを目的とす」と明示してあるからではなかつたか。

A　さうした抽象的な文句で事があくなら、何にも新しく連盟などつくらなくとも、従来のままでいい筈だ。それを千数百円もかけて今度大連盟を結成したといふには、そこに新時代の要求に応ずる適切なる具体的指導原理が示されねば無意味ではないか。早い話が、佛教精神といつたところで各宗がそれぞれ歴史的に相容れぬ教養をもつてをる限り、自宗の信条に忠実であればあるほど、甲の見る佛教精神は乙丙のそれではない。たとへば、四ヶ格言をもつ日蓮宗がその佛教精神を高調して見ろ、どうして念佛その他の宗派と共同戦線が張つてゆけるか。また浄土宗が「五種雑行」を固持しても結果は同様ではないか。もし、それでも可能だといふなら、それは無恥だ、それともすでに宗旨を時代的に止揚しての上かである。いづれにしろ、連盟が一種の宗教的社交倶楽部にとどまらずして、進んで新時代的佛教運動を開始しようとするには、連盟を一貫しうる信仰上の指導原理と、それに則る社会問題解決の指導原理とを示さなくては駄目だ。

B　その位なことは、かりにも各地を代表して出た人々だから考へない筈はあるまい。

A　そこだよ。マルクスが「人間は常に自ら解決しうる問題をのみ問題とする」といつたやうに、連盟に参加して、互に手を取らうといふのだから、そこには手をとりうる一つの共通なポイント――解決し得る問題――がある筈でなければならぬ。だから僕は其の具体的なポイ

{{tpage|283}}

ントを明示して新運動をしようと提案をしたのだ。

三、全日本佛青連盟への三大提案

A　言ふまでもなく、僕等の新興佛教の三大精神を主張したのだ。それは次のやうに提案した。

（一）我等は、既成宗団の分立は佛徒和合の道に反するを認め、佛陀に帰一して佛教の新時代的闡揚を期す。

（二）我等は、現社会の苦悩は主として矛盾せる社会組織に基因するものと認め、之を改革して佛教精神に基く理想社会の建設を期す。

B　この提案も抽象的ではないか。

A　佛教連盟の現在の情勢下に於て可能な根本綱領としてだ。

B　随分、反対があつたといふではないか。

A　あつた。だが、真理は自明の理だ。何人が何といつても連盟可能の唯一のポイントは佛陀へ帰一する以外には発見されないから、提案の精神は大体認容されたが、時間切迫にあつて、この問題は綱領起草委員附託となつて幕はとぢた。が中外日報でもコツピドクたたいたやうに、こんなことでは無くもがなの連盟である。わかり切つた第一提案さへ査定する勇気がないのだ。第二案など実際にはそれこそ西方十万億土の空想であつたら案だ。

四、真宗の自己清算

B　出席した代表の大半は真宗であつたさうだが、「佛陀に帰れ」と言へば、絶対他力の阿弥陀宗にとつては破産の宣告にならないか。

A　正確に論ずればその通りだらう。この頃読売新聞に高楠博士が「佛教の根本義」と題してのせられた説明を見ても、阿弥陀信仰など完全に清算ずみで、「を」と正しく読む求道者ならば真宗も「佛陀に帰一する」ことに何の異論の出しやうもないと僕は思ふ。その「佛教の根本義」中「無神主義」の条項中に、博士は

「人間の運命は神によつて主宰さるるのではなく、全く自己主宰である。自業自得で自己の運命を開拓しつつあるのである。そこで神の審判を待つまでもなく全く自己審判である。善因善果は神の裁きによるのでな

{{tpage|284}}

く自然法である。かくて釈尊はあくまでも自己の人格の上に立脚し、その人格を向上発展して完全位に達して佛陀となつたのである。阿弥陀如来も大日如来も釈尊の理想から顕れたもので、それはどこまでも人間が完成したのであるから、その佛には創造神、主宰神、司法神の如き意味は毛頭ない。ただ佛陀は自ら自覚の究竟位に到達して、他の未覚の衆生を大慈心から自覚の究竟位に到達せしめんとする覚他の活動に終始するのである。従つて、自覚、覚他、覚行円満が佛陀の本懐である」

といつてをられるが、君も知る通り高楠博士は自他共に許す真宗の巨匠だが、これで見ると、真宗のいふ絶対他力の阿弥陀如来など、釈尊の影に過ぎないではないか。博士も「自己の運命は自己の開拓によるので、いはゆるお救ひ下さる阿弥陀如来などありつこない」といはれるのだ。だから、他愛もなく、他力本願の阿弥陀如来などサラリとやめて、自己の人格の上に立脚し、その人格を向上発展して、解脱された佛陀に対して、全佛教徒は帰一して、この理想人格の渇仰に生活の光りを求め、責任ある努力を励むこそ現代人の得心する佛教運動ではあるまいか。

B　たしかに其の通りだ。他力本願の念佛は、丁度キリスト教の主宰神、司法神に似た説明で、明日の宗教では到底ありえないだらうが、それほどハツキリわかつてゐて、なぜ、綱領をかかげて新佛教運動がやれないだらうか。

五、十字架の覚悟

A　そこからは結局、道念の問題である。説明と実践とには何ごとによらず距離がある。その間に、因襲や情実がある。わけて経済関係等いろいろ困難な問題が堆積してゐるので、いざ断行となると口でいふほど簡単にいくものではない。それの飛躍こそは、ただ十字架をも辞せぬ革命家の止むに止まれぬ真摯な求道心に待つ外はないであらう。わけて第二の綱領のごときは、よほど思ひきつた覚悟がなくては御用宗教的伝統を革命して、大衆のための新佛教運動などは思ひもよらぬことであらう。

六、シンクレアの宗教観

B　五日の新興佛教結成記念講演会のときは、警官が

{{tpage|285}}

ずいぶん沢山で物々しき警戒をやつたが、あれは新興佛教の第三綱領、打倒資本主義のスローガンがあつたからか。

A　その通りだ。僕が集会届のことで警察に呼び出された時にも、そんなに言つてゐた。既成教団撲滅なんかした問題にはしてゐないよ。問題とされるのは反資本主義運動で、僕等の新興佛教運動の内容も、それが唯単に既成宗教の撲滅と佛教の統一といふだけでは、数々のロボットを破壊して一つの大きなロボットを製造するも同じことだ。問題は人間を、宗団を容赦なくロボット化しつつある現代の悪魔――資本主義打倒運動でなくては新興佛教運動も実際生活にふれた宗教運動とはいへない、と僕は思ふてをる。

B　君の言ふことも合点はされるが、本来宗教と経済運動とには、おのづから異る分野があるものではあるまいか。

A　それは一応、尤もな話だ。だが、真の意味の宗教はそんなに経済だ精神だと二分して考へるべきものではなく、全生活の理想化を要求するものだと僕は信じてをる。丁度真の恋愛がプラトニック・ラブで満足されないで、霊肉一致の境地にこそ恋愛の完結があるやうに、この事について、アプトン・シンクレアの名著『宗教信ずべき乎』の中には、

「宗教は真の意味に於ては、霊的衝動の最も根本的なものであり、熱烈な生命愛であり、生命の尊さを感ずることであり、生命の愛養助成の欲望である。その意味では思想する凡ての人間は宗教的でなければならない。その意味では、『宗教』は永遠の自己更生力であり吾々人類のまことの本性である。その意味では、私は宗教を攻撃しようなどとは毛頭思つてゐない。否、私は宗教は、その意味に於ては、決して攻撃などし得るものでないといふことを明らかにして置きたい。

併し、『宗教』といふ言葉にも今一つの意味が与へられてゐるために、吾々にはさうした正直な意味で此の言葉を使ふ喜びが与へられてゐないのである。一般の人には『宗教』といふ言葉は、魂の生長したいといふ渇望、『飢ゑ渇くが如き正義の追求』を意味するのではなくて、この渇望の歴史に現はれ、更に今日世界に行はれてゐる或種の形式を意味するのである。換言すれば神の承認権を主張する支配階級を持ち、固定し

{{tpage|286}}

た教義と『啓示』、信条と祭儀を持つた制度である。かうした制度の下では、民族の道徳的努力も児童の愛情も、青年の大望も、僧侶達の特権と商売道具にされて了つてゐるのである。此意味に於ける『宗教』は寄生虫共の収入の源であり、凡ゆる形式の圧迫と搾取との自然の味方である。」

と道破してあるが、真の「宗教」と、歪曲された所謂「宗教」との相違がハツキリ了解されはしないか。かくて、「飢ゑ渇くが如き正義を追求」する真の宗教者のたどり行く現実の道と、固定した教義と啓示、信条と祭儀とを宗教と心得てをる半不随の似而非宗教者の舞踊する観念的理想境とは、おのづから分離するのが当然である。シンクレアの次の言葉は私の今の信念をほぼそのまま表示してくれてをる。

「私は決して浅薄な唯物論者ではない。私は、吾々人類が無意味な合理主義で満足すると考へるほど皮相ではないのだ。私には、古き宗教の象徴物が人間の心から生れ出たことも分つてゐる。これは、さうしたものが人間の心のある欲求に合致してゐたからである。それと共に、私には現代の必要に一層合致した新しい宗教の象徴物が発見されることも分つてゐるのだ。若し私が、此処で古く毀れかけた建物を打毀すとしても、それは盲目的な破壊心からではなく、その代りに新しくより堅牢な建物を建てようとする建築家としてである。」

B　では、今の日蓮宗や念佛宗や真言宗などが、シンクレアの「神の承認権を主張する支配階級を持ち、固定した教義と啓示、信条と祭儀を持つた」いはゆる「一般の宗教」とよばれるやうだな。

七、寺院佛教の正体

A　まづ典型的なものであらう。見給へ、論より証拠、身延山でも、東西本願寺でも、成田の不動山でも、どこに「飢ゑ渇くが如き正義観」や、「霊的衝動の最も根本的」な生命力が「愛養助成」されつつあるか。それらの聖地が霊的衝動の最も旺盛な青年とどういふ交渉をもちつつあるか。その聖地への巡礼者は、多くは将来のない老人達や、我利の願掛け連中や、或はブルやプチブル青年の参詣以外に、明日の青年と何を約束しつつあるか。それにつけ、耳よりの話に、こんど築地本願寺では

{{tpage|287}}

二百数十万円の建築予算で鉄筋コンクリートの大伽藍を建築するといふことである。その目的が実に聞きものだ。それは、震災で大本堂を失つてからは、大きな葬式は大抵、芝の増上寺にとられたため御客取り返しの一策だといふ噂である。何と振つた葬式株式会社の営利競争ではないか。

従つて、かかる寺院佛教に指導される一般佛教徒の生活が現在どんなものであるかは説明するまでもない。「祖師は紙衣の九十年」と有難さうな顔の限りである。「塚原謫居」を偲んで感涙をながして見たところが、それは信者の日常生活にどう織込まれてをるか。

また見給へ、最近、支配階級が思想善導の一策として小学校の教員室に神棚を作らせて敬神崇祖の思想涵養を企画してをるのを。これらはシンクレアのいふ固定化した祭儀そのものだが、先生の棒給不払の村が一千ヶ村もある今日、平等と愛を生命とする神様や佛様を、さうした箱棚におさめて思想善導のために敬礼せよと指令する支配階級も支配階級だが、仰せご尤と拝命せねばならぬ先生も気毒な立場ではないか。考へて見給へ、何が故に知事や部長は月俸五百円四百円とつてゐて、小学校職員は六七十円しか貰へないであらうかを。而も勤務労働の時間の多少は正反対ではないか。

さつきも言つた高楠博士の佛教の八大主義中には外面的四主義として、無傷害主義、大慈主義、平和主義、平等主義をあげて、「佛教はこの何れをも徹底的に拡大してその最大限に説き到つた処にその特徴がある」といつてをられるが、しかし、それは過去の物語りであつて、現代どこにその実行が見られ、実行が提唱されてをるだらうか。否、それを実行せんとする社会主義を悪魔のごとく排撃しつつあるとは何といふ転倒錯誤であらうか。我等は再び佛陀の平等生活を見ねばウソである。

八、経済機構の改造が肝要

B　すると、さうした見地から新興佛教が組織の改造を主張するのは、畢竟、「現代の必要に一層合致した新しい宗教」運動の具体的な問題だといふのか。

A　その通りである。僕は前にも言つた通り、一般的には経済関係が思想や行動を規定するものゆゑ、今の営利

{{tpage|288}}

本位の資本主義経済組織である間は、自然に非社会的な利己主義が大量生産されざるを得ないから、この機構改造が、根本的な問題だと見るのだ。

B　前にも質問したが、どうも僕は宗教の職能は、精神運動ではないかと思はれる。

A　其の点一理ある。だが、それに固定するところに、御用宗教の第一資格が成立し、次いで反動的説法に力仕事ができ、睡眠不足でも猶、精神が明瞭でありうることを一般的に保障するなら、僕も君の意見を承認しよう。

B　しかし、それの不可能といふことが、宗教が経済組織を改造せねばならぬといふ主張の是認とはなるまい。

A　もとよりである。佛教に従へば制度と精神とは一実体の二方面であるから、之を切り離して運動を一方的に偏すべきではない。従つて、餓餓のゆゑに力が出ない場合は文句なしに先づパンを与へるのが、てつとり早い救済で、この場合これにこした佛教精神の実行はない筈である。もとより人はパンのみして生くるものではないが、現代のごとく経済生活が窮迫して、而もその原因が明瞭になつてをる場合、その原因除去の運動が佛教精神に反するわけは毛頭ない。否、社会の全機構に対して常に佛教精神が発揚されてこそ、佛教が人間生活の救済運動となりうるのではあるまいか。

B　併し、幾多の達人が示したごとく精神力は環境を超脱しうるものであるから、不如意の現実にあつては、環境をそのままにして法悦の生活を味ひうるその精神力の涵養こそ、むしろ必要なのではあるまいか。

A　そこが御用宗教家の説法の奥の手だ。勿論、「心頭滅却すれば火も亦自ら涼し」ではある。併し、僕は対話中屡々「一般的」にはといつてをるやうに、たしかに恒産がないと恒心もないがちなものが一般人である。君とても、今日、衣食の憂ひがないから文句を言つてをられようが、これで今日のパンに追はれる時の身を考へて見ろ、法悦の宗教だのは第二次的な問題とならざるをえまい。潮風に吹かれ、松の枝ぶりが一様であるやうに、人間も自然界の存在である限りは、一般的に環境の影響を無視して理想のみを語ることは不可能な約束におかれてをる。さればこそ、「まだ仁義あるをや」と道破する孔孟

{{tpage|289}}

の徒も、「倉廩みちて礼節を知る」と叫んだのではないか。この客観的な人間性の上に真の佛国土建設運動はその基準を置いてかからねば永久の夢であらう。

九、経済問題が行動を規定した一例

A　僕は新運動結成の前日、この問題について、決定的な確信を一つ与へられたといふのは例の甲府支部の脱退の事実である。

B　あれは実に僕も意外であつた。何しろ、あの支部は君が日蓮主義運動をやり出した最初から、一番力を入れてゐた支部であり、また一番有力な支部でもあつたのだが、一体、脱退の理由は何か。

A　五日の結成式には同志が五人も上京するといふ約束さへあつたのだが、三日に配達された『佛旗』創刊号にかかげた第三綱領の反資本主義の声明がたたつたのだ。何しろあの支部はプチブル階級や、俸給生活者が多いから、資本主義反対では自分の生活が脅威されて立つて行けぬといふのが、大体の理由であつた。

B　でも、まさか資本主義賛成の人もあるまいし、若い連中には君に即時、無産政党に入党せよとまで言つた随分元気な人もあつたといふではないか。

A　認識や言葉の上の改造は何とでもいへるものである。だが、さて、猫へ鈴をつけに行く段になると、さう認識通りには行かないのが、これも一般の人情である。

B　十年も手を取つた信仰団体としては、あまりにも不信な仕打ちではないか。

A　咎め立てをすれば、僕の不徳と無力が一番に咎められるべきであらう。僕は支部の態度を「不信」の二字でのみのしるに忍びぬほど、これまで同志のよせてくれた厚意の真実であつたことを今も思ふてをる。また中には脱退反対、脱退見合せの意見をもつてゐた同志もあつたらうことを信じてをる。だが、にも拘らず全支部脱退に決定したところにパン問題に対する人間の弱さと超個人的な群衆心理の動向を見ることができた。若し、こんどの運動が同志の職を奪ひ、パンの道を絶たしめるものとするならば――僕はいきなりさうとは思はれないが――一人身ならばまだしも、妻子や親兄弟があつて見れば、正義観の一本調子で直進することを期待するのは一般には無理な注文であらう。だからもしそれにも拘らず、去つた同志が自己の弱さを誤魔化して、他に理由づけるな

{{tpage|290}}

らば、その時こそ咎むべきだが、さうではないのである。實際、資本主義の横暴を呪ひつつも、自己の當面の生活問題を思案して落伍したのだ。背に腹は代へられぬとはここらの事であらうが、ここに、いかに經濟問題が人の行動を支配しがちな問題であるか、そして、支配階級がいかに横暴な彈壓を加へて弱き大衆生活を脅威しつつあるかが實證されて、僕らが資本主義經濟組織改造を第三綱領にかかげた意義も一そうハツキリ證明されるやうに思ふ。

一〇、新興佛教の荷負ふ歴史的任務

B　では第三綱領さへ君が出さねば、親しい同志と別れなくてもすんだわけか。

A　さうであらう。だが、僕等が資本主義を肯定し、或は言葉の上でだけ之を非難してゐて、實際には從前通りに仲よく讃佛偈をうたひつつ、社會主義を高調して觀念的遊戯にふけるためには、いかに多くの無產大衆の血税を犠牲とせねばならないか。例へば、終日、日の光もささぬ地下數千尺の坑底に立つて勞働しながら、カツカツ生活費だけを與へられてをる無數の同胞は、一體いつ解放されて人間らしき生活を惠まれるのか。それに引きかへ、一握りのブルジョアーのあの贅沢な生活ぶりを見よ。これが、大衆主義、平等主義を徹底すべき佛教徒がいつまでも見逃してよい社會現象であらうか。

B　その心持ちはよくわかる。だが、そこに花は紅柳は緑、「平等即差別」とか「因果応報」とかいふ見方もされて、苦しい現實を忍容しうるが佛教の特色の一つではないのか。

A　左様な解釈が、從來、御用宗教家によつて満喫させられた百パーセントの阿片的説法であつたのだ。しかし、さうした歪曲された説法を再吟味し、佛教精神を正當に闡揚して大衆生活の福利保障の指導原理たらしめんとすることこそ新興佛教の荷負ふ歴史的任務でなければならぬ。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』五月号）

（その三）

一、貧乏は前世の「因果」か

B　それでは、「因果応報」とか

{{tpage|291}}

「差別即平等」といふ教義が、どういふ工合に歪曲されて御用宗教の役目を果してゐたのか。

A　まづ「因果応報」の方から説明しよう。佛教は前にも云つたやうに、宿命論でもなければ、創造神論や偶然論でもない。もとより因果の理法を主張するのだから、貧富の懸隔が生じたのも因果関係には相違ないが、その原因を一方だけに背負つて、あきらめ主義、忍従主義を強要する所に偏頗な御用ぶりをつとめてゐるのだ。

例へば、稼いでも稼いでも貧乏神に追はれ通しの無產大衆に対して、貧乏生活の原因をば、從來、坊主たちは何と説明したか。「それは前世の因果だ。自業自得である、資本家の罪でもなければ社會の責任でもない。だから君達は資本家や社會を呪はずに、一そう真面目に働くことだ。」彼等は尤もらしくから説明したものだ。

だが、資本主義機構に対して少しでも知識を持つ者にはこんな説明が見えすいた誤魔化しであることは、も早や、くどくどしく説明するまでもあるまい。去年の豊作地獄などは最もよい証拠で、天候もよく、汗をしぼつた耕作に惠まれたあの未曾有の大豊作が、反つて農家の生活難増大の原因となつた事実が、一体、前世の因果論で片付くものであらうか。また銀行の資金歩合でも、小身者には割高、大身者には割安で、小身者はいよいよ不利の立場に押しやられたり、勞資協力で儲けた利潤の分配は、問題にならぬ不平等な分配を強ひられたり、文句を言へば、官權の力で弾圧されるといつた風の不公平な社會的原因もあつて因果してゐる貧富の懸隔が、すべて貧乏者の前世の因果だときめつけられるものだらうか。

二、貧乏も連帯責任

A　だが、佛法の道理はさう偏頗を許してをらぬ。あきらかに佛教では、此の場合、社會的に「連帯責任」を主張するので、決して一方のみの責任とは言つてゐない。佛教に「共業所感」といふのはその事だ。連帯責任といふならば、資本家も無產大衆の貧乏生活の原因の一半を背負ふべきであり、廣く全社會の連帯責任であるから、貧乏の原因に現在、資本主義経済組織の欠陥があることを発見したならば何よりも、先づその改造は連帯責任の先決問題となつて来るべきではあるまいか。

B　而し、それでは「自業自得」とか「三世因果」といふのは、どう考へたらいいのか。個人的責任は全然

{{tpage|292}}

ないといふのか。

A　個人の責任が全然ないといふわけではない。問題は責任の科し工合が、ただ個人の私生活にとどまるか、それとも、社會改造を根本と見るかの相違で、いづれ根本であるかは、個人と社會との関係に正しい認識を持たねば判らないことだ。さて「自業自得」といへば、個の個我が設定されて、それの輪廻による所業を「自業自得」とか「三世因果」とかよぶのだが、佛教の根本義が無我主義である限りは、その思想は当然、再吟味されなければならない。なぜならば個的な「自業自得」を主張すれば佛教の根本原理がくづれるし、「無我」を主張すれば「自業自得」は成立しないわけであらう。之に関して、リス・デヴィッツといふ人が、

「当時流行の意見（個人的三世因果論）は根本佛教の教理の中に論理的に融合することなしに附加されたものである。」

と説明してゐるさらだが、恐らくその通りであらう。

三、人類の真の解放と宗教

「自業自得」の思想は社會性よりも個人性が過大視された時代の過渡的思想であつたので、佛教の根本原理は依然として「無我主義」であり、「衆縁和合、一因非生」でなければならない。從つて、個的な自業自得論は成立しない。「自業自得」を正しく解釈するならば、「自業自得」の「自」は個的自我ではなく因縁和合して出来た社會的自我――大我であるから、從つて貧乏の原因もこれは社會的に説明されなくてはならない。從つて、また、その原因除去の方法は積極的、具体的なる社會的方法によるべきが正當ではあるまいか。而も社會は連帯責任と云ふものの、支配被支配の差別がある限りは、その責任は当然より多くを支配階級の方に求むべきことも道理ではあるまいか。それを無產者の自業自得として、消極的に個人的に、あきらめさせ忍従させて、せつせと汗をしぼらせて搾取する階級の御嘉納にあづからうとは、坊主の理非転倒も甚だしい混迷ではないか。

だから自業自得は無我思想を以て再吟味され、我他彼此の差別観念から解放され、無我の真精神について、社會的に全体的に徹底した具体運動の中に解決さるべきが正當だと思ふ。わけて現代のごとき組織づけられた資本主義機構にあつて、ここに人類の真の解放がある

{{tpage|293}}

のだ。佛とはかうしたさとりを成就して社會的に大精進する人間をいふので、その典型的人格がわが佛陀であつた。

B　うなづける。かう説明されると、いつか聞いた増上寺の管長が「勞資問題解決の根本対策は勞働者に因果の道理を納得さすことだ」と言つたといふあれなど、全く文字通りな阿片説法だね。

A　全くだ。もしまた「自業自得」を從來の如く個人的に解して見ても、ああした説法は無慈悲千万な似而非宗教家の自己証明以外の何物でもない。なぜならば、勞働者が貧乏で困るのも前世の因果ならば、資本家が無產大衆のストライキを受けて困るも前世の因果でなければならまい。そして同じ因果ならば現在物資に窮して困つてゐる無產者を因果だと忍従せしめるよりも、有り余るブルジョアーを、その有難い因果の道理で以て、納得さして、無產大衆の要求を満足さす方が、何ほど弱者を救ふ佛の道であらうか。また効果的に見ても、現にパンに窮した大衆を説得するよりも、あり余る物資を出させるだけの方が何ほど問題解決の可能性が多いか知れないであらう。所が事実は正反対といふのだから呆れた話ではないか。

B　その通りだ。これでは、レーニンが

「宗教は、一生涯、働いて苦しみ抜く人間に対しては、地上に於ける屈従と忍耐とを教へ、天国の報ひの希望を以て慰める。だが宗教は、他人の勞働によつて生活する人間に対しては、搾取者たる彼等の全存在を安々と是認し天国の祝福の入場切符を相當の値段で売渡し、かうして彼等に地上での善行を教へる。宗教は民衆のための阿片である。」

と言つたのも無理からぬこととうなづける。

{{tpage|294}}

だがここで少しく疑問なのは、そのやうに、責任の所在が社會的になると、果して個人の努力が鈍つては来ないだらうか。

A　現在のやうに個人主義的社會生活に馴らされてをる者の頭には、さう思はれ易いであらう。而し、實際は、利害を同じくする団体意識が徹すれば徹する程、個人の努力は一層緊張するものであることは、腹をきめて正しい団体生活をした者の何人もが実感してをることだ。尊敬すべき先覚者はいつれも自己の内部に全社會を見、社會生活の「因に自己を見た」人々で、彼等は常に社會運動をせずにおられなかつたのだ。佛陀が個我と私有とを否定して、社會恩を説かれたのもこの故であり、「人間的本質は社會的関係の絶対である」と主張した、マルクスやレーニンの努力も鈍る所か、すばらしいものではなかったか。ただ個我的要求も一般の人間性だから、自業自得もその人間性に根ざした過渡的思想には相違ないが、真理は無我主義の上に人間最高の解脱と共產共栄の生活とを永遠に示唆してゐるのだ。

四、歪曲された「差別即平等」論

A　次には、歪められた「差別即平等」の話だが、これも、君が「花は紅、柳は緑」といつた風に、坊主たちは手の入つた説明をして社會的不合理、不義なる差別生活をそのまま肯定させようと努めてをる。

B　而し、君もこれまでよく言つたが、七合の水を要する植木鉢には七合を、三合のには三合を与へると、どちらも過不足がないので、これが、差別即平等で、やはり差別のあるのが自然ではないのか。

A　その説明の限りに於て正しい。七合の者に五合でも不足するし、三合のものに五合では水ばて、これも困る。だから七合のには七合、三合のには三合でなければいけないが、現在社會の差別は果してさうであらうか。七人もの貧乏家族が三畳長屋で今日の飯米もなくて苦しんでをる。かと思へば、一方には夫婦暮しで大邸宅に伸び伸びとして有り余る財産を抱へて謡曲などで暇をつぶしてをる者もあらう。

貧乏な老人は三等列車でゆられてをるとき、金持ちの若者は二等列車で威張つてをる。また、一日中、働き通しの勞働者は日給僅か二円かと思へば、四五時間会社へ出頭して数百円を失敬してをるブルがをる。頭のよい体力の強い子供がゐても金がなくては上級学校へ行かれない。さうかと思へば、一方には脆弱な低能児でも試験地獄がある方法で通過される。今の社會は、決して、君が今言つたやうな七合に七合、三合に三合といつた風に必要に応じて差別づけられてはゐないのだ。

五、真の平等は如何に実現さるべきか

B　だが、それならば、一見、金持ちの我ままのやうだが、そこには金持ちになるまでの努力があつたので、その差別には努力がむくはれた正當なる差別と見られないだらうか。

{{tpage|295}}

A　もし、人間社會も他の植物や動物と同じ適者生存、弱肉強食といふ自由競争の社會生活とのみ見る限りに於ては僕もこの差別生活に何の異論もいふべきではない。だが人間が人格的存在である限りに於ては、その差別相も人格的に整理された社會相でなくては人間社會の差別相ではない。例へば、前の例をとれば、二人暮しの家族に対して六合の飯米ならば、七人家内では二升一合が与へられ、列車に二等と三等とがあれば、二等は老人子供などに恵まれて三等には若者が乗るとか、一時間働くものには四円なら、六時間の者には十二円といつた風に、差別はあつても、ただ自由競争の結果としての差別をそのままに肯定しない所が、人間生活に見るべき「差別即平等」であらねばならぬ、と僕は考へるのだ。ましてや、前にも言つたやうに、貧乏が自業自得でなくして社會的なものであるとして見れば、その財力を自分一人のために勝手気ままに使用さすべきでなく、當然社會的制裁の下に、理想的に人爲的に整理しての差別相こそ、まことの人間社會の「差別即平等」といはれるのであるまいか。

それを、一方では仰々しく相互扶助だ、勞資協調だなどと叫びつつ、一方、血も涙もない自由競争の結果として生じたかかる差別相を、いかにも絶対の真理らしく「差別即平等」だなどと説法してをるのが、今の御用宗教家なのだ。だが、それは現在の優勝者の地位弁護以外に何の福音を無產大衆に与へつつあるであらうか。

君、考へても見よ、何が故に多數は、暗黒なる坑底に一生骨をくだいて金銀を採掘し、少數はその金銀を自由に装飾して一生を栄耀に享楽していいのか。それも自由競争の結果だといつて了へば、また何をか言はんやだが、「生命の支配權を握り、本能を理性的有意的な行爲によつて置き換へ、世界を意識的な秩序ある産物とすること――これが人類の仕事である」ならば、かかる不平等極まる社會相をこのままに「差別即平等」だなどと言はれるべきものではない。それは人類社會も単なる自然現象と同視した場合においてのみ可能であるが、理性と創造力とを賦与されてをる人類の社會にあつての「差別即平等」の真義は、「理性と正義と愛」とによつて意識的に秩序づけられた可及的平等の社會といふここにこそ、「差別即平等」の言葉によつて抽象されべきではあるま

{{tpage|296}}

いか。

六、自由競争と協同調和

B　しかし、人間にも本性に競争性があるのだから、さうした理想社會は結局空想ではあるまいか。また強い秩序づければ、結果は反つて怠け者の大量生産とならないだらうか。

A　その懸念は一般に聞くことだ。だが、競争性もある代りに一方人間には調和性もハッキリ見られる。否、人間の特性こそこの調和性、社會性にあるのであつて、これが不幸にして未だ十分に涵養助長される組織生活にまで達してゐなかつたのだ。人類進化の初期時代を考へて見てもわかるが、人類は、他の動物が身に備へてをる牙とか爪とかいつた鋭利強力な武器はもつてゐなかつたが、從つて、自然の生存競争者としては、最も不利であつたにもかかはらずよく地上の支配者となつたのは何の力因であつたらうか。それこそ、理性と創造力とを有し、そして協同団結の生活者であつたからではあるまいか。もし、さうであるならば、個人的自由競争は人間社會にあつて第一義性ではなく、第一義性はやはり協同調和の社會性でなくてはならない。そして、この意識社會の中に於て始めて、個的自由も保障され確立することを意識しうる理性的存在が人間の特性であり、運命であると思はれる。

この特性は、人間の一生の生活を考へると猶よく納得されるかと思ふ。

赤ん坊から幼年時代へかけては、無邪気ではあるが我利の本能そのものである。これほど我利の本能を容赦なく振り廻す時代はないが、ところが、生活の範囲が家庭から学校へ、学校から社會へと拡大して行くに従つて、自制心が増してきて社會的になり、老境に入るに従つて愈々円熟して行く事実を見ても、人類社會の歴史も恐らく同様に、理性の発達と共に理想社會へと展開してゆくものであらうと信じられる。

しかし、現在では不幸にして、まだ本能的自由競争性の編み出した資本主義経済組織の網の中にからまつて藻掻いてをる青年時代だ。だから、経済的自由競争が否定されれば生甲斐でもなくなるやうに考へられるかも知れぬが、競争は経済上のみに限られるべきではない。否、経済的に生活が保障されてから後の競争――科学的、芸術的、道徳的等々の競争こそ人類にふさはしき真の競争時代がやつてくるのであらうが、

{{tpage|297}}

現在では、かかる多様な人間の特性が、すべて経済競争の一路に追ひつめられて、醜くも商品化されてをるから、それが習慣性となつて、人間生活即経済生活といふ観念形態をつくり上げてをる。従つて、生活が保障されても、経済的自由競争がやれなくなれば、モヒ中毒者のモヒが切れたやうに、一向活動力がなくなるのかのやうに考へられるのであるまいか。だが、僕はさうは思へぬ。経済競争から解放されるその時こそ愈々人間生活の本舞台となつてくるのだと信じられるのだ。

たとへば筋肉勞働にしても、社會的に計画的に平等化されて見る、從來、過勞に苦しんでゐた勞農者の過勞が救済されるは勿論だが、それと同時に、從來、無聊に日を送つた社會人にも適當な勞働がふり當てられて、両者共に身心壮健な生活が惠まれてくる。ところが、社會には明日の飯米がなくて飢ゑをる國民がゴマンとあるのに、政府は四百万石からの過剰米を倉庫に積んでその処置に困つてをるといつた無慈悲不統制な資本主義社會では、働くものは夜に日に働き通さねば食つてはゆかれぬ勞働過酷の社會だから、勞働そのものまでが一般には嫌惡されてをるけれども、適當な勞働それ自体は反つて愉悦の泉でなければならぬ。だから、もし、さうした適當な勞働が一般に与へられ、計画的社會になつてくれば、何人も決して怠けたいなどとするものでなく、社會的義務といふよりも愉快なる権利として幾時間を勞働するに至るであらう。

例へば、一燈園の人々の生活を見てもわかる。彼等はただ一日の糧だけを得てそれで悦んで一日中働いてをられる。これなどは、人間は必ずしも私有財産を積み上げなくても満足して、勞働しうるといふ証拠ではないか。

七、現段階に於ける一燈園の役割

B　しかし、ああした粗末な生活が人類生活の理想だらうか。

A　もとより理想ではないと思ふ。天香さんもさうは思ふてゐないであらう。佛経にも「取相の凡夫」といふ文句があるが、ともすれば、ああした粗衣粗食の生活形態そのものを以て聖人君子の理想生活のやうに考へてをる者もあるが、僕はとらない。人間の人間らしき生活とは、ただ精神的のみの向上でなく、物質生活にも豊醇な

{{tpage|298}}

正しい、美化されたものを要求するは決して不義ではないと思ふ。それが万人に惠まれない場合、他に忍びぬ同情心からの節約としては意味はあるが、粗衣粗食そのものが絶対の価値ではない。それは人類発展の歴史が証明するところであつて、人類の生活は断じて原始生活に復帰することでなくして、より高度の文化生活へ推進することにあるのではないか。

B　それでは一燈園のあの私有財産のない協同生活を、全社會に物質的により高度な文化形態として、実現したらいいわけだね。

A　理想はその通りだが、しかし、あれは資本主義社會の重圧下に生れた変態的な空想社會主義の一形式で、パンに惠まれてをる高等煩悶者の救はれる道場、一――無所有の精神を体験する道場として意味はあるが、現社會の客観的情勢下に於て、この運動には社會改造の実際運動としては、もとより何の期待もかけられまい。反つて、無意識的に依然として阿片的役割をつとめることになつてをるやうに思ふ。

八、無產運動と理想社會実現

B　では、君はさうした理想社會実現の実際運動をどう考へるのか。

A　前にもいつた通り、新興無產階級の正しく発展する政治的勢力による外、改造の道はないと考へる。

B　合法的か非合法的か。

A　原則として合法的でありたい。併し、必ずしも非合法が不義とは考へられない。涅槃経の疏にもこんなに説いてある。

「出家在家、法を護らんには其の元心の所為を取りて、事を棄て理を存して匡に大教を弘む、故に護持正法と言ふは、小節に拘らず故に不修威儀と言ふなり。昔の時は平にして法弘まる応に戒を持つべし。今の時は険にして法驟る応に杖を持つこと勿れ……取捨宜しきを得て一向にすべからず」

と。結局、形式に拘泥せず動機が正しい、場合によつては力による解決をやれ、と教へられてあるのだ。「一を殺して万を生かすべし」ともあるから、非合法が必ずしも罪悪ではなく、その根本態度と、場合とを省察することによつて肯定されるべきであつて、日本の過去の歴史を見れば、近くは明治維新の改革のごときが、明らかに

{{tpage|299}}

認容してくれることではないか。

だが、もとより、願はくは合法的な犠牲の少い改革でなければならぬ。そのためには、一般社會人が一刻も速かに資本主義社會の悪弊と新興階級登場の歴史的必然性とのパツキリ認識し常識化して、その無產者運動に可及的の同情と援助を与へることによつてのみ、改造に伴ふ不可避の犠牲をより少量に終らしむるものと考へる。

九、反宗教運動と吾人の主張

B　こんど無產運動の一翼として開始されたあの反宗教運動の正体はどんなのか。

A　そのことについては昨夜も、僕は中央佛教會館で反宗教運動の高津正道氏、本莊可宗氏、今東光氏の佛教青年聯盟書記長、三輪某氏、日蓮宗の柴田一能氏等と立会演説をやらされたが、その時、高津氏の説明によれば、「正義は大衆の福利を保障するものだ、大衆の福利を阻害するものは何物も之を排撃せねばいけない、而して、宗教は大衆福利の最大障害物である資本主義の番犬として、大衆の福利を阻害するものであるが故に之を排撃せねばならぬ」といふのが、氏の社會主義観から説明した反宗教運動の主意であつた。

B　高津氏のは秋田雨雀氏らの反宗教闘争同盟とは違ふのか。

A　秋田氏が「讀賣新聞」に書いたところでは、「社民」の利用価値如何が問題となり、「社民」を排斥する同盟の尖鋭分子と高津氏の意見が一致しないで退席したといふことだが、昨夜、高津氏が説明したやうに、正義観から出発した反宗教運動とするならば、理論的には純粹マルクス主義とは相容れぬものがあるわけだが、當面の運動としては、宗教を阿片として排撃する点、どちらも同じことであらう。

B　では、資本主義を否定し既成宗教団を排撃する君等の新興佛教運動に対しては、どういふ態度をとるのか。やはり排撃するのか。

A　さうした一致点はあつても、反宗教運動は宗教そのものを否定するマルクス主義から出発した運動だから、勿論、彼等としては新興佛教も問題ではないのが当然であらう。否、赤色佛教として反つてより邪魔と見てをるであらう。また僕等としても、同様に資本主義や既成宗教団を否定排撃するものの、その人生観に於て、

{{tpage|300}}

マルクス主義と認識を異にするかぎり全的に飛び込めないのも仕方がないが、それは、反宗教運動の是非は別として、同じ運動でありながら秋田氏らと高津氏らが主張を異にする点があると、好ましからざる分離を見ねばならぬと同じことだ。従って、その是非は反宗教運動の基本原理であるマルクス主義の批判、わけて、その宗教観の批判が根本問題とならねばならない。

そのフォイエルバッハ論の中に、エンゲルスは宗教についてこんなに言ってをる。

「宗教が神なしに存在し得るものとすれば、煉金術も賢者の石なしに存在し得よう」

「自然と人間とを外にしては何物も存在しない。吾々の宗教的空想の所産たる人間以上に位する実体（即ち神、妹尾註）なるものは、吾々自身の実体が空想上に反映したるものに外ならぬ。かくて呪縛は解かれた」

マルクス主義の宗教観は、この文章にも見るごとく、結局キリスト教的創造神の謂であるが、もし、宗教がキリスト教的神の実在を本質とするものであるならば、吾もマルクスと共に宗教を否定するであらう。なぜなれば、佛教はさうした「創造神、主宰神、司法神の如き意味」のものを否認して出発したものであるからだ。而も、佛教が宗教として厳存した事実の前には、大衆搾取の既成教団は否定しえられても、進んで否定すべきであっても、宗教そのものはいきなり否定すべきものでなく、その宗教性は人生の活きた事実として、もっと慎重に批判されるべきものではあるまいか。

なぜなれば、少くとも佛教の正系に於ては、日蓮聖人も「ただ佛にならんと思ふばかりなり」といはれたやうに、完全なる生活者――佛――を理想し追求してやまない全人格的要求こそ正しき宗教性であるとして見れば、かの既成宗教に見る幾多の分派形式のごときも、すべて、この宗教性が文化発展の段階に応じて種々に想定されたものであるが故に、それらの既成宗教団は当然また時代的清算作用をうけるべきであっても、宗教性そのものの否定運動は、反って人生に対する認識不足であって、むしろ、時代にふさはしき正しき宗教を要望すべく、この意味に於て反宗教運動は正しく止揚さるべきではあるまいか。

もしそれ、宗教が大衆の福利阻害の理由で全的に否定されるならば、それも既成宗教団の限定に於て可能であ

{{tpage|301}}

って、宗教そのものの本質は断じて大衆の福利と逆行するものではない。佛陀とキリストは言ふまでもない。リンカーンの奴隷解放運動のごときは其の著しき実例であって、宗教性こそ、まことに大衆相愛の大理想とその実行の熱情性の源泉ではあるまいか。

B　大分わかった。この五月二十三日に、上野の自治館でやる反宗教闘争同盟の結成講演会では、君等の運動も批判されるそうだから、それを聞いた上でまた更に君に意見をききたいものだ。

A　僕も聴きたいのだが、丁度二十三日には金沢支部大会に出席するので、残念だが行けない。君一つよく聞いておいてくれ。若し万一僕の信念に誤診があったらば、何時でも此の運動を停止するに吝ではない。日蓮聖人は申された「其の理にまけてありとも其の心ひるがへらずば天寿をもめしとれかし」と。しかしまた、「我が義国者に破られずば用ひじ」と。この信念でひたすら新興佛教運動をすすめたく思ってをる。盲信では駄目だ。だから所信は容易に枉げてはならない。

一〇、理性的宗教と釈迦牟尼佛の渇仰

B　おお其の態度こそ正しく宗教的態度そのものではないのか。理性的宗教！　人類の無限復活の動機こそ、その理性的宗教性そのものではないか。

A　かうした理性的情熱を欲する時、必然的に僕たちは人類のもっとも最高の典型、釈迦牟尼佛が渇仰されるのだ。そして、われ釈迦牟尼佛を渇仰するとき、自然に、欲してやまぬ理性的情熱はまた一層に燃えてくるのだ。かくして理性は静かに問題を批判し、情熱は死を賭して、も見きわめた理想実現に直進せしめるのだ。経に「一心に佛を見奉らんと欲して、自ら身命を惜まず」といひ、或は「其の心恋慕するに因って乃ち出でて為めに法を説く」と説かれてあるのも、ここらの宗教的体験の告白に外ならぬであらうが、ともあれ、かくして、僕等の新興佛教運動は釈迦牟尼佛の人格渇仰の中に、その生活の一切を統一してゆく宗教運動なのである。

B　君の「新興佛教への転身」の気持ちは、ほぼ了解できた。

A　それでは、この話は一先づ打ちきりとしてまたの会談を約束しよう。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』六月号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31SBE

2026-08-30T17:20:15Z

James: Removed redirect to SG31SBE-T

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈新興佛教への転身〉}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身 [“Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism”]. Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

[[SG31SBE-T|English translation]]

{{tpage|260}}

'''{{size|150%|新興佛教への転身}}'''

一、既成宗団と資本主義の否定

B　君はこんど日蓮主義をやめて、新興佛教運動とかをやるといふが、本当か。

A　本当だ。

B　何の目的でやるんだ。

A　第一は堕落した既成教団を排撃して佛教の真価を現代に発揮したいのだ。第二は分裂した佛教を統一して、醜い宗派争ひを絶ちたいのだ。第三は佛陀の精神に反する資本主義経済組織の改造運動に参加して、愛と平等の理想社会を実現したいのだ。

B　そんなことは不可能ではないか。空想に終りはせぬか。

A　空想ではない。既成佛教団の破滅も、資本主義の倒壊も、もう時機の問題だと心得てをる。

B　資本主義の改造はともかくも、そんなに新たに宗教運動をやらなくても、従来の日蓮主義を一そう徹底してはだめなのか。わけて君はこれまで日蓮主義の地盤を築いてきてゐるのだから、惜しい気はしないか。

A　真理の前には打算はできぬのが僕の気性だ。今は、新運動を決行する外僕の道はなくなつた。従来の日蓮主義は色々な意味に於て行き詰つてをる。無論他の佛教団もだが。この際どうしても根本的な革命をねらぬことには佛教は復活せぬと思ふ。丁度、資本主義に少々の修正くらゐでは駄目なと一ツやうに、宗団の堕落も病膏肓に入つてゐるからさ。

B　それは時勢に阿附する出来心ではないか。

A　君は僕の長い信仰生活を知つてる筈だがね。

B　もう随分と長いことだ。一体、何年になるかね。

A　僕が日蓮主義の信仰をえたのは明治四十四年だ。

{{tpage|261}}

そして雑誌『若人』を発刊して日蓮主義を鼓吹しだしたのは大正九年の秋からだ。だから、公的な伝道生活は十二ヶ年、私的な信仰生活は実に二十一ヶ年の長年月だ。そして信仰の熱意だけでは何人にもひけをとらぬつもりで今日まで、信仰とその宣伝に全生命をささげてきたのだから、一時の出来心などで鞍替へするには、なんぼなんでも忍びぬ因縁ではないか。

B　さう聞けばさうだ。三日連れ添ふても相手はなかなか忘れられぬといふからね。では、よくよくの覚悟だらうが、それにしても断然、日蓮聖人も捨てるとは、よく思ひきつた決断だね。

A　とんでもないことだ。日蓮聖人に対する渇仰の心は年と共に高まつてくる。今から顧みると過去の信仰生活など、まるで遊戯であつた。僕の胸に少しでも愛の心が深まり、それに従つて、少しでも具体的な菩薩行を励まうとすればする程日蓮聖人の御生涯が、お言葉がひしひしと骨まで沁みこむやうに感じられる。全くあんな偉い人はないと信じてをる。

B　それでは、どうして日蓮主義をやめるのか。

A　やめると言へば、やめるやうにも見られるが、僕としては日蓮聖人の旧套を捨てるので、反つて、その精神を現代に復活するのだと思つてる。日蓮聖人の根本精神を現代に復活させようと専念すればするほど、この新興佛教運動の可能と、そして、ただこれのみが最も時代に適応した唯一の救済運動であつて、広く、全佛教の復活はかかつてこの運動に発見されると、僕は固く確信してきたのだ。

B　旧套を捨てるといへば、尤ものやうに聞えるが、言葉はどうでも、実際には日蓮主義を否定するのだらう。

二、日蓮主義の復活だ

A　その通りだ。

B　そんなに日蓮主義を否定しても日蓮聖人に反逆とはならないか。

A　さうだ。日蓮主義も時代の必要によつて起つた一つの形式だ。聖人開教の歴史や、遺された幾多の文献に徴して見ても、形式を革めることに不都合はない。否、客観的情勢に応じて改革してこそ、まことに日蓮聖人の精神に触れたものと考へられる。聖人は実にすぐれた開

{{tpage|262}}

明的叡智の持主で、決して株を守つて兎を待つたり、柱に膠して琴を弾ずるやうな融通のきかぬ保守的な人格ではなかつた。

孟子が孔子を評して「聖の時なる者」といつたが、それにもまして、わが日蓮聖人は時機を見る典型的な聖者であつた。「一切のことは国と時によるべし」とか、「法華経は一法なれども機により時に随つて、その行ひ万差なるべし」とか、「彼の国によかりし法なれば、必ずこの国にもよかるべしと思ふべからず」とか、挙げればきりもないが、これらに就いて見るやうに、聖人の宗教は批判の宗教である。批判は自己清算でも忠実でなくてはウソではないか。けだし、孔子が、「択んで仁にをらずんば焉んぞ知を得ん」といつたのも、ここらの消息ではあるまいか。

三、佛教の本質

B　少しは肯ける。

A　元来、佛教の本質がさうなのだ。「佛」とは「結ばれがほどけた」意味だといはれる位で、一定の型にこだはらぬところが特色である。それがまた解脱でもあるのだ。少し専門的に説明して見ると、佛教は「我」と「我所」、即ち個我と私有とを否定して、「無我」と「無所有」とを説かれた教へである。佛教の三原則として知られてをる有名な三法印――諸行無常・諸法無我・涅槃寂静のさいごのごときも、結局、「空」の一字に納まるので、甲乙と執着せぬ、従つて、場所によれば、甲でもあり乙でもありうる変通自在の法を説かれたものである。法華経の法師品には「一切法空」と説き、方便品には諸法実相と名づけて、いはゆる如是相・如是性・如是体云々とかの十如是の理を示して因縁による変化性を説明されてゐる。だから「法は無性なり、佛種は縁によりて起る」とも説いてある。また、法華経の序論である無量義経には、

「是の如き無相は相ならず、相ならずして相なきを名づけて実相となす。菩薩かくの如き真実の相に安住し已つて発するところの慈悲明諦にして虚しからず、衆生の所に於て真に能く苦を抜く」

と説明してあるが、つづめて言へば特定の立場――「無立場」といふ立場を否定した「無立場」の立場、畢竟、一切に執せられぬ立場に立つて、時処位に応じて変通す

{{tpage|263}}

る態度にこそ徹底した慈悲は現はれ、よく大衆を救済しうるものだと道破されたものである。従つて、日蓮主義も、無相実相の佛教哲理の例外でないから、時と場所、事情によつてはこれも揚棄して差支へないはずであつて、問題は、その時代の文化と照応して、改革すべき相当の理由があるならば思ひきつて改革してこそ佛教の本領にかなひ日蓮聖人の御精神に参到しえたものと思ふべきではあるまいか。

B　さう言はれて見ると、日蓮聖人のとられた形式でも、時勢の推移によつては改革して差支へぬわけだね。

四、形式は変化する

A　その通りだ。早い話が、卵について見ても、白味と黄味と別々の場合は、殻はなくてはならぬ大事な外形だが、もし親鳥にはぐくまれて中に雛が出来てくると、それは不必要な反対物となつてくる。そしてこれを破壊せぬことには新しき生命は出てこぬわけではないか。

B　マルクスのいふ唯物弁証法的な説明だね。

A　だれが云つたつて真理に二つはない。実に「時」といふやつは不思議な力で、一人や二人の考へではどうにもならぬ必然性をもつて迫る。だから日蓮聖人は『撰時鈔』といふ論文の冒頭には「夫れ佛法を学ばん法は、必ず先づ時を習ふべし」と筆を下して、「時鳥は春を送り鶏は暁をまつ、畜生すら猶かくの如し、何に況んや佛法を修行せんには時を糾ざるべしや」と説き、「されば機に随つて法を説くと申すは大なる僻見なり」と論じてをられる。実に徹底した識見ではないか。機といふのは個性といふ意味だから、この文は個々の個性を対象として、いはゆる「応病与薬」式の個人的救済運動を否定して、超個人的に社会一般の客観的情勢を対象として、その時代に適する社会的救済方法を主眼とせねばならぬといふ鉄案なのだ。

B　社会科学のいふところとよく似てをるね。

A　まだよく似たところは、現代の大衆的闘争の可能を説明するものに、こんな御遺文もある。『聖愚問答鈔』の一節だが、

「今の世は濁世なり、人の情もひがみゆがんで権教謗法のみ多ければ正法弘まりがたし。此の時は読誦書写の修行も観念工夫修練も無用なり。只折伏を行じて力

{{tpage|264}}

を責めよとなり、取捨その旨を得て一向に執する事なかれ」

何と徹底した宣言ではないか。佛教だといへば、すぐ坐禅工夫を連想したり、無抵抗主義を考へたりしがちな人々には、こんな文章は或は天魔の逆宣伝でもあるかに思はれるだらうが、実社会をまともに見抜いてくると、この宣言のごとく、現今のいはゆる修養などがいかに反つて阿片的役割をつとめて、あたら有為の青年を去勢してゐるか知れぬのだから、こんな時代には何としても堂々たる闘争によらずしては天国は地上には築かれぬやうに考へられる。さりとてに闘争のための闘争でも困るから、「取捨その旨を得て」とあるあたりは全く行きとどいた教言ではないか。

B　さう言はれると、今まで自分たちが見た佛教はまるで見当ちがひのやうにも思はれるぞ。

A　遠慮なく言つて、全く見当ちがひの処が多いのだ。それが推移する時代に無意識で、或は意識しても御用宗教の悲しさで、百年一日、形式ばかりの説法をくりかへされたおかげなのだ。見給へ、あの宗門の時代錯誤ぶりを。社会はナッパ服だらうが、モーニングだらうが、人格に差別なくますます機会均等となりつつあるのに、率先してさらすべき宗門内では、今に衣の色合ひやら僧階の差別やらウルサイこと限りなしである。社会では日々社会政策が徹底しつつあるのに、宗門では一体何をやつてをる？

B　その点同感だ。形式は時代に応じて改革せねばならぬことがよくわかつた。結局、時代の上に佛教を復活さすために、時代相応の形式に盛つて行かうといふ運動だね。

五、新興佛教運動の眼目

B　ところが、君は「南無妙法蓮華経」をやめて、「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」と唱へるといふではないか。

A　さうするのが新興佛教運動の眼目なのだ。かりにも佛教を奉ずる佛弟子たちは、すべて念佛もやめ大日信仰もやめ、既成宗団の形式一切をやめて佛陀の御人格を讃仰した「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」の旗印の下にまづ融合して、そこから新しく社会的に進出を試みようといふのだ。君はこの形式は、全佛教徒に共通する唯一根本の形式として、また同時に佛教統一の方法として、これ

{{tpage|265}}

以上よい方法が他にあると考へるか。但し、この形式はこれまで、真面目な先覚によつて既に提唱されたこともあつたが、時の至らぬためか、まだ勢力がない。しかし勢力のあるなしでなく、現代から将来への佛教界の必然的運命と僕は信じて全霊をこめて一石を置くわけだ。

B　君の願心はよくわかる。しかし僕の腑に落ちないのは、君は「日蓮聖人の精神を生かす」のだといつたが、日蓮聖人は「日蓮の魂は南無妙法蓮華経に過ぎたるはなし」といつてゐられるのだから、もし題目をやめて南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶と唱へる事は、聖人の精神を捨てる事にはなるまいか。

A　尤もの疑問だ。しかしながら、その文章の前には「佛の御意は法華経なり、日蓮の魂は南無妙法蓮華経に過ぎたるはなし」とあるので、つまり、日蓮聖人は一切経のうち法華経が佛陀の根本精神を宿した経典だと信じられたゆゑに、さう申されたのだが、もし、法華経のみが佛陀の根本精神を宿す唯一の経典でないときまつてくれば、むしろ南無妙法蓮華経よりも聖人の渇仰しやまない佛陀のみ名を、「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」とはつきり唱へることが、学的根拠を求めて立宗された聖人の精神に添ふ道でもあつて、決して聖人を冒瀆することにはならない、と僕は信じる。

B　もし、法華経の見方がさうなれば、君の主張は道理だが、では妙法蓮華経は佛教の根本精神でないといふのか。

六、大乗非佛説

A　そこが問題となるのだ。君は近代の佛教界に提唱されてゐる「大乗非佛説」といふ学説を聞いたことはないか。

B　全然噂さをきかないでもないが、内容をよく知らないから、一ツ話してくれ給へ。

A　簡単に話さう。佛教経典は大別して般若経、法華経、阿弥陀経、大日経、楞伽経等々の大乗経典と阿含経等の小乗経典とに分類されてゐた。そして、どちらも佛陀の説法を記録したものと見做されてゐたのが、近来、それらの大乗経典は直接佛陀のお説きになつた経典でないと主張するのが、「大乗非佛説」といふのだ。

B　では、それらの経典はどうして作られたのか。

A　それはさうだらう。佛教も、時代が推移し世態文化が

{{tpage|266}}

進歩するにつれて発展して、時代に適応すべく幾多の新しき経典が後来の佛弟子によつて創作されたのが大乗経典で、従つて、大乗経典は直接佛陀の説法記録でないから「大乗非佛説」といふのだ。つまり発達佛教といふ意味だ。

B　では大乗非佛説の立場から見ると法華経も、発達佛教の一つだから、法華経は佛陀の根本精神でなくなるといふのだね。

A　その通りだ。

B　では日蓮聖人時代には、七千巻からの一切経はすべて佛陀の直接説法の集録と見られてゐた訳だから、それをどうして日蓮聖人は法華経のみをとつて佛教の根本精神だと主張されたのか。

A　それは、経典そのものが、さう説明してをるのだ。わけて日本佛教の母体である天台の教学もさう説明してゐるので、それによると、一切経は佛陀が三十成道八十入滅の五十年間の説法で、これを前後二期に大別して前期を四十二ヶ年とし、法華以前の一切経は四十二年間の説法で、之を爾前経といひ、後八ヶ年の法華経が佛陀の真精神を顕揚された真実の経典で、爾前経はすべて法華経顕揚のために説かれた方便経だと論断されてゐたのだ。

B　それには相当の経証があるのか。

A　さうだ。たとへば法華経の法師品の「わが所説の諸経あり、而も此の中に於て法華最も第一なり」など法華経を最高に価値づけた経文は外にも沢山あるが、わけてその序論としてある無量義経にある「性欲不同なれば種々に法を説き、種々に法を説くこと方便力を以てす。四十余年には未だ真実を顕はさず」といふ文句や、方便品の「正直に方便を捨てて但無上道を説く」のごときは有力な文証だから当時の佛教統一眼には天台の教学も無理からぬ話だつたのである。一方法華経薬王菩薩品に「後五百歳閻浮提に於て広宣流布せん」といふ経証があつて、互に照合されて法華経は末法時代に流布すべき唯一の経典とまで言はれてゐた。そして天台は「後五百歳遠く妙道に沾はん」と末法時代を望んでゐたし、日本に於ける法華経の先駆者であつた伝教大師も亦同じ信念と予言とを示

{{tpage|267}}

してみた。さて、かうした伝統の中に出現して佛教の分裂と堕落とを憤慨して革正統一を畢生の志願とされたのが日蓮聖人なのだ。而も時は佛滅後二千年を過ぎたる末法の初期に当つてゐた。聖人の聡明と熱誠に法華経がどう感応したかは説明するまでもないことであらう。

B　さう聞くと、「法華経の行者日蓮」の自覚には、たしかに必然的約束があるやうに考へられたのは無理ではない。だから、法華経以外の一切の宗派は否定せねばならなかつたといふわけだね。

A　さうだ。この教学に立つ限りに於て、末法に於ては法華経を離れて佛教の精神はなかつたのだ。一寸長いが、聖人が書かれた報恩抄の一節を見ると、この辺の消息がよくわかる。

此等の宗々みな本経本論によりて我も我も一切経をきはめたりと云々。彼の人々云く一切経の中には華厳経第一なり、法華経・大日経は臣下のごとし。真言宗云く一切経の中には大日経第一なり、余経は衆星の如し。禅宗云く一切経の中には楞伽経第一なり、乃至余宗かくのごとし。而も上に挙ぐる諸師は世間の人々各々おもへり、諸天の帝釈をうやまひ衆星の日月に随ふがごとし。我等凡夫はいづれの師々信ずべけれども日蓮が愚案はれがたし。世間をみるに各々我も我もといへども国主は但一人なり二人となれば国土おだやかならず、家に二人の主あれば其家必ずやぶる。一切経も又かくのごとくや有るらん。何れの経にてもをはせ一経こそ一切経の大王にてはをはすらめ。而るに十宗七宗まで各々論師して随はすべき国に七八十人の大王ありて万民をだやかならじ。いかんがせんと疑ふところに、一ツの願ひを立つ。我れ八宗十宗に随はじ、天台大師の専ら経文を師として一代の勝劣をかんがへしがごとく一切経を開きみるに涅槃経に申す「法に依つて人に依らざれ」等云々、中には佛を除き奉りて外の普賢菩薩文殊師利菩薩乃至上にあぐるところの諸人師なり。此経に又云く、「了義経に依つて不了義経に依らざれ」等云々、此経に指すところ了義経と申すは法華経、不了義経と申すは華厳経・大日経・涅槃経等の已今当の一切経なり。されば佛の遺言を信ずるならば専ら法華経を明鏡として一切

{{tpage|268}}

経の心をば知るべきか。随つて、法華経の文を開き奉れば「此法華経は諸経の中に於て最も其上に在」等云々。

B　成る程、そうはつきりした。では、日蓮聖人が「法華経第一」と論定されたのは、決して聖人の独断でなく、ひたすら経典に依つて佛陀の精神を求められた結果であつて、言ひ換へれば、あくまでも客観的に学術的に佛教の根本精神を求められた末、法華経が佛陀の根本精神だとされたわけだね。

A　その通りだ。それについて聖人は「是れひとへに日蓮が智の賢きにあらず、時のしからしむるのみ、春は花さき秋は果なる夏はあたたかに冬はつめたし、時のしからしむるに有らずや」といつて、末法に於ける法華経流布の必然性を説明してをられる。だが、これだけなら問題はないのだが、前述べた大乗非佛説を真とするならば、かうした学的根拠がくづれるから、折角、日蓮聖人が六十年の血涙をもつて宣伝された法華経も時代的清算を受けねばならぬ羽目になつてくるのだ。

B　では、やつぱり日蓮聖人の認識不足といふやつか。

A　君はまだ僕の説明がのみ込めてゐない。認識不足どころか、その当時の佛教革命運動としてはこれが唯一の道であつたのだ。非難しようもない正論であつたのだ。けれども、「時」が推移して、経典に加へられた科学的の研究のもたらした自然の結果で、聖人の認識不足といふべきではない。従つて「必ず先づ時を習ふべし」といはれる聖人は「時」の批判の前には、きつと何の未練をいだかれる方でもないと、僕は信ずる。

七、天台教学の清算

A　「時」といへばまだ問題がある。近代の研究によると佛陀の誕生年代がだいへん変つてきた。

B　三千年前ではなくなつたのか。日曜学校で、僕たちは「昔も昔三千年」と歌つたのを覚えてゐるが。

A　それが、現今では高楠博士によると二千四百九十七年だといはれ、宇井博士によると二千三百九十七年だといはれてきた。

B　学者の勝手の臆測ぢやないのか。

A　さう頭から学問を馬鹿にしてはこまる。それぞれ研究の結果で、いづれによせ、まづ西紀前四五百年の方と見られる。そして、従来十九出家、三十成道、八十入

{{tpage|269}}

滅といはれたのが、二十九出家、三十五成道、八十入滅といふのが定説となつた。

B　では、説法は四十五年間で前に聞いた三十成道八十入滅の五十年説法を基礎とした天台の五時判教学がまたあやしくなるわけだね。

A　仕方もないことだ。法華経八年とすれば爾前経は三十七年となつて「四十余年未顕真実」の文がぐらつくし、爾前経四十二年とすれば、法華経は僅かに三年の説法となる計算だ。

B　しかし、何しろ二千四五百年前のことだから、そんなに細かく計算して見ても、果していづれが真かわかりかねるだらうね。

A　何しろ、印度は歴史の記録がない国だ。さうだから、正確には行くまいが、しかし研究には敬意を表せねばいけない。何しろ星の世界の数字が正確に的中する今日の科学だからね。――まあ、いづれにしても天台教学は清算され従つて日蓮教学も再吟味されねばならなくなつたのは事実である。のみならず、現在、法華経の成立についても、こんな工合にも説かれてゐる。法華経の原形は始めは序品から法師品第十までであつたのが、ついで嘱累品第二十二までが添加され、さらに六品が添加されて現行のやうな二十八品の体裁になつたといふのだ。僕も数回法華経の講義をして見て、文段のくぎりの関係は、そのやうにも感ぜられるが、ともかく、法華経はじめ大乗経典が、発達佛教であることは、現今ではまづ否めぬ定論と見て差支ないであらう。

B　では小乗経典は釈尊みづから書かれたのか。

A　さうではない。やはり小乗経も釈尊の滅後、弟子たちが結集したのだ。

B　それなら、厳密にいへば小乗経も非佛説といへるし、もし、小乗経を佛説といふならば大乗経も共に佛説と見て差支へないではないか。

A　それは一理あることだ。さうした反駁はこれまでも放たれたやうだが、しかし、それは詭弁であらう。佛陀の直接の弟子たちがあざやかな記憶そのままを吐き出して結集したのと、年代を経た孫弟子・孫々弟子たちが、それらの記録を参考して書いた経典とには、おのづから差格をつけるのが本当ではあるまいか。

B　では、発達佛教といふ証拠は十分にあるのか。

A　それは文字や文体や其他種々なる考証によって学

{{tpage|270}}

者が論定してるのだから学的良心は之を承認せざるを得ない。

八、信仰に客観性の必要

B　それは判つた。しかし信仰と学問とは違ふから、たとへ大乗非佛説でも信仰としては大乗非佛説を問題とする必要はないではないか。

A　それも一理だ。俗に「鰯の頭も信心から」といふほどだからね。しかしながらそこが大事なところと思ふ。迷信と正しき信仰との岐路はそこだ。経文に「信心があつても学問がないと迷信をまし、学問があつても信心がないと邪見をます。信心と学問とは円融して生活の本となる」と説かれたが、科学を無視してただ信じるといつた主観的な信心では正しい信仰とはいはれない。内容に客観性がないと社会的な普遍性がかけて、真の満足がえにくくなる。それについて、卑近な例を一つ取つて見よう。ここに天理教信心の老婆があつたとする。彼女はただ信心一巻きでもあつた。ところが学校出の一人息子が信仰を求めるやうになつて先づ老母のやつてる天理信心を研究した。ところが学的に満足がえられないで、彼はかりにキリスト教に走つたとする。すると一家で、一人は「助け給へ！」、一人は「アーメン」となつた場合の家庭の空気はどうだらうか。信仰は主観的なものとして二人が平気でをれるだらうか。二人が自己の信仰に権威を感じて、より忠実であればあるほど他を顧みて互に飽きたらぬある切なさを感じないですむであらうか。ところがもし反対に、学的にも承認されうる信仰であつて、息子も同じ天理教を信じたなれば、たとへ二人は信仰に対する見地や熱心さに相違や深浅はあつても、ともかく家庭一体となつて一ツ信仰生活が送れて、一さう満足がえられるわけではないだらうか。

B　それはその通りだ。信仰といはず、何事も気の合つたといふことは嬉しいことだ。

A　だからさ、信仰の対象が学術的にも道徳的にも芸術的にも正しい内容をもつてをるならば、夫々見地はちがつても、地上に精神的な兄弟姉妹をより多く吸収し包容しえられるわけであらう。ここが信仰にも客観的科学的要素を必要とする所以であつて、わけて現代に於て然りといはねばならない。かりにも日蓮聖人が「佛法とは道理なり」と申されたやうに、道理の上に立つて信仰を

{{tpage|271}}

求めようとする求道者には最早や大乗非佛説を無視して「法華経のみが佛陀の精神」だと信ずることは、それが独断の肯定で、現代から将来へ、いよいよ通用できぬ宗教になると僕は思ふ。

B　宗教がただ主観的信心では駄目だといふことはよくわかつた。また大乗非佛説によると六百五十年前の日蓮教学そのままでは現代人に通用せぬこともよくわかつた。では、若し現代に日蓮聖人がお生れになつたら、例の「諸宗は無得道、堕地獄の根源、法華独り成佛の法」と四ヶ格言を振り廻はして相変らず唱題の一本槍で現代の救済運動はなさらぬだらうね。

A　さうだと思ふ。実は僕がかうした新運動を創めるに及んだのは、「もし現代日蓮聖人が出現されたら何をなさるだらうか」と長い間自問自答した末のことだ。あの学的良心の鋭いお方が、六百五十年後の現代、変つた世相文化や、わけて様々に研究されてきた現代佛教に目を掩ふて昔のままに「諸宗無得道、法華経成佛道」と申されまいし、従つて唱題絶対論もやられないにきまつてゐる。

B　では、どういふ形態をおとりになると思ふか。

A　おそらく、こんどの新運動のやうな形式ではあるまいか。佛教の本質と時代的見地から。

B　諸宗といへば、真宗では大乗非佛説をどう見てるか。

九、愛と平等は佛教の精神

A　現代の真面目な求道者はすべて非佛説論者のやうだ。この頃もその問題で金子大栄師は破門された。少し理性のある者が、だれだつて念佛にいふやうな西方十万億土や他力本願などと今頃、有頂天にありがたがる馬鹿者はないであらう。

B　では阿弥陀佛などどう見るのか。

A　阿弥陀佛は理想される自我だ、西方十万億土は理想される現実だ。法蔵比丘とは人間根本の自我で彼の阿弥陀への修行こそ自我実現の生活を意味する。だから阿弥陀佛に救はれたいといふのは、正しさを求める生活それ自身のよろこびの象徴で、救済とは畢竟愛の生活そのものなのだ。早い話が愛は恐ろしかるべき死線さへ勇敢に活歩する。経に「慈心決定すれば畏れなし」といふものこの道理であらう。

{{tpage|272}}

B　法華経の主意も勿論さうした教へだらうね。

A　その通りだ。法華経の眼目といはれる寿量品の「自我得佛来」もつまりは自我の自覚を讃美したもので、経典は表現こそちがふが、意味はすべて同じである。もし一切経を佛説と見れば、同じ佛説の法華経や無量義経に前にいつた「四十余年未顕真実」とあるのだから阿弥陀経や大日経などはすべて方便経で、まさしく法華経の前に閉捨すべきであらう。だが、発達佛教とすれば一切経は釈迦牟尼佛の自覚内容の説明で、詮じつめれば愛と平等との表象である。この自覚によつて「諸の悪は作すなかれ、衆善は奉行して自ら其の心を浄む、是れ諸の佛教なり」といふのが、全佛教を一貫する規範であらう。

B　さうすると佛教徒のよくやる加持祈禱や御利益信心など断然、佛教の正しい道ではないわけだね。

A　さうだ。厳密な意味に於て、佛教の本来は無神論である。興起行経にこんな説法がのつてゐる。「弟子等よ、茲に三ツの間違つた見解がある。賢い人はその間違ひをたしかめて人に捨てさせようとする。もし其の見解をつきとめて行けば、此の世の作業を否定することになるであらう。三ツとは何かといふに、或る出家は人間がこの世に於て作業するいかなる苦も楽も、不苦不楽も、すべて前生の業に依ると主張する。また或る出家は、それはすべて自在天の創造を因とすると云ふ。また或る者は、すべて因もなければ縁もないと唱へてゐる。」つまり宿命論と、創造神論と、偶然論とを否定して、次いで四諦十二因縁の法を説くのであるが、この私の説く法は、苟くも心あるもの悪口を云ひ、污し、誹り、斥けることの出来ないものである」と。「四諦十二因縁」といふのは、一口にいへば、転迷開悟の道をいふので、人生の苦悩は認識不足から生じるのだから、正しき智慧を完得すべく八正道といふ方法を示されたのだ。だから佛教は正しく現実を見て、正しく実践することをすすめた教へである。「佛陀」といふ言葉からが「定全なる智慧をえた人」といふ意味だ。

B　「創造神論」といふのはキリスト教のゴッドのやうなのだね。

一〇、佛教は無神論なり

B　さうした神様は勿論、現代人は次第に認容しなく

{{tpage|273}}

なつた。それに関してブラウント大司教著『神と資本家』の中にこんな批評があつた。

「神はこの世界から悪をのぞかうと願つて出来ないのか。又は最後に、出来てそれをしたがつてゐるかいづれかである。もし彼が望んでゐて出来ないのであつたらそれは無能であつて神の性質に矛盾する。もしも彼が出来てそれをしようとしないのならそれは悪である。そして、それも神の性質に反するものである。もしも、彼がそれを欲せずかつ出来ないのであつたら、それは悪と無能の二ツである。もし彼が悪をのぞくことを希望し、また出来るのであれば、それは神に与へられてある唯一の想像であるが、それでは地上に悪があるといふことは、どうして起るのか？」と。

A　キリスト教にとつては痛い非難だ。佛教前のバラモン教には、さうした天地創造の神を説いたり、やたら苦行を説いたのだが、佛陀はそれを否定して前のごとく四諦十二因縁の法を説かれた。それについてこんな話もある。スナカタといふ背教者が「佛陀には超人の法がない、充分にすぐれた知見がない、彼は自分の頭で考へたもの、思ひ付きの法を説くのである。而して、その法に依れば、考へさへするものは、正しく苦のない境地に達することができるといふのである」といふ悪口をついて廻つた時、佛陀は高弟舎利弗に向つて言はれることには、スナカタは怒つてそのやうなことを云つたのだが、彼は却つて佛を讃へてゐるのである。「その法に依れば、考へさへするものは、正しく苦のない境地に達することができるといふのである」といふのは、佛を讃へるのである」云々と。これで見るやうに、佛教の極意は、正しく人生の実相を見、正しく思惟し、そして正しく生活することを教へるのだ。

B　しかし日蓮聖人は祈禱されたといふではないか。

A　さうした遺文もあるにはあるが、あつても傍系だ。聖人の本心は『開目鈔』にあるやうに「詮ずるところは天も捨て給へ、諸難にも値へ、身命を期とせん……我れ日本の柱とならん等と誓ひし願やぶるべからず」といつた大道念であつた。現在やつてる加持祈禱など聖人の面よごしだ。

一一、佛陀信仰の正しき意味

B　では「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」と唱へるのは、どう

{{tpage|274}}

いふ意味で唱へるのだ。

A　教父としての釈尊への感謝渇仰で、実在する創造神としてではない。佛教は「法を見る者は佛を見る」といはれたやうに、佛陀の教へに従つて幾分でも真理を認識し体得して悦びを感ずるものは、その理想的体験者釈迦牟尼佛が自然に讃嘆され渇仰され感謝されざるを得ないのである。また、この人格を讃嘆し渇仰し感謝することは、更により深く真理の生活へ自らを導入することにもなるのだ。釈迦牟尼佛を祈つたからとて米櫃に米が湧いてはこぬ。貧乏のときは、佛陀はシツカリ働いて金を儲ける工面をせよと教へられよう。もし現在のごとく経済組織がよくないために働いても働き甲斐のない場合は、先づわるい組織を改造して大衆の福利を保障せよと教へられよう。千遍一律、「稼ぐに追ひつく貧乏なし」などとはいはれない筈だ。病気したら、願掛け祈禱よりも、先づ適当な治療をするやう、病気の原因を内省して、衛生を守るやうにと教へられたのがわが佛陀であるね。

B　さすがに佛陀はマルクス流の学説も心得てゐられるね。

A　それは讃め過ぎだ。マルクスの学説は知られよう筈がないではないか。知られなくたつて佛陀の権威の減損とはならない。何しろ二千五百年も前だ、知られないのが本当ではないか。只佛陀の愛と平等の生活を真実に思ふ者には時処位に適応する認識が自然体得されてくるわけだから、佛教は不断に時代と共に発展してゆくのだ。前に言つた発達佛教もかうした過程であるが、つまり我等は佛教について人生々活の根本基調を学べばいいのだ。そして、その基調に立つとき適宜の生活が展開するので、僕はそれを「無常より信愛へ」と標語してをる。

B　では孔子が「里は仁を美しとす、択んで仁に居らずんば焉んぞ知を得ん」といつたのも、同じ人生観だね。

A　さうだと思ふ。儒教の天も、キリスト教の神も、日本の神道も佛教の佛陀も説明こそ異るが、つきつめれば、根ざすところは同じ聖愛の道に相違ないと僕は思ふてをる。

一二、佛耶二教は融合する

B　いつか帰一協会といふのが起されて神儒佛三教の

{{tpage|275}}

帰一融合が目ろまれたことがあつたが、して見ると、キリスト教とも一致できるわけだね。

A　僕は一致する日が来ると信じてをる。世界各国の言語文字をはじめ文化一般が次第に融合し、わけて経済機構が統一されてくると宗教ばかりいつまでも戦国状態ではをれなくなる。かくて、両者の止揚された新運動が開始されるのではないかと考へる。何しろ人間心霊の奥殿は本来一ツの筈だから、今のやうに反行すべきではあるまい。宗教の本領よりすれば、現在提唱されてをる政治的世界連盟よりも一足早く世界宗教連盟は提唱されて然るべきだ。世界同胞の実現努力が、宗教運動の使命であらねばならぬと僕は信じる。

一三、既成宗団の消滅は必然

B　同感だ。して見ると先づ先づこの場合は佛教の統一運動が先決問題だ。今のままの分裂は、佛教徒の無道念の自己証明以外の何物でもないわけとなる。一体、君、現在佛教は幾派に分裂してをるのか。

A　十三宗五十六派とか聞いた。

B　しかし、統一運動といふが、実際には更に一派を増加することにはならないか。

A　さしあたり一派増加することになつても、それが時代に適応した運動であるならば、それの拡大強化によつて時代錯誤の既成宗団は無力のものから次第に自然に清算消滅して行く。恰も鎌倉時代の新興佛教が奈良平安の既成佛教団の勢力を奪つて自然に解消せしめたやうにだ。

B　すると、こんどの新興佛教運動は現代の要求する佛教の最高形態といふわけだね。

A　前にも述べた通りだ。佛教が佛陀の人格を源泉としてをるかぎり、帰一する道はこれより外にないのではあるまいか。

B　少くとも各宗に共通する無難の方法ではあらう。実際、どの宗門をたたいても、各宗それぞれ相当の教理はあるやうだが、「わが宗こそ佛意を得たり」と排他的自揚してゐては初心の求道者は全くまごつく。而も似たりよつたり現実逃避の阿片的説法ばかりでは現代人は御免蒙るばかりか佛教排撃の声の持主たらしめるも当然だ。

A　朽木は彫るべからず、革命を恐れる必要はない。

{{tpage|276}}

謙抑の典型と見られる親鸞さへもが立宗の時は「釈尊の遺教ことごとく龍宮に入り給ふ」と叫んだではないか。露骨にいへば既成佛教は一切時代錯誤だと排撃したのだ。

一四、新運動の依経について

B　わかつた。君はさつき「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」といつたが、あれは「南無釈迦牟尼佛」ではいけないのか。

A　あれは梵語の正確な使用法では「南無」といふ場合は主格の語尾に「アーヤー」といふ助詞がついて為格になる。かくて我々が「釈迦牟尼佛を敬礼す」或は「釈迦牟尼佛に帰依す」といふ意味が成立するのだが、南無釈迦牟尼佛では釈迦牟尼佛は主格だから、「南無」と主格との関係がつかぬのださうである。この際、佛教統一の新興運動にあたつて、これも正確な使用法にあらためたわけである。

B　それもわかつた。依経はどうなるのか。今度は、法華経とか阿弥陀経とか一ツにきめるわけにはいくまい。さうして、あの大部の一切経全部を携帯することも不可能だし。

A　お経に本末軽重こそあれ、一切経は佛陀の愛と平等の認識とに出発したものと見るからには、一経典のみをとることは、わけて今までの宗派的見地からして不可能のことではあるは君もいふ通りだ。そこで、当座の便宜上、木津無庵師等の編纂された『新訳佛教聖典』を採用することにした。之は一切経の骨子を現代的に選訳した手ごろな訳本である。

B　抄訳に木津師等の個性が反映してゐないか。

A　それは余儀ないことで、もっと修正されたものが欲しいと思ふてをる。できるなら僕等同志の手で編纂した訳本が出したく思ふてをる。

B　さうすると、そこには再び分裂の必然性が胚胎してゐると思はないか。

A　思はぬではない。信者の志向に相異があるのだから経典本位に行けば自然さうなる。だから、今も「無量義は一法より生ず」とか、「性欲不同なれば種々に法を説き」とか、経典が分説された必然性を肯定して、題名から「無量義」と名づけた経典が出来たくらゐであつて、経典本位にすればキツトまた分裂するから、経典に

{{tpage|277}}

よつて佛陀を規定せず、佛陀の人格渇仰に出発して、全経典の本旨を愛と平等の認識に還元して考へれば無理なく統一できはしまいか。要は、経文の信仰から実在のごとく信じられた阿弥陀佛や大日如来などは、すべて釈尊の人格の表象であつたことを確信して、全佛教徒が「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」と帰一することを提唱するのだ。例へば、キリスト教に幾派あつても、アーメンと唱へる信仰の対象――神については一致してをるやうに。

B　日蓮聖人の宗教革命の本意も結局そこであつたのではないか。

A　その通りだ。それに今度大乗非佛説等の現代的批判を加へて一さう醇化し、一方、幾多の俗信迷信によつて腐蝕されたる題目の旧套を取り払つて、最もあざやかなる佛教統一の眼目を鮮明し進んでは世界同胞の精神的契機を決定したいのである。従つてまた「南無釈迦牟尼佛陀耶」の叫びは現実生活の基礎条件である経済組織を克明に批判して、現資本主義経済組織が佛陀の愛と平等の認識に反するものなるがゆゑに、断然、佛陀の愛と平等の名によつて、之が改造に加勢せざるを得なくなつたのだ。

B　その問題はこんどの新興佛教運動の三大眼目の一ツのやうに思はれるが、その説明を聞く前に、新興佛教運動では葬式など、どうするのか。まさか坊さんには頼めまい。

一五、葬儀について

A　戯談ではない。あんな坊主に引導をわたして貰つて何になると思ふか。今日も某大僧正の密葬に参列したが、生前、その恩師を裏切つた某管長が導師となつて金襴の袈裟衣を着飾つた一連の坊さんを従へて読経唱題して引導したのを見た。恩師に声あらば、宝塔中、何を述懐し給ふぞ！　僕は涙のみ流れた。ブルジョアが献上した不労所得の寄附金で美しく飾り立てた本堂で、去勢されたやうな坊主連が昔ながらの鐃鉢のドラ音を立てて、意味も通ぜぬ陀羅尼を長たらしく誦じて勿体がるあたりは、すつかり俳優教役者の出来そこねでも見るやうであつた。切実に恩師を追慕し、恩師の志を新時代に活現させようと覚悟する胸に、どうして、ああした陀羅尼式葬式で満足されるものか。昔はああした形式も時代的価値

{{tpage|278}}

があつたであらうが、もう時代では一から十まで時代錯誤のことばかりだ。まるで栓がぬかれて日の経つたビールのやうに沈澱物がウヨウヨしてをる。畢竟、精神のぬけた葬式だから、ああなるのだ。

B　ではどういふ形式に改正しようといふのか。

A　一体、君は葬式の形式が気になつて成佛できないかい。葬式の形式などは運動さへ充実してくれば運動の過程に即して自然に時代にふさはしき形式が生れてくるものと僕は信じてをる。戦場での仮埋葬がいかに厳粛であるかを見よ、また山宣の葬式がいかに感激ぶかいものであつたかを思へ、問題は生活への正義の意気込みに比例して適当な形式が生れるから、初めから葬式の形式など計算しなくてもいいと思ふ。要点としてはあくまで現代化された簡潔な精神的形式をとること、それだけで適宜したらよいではあるまいか。

B　でも葬式は人生の最後を飾る……。

A　最後は最後にあつて飾られるものではないよ。極端にいへば、葬式などコーヒーのだしがらの処分くらゐに考へてあくまで生ける一日の生活を正義と愛との生活に立て直すことだ。日蓮聖人が「極楽百年の修行は穢土一日の功に及ばず」といはれたのはそこではないか。葬式を最後を飾る儀式と見るへ方などが、まだまだ搾取した罪の財産の幾パーセントかを布施したり寄進したりして、それが殊勝な信心であり、罪ほろぼしとなると心得たブルジョアー的イデオロギーの一変態だと見てよからう。旗上げの前に何の葬式算段ぞ。腕を組んで進む正義の進軍に屍を路頭にさらすは、もとより覚悟の前であれ、心なき千人の讃美歌よりも、同志一人の見帰る涙の手向けを欲しないか、死者は畢竟、死者として葬らしめよ!!　だ。あくまでも、現実生活の中に佛教精神を体得しようとする覚悟こそ、葬式にも血涙をにじませねばならない。

B　よくわかつた。では、つづいて経済組織の改革と新興佛教運動との関係について話してくれないか。

一六、新興佛教と階級闘争

A　今日は話がだいぶ長くなつたから、これはこの次に話すことにしよう。それまで僕が今年正月から三月に亘つて雑誌『若人』で、資本主義を対象として佛教徒のと

{{tpage|279}}

るべき態度に関して所信を発表したが、いづれパンフレットとして発刊するから、それについて研究してくれ。結局、坊さんも資本主義の寄生虫で、一般としては教役者にならざるを得ないのだから、宗教革命も結局はその基礎条件である資本主義の改造によるが一番近道だ。また新運動の目的も生活の実際問題にまで進んでこそ価値があるではあるまいか。

B　では一寸聞くが、結局、「無産運動への合流」といふ階級闘争を是認するわけか。

A　さうだ。

B　君は前に佛教は「空」だ「無立場」だといつたが、階級闘争を是認して無産運動に加勢することは、佛教精神にそむくことにならないか。

A　「空」であり、「無立場」であればこそ、必要に応じて無産運動の加勢が是認されるのではないか。現実に見るこの階級闘争の無視傍観は、ひつきよう自己の生活に無関心以外の何物でもない。問題はいづれに与することが正義なりや、ただそれだけだ。

B　無産運動者がともすれば暴力的に出るが、あれでも正義なのか。

A　無産運動の暴力行動の前に、軍隊、警察等あらゆる権力機関の支配者の厳存を君は認識しないか。かうした現実認識の上に立つて、無産運動者は理想社会の実現のため余儀なく暴力に出ねばならなくなるのだ。

B　君は権力機関の支配者といふが、それは国家の軍隊であり警察であつて一階級に従属したものではあるまい。

A　それは名ばかりだ。事実、軍隊、警察はどの階級が支配してをるかを見給へ。君は事実の前に眼を開かねばウソだ。現在、支配階級の口にする正義や道徳はすべて片手落ちの強者道徳である。でなくしてどうして大衆のドン底生活を無視したあの栄華な生活ができるものか。

B　でも、現在彼等の立場は競争に勝ちえた立場であつて、優勝者があながち不義とは言へまい。

A　もし、それが不義でないならば、現在無産者が組合団結によつて勝たうとすることが、なぜ不義であつて之を許容しないのか。

B　それは現在の社会的秩序が乱れるからではないのか。

{{tpage|280}}

A　現在の社会的秩序は、どの階級のために都合よき秩序なのか。見給へ、現在では正義も道徳もすべて階級的に色どられた正義や秩序であつて、まことの正義ではないのだ。にもかかはらず、教役者たちは或は無意識的に、或は意識的に、まことしやかに百パーセントの御用ぶりを発揮してをるのだ。もし、現支配階級が権力によつて無産運動を圧倒しようとするのが正義ならば、無産運動者が力をもつて、之をハネ返さんとするのも、同じく正義でなければならぬ。もし宗教家が暴力を不義とするならば、先づいづれの階級に向つてその撤回を強言すべきか。若し時に当つて暴力も正義視しうるならば、いづれの運動に正義の本質はより多く包蔵されてをるか。ブルでもない、プロでもないといつた中立的立場の不可能な男でもなく女でもない人間でないと同じことで、観念的正義は現在もう幽霊の世界の消息だ。而して、正義の本質は大衆の福利保障の中に見ねばウソだが、君は一体、どう思ふ。僕は、新興佛教運動の地盤はどうしても新興無産階級の中にのみ可能だと信じてをるのだ。

B　さう聞けば得心がゆく。正義は何かの対立に於て実感されるイデオロギーだ。歴史を顧みると時の弱者に味方した強者との戦ひに於て、正義の真面目は最も輝やかしく認識される。実をいへば、僕も中立といひながら内心飽きたらぬあるものがあつたが、いつまでも現実生活の打算からごまかしの正義観をふり廻してゐるやうに思はれる。その点、猶よく君のパンフレットも読んで見て考へることにする。

A　今まで佛教徒のほとんど全部唯々「ありがたい」といつた観念的保守的信心であつた為、実社会生活問題に盲目でその為に社会主義については何等の研究もせず、一方意識的な反動運動にかどはかされて、頭から社会主義運動といへば、罵悪視して掛るなどは、全く甚しい時代錯誤であるのだ。この点おくれば、僕も阿片の麻酔がさめて、実生活の力が動いて来たのを、心からうれしく思ふてをる。

B　だいぶ得心した。この問題は何れまた例のパンフレットも読んでから、再び談議することにしよう。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』四月創刊二号）

{{tpage|281}}

（その二）

一、経済は生活の基底

B　先月の約束だが、一つ新興佛教が経済組織の改造を必要とする理由を聴きたいものだ。

A　よろしい。僕は今度この新運動の口火をきつてから、今まで頼みにしてゐた同志が脱退してゆく事情の殆んど凡てが、資本主義反対の第三綱領に関してである事実に見ても、経済問題が、人間生活の基質であり、従つて、人間の思想行動はそれによつて規定されがちなものであるかが、一さうハツキリしてきたところだ。だから、経済問題と遊離した単なる教化運動のごときは、一般には、文字通り観念的遊戯であつて、直接間接、現資本主義経済組織改造促進への何等かの貢献でない啓蒙運動は、完全に阿片的罪悪行為だといふ確信をより強めたところだ。そして資本主義が佛教精神に反する我利々々の機構であることは、今更あらためて言ふまでもあるまい。

B　それは、四月五日の新興佛教創立記念講演会での、聴衆のあの共鳴ぶりを見ても、いかに資本主義や既成宗団が社会から見限られてをるかが、僕にもよくわかる。だが、近頃、盛んな希望社や修養団の汗愛運動などは、教化運動として現代的価値があるものとは思はないか。

A　いづれも御用教化団体で、結果は同じであらう。反つて新味ある教化運動だけに青年男女を一時吸ひつけ、阿片の効果を多分に発揮するだらう。だが噂によると、此頃、修養団の内部でもぼつぼつ反資本主義的自覚が起りつつあるとか。また、最近、希望社では社員に月給が支払へないで社員のストライキとなり、裁判沙汰にさへなつたといふことではないか。「下世話に百日の説法も屁一つ」といふ。ふるい諺に「信心も徳の余り」といふ。うまく歌つたものではないか。徳とは利得の意味だから、この諺一つが雄弁に経済問題と既成教化団体との関係を説明してくれる。

{{tpage|282}}

二、全日本佛教青年連盟の時代錯誤

B　君は、四月二日三日の全日本佛教青年会連盟の協議会で、かなり理窟をこねましたといふのは、さうした事に関してか。

A　こねたわけではないが、言ふべきことを言つたまでである。佛教精神に背反する資本主義に対する態度を論定するどころか、佛陀に帰一しようといふ当然の問題さへがゴタゴタして決定できなかつた。それどころか、全日本の佛教青年が連盟して新しく社会に進出しようといふのに、指導原理の必要如何が論議されるといふのだから、闇夜に鉄砲で問題にならなかつたのだ。

B　それは、連盟規約の第二条目的のところに、「......佛教精神の自覚及其の振興を期するを目的とす」と明示してあるからではなかつたか。

A　さうした抽象的な文句で事があくなら、何にも新しく連盟などつくらなくとも、従来のままでいい筈だ。それを千数百円もかけて今度大連盟を結成したといふには、そこに新時代の要求に応ずる適切なる具体的指導原理が示されねば無意味ではないか。早い話が、佛教精神といつたところで各宗がそれぞれ歴史的に相容れぬ教養をもつてをる限り、自宗の信条に忠実であればあるほど、甲の見る佛教精神は乙丙のそれではない。たとへば、四ヶ格言をもつ日蓮宗がその佛教精神を高調して見ろ、どうして念佛その他の宗派と共同戦線が張つてゆけるか。また浄土宗が「五種雑行」を固持しても結果は同様ではないか。もし、それでも可能だといふなら、それは無恥だ、それともすでに宗旨を時代的に止揚しての上かである。いづれにしろ、連盟が一種の宗教的社交倶楽部にとどまらずして、進んで新時代的佛教運動を開始しようとするには、連盟を一貫しうる信仰上の指導原理と、それに則る社会問題解決の指導原理とを示さなくては駄目だ。

B　その位なことは、かりにも各地を代表して出た人々だから考へない筈はあるまい。

A　そこだよ。マルクスが「人間は常に自ら解決しうる問題をのみ問題とする」といつたやうに、連盟に参加して、互に手を取らうといふのだから、そこには手をとりうる一つの共通なポイント――解決し得る問題――がある筈でなければならぬ。だから僕は其の具体的なポイ

{{tpage|283}}

ントを明示して新運動をしようと提案をしたのだ。

三、全日本佛青連盟への三大提案

A　言ふまでもなく、僕等の新興佛教の三大精神を主張したのだ。それは次のやうに提案した。

（一）我等は、既成宗団の分立は佛徒和合の道に反するを認め、佛陀に帰一して佛教の新時代的闡揚を期す。

（二）我等は、現社会の苦悩は主として矛盾せる社会組織に基因するものと認め、之を改革して佛教精神に基く理想社会の建設を期す。

B　この提案も抽象的ではないか。

A　佛教連盟の現在の情勢下に於て可能な根本綱領としてだ。

B　随分、反対があつたといふではないか。

A　あつた。だが、真理は自明の理だ。何人が何といつても連盟可能の唯一のポイントは佛陀へ帰一する以外には発見されないから、提案の精神は大体認容されたが、時間切迫にあつて、この問題は綱領起草委員附託となつて幕はとぢた。が中外日報でもコツピドクたたいたやうに、こんなことでは無くもがなの連盟である。わかり切つた第一提案さへ査定する勇気がないのだ。第二案など実際にはそれこそ西方十万億土の空想であつたら案だ。

四、真宗の自己清算

B　出席した代表の大半は真宗であつたさうだが、「佛陀に帰れ」と言へば、絶対他力の阿弥陀宗にとつては破産の宣告にならないか。

A　正確に論ずればその通りだらう。この頃読売新聞に高楠博士が「佛教の根本義」と題してのせられた説明を見ても、阿弥陀信仰など完全に清算ずみで、「を」と正しく読む求道者ならば真宗も「佛陀に帰一する」ことに何の異論の出しやうもないと僕は思ふ。その「佛教の根本義」中「無神主義」の条項中に、博士は

「人間の運命は神によつて主宰さるるのではなく、全く自己主宰である。自業自得で自己の運命を開拓しつつあるのである。そこで神の審判を待つまでもなく全く自己審判である。善因善果は神の裁きによるのでな

{{tpage|284}}

く自然法である。かくて釈尊はあくまでも自己の人格の上に立脚し、その人格を向上発展して完全位に達して佛陀となつたのである。阿弥陀如来も大日如来も釈尊の理想から顕れたもので、それはどこまでも人間が完成したのであるから、その佛には創造神、主宰神、司法神の如き意味は毛頭ない。ただ佛陀は自ら自覚の究竟位に到達して、他の未覚の衆生を大慈心から自覚の究竟位に到達せしめんとする覚他の活動に終始するのである。従つて、自覚、覚他、覚行円満が佛陀の本懐である」

といつてをられるが、君も知る通り高楠博士は自他共に許す真宗の巨匠だが、これで見ると、真宗のいふ絶対他力の阿弥陀如来など、釈尊の影に過ぎないではないか。博士も「自己の運命は自己の開拓によるので、いはゆるお救ひ下さる阿弥陀如来などありつこない」といはれるのだ。だから、他愛もなく、他力本願の阿弥陀如来などサラリとやめて、自己の人格の上に立脚し、その人格を向上発展して、解脱された佛陀に対して、全佛教徒は帰一して、この理想人格の渇仰に生活の光りを求め、責任ある努力を励むこそ現代人の得心する佛教運動ではあるまいか。

B　たしかに其の通りだ。他力本願の念佛は、丁度キリスト教の主宰神、司法神に似た説明で、明日の宗教では到底ありえないだらうが、それほどハツキリわかつてゐて、なぜ、綱領をかかげて新佛教運動がやれないだらうか。

五、十字架の覚悟

A　そこからは結局、道念の問題である。説明と実践とには何ごとによらず距離がある。その間に、因襲や情実がある。わけて経済関係等いろいろ困難な問題が堆積してゐるので、いざ断行となると口でいふほど簡単にいくものではない。それの飛躍こそは、ただ十字架をも辞せぬ革命家の止むに止まれぬ真摯な求道心に待つ外はないであらう。わけて第二の綱領のごときは、よほど思ひきつた覚悟がなくては御用宗教的伝統を革命して、大衆のための新佛教運動などは思ひもよらぬことであらう。

六、シンクレアの宗教観

B　五日の新興佛教結成記念講演会のときは、警官が

{{tpage|285}}

ずいぶん沢山で物々しき警戒をやつたが、あれは新興佛教の第三綱領、打倒資本主義のスローガンがあつたからか。

A　その通りだ。僕が集会届のことで警察に呼び出された時にも、そんなに言つてゐた。既成教団撲滅なんかした問題にはしてゐないよ。問題とされるのは反資本主義運動で、僕等の新興佛教運動の内容も、それが唯単に既成宗教の撲滅と佛教の統一といふだけでは、数々のロボットを破壊して一つの大きなロボットを製造するも同じことだ。問題は人間を、宗団を容赦なくロボット化しつつある現代の悪魔――資本主義打倒運動でなくては新興佛教運動も実際生活にふれた宗教運動とはいへない、と僕は思ふてをる。

B　君の言ふことも合点はされるが、本来宗教と経済運動とには、おのづから異る分野があるものではあるまいか。

A　それは一応、尤もな話だ。だが、真の意味の宗教はそんなに経済だ精神だと二分して考へるべきものではなく、全生活の理想化を要求するものだと僕は信じてをる。丁度真の恋愛がプラトニック・ラブで満足されないで、霊肉一致の境地にこそ恋愛の完結があるやうに、この事について、アプトン・シンクレアの名著『宗教信ずべき乎』の中には、

「宗教は真の意味に於ては、霊的衝動の最も根本的なものであり、熱烈な生命愛であり、生命の尊さを感ずることであり、生命の愛養助成の欲望である。その意味では思想する凡ての人間は宗教的でなければならない。その意味では、『宗教』は永遠の自己更生力であり吾々人類のまことの本性である。その意味では、私は宗教を攻撃しようなどとは毛頭思つてゐない。否、私は宗教は、その意味に於ては、決して攻撃などし得るものでないといふことを明らかにして置きたい。

併し、『宗教』といふ言葉にも今一つの意味が与へられてゐるために、吾々にはさうした正直な意味で此の言葉を使ふ喜びが与へられてゐないのである。一般の人には『宗教』といふ言葉は、魂の生長したいといふ渇望、『飢ゑ渇くが如き正義の追求』を意味するのではなくて、この渇望の歴史に現はれ、更に今日世界に行はれてゐる或種の形式を意味するのである。換言すれば神の承認権を主張する支配階級を持ち、固定し

{{tpage|286}}

た教義と『啓示』、信条と祭儀を持つた制度である。かうした制度の下では、民族の道徳的努力も児童の愛情も、青年の大望も、僧侶達の特権と商売道具にされて了つてゐるのである。此意味に於ける『宗教』は寄生虫共の収入の源であり、凡ゆる形式の圧迫と搾取との自然の味方である。」

と道破してあるが、真の「宗教」と、歪曲された所謂「宗教」との相違がハツキリ了解されはしないか。かくて、「飢ゑ渇くが如き正義を追求」する真の宗教者のたどり行く現実の道と、固定した教義と啓示、信条と祭儀とを宗教と心得てをる半不随の似而非宗教者の舞踊する観念的理想境とは、おのづから分離するのが当然である。シンクレアの次の言葉は私の今の信念をほぼそのまま表示してくれてをる。

「私は決して浅薄な唯物論者ではない。私は、吾々人類が無意味な合理主義で満足すると考へるほど皮相ではないのだ。私には、古き宗教の象徴物が人間の心から生れ出たことも分つてゐる。これは、さうしたものが人間の心のある欲求に合致してゐたからである。それと共に、私には現代の必要に一層合致した新しい宗教の象徴物が発見されることも分つてゐるのだ。若し私が、此処で古く毀れかけた建物を打毀すとしても、それは盲目的な破壊心からではなく、その代りに新しくより堅牢な建物を建てようとする建築家としてである。」

B　では、今の日蓮宗や念佛宗や真言宗などが、シンクレアの「神の承認権を主張する支配階級を持ち、固定した教義と啓示、信条と祭儀を持つた」いはゆる「一般の宗教」とよばれるやうだな。

七、寺院佛教の正体

A　まづ典型的なものであらう。見給へ、論より証拠、身延山でも、東西本願寺でも、成田の不動山でも、どこに「飢ゑ渇くが如き正義観」や、「霊的衝動の最も根本的」な生命力が「愛養助成」されつつあるか。それらの聖地が霊的衝動の最も旺盛な青年とどういふ交渉をもちつつあるか。その聖地への巡礼者は、多くは将来のない老人達や、我利の願掛け連中や、或はブルやプチブル青年の参詣以外に、明日の青年と何を約束しつつあるか。それにつけ、耳よりの話に、こんど築地本願寺では

{{tpage|287}}

二百数十万円の建築予算で鉄筋コンクリートの大伽藍を建築するといふことである。その目的が実に聞きものだ。それは、震災で大本堂を失つてからは、大きな葬式は大抵、芝の増上寺にとられたため御客取り返しの一策だといふ噂である。何と振つた葬式株式会社の営利競争ではないか。

従つて、かかる寺院佛教に指導される一般佛教徒の生活が現在どんなものであるかは説明するまでもない。「祖師は紙衣の九十年」と有難さうな顔の限りである。「塚原謫居」を偲んで感涙をながして見たところが、それは信者の日常生活にどう織込まれてをるか。

また見給へ、最近、支配階級が思想善導の一策として小学校の教員室に神棚を作らせて敬神崇祖の思想涵養を企画してをるのを。これらはシンクレアのいふ固定化した祭儀そのものだが、先生の棒給不払の村が一千ヶ村もある今日、平等と愛を生命とする神様や佛様を、さうした箱棚におさめて思想善導のために敬礼せよと指令する支配階級も支配階級だが、仰せご尤と拝命せねばならぬ先生も気毒な立場ではないか。考へて見給へ、何が故に知事や部長は月俸五百円四百円とつてゐて、小学校職員は六七十円しか貰へないであらうかを。而も勤務労働の時間の多少は正反対ではないか。

さつきも言つた高楠博士の佛教の八大主義中には外面的四主義として、無傷害主義、大慈主義、平和主義、平等主義をあげて、「佛教はこの何れをも徹底的に拡大してその最大限に説き到つた処にその特徴がある」といつてをられるが、しかし、それは過去の物語りであつて、現代どこにその実行が見られ、実行が提唱されてをるだらうか。否、それを実行せんとする社会主義を悪魔のごとく排撃しつつあるとは何といふ転倒錯誤であらうか。我等は再び佛陀の平等生活を見ねばウソである。

八、経済機構の改造が肝要

B　すると、さうした見地から新興佛教が組織の改造を主張するのは、畢竟、「現代の必要に一層合致した新しい宗教」運動の具体的な問題だといふのか。

A　その通りである。僕は前にも言つた通り、一般的には経済関係が思想や行動を規定するものゆゑ、今の営利

{{tpage|288}}

本位の資本主義経済組織である間は、自然に非社会的な利己主義が大量生産されざるを得ないから、この機構改造が、根本的な問題だと見るのだ。

B　前にも質問したが、どうも僕は宗教の職能は、精神運動ではないかと思はれる。

A　其の点一理ある。だが、それに固定するところに、御用宗教の第一資格が成立し、次いで反動的説法に力仕事ができ、睡眠不足でも猶、精神が明瞭でありうることを一般的に保障するなら、僕も君の意見を承認しよう。

B　しかし、それの不可能といふことが、宗教が経済組織を改造せねばならぬといふ主張の是認とはなるまい。

A　もとよりである。佛教に従へば制度と精神とは一実体の二方面であるから、之を切り離して運動を一方的に偏すべきではない。従つて、餓餓のゆゑに力が出ない場合は文句なしに先づパンを与へるのが、てつとり早い救済で、この場合これにこした佛教精神の実行はない筈である。もとより人はパンのみして生くるものではないが、現代のごとく経済生活が窮迫して、而もその原因が明瞭になつてをる場合、その原因除去の運動が佛教精神に反するわけは毛頭ない。否、社会の全機構に対して常に佛教精神が発揚されてこそ、佛教が人間生活の救済運動となりうるのではあるまいか。

B　併し、幾多の達人が示したごとく精神力は環境を超脱しうるものであるから、不如意の現実にあつては、環境をそのままにして法悦の生活を味ひうるその精神力の涵養こそ、むしろ必要なのではあるまいか。

A　そこが御用宗教家の説法の奥の手だ。勿論、「心頭滅却すれば火も亦自ら涼し」ではある。併し、僕は対話中屡々「一般的」にはといつてをるやうに、たしかに恒産がないと恒心もないがちなものが一般人である。君とても、今日、衣食の憂ひがないから文句を言つてをられようが、これで今日のパンに追はれる時の身を考へて見ろ、法悦の宗教だのは第二次的な問題とならざるをえまい。潮風に吹かれ、松の枝ぶりが一様であるやうに、人間も自然界の存在である限りは、一般的に環境の影響を無視して理想のみを語ることは不可能な約束におかれてをる。さればこそ、「まだ仁義あるをや」と道破する孔孟

{{tpage|289}}

の徒も、「倉廩みちて礼節を知る」と叫んだのではないか。この客観的な人間性の上に真の佛国土建設運動はその基準を置いてかからねば永久の夢であらう。

九、経済問題が行動を規定した一例

A　僕は新運動結成の前日、この問題について、決定的な確信を一つ与へられたといふのは例の甲府支部の脱退の事実である。

B　あれは実に僕も意外であつた。何しろ、あの支部は君が日蓮主義運動をやり出した最初から、一番力を入れてゐた支部であり、また一番有力な支部でもあつたのだが、一体、脱退の理由は何か。

A　五日の結成式には同志が五人も上京するといふ約束さへあつたのだが、三日に配達された『佛旗』創刊号にかかげた第三綱領の反資本主義の声明がたたつたのだ。何しろあの支部はプチブル階級や、俸給生活者が多いから、資本主義反対では自分の生活が脅威されて立つて行けぬといふのが、大体の理由であつた。

B　でも、まさか資本主義賛成の人もあるまいし、若い連中には君に即時、無産政党に入党せよとまで言つた随分元気な人もあつたといふではないか。

A　認識や言葉の上の改造は何とでもいへるものである。だが、さて、猫へ鈴をつけに行く段になると、さう認識通りには行かないのが、これも一般の人情である。

B　十年も手を取つた信仰団体としては、あまりにも不信な仕打ちではないか。

A　咎め立てをすれば、僕の不徳と無力が一番に咎められるべきであらう。僕は支部の態度を「不信」の二字でのみのしるに忍びぬほど、これまで同志のよせてくれた厚意の真実であつたことを今も思ふてをる。また中には脱退反対、脱退見合せの意見をもつてゐた同志もあつたらうことを信じてをる。だが、にも拘らず全支部脱退に決定したところにパン問題に対する人間の弱さと超個人的な群衆心理の動向を見ることができた。若し、こんどの運動が同志の職を奪ひ、パンの道を絶たしめるものとするならば――僕はいきなりさうとは思はれないが――一人身ならばまだしも、妻子や親兄弟があつて見れば、正義観の一本調子で直進することを期待するのは一般には無理な注文であらう。だからもしそれにも拘らず、去つた同志が自己の弱さを誤魔化して、他に理由づけるな

{{tpage|290}}

らば、その時こそ咎むべきだが、さうではないのである。實際、資本主義の横暴を呪ひつつも、自己の當面の生活問題を思案して落伍したのだ。背に腹は代へられぬとはここらの事であらうが、ここに、いかに經濟問題が人の行動を支配しがちな問題であるか、そして、支配階級がいかに横暴な彈壓を加へて弱き大衆生活を脅威しつつあるかが實證されて、僕らが資本主義經濟組織改造を第三綱領にかかげた意義も一そうハツキリ證明されるやうに思ふ。

一〇、新興佛教の荷負ふ歴史的任務

B　では第三綱領さへ君が出さねば、親しい同志と別れなくてもすんだわけか。

A　さうであらう。だが、僕等が資本主義を肯定し、或は言葉の上でだけ之を非難してゐて、實際には從前通りに仲よく讃佛偈をうたひつつ、社會主義を高調して觀念的遊戯にふけるためには、いかに多くの無產大衆の血税を犠牲とせねばならないか。例へば、終日、日の光もささぬ地下數千尺の坑底に立つて勞働しながら、カツカツ生活費だけを與へられてをる無數の同胞は、一體いつ解放されて人間らしき生活を惠まれるのか。それに引きかへ、一握りのブルジョアーのあの贅沢な生活ぶりを見よ。これが、大衆主義、平等主義を徹底すべき佛教徒がいつまでも見逃してよい社會現象であらうか。

B　その心持ちはよくわかる。だが、そこに花は紅柳は緑、「平等即差別」とか「因果応報」とかいふ見方もされて、苦しい現實を忍容しうるが佛教の特色の一つではないのか。

A　左様な解釈が、從來、御用宗教家によつて満喫させられた百パーセントの阿片的説法であつたのだ。しかし、さうした歪曲された説法を再吟味し、佛教精神を正當に闡揚して大衆生活の福利保障の指導原理たらしめんとすることこそ新興佛教の荷負ふ歴史的任務でなければならぬ。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』五月号）

（その三）

一、貧乏は前世の「因果」か

B　それでは、「因果応報」とか

{{tpage|291}}

「差別即平等」といふ教義が、どういふ工合に歪曲されて御用宗教の役目を果してゐたのか。

A　まづ「因果応報」の方から説明しよう。佛教は前にも云つたやうに、宿命論でもなければ、創造神論や偶然論でもない。もとより因果の理法を主張するのだから、貧富の懸隔が生じたのも因果関係には相違ないが、その原因を一方だけに背負つて、あきらめ主義、忍従主義を強要する所に偏頗な御用ぶりをつとめてゐるのだ。

例へば、稼いでも稼いでも貧乏神に追はれ通しの無產大衆に対して、貧乏生活の原因をば、從來、坊主たちは何と説明したか。「それは前世の因果だ。自業自得である、資本家の罪でもなければ社會の責任でもない。だから君達は資本家や社會を呪はずに、一そう真面目に働くことだ。」彼等は尤もらしくから説明したものだ。

だが、資本主義機構に対して少しでも知識を持つ者にはこんな説明が見えすいた誤魔化しであることは、も早や、くどくどしく説明するまでもあるまい。去年の豊作地獄などは最もよい証拠で、天候もよく、汗をしぼつた耕作に惠まれたあの未曾有の大豊作が、反つて農家の生活難増大の原因となつた事実が、一体、前世の因果論で片付くものであらうか。また銀行の資金歩合でも、小身者には割高、大身者には割安で、小身者はいよいよ不利の立場に押しやられたり、勞資協力で儲けた利潤の分配は、問題にならぬ不平等な分配を強ひられたり、文句を言へば、官權の力で弾圧されるといつた風の不公平な社會的原因もあつて因果してゐる貧富の懸隔が、すべて貧乏者の前世の因果だときめつけられるものだらうか。

二、貧乏も連帯責任

A　だが、佛法の道理はさう偏頗を許してをらぬ。あきらかに佛教では、此の場合、社會的に「連帯責任」を主張するので、決して一方のみの責任とは言つてゐない。佛教に「共業所感」といふのはその事だ。連帯責任といふならば、資本家も無產大衆の貧乏生活の原因の一半を背負ふべきであり、廣く全社會の連帯責任であるから、貧乏の原因に現在、資本主義経済組織の欠陥があることを発見したならば何よりも、先づその改造は連帯責任の先決問題となつて来るべきではあるまいか。

B　而し、それでは「自業自得」とか「三世因果」といふのは、どう考へたらいいのか。個人的責任は全然

{{tpage|292}}

ないといふのか。

A　個人の責任が全然ないといふわけではない。問題は責任の科し工合が、ただ個人の私生活にとどまるか、それとも、社會改造を根本と見るかの相違で、いづれ根本であるかは、個人と社會との関係に正しい認識を持たねば判らないことだ。さて「自業自得」といへば、個の個我が設定されて、それの輪廻による所業を「自業自得」とか「三世因果」とかよぶのだが、佛教の根本義が無我主義である限りは、その思想は当然、再吟味されなければならない。なぜならば個的な「自業自得」を主張すれば佛教の根本原理がくづれるし、「無我」を主張すれば「自業自得」は成立しないわけであらう。之に関して、リス・デヴィッツといふ人が、

「当時流行の意見（個人的三世因果論）は根本佛教の教理の中に論理的に融合することなしに附加されたものである。」

と説明してゐるさらだが、恐らくその通りであらう。

三、人類の真の解放と宗教

「自業自得」の思想は社會性よりも個人性が過大視された時代の過渡的思想であつたので、佛教の根本原理は依然として「無我主義」であり、「衆縁和合、一因非生」でなければならない。從つて、個的な自業自得論は成立しない。「自業自得」を正しく解釈するならば、「自業自得」の「自」は個的自我ではなく因縁和合して出来た社會的自我――大我であるから、從つて貧乏の原因もこれは社會的に説明されなくてはならない。從つて、また、その原因除去の方法は積極的、具体的なる社會的方法によるべきが正當ではあるまいか。而も社會は連帯責任と云ふものの、支配被支配の差別がある限りは、その責任は当然より多くを支配階級の方に求むべきことも道理ではあるまいか。それを無產者の自業自得として、消極的に個人的に、あきらめさせ忍従させて、せつせと汗をしぼらせて搾取する階級の御嘉納にあづからうとは、坊主の理非転倒も甚だしい混迷ではないか。

だから自業自得は無我思想を以て再吟味され、我他彼此の差別観念から解放され、無我の真精神について、社會的に全体的に徹底した具体運動の中に解決さるべきが正當だと思ふ。わけて現代のごとき組織づけられた資本主義機構にあつて、ここに人類の真の解放がある

{{tpage|293}}

のだ。佛とはかうしたさとりを成就して社會的に大精進する人間をいふので、その典型的人格がわが佛陀であつた。

B　うなづける。かう説明されると、いつか聞いた増上寺の管長が「勞資問題解決の根本対策は勞働者に因果の道理を納得さすことだ」と言つたといふあれなど、全く文字通りな阿片説法だね。

A　全くだ。もしまた「自業自得」を從來の如く個人的に解して見ても、ああした説法は無慈悲千万な似而非宗教家の自己証明以外の何物でもない。なぜならば、勞働者が貧乏で困るのも前世の因果ならば、資本家が無產大衆のストライキを受けて困るも前世の因果でなければならまい。そして同じ因果ならば現在物資に窮して困つてゐる無產者を因果だと忍従せしめるよりも、有り余るブルジョアーを、その有難い因果の道理で以て、納得さして、無產大衆の要求を満足さす方が、何ほど弱者を救ふ佛の道であらうか。また効果的に見ても、現にパンに窮した大衆を説得するよりも、あり余る物資を出させるだけの方が何ほど問題解決の可能性が多いか知れないであらう。所が事実は正反対といふのだから呆れた話ではないか。

B　その通りだ。これでは、レーニンが

「宗教は、一生涯、働いて苦しみ抜く人間に対しては、地上に於ける屈従と忍耐とを教へ、天国の報ひの希望を以て慰める。だが宗教は、他人の勞働によつて生活する人間に対しては、搾取者たる彼等の全存在を安々と是認し天国の祝福の入場切符を相當の値段で売渡し、かうして彼等に地上での善行を教へる。宗教は民衆のための阿片である。」

と言つたのも無理からぬこととうなづける。

{{tpage|294}}

だがここで少しく疑問なのは、そのやうに、責任の所在が社會的になると、果して個人の努力が鈍つては来ないだらうか。

A　現在のやうに個人主義的社會生活に馴らされてをる者の頭には、さう思はれ易いであらう。而し、實際は、利害を同じくする団体意識が徹すれば徹する程、個人の努力は一層緊張するものであることは、腹をきめて正しい団体生活をした者の何人もが実感してをることだ。尊敬すべき先覚者はいつれも自己の内部に全社會を見、社會生活の「因に自己を見た」人々で、彼等は常に社會運動をせずにおられなかつたのだ。佛陀が個我と私有とを否定して、社會恩を説かれたのもこの故であり、「人間的本質は社會的関係の絶対である」と主張した、マルクスやレーニンの努力も鈍る所か、すばらしいものではなかったか。ただ個我的要求も一般の人間性だから、自業自得もその人間性に根ざした過渡的思想には相違ないが、真理は無我主義の上に人間最高の解脱と共產共栄の生活とを永遠に示唆してゐるのだ。

四、歪曲された「差別即平等」論

A　次には、歪められた「差別即平等」の話だが、これも、君が「花は紅、柳は緑」といつた風に、坊主たちは手の入つた説明をして社會的不合理、不義なる差別生活をそのまま肯定させようと努めてをる。

B　而し、君もこれまでよく言つたが、七合の水を要する植木鉢には七合を、三合のには三合を与へると、どちらも過不足がないので、これが、差別即平等で、やはり差別のあるのが自然ではないのか。

A　その説明の限りに於て正しい。七合の者に五合でも不足するし、三合のものに五合では水ばて、これも困る。だから七合のには七合、三合のには三合でなければいけないが、現在社會の差別は果してさうであらうか。七人もの貧乏家族が三畳長屋で今日の飯米もなくて苦しんでをる。かと思へば、一方には夫婦暮しで大邸宅に伸び伸びとして有り余る財産を抱へて謡曲などで暇をつぶしてをる者もあらう。

貧乏な老人は三等列車でゆられてをるとき、金持ちの若者は二等列車で威張つてをる。また、一日中、働き通しの勞働者は日給僅か二円かと思へば、四五時間会社へ出頭して数百円を失敬してをるブルがをる。頭のよい体力の強い子供がゐても金がなくては上級学校へ行かれない。さうかと思へば、一方には脆弱な低能児でも試験地獄がある方法で通過される。今の社會は、決して、君が今言つたやうな七合に七合、三合に三合といつた風に必要に応じて差別づけられてはゐないのだ。

五、真の平等は如何に実現さるべきか

B　だが、それならば、一見、金持ちの我ままのやうだが、そこには金持ちになるまでの努力があつたので、その差別には努力がむくはれた正當なる差別と見られないだらうか。

{{tpage|295}}

A　もし、人間社會も他の植物や動物と同じ適者生存、弱肉強食といふ自由競争の社會生活とのみ見る限りに於ては僕もこの差別生活に何の異論もいふべきではない。だが人間が人格的存在である限りに於ては、その差別相も人格的に整理された社會相でなくては人間社會の差別相ではない。例へば、前の例をとれば、二人暮しの家族に対して六合の飯米ならば、七人家内では二升一合が与へられ、列車に二等と三等とがあれば、二等は老人子供などに恵まれて三等には若者が乗るとか、一時間働くものには四円なら、六時間の者には十二円といつた風に、差別はあつても、ただ自由競争の結果としての差別をそのままに肯定しない所が、人間生活に見るべき「差別即平等」であらねばならぬ、と僕は考へるのだ。ましてや、前にも言つたやうに、貧乏が自業自得でなくして社會的なものであるとして見れば、その財力を自分一人のために勝手気ままに使用さすべきでなく、當然社會的制裁の下に、理想的に人爲的に整理しての差別相こそ、まことの人間社會の「差別即平等」といはれるのであるまいか。

それを、一方では仰々しく相互扶助だ、勞資協調だなどと叫びつつ、一方、血も涙もない自由競争の結果として生じたかかる差別相を、いかにも絶対の真理らしく「差別即平等」だなどと説法してをるのが、今の御用宗教家なのだ。だが、それは現在の優勝者の地位弁護以外に何の福音を無產大衆に与へつつあるであらうか。

君、考へても見よ、何が故に多數は、暗黒なる坑底に一生骨をくだいて金銀を採掘し、少數はその金銀を自由に装飾して一生を栄耀に享楽していいのか。それも自由競争の結果だといつて了へば、また何をか言はんやだが、「生命の支配權を握り、本能を理性的有意的な行爲によつて置き換へ、世界を意識的な秩序ある産物とすること――これが人類の仕事である」ならば、かかる不平等極まる社會相をこのままに「差別即平等」だなどと言はれるべきものではない。それは人類社會も単なる自然現象と同視した場合においてのみ可能であるが、理性と創造力とを賦与されてをる人類の社會にあつての「差別即平等」の真義は、「理性と正義と愛」とによつて意識的に秩序づけられた可及的平等の社會といふここにこそ、「差別即平等」の言葉によつて抽象されべきではあるま

{{tpage|296}}

いか。

六、自由競争と協同調和

B　しかし、人間にも本性に競争性があるのだから、さうした理想社會は結局空想ではあるまいか。また強い秩序づければ、結果は反つて怠け者の大量生産とならないだらうか。

A　その懸念は一般に聞くことだ。だが、競争性もある代りに一方人間には調和性もハッキリ見られる。否、人間の特性こそこの調和性、社會性にあるのであつて、これが不幸にして未だ十分に涵養助長される組織生活にまで達してゐなかつたのだ。人類進化の初期時代を考へて見てもわかるが、人類は、他の動物が身に備へてをる牙とか爪とかいつた鋭利強力な武器はもつてゐなかつたが、從つて、自然の生存競争者としては、最も不利であつたにもかかはらずよく地上の支配者となつたのは何の力因であつたらうか。それこそ、理性と創造力とを有し、そして協同団結の生活者であつたからではあるまいか。もし、さうであるならば、個人的自由競争は人間社會にあつて第一義性ではなく、第一義性はやはり協同調和の社會性でなくてはならない。そして、この意識社會の中に於て始めて、個的自由も保障され確立することを意識しうる理性的存在が人間の特性であり、運命であると思はれる。

この特性は、人間の一生の生活を考へると猶よく納得されるかと思ふ。

赤ん坊から幼年時代へかけては、無邪気ではあるが我利の本能そのものである。これほど我利の本能を容赦なく振り廻す時代はないが、ところが、生活の範囲が家庭から学校へ、学校から社會へと拡大して行くに従つて、自制心が増してきて社會的になり、老境に入るに従つて愈々円熟して行く事実を見ても、人類社會の歴史も恐らく同様に、理性の発達と共に理想社會へと展開してゆくものであらうと信じられる。

しかし、現在では不幸にして、まだ本能的自由競争性の編み出した資本主義経済組織の網の中にからまつて藻掻いてをる青年時代だ。だから、経済的自由競争が否定されれば生甲斐でもなくなるやうに考へられるかも知れぬが、競争は経済上のみに限られるべきではない。否、経済的に生活が保障されてから後の競争――科学的、芸術的、道徳的等々の競争こそ人類にふさはしき真の競争時代がやつてくるのであらうが、

{{tpage|297}}

現在では、かかる多様な人間の特性が、すべて経済競争の一路に追ひつめられて、醜くも商品化されてをるから、それが習慣性となつて、人間生活即経済生活といふ観念形態をつくり上げてをる。従つて、生活が保障されても、経済的自由競争がやれなくなれば、モヒ中毒者のモヒが切れたやうに、一向活動力がなくなるのかのやうに考へられるのであるまいか。だが、僕はさうは思へぬ。経済競争から解放されるその時こそ愈々人間生活の本舞台となつてくるのだと信じられるのだ。

たとへば筋肉勞働にしても、社會的に計画的に平等化されて見る、從來、過勞に苦しんでゐた勞農者の過勞が救済されるは勿論だが、それと同時に、從來、無聊に日を送つた社會人にも適當な勞働がふり當てられて、両者共に身心壮健な生活が惠まれてくる。ところが、社會には明日の飯米がなくて飢ゑをる國民がゴマンとあるのに、政府は四百万石からの過剰米を倉庫に積んでその処置に困つてをるといつた無慈悲不統制な資本主義社會では、働くものは夜に日に働き通さねば食つてはゆかれぬ勞働過酷の社會だから、勞働そのものまでが一般には嫌惡されてをるけれども、適當な勞働それ自体は反つて愉悦の泉でなければならぬ。だから、もし、さうした適當な勞働が一般に与へられ、計画的社會になつてくれば、何人も決して怠けたいなどとするものでなく、社會的義務といふよりも愉快なる権利として幾時間を勞働するに至るであらう。

例へば、一燈園の人々の生活を見てもわかる。彼等はただ一日の糧だけを得てそれで悦んで一日中働いてをられる。これなどは、人間は必ずしも私有財産を積み上げなくても満足して、勞働しうるといふ証拠ではないか。

七、現段階に於ける一燈園の役割

B　しかし、ああした粗末な生活が人類生活の理想だらうか。

A　もとより理想ではないと思ふ。天香さんもさうは思ふてゐないであらう。佛経にも「取相の凡夫」といふ文句があるが、ともすれば、ああした粗衣粗食の生活形態そのものを以て聖人君子の理想生活のやうに考へてをる者もあるが、僕はとらない。人間の人間らしき生活とは、ただ精神的のみの向上でなく、物質生活にも豊醇な

{{tpage|298}}

正しい、美化されたものを要求するは決して不義ではないと思ふ。それが万人に惠まれない場合、他に忍びぬ同情心からの節約としては意味はあるが、粗衣粗食そのものが絶対の価値ではない。それは人類発展の歴史が証明するところであつて、人類の生活は断じて原始生活に復帰することでなくして、より高度の文化生活へ推進することにあるのではないか。

B　それでは一燈園のあの私有財産のない協同生活を、全社會に物質的により高度な文化形態として、実現したらいいわけだね。

A　理想はその通りだが、しかし、あれは資本主義社會の重圧下に生れた変態的な空想社會主義の一形式で、パンに惠まれてをる高等煩悶者の救はれる道場、一――無所有の精神を体験する道場として意味はあるが、現社會の客観的情勢下に於て、この運動には社會改造の実際運動としては、もとより何の期待もかけられまい。反つて、無意識的に依然として阿片的役割をつとめることになつてをるやうに思ふ。

八、無產運動と理想社會実現

B　では、君はさうした理想社會実現の実際運動をどう考へるのか。

A　前にもいつた通り、新興無產階級の正しく発展する政治的勢力による外、改造の道はないと考へる。

B　合法的か非合法的か。

A　原則として合法的でありたい。併し、必ずしも非合法が不義とは考へられない。涅槃経の疏にもこんなに説いてある。

「出家在家、法を護らんには其の元心の所為を取りて、事を棄て理を存して匡に大教を弘む、故に護持正法と言ふは、小節に拘らず故に不修威儀と言ふなり。昔の時は平にして法弘まる応に戒を持つべし。今の時は険にして法驟る応に杖を持つこと勿れ……取捨宜しきを得て一向にすべからず」

と。結局、形式に拘泥せず動機が正しい、場合によつては力による解決をやれ、と教へられてあるのだ。「一を殺して万を生かすべし」ともあるから、非合法が必ずしも罪悪ではなく、その根本態度と、場合とを省察することによつて肯定されるべきであつて、日本の過去の歴史を見れば、近くは明治維新の改革のごときが、明らかに

{{tpage|299}}

認容してくれることではないか。

だが、もとより、願はくは合法的な犠牲の少い改革でなければならぬ。そのためには、一般社會人が一刻も速かに資本主義社會の悪弊と新興階級登場の歴史的必然性とのパツキリ認識し常識化して、その無產者運動に可及的の同情と援助を与へることによつてのみ、改造に伴ふ不可避の犠牲をより少量に終らしむるものと考へる。

九、反宗教運動と吾人の主張

B　こんど無產運動の一翼として開始されたあの反宗教運動の正体はどんなのか。

A　そのことについては昨夜も、僕は中央佛教會館で反宗教運動の高津正道氏、本莊可宗氏、今東光氏の佛教青年聯盟書記長、三輪某氏、日蓮宗の柴田一能氏等と立会演説をやらされたが、その時、高津氏の説明によれば、「正義は大衆の福利を保障するものだ、大衆の福利を阻害するものは何物も之を排撃せねばいけない、而して、宗教は大衆福利の最大障害物である資本主義の番犬として、大衆の福利を阻害するものであるが故に之を排撃せねばならぬ」といふのが、氏の社會主義観から説明した反宗教運動の主意であつた。

B　高津氏のは秋田雨雀氏らの反宗教闘争同盟とは違ふのか。

A　秋田氏が「讀賣新聞」に書いたところでは、「社民」の利用価値如何が問題となり、「社民」を排斥する同盟の尖鋭分子と高津氏の意見が一致しないで退席したといふことだが、昨夜、高津氏が説明したやうに、正義観から出発した反宗教運動とするならば、理論的には純粹マルクス主義とは相容れぬものがあるわけだが、當面の運動としては、宗教を阿片として排撃する点、どちらも同じことであらう。

B　では、資本主義を否定し既成宗教団を排撃する君等の新興佛教運動に対しては、どういふ態度をとるのか。やはり排撃するのか。

A　さうした一致点はあつても、反宗教運動は宗教そのものを否定するマルクス主義から出発した運動だから、勿論、彼等としては新興佛教も問題ではないのが当然であらう。否、赤色佛教として反つてより邪魔と見てをるであらう。また僕等としても、同様に資本主義や既成宗教団を否定排撃するものの、その人生観に於て、

{{tpage|300}}

マルクス主義と認識を異にするかぎり全的に飛び込めないのも仕方がないが、それは、反宗教運動の是非は別として、同じ運動でありながら秋田氏らと高津氏らが主張を異にする点があると、好ましからざる分離を見ねばならぬと同じことだ。従って、その是非は反宗教運動の基本原理であるマルクス主義の批判、わけて、その宗教観の批判が根本問題とならねばならない。

そのフォイエルバッハ論の中に、エンゲルスは宗教についてこんなに言ってをる。

「宗教が神なしに存在し得るものとすれば、煉金術も賢者の石なしに存在し得よう」

「自然と人間とを外にしては何物も存在しない。吾々の宗教的空想の所産たる人間以上に位する実体（即ち神、妹尾註）なるものは、吾々自身の実体が空想上に反映したるものに外ならぬ。かくて呪縛は解かれた」

マルクス主義の宗教観は、この文章にも見るごとく、結局キリスト教的創造神の謂であるが、もし、宗教がキリスト教的神の実在を本質とするものであるならば、吾もマルクスと共に宗教を否定するであらう。なぜなれば、佛教はさうした「創造神、主宰神、司法神の如き意味」のものを否認して出発したものであるからだ。而も、佛教が宗教として厳存した事実の前には、大衆搾取の既成教団は否定しえられても、進んで否定すべきであっても、宗教そのものはいきなり否定すべきものでなく、その宗教性は人生の活きた事実として、もっと慎重に批判されるべきものではあるまいか。

なぜなれば、少くとも佛教の正系に於ては、日蓮聖人も「ただ佛にならんと思ふばかりなり」といはれたやうに、完全なる生活者――佛――を理想し追求してやまない全人格的要求こそ正しき宗教性であるとして見れば、かの既成宗教に見る幾多の分派形式のごときも、すべて、この宗教性が文化発展の段階に応じて種々に想定されたものであるが故に、それらの既成宗教団は当然また時代的清算作用をうけるべきであっても、宗教性そのものの否定運動は、反って人生に対する認識不足であって、むしろ、時代にふさはしき正しき宗教を要望すべく、この意味に於て反宗教運動は正しく止揚さるべきではあるまいか。

もしそれ、宗教が大衆の福利阻害の理由で全的に否定されるならば、それも既成宗教団の限定に於て可能であ

{{tpage|301}}

って、宗教そのものの本質は断じて大衆の福利と逆行するものではない。佛陀とキリストは言ふまでもない。リンカーンの奴隷解放運動のごときは其の著しき実例であって、宗教性こそ、まことに大衆相愛の大理想とその実行の熱情性の源泉ではあるまいか。

B　大分わかった。この五月二十三日に、上野の自治館でやる反宗教闘争同盟の結成講演会では、君等の運動も批判されるそうだから、それを聞いた上でまた更に君に意見をききたいものだ。

A　僕も聴きたいのだが、丁度二十三日には金沢支部大会に出席するので、残念だが行けない。君一つよく聞いておいてくれ。若し万一僕の信念に誤診があったらば、何時でも此の運動を停止するに吝ではない。日蓮聖人は申された「其の理にまけてありとも其の心ひるがへらずば天寿をもめしとれかし」と。しかしまた、「我が義国者に破られずば用ひじ」と。この信念でひたすら新興佛教運動をすすめたく思ってをる。盲信では駄目だ。だから所信は容易に枉げてはならない。

一〇、理性的宗教と釈迦牟尼佛の渇仰

B　おお其の態度こそ正しく宗教的態度そのものではないのか。理性的宗教！　人類の無限復活の動機こそ、その理性的宗教性そのものではないか。

A　かうした理性的情熱を欲する時、必然的に僕たちは人類のもっとも最高の典型、釈迦牟尼佛が渇仰されるのだ。そして、われ釈迦牟尼佛を渇仰するとき、自然に、欲してやまぬ理性的情熱はまた一層に燃えてくるのだ。かくして理性は静かに問題を批判し、情熱は死を賭して、も見きわめた理想実現に直進せしめるのだ。経に「一心に佛を見奉らんと欲して、自ら身命を惜まず」といひ、或は「其の心恋慕するに因って乃ち出でて為めに法を説く」と説かれてあるのも、ここらの宗教的体験の告白に外ならぬであらうが、ともあれ、かくして、僕等の新興佛教運動は釈迦牟尼佛の人格渇仰の中に、その生活の一切を統一してゆく宗教運動なのである。

B　君の「新興佛教への転身」の気持ちは、ほぼ了解できた。

A　それでは、この話は一先づ打ちきりとしてまたの会談を約束しよう。

（昭和六年、『新興佛教の旗の下に』六月号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31SBE-T

2026-08-30T17:13:31Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism''}}

{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身 [“Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism”]. Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==

<span id="Page 260"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 260|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 260</div>

'''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism'''

=== The Rejection of Established Buddhist Institutions and Capitalism ===
'''B:''' I hear that you’ve recently given up on Nichirenism<ref>Nichirenism (Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義) was a modern ideological formulation of Nichiren Buddhism that emerged in the late Meiji period under the leadership of Tanaka Chigaku 田中智學 (1861–1939) and became influential during the Taishō and early Shōwa periods. Seno’o was an active proponent of Nichirenism before breaking with it and establishing the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref> and are starting something called the Revitalized Buddhist movement.<ref>Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō 新興仏教) was Seno’o Girō’s term for the new Buddhist movement he launched in 1931—technically, the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Domei 新興仏教青年同盟). Shinkō literally suggests something newly arising or emergent; “Revitalized Buddhism” is used here to emphasize Seno’o’s conception of the movement as a renewal of Buddhism rather than the establishment of a new Buddhist sect.</ref> Is that true?

'''A:''' It is.

'''B:''' What’s the purpose of it?

'''A:''' First, I want to attack the corrupt established Buddhist institutions and demonstrate the true value of Buddhism in the present age. Second, I want to unify a divided Buddhism and put an end to these ugly sectarian quarrels. Third, I want to participate in the movement to transform the capitalist economic system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Buddha, and realize an ideal society of love and equality.

'''B:''' Isn’t that impossible? Won’t it end up as nothing more than a fantasy?

'''A:''' It’s no fantasy. I believe that both the destruction of established Buddhist institutions and the collapse of capitalism are now simply a matter of time.

'''B:''' Leaving aside the transformation of capitalism, couldn’t you simply pursue Nichirenism more thoroughly instead of starting an entirely new religious movement? Especially since you’ve devoted yourself all these years to building up Nichirenism—don’t you feel some regret at abandoning it?

'''A:''' It’s not in my nature to make calculations when confronted with the truth. There was no path left open to me except to launch a new movement. Nichirenism as we have known it has reached an impasse in all sorts of ways. Of course, the other Buddhist institutions have as well. At this point, I don’t think Buddhism can be revived without undertaking a fundamental revolution. Just as capitalism cannot be fixed through a few minor adjustments, the corruption of the Buddhist institutions has penetrated to the very marrow.

'''B:''' But isn’t this just a sudden impulse to go along with the times?

'''A:''' You know how long my life of faith has been.

'''B:''' It certainly has been a long time. How many years has it been, anyway?

'''A:''' I embraced the faith of Nichirenism in 1911.

<span id="Page 261"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 261|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 261</div>

And it was in the autumn of 1920 that I began publishing the magazine ''Youth''<ref>Wakōdo 若人 (“Youth”) was a Buddhist journal with which Seno’o was closely associated and in which he published extensively during the 1920s and early 1930s. It became an important venue for the development of the ideas that eventually led him beyond Nichirenism and toward Revitalized Buddhism.</ref> and advocating Nichirenism. So I have spent twelve years in public propagation and fully twenty-one years in my personal life of faith. And I don’t think I’ve ever been second to anyone in the intensity of my faith. I have devoted my entire life to that faith and to spreading it right up to the present day. After all that, surely this isn’t something I could simply switch away from on a passing whim.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I suppose so. They say that even after living with someone for only three days, you don’t easily forget them. So you must have thought this through very seriously. Still, it’s quite a decisive step—to go so far as to abandon Master Nichiren himself.

'''A:''' Nothing could be further from the truth. My reverence for Master Nichiren only grows stronger with the years. Looking back now, my past life of faith seems to have been nothing more than a game. The more deeply the spirit of love enters my heart, and the more I strive to put even a little of the bodhisattva practice into concrete action, the more deeply Master Nichiren’s life and words impress themselves upon me, right down to the bone. I truly believe there has never been a greater person.

'''B:''' Then why give up Nichirenism?

'''A:''' If you call it “giving it up,” I suppose that’s how it may look. As I see it, I am casting off Master Nichiren’s old forms precisely in order to revive his spirit in the present. The more single-mindedly I devote myself to reviving Master Nichiren’s fundamental spirit in the present age, the more firmly convinced I become of the possibility of this Revitalized Buddhist movement—and that this alone is the form of salvation most suited to our age. Indeed, I have come firmly to believe that the revival of Buddhism as a whole is to be found in this movement.

'''B:''' Calling it “casting off the old forms” makes it sound reasonable enough, but whatever words you use, in practice you are rejecting Nichirenism, aren’t you?

=== It is a Revival of Nichirenism ===
'''A:''' That’s right.

'''B:''' Even if you reject Nichirenism to that extent, doesn’t that amount to betraying Master Nichiren?

'''A:''' Not at all. Nichirenism, too, is one particular form that arose in response to the needs of its age. Looking at the history of the Master’s propagation of his teaching and the many writings he left behind, there is nothing objectionable about changing forms. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by reforming them in response to objective circumstances that one truly comes into contact with the spirit of Master Nichiren. The Master was in fact a man possessed of an extraordinarily enlightened and discerning…

<span id="Page 262"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 262|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 262</div>

…intelligence. He was certainly no inflexible conservative who “stood by a tree stump waiting for a rabbit” or “glued the tuning pegs of a lute”—someone incapable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Mencius praised Confucius as “the sage who was timely,” but even more than this, our Master Nichiren was the exemplary sage who discerned the demands of the time. He said, “Everything depends upon the country and the time”; “Although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice must vary in countless ways according to people’s capacities and the circumstances of the age”; and “One should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country, it must necessarily be suitable for this country as well.”<ref>Seno’o assembles a series of classical and Nichirenist references around the importance of historical circumstance. The idioms “waiting by a stump” (守株) and “gluing the tuning pegs of a lute” (膠柱) denote foolish adherence to fixed conditions. “The sage who was timely” (聖之時者也) is Mencius’s famous characterization of Confucius (Mencius, “Wan Zhang II”). Nichiren’s statements that “everything depends upon the country and the time” (Senji-shō 撰時抄, 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, p. 1003); “although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice vary…” (Shōji Ichidaiji Ketsumyaku-shō 生死一大事血脈抄, 1272; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 523); and “one should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country…” (Kyōki Jikoku-shō 教機時国抄, 1262; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 242) allow Seno’o to present adaptation to modern social conditions not as a departure from Nichiren but as fidelity to his method.</ref> I could go on indefinitely. As these examples show, the religion of the Master was a religion of criticism. And if criticism is not equally rigorous in examining and settling accounts with oneself, can it really be called criticism? Perhaps this is also what Confucius meant when he said, “If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?”<ref>Confucius, Analects (Lunyu 論語), 4.1 (“Li Ren” 里仁): 「子曰、里仁爲美。擇不處仁、焉得知」 (“The Master said: ‘To dwell in benevolence is beautiful. If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?’”). The passage connects wisdom or discernment (zhi 知) with commitment to benevolence (ren 仁). Seno’o invokes it here to reinforce his claim that genuine criticism must also be directed toward oneself.</ref>

=== The Essence of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' I can see your point, at least to some extent.

'''A:''' Buddhism itself is fundamentally like this. Indeed, the Buddha is even described as “one whose bonds have been untied.” One of Buddhism’s distinctive features is precisely its refusal to cling to any fixed form. And that, too, is liberation.

To put it somewhat more technically, Buddhism denies “self” and “what belongs to the self”—that is, the individual ego and private property—and teaches “no-self” and “non-possession.” Even the last of the famous Three Dharma Seals, known as Buddhism’s three fundamental principles—“all conditioned things are impermanent,” “all dharmas are without self,” and “nirvana is tranquility”—ultimately comes down to the single word “emptiness.”<ref>The Three Dharma Seals (sanbōin 三法印) are impermanence (shogyō mujō), no-self (shohō muga), and the tranquility of nirvana (nehan jakujō). Seno’o interprets all three here in terms of emptiness (kū).</ref> It means not clinging to either A or B and therefore, depending upon circumstances, being capable of being either A or B: a teaching of unrestricted adaptability. In the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'', this is taught as “all dharmas are empty”; in the “Skillful Means” chapter it is called the “true aspect of all dharmas,” explained through the so-called Ten Suchnesses—“such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity,” and so forth—in order to demonstrate the capacity of things to change according to causes and conditions. Thus it is also taught that “dharmas have no fixed nature; the Buddha-seed arises through conditions.”<ref>The Ten Suchnesses (jūnyoze 十如是) appear in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the Lotus Sutra and describe ten aspects of the reality of phenomena, beginning with “such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity.”</ref>

Again, the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', which serves as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'', says: “Such non-form is not form; being without form, it is called the true aspect. Having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is clear and certain and not in vain, and among sentient beings they are truly able to remove suffering.”<ref>Muryōgi Kyō 無量義経 (Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings), Chapter 2, “Preaching the Dharma” (Seppō-bon 説法品第二); T 9, no. 276. The passage connects realization of the “true aspect” (jissō 実相), characterized by formlessness (musō 無相), directly with compassion: having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is “clear and certain and not in vain” and are thereby “truly able to remove suffering” (真能拔苦). The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is traditionally regarded in East Asia as the introductory scripture (kaikyō 開経) to the Lotus Sutra. Seno’o uses the passage to argue that nonattachment to fixed forms enables practical compassionate action rather than withdrawal from the world.</ref> According to the meaning of this passage, in short, one takes no fixed standpoint—a standpoint that even negates “no standpoint” as a fixed standpoint—and ultimately stands in a position that clings to nothing…

<span id="Page 263"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 263|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 263</div>

…whatsoever. It is precisely in an attitude of freely adapting oneself according to time, place, and circumstance that thoroughgoing compassion manifests itself and the masses can truly be saved. Nichirenism is no exception to this Buddhist philosophical principle. Depending upon time, place, and circumstances, there should therefore be no objection to sublating it as well.<ref>“Sublate” renders yōki 揚棄, a modern philosophical term used to translate the Hegelian Aufheben or Aufhebung: the dialectical overcoming of a form while preserving what remains valid within it.</ref> The real question is whether there are sufficient grounds for reform in light of the culture of a particular age. When there are, isn’t it only by boldly carrying out such reform that we remain faithful to Buddhism’s true character and penetrate to the spirit of Master Nichiren?

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I can see that even the forms adopted by Master Nichiren may be reformed as the times change.

=== Forms Change ===
'''A:''' Exactly. Take an egg, for example. As long as the white and yolk remain as they are, the shell is an indispensable outer form. But once the egg has been nurtured by the mother bird and a chick begins to develop inside, that shell becomes an unnecessary opposing force. And unless it is broken, new life cannot emerge.

'''B:''' That sounds like Marx’s materialist dialectic.

'''A:''' Truth doesn’t become two different things depending on who says it. “Time” really is a mysterious force. It bears down upon us with a necessity that cannot be altered by the ideas of one or two individuals. That is why Master Nichiren began his ''Selection of the Time'' (''Senji-shō'') by writing, “In studying the Buddha Dharma, one must first of all learn the time.” He went on to say, “The cuckoo awaits spring and the cock awaits the dawn. Even animals are like this; how much more so a Dharma teacher practicing the Buddha Dharma!” Elsewhere, speaking in relation to the capacities of those being taught, he judged that “the wise person is one who accords with the time.” By invoking the examples of the cuckoo awaiting spring and the cock awaiting dawn, he made perfectly clear that the Dharma must never be taught apart from its “time.” Isn’t that an extraordinarily thoroughgoing insight?<ref>Nichiren (1222–1282), Senji-shō 撰時抄 (“Selection of the Time”), composed in 1275. The treatise emphasizes the necessity of discerning the historical “time” (toki) in determining the appropriate form in which the Buddhist Dharma should be propagated. Seno’o draws upon this principle repeatedly to justify the transformation of inherited Buddhist forms in response to modern conditions.</ref> Here ‘capacity’ means the particular character of the individual. The passage therefore rejects an individualistic movement of salvation based on the model of ‘prescribing medicine according to the illness,’ which takes the particular characteristics of individual persons as its object. Instead, it lays down the firm principle that we must move beyond the individual, take as our object the objective conditions of society as a whole, and make our primary concern a method of social salvation suited to the age.

'''B:''' That sounds very much like what the social sciences tell us.

'''A:''' There is another striking parallel. Among Master Nichiren’s writings is this passage, which explains the possibility of mass struggle in the present age. It is from the Shōgu mondō-shō:

The present age is a defiled age, and human feelings have become warped and distorted. Because provisional teachings and slanders of the Dharma abound, it is difficult for the True Dharma to spread. At such a time, practices such as reciting and copying the scriptures, as well as contemplation, reflection, and spiritual cultivation, are of no use. One must simply practice shakubuku<ref>Shakubuku 折伏, literally “to break and subdue,” refers to the forceful refutation of erroneous views and is conventionally contrasted with shōju 摂受, the more accommodating method of leading others toward the Dharma without directly refuting their views. The distinction became particularly important in Nichiren Buddhism, where shakubuku was understood as especially appropriate to circumstances in which erroneous teachings obstructed the Dharma.</ref>: if one has the power, use that power and authority to crush slander of the Dharma, and use Buddhist doctrine to attack erroneous…

<span id="Page 264"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 264|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 264</div>

…teachings. Yet one must properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected and never cling exclusively to a single course.”<ref>Shōgu Mondō-shō 聖愚問答抄 (“Questions and Answers between a Sage and a Fool”); see Shōwa Teihon Nichiren Shōnin Ibun, vol. 1, pp. 363–64 (Gosho Zenshū, p. 143). The treatise argues that the appropriate method of propagation depends upon historical circumstances. Seno’o appropriates the passage to argue that the conditions of the present age demand open struggle rather than quietist self-cultivation.</ref>

What an uncompromising declaration! People who, when they hear the word Buddhism, immediately think of practicing seated meditation, or who tend to associate Buddhism with nonresistance, may well imagine a passage like this to be some kind of reverse propaganda by the Devil. But once we look squarely at actual society, we can see just how much what today passes for “self-cultivation” actually performs an opiate-like function,<ref>“Opiate-like function” (ahenteki yakuwari 阿片的役割) unmistakably evokes Marx’s characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Seno’o applies the criticism here specifically to contemporary Buddhist practices of “self-cultivation” (shūyō).</ref> castrating promising young people. In an age such as this, it seems to me that there is simply no way to build heaven on earth except through an open and forthright struggle. Yet struggle for struggle’s sake would be equally troublesome. This is why the phrase, “properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected,” strikes me as an extraordinarily well-considered teaching.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, it makes me think that the Buddhism we have known until now has been almost completely off the mark.

'''A:''' To speak frankly, much of it has indeed been completely off the mark. That is a consequence of religion’s having repeated the same formalistic sermons day after day, year after year—either unconscious of the character of the age or, even when conscious of it, tragically reduced to the role of a religion in service to established power. Society is moving increasingly toward equality of opportunity without distinctions in human worth between someone dressed in work clothes and someone dressed in a morning coat. Yet within the Buddhist institutions, which ought to be leading the way, they still make an endless fuss over the colors of clerical robes and distinctions in ecclesiastical rank. Social policy advances day by day in society at large—but what on earth are the Buddhist institutions doing?

'''B:''' On that point, I agree. I understand now that forms have to be reformed in accordance with the age. In the end, then, yours is a movement to revive Buddhism within the present age by giving it forms appropriate to that age.

=== The Central Aim of the Revitalized Buddhist Movement ===
'''B:''' But I hear that you’re going to stop chanting ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—“Homage to Śākyamuni Buddha.”

'''A:''' That is precisely the central aim of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. All disciples of the Buddha who profess Buddhism should give up the ''nenbutsu'', give up faith in Mahāvairocana, and give up all the forms of the established Buddhist institutions. First, we should unite under the banner of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', expressing our reverence for the person of the Buddha, and from there attempt a new advance into society. Can you think of any better form than this…

<span id="Page 265"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 265|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 265</div>

…one that could serve both as the single fundamental form common to all Buddhists and, at the same time, as a means of unifying Buddhism? Of course, this form has already been advocated in the past by earnest pioneers. Perhaps because the times were not yet ripe, however, it has never acquired much influence. But whether or not it presently has influence is beside the point. I believe this to be the inevitable destiny of Buddhism from the present into the future, and I intend to put my whole spirit into casting this one stone.

'''B:''' I understand what you’re striving for. But there’s one thing I still can’t accept. You said that you’re trying to “bring the spirit of Master Nichiren to life.” Yet Nichiren himself said, “The soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”<ref>Nichiren, Kyō’ō-dono Gohenji 経王殿御返事 (“Reply to Kyō’ō”), composed in 1273. The passage reads: “The Buddha’s intent is the Lotus Sutra; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”</ref> If you abandon the ''daimoku'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', doesn’t that amount to abandoning the spirit of the Master?

'''A:''' That is a perfectly reasonable question. But immediately before that passage come the words, “The Buddha’s intent is the ''Lotus Sutra''; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”

In other words, if it has been established that the ''Lotus Sutra'' is not the unique scripture embodying the fundamental spirit of the Buddha whom Master Nichiren so ceaselessly revered, then chanting the name of that very Buddha—''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—rather than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' would actually be more faithful to the spirit of Master Nichiren, who founded his teaching on the basis of scholarly inquiry. I certainly do not believe that doing so constitutes a desecration of the Master.

'''B:''' If that way of understanding the ''Lotus Sutra'' is correct, then your argument makes sense. But are you saying that the ''Lotus Sutra'' does not embody the fundamental spirit of Buddhism?

=== The Theory That the Mahāyāna Was Not Taught by the Buddha ===
'''A:''' That is precisely where the problem arises. Have you ever heard of the scholarly theory being advanced in modern Buddhist circles known as “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (''Daijō hi-Bussetsu'')?<ref>“The Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (Daijō hi-bussetsu 大乗非仏説) refers to the historical-critical view that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the lifetime of the historical Buddha rather than constituting direct records of his preaching. Although the question had earlier precedents in Japan, it became a major problem for modern Japanese Buddhist scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century, notably in the work of Murakami Senshō (1851–1929). The theory posed an obvious challenge to sectarian traditions, including Nichiren Buddhism, whose authority rested upon particular Mahāyāna scriptures as the Buddha’s own teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' I can’t say I’ve never heard of it, but I don’t really know what it means. Tell me about it.

'''A:''' I’ll explain it briefly. Buddhist scriptures had broadly been classified into Mahāyāna scriptures—the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sutras'', ''Lotus Sutra'', ''Amida Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Laṅkāvatāra Sutra'', and so forth—and the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures, such as the Āgamas. Both groups had been regarded as scriptures recording sermons preached by the Buddha.

In recent times, however, scholars have argued that those Mahāyāna scriptures were not actually preached directly by the Buddha. That is what is meant by the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.”

'''B:''' Then how did those scriptures come to be composed?

'''A:''' Well, that’s because Buddhism too developed as the times changed and society and culture…

<span id="Page 266"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 266|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 266</div>

…advanced, and in order to adapt to the changing age, numerous new scriptures were composed by later disciples of the Buddha. Those became the Mahāyāna sutras. Since the Mahāyāna sutras are therefore not direct records of the Buddha’s preaching, this is called the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.” In other words, it means Buddhism as a developing tradition.<ref>“Buddhism as a developing tradition” renders hattatsu bukkyō 発達仏教, the modern conception of Buddhism as a historically developing religious tradition rather than a fixed body of doctrine delivered in its entirety by Śākyamuni. This conception allowed modern Buddhist thinkers to accept the later historical origins of the Mahāyāna sutras while continuing to regard them as legitimate developments of the Buddha’s teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' Then from the standpoint of this theory, the ''Lotus Sutra'' too is one example of this “developing Buddhism.” ''So the Lotus Sutra cannot simply be identified with the Buddha’s fundamental spirit.''<ref>Seno’o’s emphasis.</ref>

'''A:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' But in Master Nichiren’s time, the roughly seven thousand fascicles comprising the entire Buddhist canon were all regarded as direct records of the Buddha’s preaching. Given that assumption, why did Master Nichiren single out the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone and declare it to embody ''Buddhism’s fundamental spirit''?

'''A:''' Because that was how the scriptures themselves were understood to explain the matter. More particularly, this was the explanation offered by Tiantai doctrine, which formed the matrix of Japanese Buddhism. According to that teaching, the entire Buddhist canon consisted of sermons preached during the fifty years between the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment at age thirty and his entry into nirvana at age eighty. These fifty years were divided into two periods. The first forty-two years comprised all the teachings preached before the ''Lotus Sutra'', known as the pre-Lotus teachings (''nizenkyō''). The ''Lotus Sutra'', preached during the final eight years, was regarded as the true scripture in which the Buddha revealed his genuine spirit. All the earlier scriptures were judged to be expedient teachings preached in preparation for the revelation of the ''Lotus Sutra''.<ref>The Tiantai (J. Tendai) system of doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (goji hakkyō, 五時八教) organized the Buddha’s teaching career into a chronological and hierarchical sequence culminating in the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sutras. Within this scheme, the Lotus Sutra represented the fullest disclosure of the Buddha’s teaching. Nichiren inherited this framework and radicalized its elevation of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

'''B:''' Was there substantial scriptural evidence for that?

'''A:''' Yes. For example, in the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'' we find the statement, “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost.” There are many other passages that assign the ''Lotus Sutra'' supreme value. Particularly influential was the statement in the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', regarded as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Because the desires and dispositions of beings differ, various teachings were preached; these various teachings were preached through the power of expedient means. For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed.” And in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way.” These were powerful pieces of scriptural evidence. From the standpoint of Buddhist unification available at the time, the Tiantai doctrinal interpretation was therefore hardly unreasonable. There was also the scriptural proof supplied by the “Medicine King Bodhisattva” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': that in the “last five hundred years” it would be “widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa.” Tiantai likewise looked forward to the age of the Final Dharma, declaring, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide.”<ref>The text cites four key passages that provided a scriptural foundation for the Tiantai (J. Tendai) classification of doctrines (kyōhan 教判) and Nichiren’s later elevation of the Lotus Sutra: (1) “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost” (Lotus Sutra, ch. 10, “Dharma Preacher”; T 9, no. 262, 31b); (2) “For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed” (四十余年未顕真実; Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, ch. 2; T 9, no. 276, 386b); (3) “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way” (正直捨方便但説無上道; Lotus Sutra, ch. 2, “Skillful Means”; T 9, no. 262, 10a); and (4) “In the last five hundred years, it will be widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa” (後五百歳広宣流布; Lotus Sutra, ch. 23, “Medicine King Bodhisattva”; T 9, no. 262, 54c). The accompanying statement, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide” (後五百歳妙道広行), is from Zhiyi’s Fahua Wenju (法華文句; T 34, no. 1718, 129a).</ref> And Dengyō Daishi, the pioneer of the Lotus Sutra in Japan, likewise expressed the same conviction and prediction.<ref>Saichō (767–822), posthumously Dengyō Daishi, founder of the Japanese Tendai school.</ref>

<span id="Page 267"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 267|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 267</div>

Now, it was within this tradition that Master Nichiren appeared. Outraged by the fragmentation and degeneration of Buddhism, he made its reform and unification the aspiration of his entire life. Moreover, his historical moment was the beginning of the age of the Final Dharma, more than two thousand years after the Buddha’s passing. There is no need to explain how powerfully the ''Lotus Sutra'' must have resonated with Nichiren’s intelligence and passionate commitment.<ref>The “Three Ages” (sanji 三時) is an East Asian Buddhist scheme describing the historical decline of the Dharma after the Buddha’s passing: the age of the True Dharma (shōbō 正法), the age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō 像法), and the age of the Final Dharma (mappō 末法), conventionally assigned durations of 1000, 1000, and 10,000 years respectively. According to a widely accepted Japanese chronology, mappō began in 1052. Drawing upon scriptural traditions concerning the decline of the Dharma, Nichiren understood his thirteenth-century age as mappō, a period of corruption in which the Lotus Sutra required urgent propagation. See Nichiren, Senji-shō 撰時抄, “Selection of the Time,” 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, pp. 1001–1058. Seno’o invokes this historical framework to emphasize Nichiren’s conviction that Buddhist practice must respond to the particular demands of its age.</ref>

'''B:''' Hearing it explained that way, there certainly seems to have been a powerful sense of historical necessity behind Nichiren’s self-understanding as “Nichiren, practitioner of the ''Lotus Sutra''.” It’s easy to see why he therefore felt compelled to reject every Buddhist school outside the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Within the limits of that doctrinal framework, there was no Buddhist spirit in the age of the Final Dharma apart from the ''Lotus Sutra''. A passage from Nichiren’s ''Hōon-shō'' (''Essay on Gratitude'') makes the situation particularly clear.<ref>Nichiren’s Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude”), composed in 1276, is one of his major writings and contains a sustained defense of the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

The various schools all rely upon their own basic sutras and treatises and claim, each in its own way, that theirs is foremost among all the scriptures. The Shingon school says, “Among all the scriptures, the ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' is first”; the other scriptures are like idle chatter. The Zen school says that sutras such as the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' are fingers pointing at the moon, while Zen itself is the moon. And so forth. We ordinary people ought to be able to trust whichever teacher we follow, revering that teacher in faith; yet Nichiren’s doubts could not be dispelled. Looking at the world, everyone may claim, “I, I,” but there is only one sovereign of a country. If there are two, the country will not be at peace; if a household has two masters, that household will surely fall into ruin. Might it not be the same with all the scriptures? Among all the sutras, must there not be one scripture that is sovereign over all the others? Yet the ten schools and seven schools each contend with one another and refuse to submit. It is as though a country had seventy or eighty sovereigns: its people could never live in peace. Wondering what was to be done, I made a single resolve: I would follow none of the eight schools or ten schools. Instead, just as the Great Master Tiantai took the scriptural texts themselves as his teacher and judged the relative superiority of the teachings preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, I would open and examine all the scriptures. In the ''Nirvana Sutra'' it is said: “Rely on the Dharma, not on persons.” “Rely on the Dharma” means to rely on all the scriptures; “not on persons” means not to rely upon teachers other than the Buddha himself, including such figures as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī and the various masters mentioned above.

The same sutra also says: “Rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning.” Here the “sutra of definitive meaning” is the Lotus Sutra, while the “sutras of provisional meaning” are the ''Avataṃsaka Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Nirvana Sutra'', and all the other sutras of the past, present, and future. But if one trusts the Buddha's final testament, then one must take the Lotus Sutra as the bright mirror through which to understand all…

<span id="Page 268"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 268|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 268</div>

…the scriptures. Hence, when we open the ''Lotus Sutra'', we find the words: “This ''Lotus Sutra'' stands highest among all the sutras,” and so on.

'''B:''' I see. That makes it quite clear. Master Nichiren’s judgment that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' is supreme” was therefore not simply his own dogmatic assertion. It was the result of his seeking the Buddha’s spirit through the scriptures themselves. In other words, after attempting as objectively and as scholarly as possible to determine Buddhism’s fundamental spirit, he concluded that it was embodied in the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Nichiren himself explained this by saying: “This is not because Nichiren is especially wise. It is simply what the time demands. In spring the flowers bloom, in autumn the fruit appears, summer is warm and winter is cold. Is this not simply what the time brings about?”

In this way he explained the historical necessity of the ''Lotus Sutra'' spreading in the age of the Final Dharma. Now, if that were the end of the matter, there would be no problem. But if we accept as true the theory I mentioned earlier—that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—then the scholarly foundation underlying this whole structure collapses. The ''Lotus Sutra'', which Master Nichiren propagated with sixty years of blood and tears, must itself be subjected to a historical reckoning.

'''B:''' So in the end it really was a matter of Master Nichiren’s inadequate understanding?

'''A:''' You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. Far from it. As a Buddhist revolutionary movement in his own age, this was the only possible path. It was an entirely defensible position.

But “time” moved on, and modern scientific research into the scriptures produced new conclusions. That is not something we should blame on Nichiren’s lack of understanding. And a man who declared that “one must first learn the time” surely would not cling sentimentally to his position when confronted by the criticism of a later age. That, at least, is what I believe.

=== The Reckoning with Tiantai Doctrine ===
'''A:''' Speaking of “time,” there is another problem. Modern research has drastically changed the dating of the Buddha’s birth.

'''B:''' So it’s no longer three thousand years ago? I remember singing in Sunday school, “Long, long ago—three thousand years ago.”

'''A:''' Today, according to Dr. Takakusu, it was 2,497 years ago, while according to Dr. Ui, it was 2,397 years ago.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945) and Ui Hakuju (宇井伯寿, 1882–1963) were leading Japanese scholars of Buddhism whose historical and philological research contributed to the modern reassessment of traditional Buddhist chronology. Seno’o invokes their differing calculations of the Buddha’s dates to illustrate the incompatibility of modern historical scholarship with the chronology presupposed by traditional Tiantai doctrine.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t those just scholars’ arbitrary guesses?

'''A:''' You shouldn’t dismiss scholarship out of hand like that. Those conclusions are the result of research. Whatever the precise answer may be, the Buddha is now generally placed around the fourth or fifth century BCE. And whereas tradition had said that he left home at nineteen, attained enlightenment at thirty, and entered nirvana at eighty,…

<span id="Page 269"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 269|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 269</div>

…the accepted view has become that he left home at twenty-nine, attained enlightenment at thirty-five, and entered nirvana at eighty.

'''B:''' Then he taught for forty-five years. That means Tiantai’s system of the Five Periods, which was based on the old account of fifty years of teaching from enlightenment at thirty to nirvana at eighty, becomes questionable too.<ref>The Five Periods (goji 五時) is the chronological scheme systematized by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi (智顗 538–597) to classify the Buddha’s teachings into five sequential stages: (1) Kegon (Avataṃsaka, three weeks); (2) Agon (Āgama, twelve years); (3) Hōdō (Vaipulya, eight years); (4) Hannya (Prajñāpāramitā, twenty-two years); and (5) Hokke-Nehan (Lotus and Nirvāṇa, the final eight years). The scheme presupposes the traditional chronology in which the Buddha attained enlightenment at age thirty and taught until his death at eighty. Modern historical-critical scholarship instead dated his enlightenment to approximately age thirty-five and his teaching career to about forty-five years, while also treating the Mahāyāna sutras as later compositions. Seno’o invokes these discrepancies to argue that the traditional Tiantai chronology—and consequently the historical framework inherited by Nichiren—must itself be subjected to modern critical scrutiny.</ref>

'''A:''' There’s no avoiding it. If the ''Lotus Sutra'' was preached for eight years, then the pre-Lotus teachings could only have lasted thirty-seven years, which makes the phrase “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed” unstable. And if the pre-Lotus teachings lasted forty-two years, then the ''Lotus Sutra'' could only have been taught for three years.

'''B:''' Still, we’re talking about events from twenty-four or twenty-five hundred years ago. Even if we calculate things that precisely, how can we really know which account is correct?

'''A:''' India was hardly a country with a strong tradition of historical record keeping, so perfect precision may be impossible. But scholarship still deserves our respect. This is, after all, an age in which science can calculate the numbers of the astronomical world with extraordinary accuracy. At any rate, one fact is unavoidable: Tiantai doctrine must undergo a reckoning, and Nichiren doctrine must therefore also be reexamined. Nor is that all. Modern scholarship has also proposed an account of how the ''Lotus Sutra'' itself was formed. According to this theory, the earliest form of the sutra ran from the “Introduction” chapter through the tenth chapter, “Dharma Preacher.” Later material was added through the twenty-second chapter, “Entrustment,” and then another six chapters were added, producing the present twenty-eight-chapter form.<ref>Seno’o here summarizes a modern historical-critical theory according to which the Lotus Sutra developed in successive stages: an initial text comprising chapters 1–10, a subsequent expansion through chapter 22, and the later addition of six chapters producing the received twenty-eight-chapter version.</ref>

I myself have lectured on the ''Lotus Sutra'' several times, and the breaks in the textual structure certainly can give that impression. In any event, I think we may safely say that it is now virtually impossible to deny that the ''Lotus Sutra'', like the other Mahāyāna scriptures, represents Buddhism in the process of historical development.

'''B:''' Then were the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures actually written by Śākyamuni himself?

'''A:''' No. Those scriptures too were compiled by his disciples after his death.

'''B:''' Then strictly speaking, couldn’t we say that the Hīnayāna scriptures were also “not taught by the Buddha”? And if we are prepared to call them the Buddha’s teaching, why couldn’t we equally call the Mahāyāna scriptures the Buddha’s teaching?

'''A:''' There is something to that argument, and people have made it before. But I think it is sophistry. Shouldn’t we properly distinguish between the Buddha’s immediate disciples gathering together and reciting what remained vivid in their memories, and later generations—disciples of disciples and their descendants—composing scriptures on the basis of those earlier records?

'''B:''' Is there really enough evidence to establish the Mahāyāna as later development?

'''A:''' Scholars have reached that conclusion on the basis of writing, literary style, and many other forms of textual evidence.

<span id="Page 270"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 270|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 270</div>

Scholarly conscience leaves us no choice but to acknowledge it.

=== Faith Requires Objectivity ===
'''B:''' I understand that. But faith and scholarship are different things. Even if the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha is true, why should faith have to concern itself with it?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that too. As the saying goes, “Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it.”<ref>“Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it” renders the proverb iwashi no atama mo shinjin kara (鰯の頭も信心から), an ironic expression for the power of faith to invest even an insignificant object with religious value.</ref> But that is precisely where the crucial issue lies. It marks the dividing line between superstition and genuine faith. A scripture says that faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith increases wrong views; faith and understanding must be harmonized and become the basis of life.<ref>Seno’o cites a Tiantai formulation attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597): “Faith without understanding increases ignorance; understanding without faith increases wrong views” (信而不解、増長無明。解而不信、増長邪見). See Zhiyi, Weimojing Xuanshu (維摩經玄疏, J. Yuimakyō Gensho).</ref> A merely subjective faith that says “just believe,” while ignoring science, cannot be called genuine faith. Unless the content of faith possesses objectivity, it lacks social universality and cannot provide genuine satisfaction. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose there is an old woman devoted to Tenrikyō. She is completely absorbed in her faith. Then her only son, who has been educated in school, begins searching for a religion of his own. Naturally, he first examines the Tenrikyō faith practiced by his mother. But suppose it fails to satisfy him intellectually, and he turns instead to Christianity. Now you have one person in the household crying, “Save me!” and the other saying, “Amen!” What kind of atmosphere would that create in the family? Can they simply shrug and say that faith is subjective and leave each other alone? The more authority each of them invests in their own faith, and the more faithfully each adheres to it, the more each will inevitably look upon the other with a certain painful sense of dissatisfaction. But suppose, by contrast, that the mother’s faith were something that could also be accepted on scholarly grounds, and the son came to embrace the same Tenrikyō faith. Their perspectives and degree of commitment might still differ, but the whole household could at least share a common religious life, and wouldn’t that bring greater satisfaction?

'''B:''' That’s true. And not just in religion—it’s always pleasant when people see eye to eye.

'''A:''' Exactly. If the object of faith has a content that can withstand scholarly, moral, and aesthetic judgment, then even if people approach it from different perspectives, it can gather and embrace a greater number of spiritual brothers and sisters throughout the world. That is why faith too requires an objective and scientific element, especially in the modern age. Nichiren himself said, “The Buddha Dharma is reason.”<ref>“The Buddha Dharma is reason” (buppō wa dōri 仏法は道理なり). Nichiren, Shijō Kingo-dono Gohenji 四条金吾殿御返事 (“Reply to Shijō Kingo,” 1277).</ref>

<span id="Page 271"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 271|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 271</div>

For a seeker who tries to ground faith in reason, it is no longer possible to ignore the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha and simply assert dogmatically that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone embodies the Buddha’s spirit.” Such a religion will become increasingly incapable of speaking to the present or the future.

'''B:''' I understand now that religion cannot survive as merely subjective belief. And I also understand that, in light of the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha, Nichiren doctrine exactly as it stood six hundred and fifty years ago cannot simply be applied to modern people. So if Master Nichiren were born today, do you really think he would still invoke the polemical spirit of the Four Dicta—“the other schools cannot lead to enlightenment,” “they are the root cause of falling into hell,” “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone is the Dharma of buddhahood”—and make chanting the ''daimoku'' his one and only method for saving the modern world?<ref>Nichiren’s Four Dicta (shika kakugen 四箇格言) are conventionally summarized as “Nenbutsu leads to the Avīci hell” (nenbutsu muken 念仏無間), “Zen is the work of the devil” (zen tenma 禅天魔), “Shingon destroys the nation” (shingon bōkoku 真言亡国), and “Ritsu is treasonous” (ritsu kokuzoku 律国賊). The four formulas encapsulate Nichiren’s polemical rejection of the principal rival Buddhist traditions of his day.</ref>

'''A:''' I don’t think so. In fact, I began this new movement only after asking myself over and over for a long time: “If Master Nichiren appeared in the world today, what would he do?” A man with a scholarly conscience as sharp as his would not close his eyes, six hundred and fifty years later, to the transformed culture and social conditions of the modern world—much less to everything that modern Buddhist scholarship has discovered—and simply repeat the old formulas: “The other schools cannot attain the Way; the ''Lotus Sutra'' is the path to buddhahood.” Nor would he insist upon the absolute supremacy of ''daimoku'' chanting.

'''B:''' Then what form do you think he would take?

'''A:''' Probably something very much like this new movement—when considered from the standpoint of Buddhism’s essential nature and the demands of the present age.

=== Love and Equality Are the Spirit of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Speaking of the various schools, how does Shin Buddhism view the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha?

'''A:''' It seems that all serious modern seekers are adherents of that theory. Kaneko Daiei was even excommunicated over precisely this issue.<ref>Kaneko Daiei (金子大栄 1881–1976) was a prominent modern Jōdo Shinshū thinker and professor at Ōtani University. Employing modern historical-critical scholarship, he reinterpreted Amida Buddha and the Pure Land in symbolic rather than conventionally ontological terms. His views were condemned as doctrinal heterodoxy (ianjin 異安心), and in 1928 he was forced to leave his position at Ōtani University. Seno’o’s description of this as “excommunication” is somewhat stronger than the institutional action actually taken.</ref> Anyone with the least rational sense can hardly still become ecstatic today over things like a Pure Land ten billion worlds away or salvation through Other Power, as preached in the ''nenbutsu'' tradition.

'''B:''' Then how should we understand Amida Buddha?

'''A:''' Amida Buddha is the idealized self, and the Western Pure Land, countless worlds away, is idealized reality. The monk Dharmākara represents the fundamental human self, and his practice toward becoming Amida signifies a life of self-realization. Thus the wish to be saved by Amida symbolizes the joy inherent in a life that seeks what is right; salvation, in the final analysis, is nothing other than the life of love itself. To put it simply, love strides courageously even across the terrifying boundary of death. The scripture says, “When the mind of compassion is firmly determined, there is no fear.” This surely expresses the same principle.

<span id="Page 272"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 272|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 272</div>

'''B:''' Then the central meaning of the ''Lotus Sutra'' must teach something similar.

'''A:''' Exactly. Even the words “Since I attained buddhahood” in the “Life Span” chapter, regarded as the heart of the ''Lotus Sutra'', are ultimately a celebration of the awakening of the self. The scriptures differ in expression, but their meaning is fundamentally the same. If we regard the entire canon as literally spoken by the Buddha, then, given the statements in the ''Lotus Sutra'' and the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'' that “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed,” scriptures such as the ''Amida Sutra'' and ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' would have to be regarded merely as expedient teachings to be set aside before the ''Lotus Sutra''. But if we understand them instead as products of Buddhism’s historical development, then the whole canon is an explanation of the content of Śākyamuni Buddha’s awakening. Reduced to its essence, it is a symbolic expression of love and equality. And from that awakening comes the rule running through all Buddhism: “Do no evil; practice all that is good; purify one’s own mind: this is the teaching of all buddhas.”<ref>“Do no evil; practice every good; purify your own mind: this is the teaching of all Buddhas” is traditionally known in East Asian Buddhism as the “Verse of the Common Admonition of the Seven Buddhas” (shichibutsu tsūkai ge 七仏通誡偈). The verse corresponds to Dhammapada 183 and appears widely in East Asian Buddhist literature.</ref>

'''B:''' Then practices such as esoteric rites and prayers, as well as faith in worldly benefits, so common among Buddhists, are decisively not the proper Buddhist path.

'''A:''' Correct. In the strict sense, Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic. There is a teaching in the Kōkigyōkyō that says something like this:

Disciples, there are three mistaken views here. A wise person examines these errors and leads others to abandon them. If these views are followed through to their conclusion, they negate human action in this world. What are the three? One renunciant claims that whatever suffering, pleasure, or neither-suffering-nor-pleasure a human being experiences in this life is entirely the result of karma from a previous existence. Another claims that all of it is caused by the creative activity of Īśvara. Still another claims that everything occurs without cause or condition.<ref>Seno’o attributes this passage to the Kōki-gyō-kyō 興起行経 (T 4, no. 197), though the refutation of the “Three Wrong Views” (三邪見) has a close parallel in the Dokyō 度経 (Madhyama Āgama 13; T 1, no. 26, pp. 435a–436b; corresponding to the Pali Titthāyatana Sutta, AN 3.61). The passage rejects three views that undermine moral agency: (1) strict fatalism (shukumeiron 宿命論), attributing all experience solely to past karma; (2) divine creationism (sōzōshinron 創造神論), attributing it to a creator god; and (3) accidentalism (gūzenron 偶然論), denying cause and condition. Seno’o invokes the passage to emphasize that Śākyamuni rejected fatalistic interpretations of karma and instead grounded Buddhist practice in causality, human agency, and the possibility of transforming the conditions that produce suffering.</ref>

In other words, it rejects fatalism, creationism, and accidentalism, and continues: “Disciples, in opposition to these mistaken views, I teach the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. This teaching of mine is such that no reasonable person can abuse, defile, slander, or reject it.” The Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination describe the path from delusion to awakening. Human suffering arises from inadequate understanding; the Buddha therefore taught the Eightfold Path as the method by which correct wisdom is to be fully attained. Buddhism therefore teaches us to see reality correctly and to act correctly. Even the word “Buddha” means “one who has attained perfect wisdom.”

'''B:''' By “creationism,” you mean something like the Christian God?

=== Buddhism Is Atheistic ===
'''B:''' Modern people are, of course, becoming less and less willing to accept that kind of deity. On this subject, Archbishop Brown wrote something like the following in ''God and the Capitalist'':

<span id="Page 273"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 273|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 273</div>

“Does God wish to remove evil from this world but lack the power? Or is he able to remove it but unwilling? If he wishes to but cannot, then he is impotent, which contradicts the nature of God. If he can but will not, then he is evil, which likewise contradicts the nature of God. If he neither wishes nor is able, then he is both evil and impotent. But if he both wishes to remove evil and is able to do so—which is the only conception appropriate to God—then how can evil exist in the world?”<ref>William Montgomery Brown (1855–1937) was an American Episcopal bishop who became an outspoken socialist and communist and was deposed for heresy in 1925. Seno’o cites Brown’s critique of the Christian conception of God in God and the Capitalist, which circulated in Japanese as Kami to shihonka (神と資本家). The argument itself is a version of the classical “Epicurean paradox” concerning divine omnipotence and the existence of evil.</ref>

'''A:''' That is a painful criticism for Christianity. Before Buddhism, Brahmanism taught gods who created heaven and earth and also advocated ascetic practices of various kinds. The Buddha rejected these and, as I said before, taught the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. There is another story related to this. An apostate named Sunakkhatta went around criticizing the Buddha, saying: “The Buddha possesses no superhuman teaching and no exceptional knowledge or vision. He simply teaches ideas he has thought up in his own head. And he claims that anyone who thinks according to that teaching can reach a state free from suffering.” When the Buddha heard this, he told Śāriputra that Sunakkhatta, speaking in anger, thought he was criticizing the Buddha but was actually praising him.<ref>Sunakkhatta, a Licchavi and former disciple of the Buddha, appears in the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 12) criticizing his former teacher for possessing no “superhuman states” or extraordinary knowledge and vision. Significantly for Seno’o’s argument, Sunakkhatta’s demythological reading nevertheless acknowledges that the Buddha’s teaching leads those who practice it to the destruction of suffering.</ref> For to say that “according to his teaching, anyone who thinks properly can reach a state free from suffering” is itself praise of the Buddha. As this shows, the heart of Buddhism is to see the true nature of human life correctly, think correctly, and then live correctly.

'''B:''' But isn’t it said that Saint Nichiren himself performed prayers and rites?

'''A:''' Those are merely peripheral matters. Nichiren’s real spirit is found in the ''Kaimoku-shō'', where he declared: “Let heaven abandon me if it will; let every hardship befall me; I will stake my life upon this.... I vowed that I would become the pillar of Japan, that I would become the eyes of Japan, that I would become the great ship of Japan. These vows must never be broken.”<ref>Nichiren’s Kaimoku-shō (開目抄 “Opening of the Eyes”), composed in 1272 during his exile on Sado Island, is one of his major writings. It examines the grounds for religious authority and Nichiren’s understanding of his own mission in relation to the Lotus Sutra.</ref> That was his great religious resolve. The prayer rites being performed today are a disgrace to Master Nichiren.

=== The Proper Meaning of Faith in the Buddha ===
'''B:''' Then what do you mean when you chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''?

<span id="Page 274"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 274|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 274</div>

'''A:''' It expresses gratitude and reverence toward Śākyamuni as the founder and teacher—not belief in him as an actually existing creator god. Buddhism teaches that “one who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.”<ref>“One who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha” (Pāli: yo dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati) derives from the Vakkali Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 22.87), where the Buddha tells the monk Vakkali: “One who sees the Dharma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dharma.”</ref> Anyone who follows the Buddha’s teaching, comes to understand and embody even a little of the truth, and experiences joy as a result will naturally come to praise, revere, and feel gratitude toward Śākyamuni Buddha as the ideal person who realized that truth.

And praising, revering, and thanking such a person in turn helps lead us more deeply into a life of truth. Praying to Śākyamuni Buddha will not make rice suddenly appear in your rice chest. If you are poor, the Buddha would tell you to work hard and figure out how to earn money.

But if, as under our present economic system, people work and yet their labor brings no worthwhile return, then the Buddha would surely tell us first to transform that bad system and guarantee the welfare of the masses. He would not mechanically repeat some maxim like “poverty can never catch up with hard work.” If you are sick, rather than making vows or relying on prayer rites, the Buddha would tell you first to seek proper treatment, reflect upon the causes of the illness, and observe the principles of health. That is the Buddha I understand.

'''B:''' As expected, the Buddha even seems to have understood Marxist theory.

'''A:''' That’s giving him too much credit. There is no way the Buddha could have known Marx’s theories. And his authority is not diminished in the least by not knowing them. He lived twenty-five hundred years ago; of course he did not know them. The point is that those who genuinely understand the Buddha’s life of love and equality naturally acquire the kind of understanding appropriate to their own time, place, and circumstances. Buddhism therefore develops continuously along with the age. That is the process I meant earlier when speaking of historically developing Buddhism. What we need to learn from Buddhism is the fundamental orientation of human life. Once we stand upon that foundation, an appropriate way of life will unfold in accordance with circumstances. I express this in the slogan: “From Impermanence to Devotion.”

'''B:''' Then Confucius’s saying, “A neighborhood is beautiful when there is benevolence; if one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one be called wise?” expresses the same view of life.

'''A:''' I think so. The ''tian'' of Confucianism, the God of Christianity, Japanese Shintō and the Buddha of Buddhism may all be explained differently, but if we follow them to their roots, I believe they all rest upon the same path of sacred love.

=== Buddhism and Christianity Will Merge ===
'''B:''' Some time ago, an organization called the Concordia Association was established to bring together the three teachings of Shintō, Confucianism, and Buddhism.<ref>The Concordia Association (Kiitsu Kyōkai 帰一協会) was a private interreligious organization founded in June 1912 by leading intellectuals and public figures, including industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi 渋沢栄一, educator Naruse Jinzō 成瀬仁蔵, religious scholar Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治, and philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. Formed in the same year as the government-sponsored Three Religions Conference (Sankyō Kaidō 三教会同), the association sought to foster moral and intellectual unity (kiitsu 帰一) across religious and philosophical traditions. Seno’o regarded such ecumenical efforts critically, seeing them as attempts to achieve an abstract religious harmony without confronting the social and economic conflicts of capitalist society.</ref>

<span id="Page 275"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 275|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 275</div>

If what you’re saying is right, then Buddhism should ultimately be able to unite with Christianity as well.

'''A:''' I believe the day will come when they do. As the languages and writing systems of the world, and culture more generally, gradually converge—and especially as economic structures become increasingly integrated—religion alone cannot remain forever in a state of warring kingdoms. I think a new movement will emerge in which the two are sublated. After all, the innermost sanctuary of the human spirit must fundamentally be one. Religions should not continue opposing one another as they do today. Indeed, from the standpoint of religion’s true purpose, a world federation of religions ought to be proposed even before the political world federation now being discussed. I believe the mission of religious movements must be to work toward the realization of a worldwide human fellowship.

=== The Disappearance of the Established Buddhist Institutions Is Inevitable ===
'''B:''' I agree. In that case, the immediate priority would have to be a movement to unify Buddhism. The present fragmentation amounts to nothing more than Buddhists demonstrating their own lack of religious resolve. How many schools and branches does Buddhism actually have today?

'''A:''' I’ve heard there are thirteen schools and fifty-six branches.<ref>“Thirteen schools and fifty-six branches” (jūsanshū gojūrokuha, 十三宗五十六派) was a conventional enumeration of the institutional divisions of Japanese Buddhism in the modern period. Seno’o invokes the formula as evidence of the sectarian fragmentation that his movement sought to overcome.</ref>

'''B:''' But if you start a movement for unification, won’t you in practice simply create one more sect?

'''A:''' Even if it means adding one more sect for the moment, if the movement truly corresponds to the needs of the age, then as it expands and grows stronger, the established Buddhist institutions that have fallen out of step with the times will gradually lose their power and naturally undergo liquidation and disappear. That is just what happened when the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period displaced the established Buddhism of Nara and Heian and caused its older forms gradually to dissolve.

'''B:''' Then you’re saying that this Revitalized Buddhist movement represents the highest form of Buddhism demanded by the modern age.

'''A:''' As I said before, so long as Buddhism has its source in the person of the Buddha, is there really any other path by which it can be brought back into unity?

'''B:''' At the very least, it seems to be a method that should be acceptable across the schools. In fact, whichever Buddhist institution you examine, each has doctrines of some substance. But if every school keeps proclaiming exclusively, “Our school alone has grasped the Buddha’s intent,” the beginning seeker is completely bewildered. And if, despite all those differences, they all offer essentially the same opiate-like sermons of escape from reality, modern people will not merely reject Buddhism—they will quite naturally become advocates of its repudiation.

'''A:''' “Rotten wood cannot be carved.”<ref>“Rotten wood cannot be carved” (朽木不可雕也) derives from the Analects 5.10, where Confucius uses the image to describe someone upon whom further instruction would be wasted.</ref> There is no need to fear revolution.

<span id="Page 276"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 276|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 276</div>

Even Shinran, regarded as the very model of humility, declared at the establishment of his teaching that “the teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace.”<ref>“The teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace” (釈迦の遺法ことごとく龍宮にいりたまいにき) is from Shinran’s Shōzōmatsu Wasan (正像末和讃, “Hymns of the Dharma-Ages”). The verse describes the disappearance of Śākyamuni’s conventional path of practice and realization in the age of the Final Dharma; the Dragon Palace (ryūgū, 龍宮) is the mythical undersea realm in which Buddhist scriptures were said to be preserved beyond the human world.</ref> To put it plainly, he too rejected the whole of established Buddhism as obsolete.

=== On the Scriptural Basis of the New Movement ===
'''B:''' I understand. Earlier you said ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''. Would ''Namu Shakamuni Butsu'' not be sufficient?

'''A:''' According to correct Sanskrit usage, when ''namu''—“homage”—is used, the ending ''-āya'' must be added to indicate the dative case. Only then does it properly mean “homage to Śākyamuni Buddha” or “I take refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha.” With Namu Shakamuni Butsu, by contrast, “Śākyamuni Buddha” remains in the nominative, so the grammatical relationship between namu and “Śākyamuni Buddha” does not work properly. Or so I am told. Since we are launching a new movement aimed at Buddhist unity, we have taken the opportunity to correct the expression as well.<ref>Seno’o prefers Namu Shakamuni Budaya 南無釈迦牟尼仏陀耶 to the conventional Namu Shakamuni Butsu 南無釈迦牟尼仏, explaining the former as grammatically preferable on the basis of Sanskrit namas (“homage”) and the dative buddhāya. The phonetic form Budaya is retained here as Seno’o gives it rather than Sanskritized. The formula became characteristic of the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref>

'''B:''' I understand that too. But what about your authoritative scripture? You can hardly choose one scripture now—the ''Lotus Sutra'', the ''Amida Sutra'', or some other text—and carrying around the entire enormous Buddhist canon is obviously impossible.

'''A:''' You’re right. If we take the position that, despite differences of importance and emphasis, the entire Buddhist canon arises from the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, then it is impossible—especially after abandoning our former sectarian standpoint—to choose a single scripture as uniquely authoritative. So, for practical purposes, we have decided for the time being to adopt the ''Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures'' compiled by Kizu Muan and others.<ref>Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1876–1943) was a lay Buddhist reformer associated with efforts to make Buddhist scripture accessible beyond sectarian boundaries. His Shin’yaku Bukkyō Seiten (新訳仏教聖典 Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures), published in 1925, presented selections from major Buddhist scriptures in accessible modern Japanese and was intended to provide ordinary Japanese Buddhists with a common scriptural anthology</ref> It is a handy modern translation containing selections from the essential teachings of the entire canon.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t Kizu and the other compilers inevitably impose their own personalities upon such an anthology?

'''A:''' That cannot entirely be avoided. I would prefer something more thoroughly revised. If possible, I would like the members of our own movement eventually to compile and publish such a translation ourselves.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t that plant the seeds for yet another inevitable division?

'''A:''' I can’t deny that possibility. Since believers differ in their inclinations, if we make scriptures themselves the basis, division will naturally arise again. Indeed, the scriptures themselves recognize the necessity of diversified teaching. We find statements such as “innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma” and “because desires and dispositions differ, various teachings are preached.” A scripture could even be called the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings precisely because it recognizes the necessity of the Dharma being expressed in different forms. So if we make scripture the basis, division will certainly recur. Instead of defining the Buddha through the scriptures,…

<span id="Page 277"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 277|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 277</div>

…we should take the person of the Buddha as our starting point and reduce the essential meaning of the entire canon to the realization of love and equality. Wouldn’t Buddhism then be able to unite without strain? The essential point is to recognize that Amida Buddha, Mahāvairocana Buddha, and the other figures who came to be believed in as actually existing beings through faith in the scriptures are all representations of the person of Śākyamuni. I therefore propose that all Buddhists unite in Namu Shakamuni Budaya. It is like Christianity: however many denominations there may be, they are united in their object of faith—the one God—to whom they say “Amen.”

'''B:''' Wasn’t that ultimately the real intention behind Master Nichiren’s religious revolution as well?

'''A:''' Exactly. We should now subject it to modern criticism—including the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—and thereby purify it, while at the same time stripping away the old shell of ''daimoku'' chanting, corroded by all manner of popular beliefs and superstitions. In that way we can make the central principle of Buddhist unification unmistakably clear and, beyond that, establish the spiritual basis for a worldwide human fellowship. And this cry of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'' necessarily leads us to scrutinize the economic system that forms the basic condition of actual life. Since the present capitalist economic system violates the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, we have no choice but, in the name of that love and equality, to join the movement to transform it.

'''B:''' That seems to be one of the three central aims of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. But before you explain that, what does your movement intend to do about funerals? You certainly aren’t going to ask the priests to perform them.

=== On Funerals ===
'''A:''' Don’t be ridiculous. What good would it do to have priests like that perform the final rites over us? Today I attended the private funeral of a certain eminent archbishop. A certain head priest who had betrayed his teacher while the latter was still alive acted as officiant. Arrayed in a gold-brocade kesa, with a procession of similarly dressed priests behind him, he recited sutras and chanted the ''daimoku'' as he performed the final rites. If my teacher had been able to speak from within the jeweled ''stūpa'', what would he have said?<ref>The deceased “teacher” was Honda Nisshō 本多日生 (1867–1931), the influential Nichiren Buddhist leader under whom Seno’o had studied and with whom he had long been associated before his break with Nichirenism. Honda’s death in March 1931 thus occurred at precisely the moment of Seno’o’s turn toward Revitalized Buddhism. Seno’o’s discomfort at the elaborate funeral rites of his former teacher underscores both the personal and institutional dimensions of that break. The jeweled stūpa (hōtō 宝塔) alludes to chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra, in which a magnificent stūpa emerges from the earth containing the Buddha Prabhūtaratna (J. Tahō Nyorai).</ref> I could do nothing but weep. There they were in a main hall beautifully decorated with donations—unearned income contributed by the bourgeoisie—a group of seemingly castrated priests banging away on their old-fashioned gongs, interminably reciting ''dhāraṇī''s whose meaning no one could understand, and putting on an air of solemnity. For someone who sincerely mourns his teacher and is resolved to bring that teacher’s aspirations to life in a new age, how could a ''dhāraṇī''-style funeral like that possibly be satisfying? No doubt such forms once possessed value appropriate to their age,…

<span id="Page 278"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 278|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 278</div>

…but today, from beginning to end, they are nothing but anachronisms. They are like beer left sitting for days, with sediment collecting in it. In the end, that is what happens when a funeral has lost its spirit.

'''B:''' Then what sort of form do you propose replacing it with?

'''A:''' Are you so worried about the form of the funeral that you can’t attain buddhahood? As long as the movement itself is genuinely alive and substantial, I believe forms appropriate to the age will arise naturally in the course of the movement. Look at how solemn a makeshift burial on the battlefield can be. Think, too, how deeply moving Yamasen’s funeral was.<ref>“Yamasen” was the familiar name of Yamamoto Senji 山本宣治 (1889–1929), a biologist, birth-control advocate, socialist politician, and labor activist assassinated by a right-wing nationalist in 1929. His funeral and memorial processions became major public events for the Japanese left.</ref> The point is that appropriate forms arise in proportion to the intensity of one’s commitment to justice in life. So I don’t think we need to calculate the form of a funeral in advance. The essential thing is to adopt a simple, spiritual form appropriate to the modern age; beyond that, we can proceed as circumstances require.

'''B:''' But a funeral does adorn the end of a person’s life....

'''A:''' The end isn’t something you decorate once you’ve reached it. To put it strongly, think of a funeral as little more than disposing of used coffee grounds. What matters is rebuilding each living day into a life of justice and love. Isn’t that what Nichiren meant when he said, “A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world”?<ref>“A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world.” Nichiren, Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude,” 1276).</ref> To think of a funeral as a ceremony that “adorns the end” is itself a variant of bourgeois ideology: people donate or contribute some percentage of wealth accumulated through sinful exploitation and imagine that this constitutes admirable faith and atonement. ''Why be calculating funeral arrangements before the banner has even been raised? Those advancing arm in arm in the march of justice should already be prepared to leave their corpses by the roadside. Would the dead not prefer the tearful offering of a single comrade to the hymns of a thousand people without heart? “Let the dead bury their dead!”''<ref>Matthew 8:22; cf. Luke 9:60.</ref> The fundamental ideology of our Revitalized Buddhist movement must be the resolve to embody the Buddhist spirit in actual life—a resolve that will make even our funerals bleed tears.

'''B:''' I understand. Then will you go on to explain the relationship between reform of the economic system and the Revitalized Buddhist movement?

=== Revitalized Buddhism and Class Struggle ===
'''A:''' We’ve talked for quite a long time today, so let’s leave this subject until next time. In the meantime, from January through March of this year I published my views in Youth on the attitude Buddhists should take toward…

<span id="Page 279"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 279|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 279</div>

…capitalism. I’ll eventually publish those articles as a pamphlet, so study them when it comes out.<ref>Seno’o refers to his essay series “Capitalism and the Stance of Buddhists” (Shihonshugi ni taisuru Bukkyōto no taido 資本主義に対する仏教徒の態度), serialized in Wakōdo 若人 from January through March 1931 and subsequently published as Shihonshugi to Bukkyō 資本主義と仏教 (Capitalism and Buddhism; Tokyo: Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei Shuppanbu, 1931).</ref> In the end, Buddhist priests too are parasites of capitalism and, generally speaking, cannot avoid becoming its servants. The shortest road to religious revolution therefore lies in transforming capitalism, the underlying condition that sustains them. In any case, doesn’t this new movement acquire value only when it advances into the concrete problems of actual life?

'''B:''' Let me ask you one thing. In the end, then, you recognize “joining the proletarian movement”—that is, class struggle?

'''A:''' Yes.

'''B:''' Earlier you said that Buddhism is “emptiness” and that it occupies “no standpoint.” But if you endorse class struggle and side with the proletarian movement, doesn’t that contradict the Buddhist spirit?

'''A:''' It is precisely because Buddhism is “emptiness” and occupies “no standpoint” that, when circumstances require it, participation in the proletarian movement can be justified. To look at the class struggle actually taking place before our eyes and simply disregard it amounts to nothing more than indifference to the conditions of our own lives. The question is which side it is right to support. That alone is the issue.

'''B:''' But proletarian activists are often inclined to resort to violence. Can that too be called just?

'''A:''' Before speaking of violence by the proletarian movement, don’t you recognize the overwhelming presence of the military, the police, and all the other instruments of power controlled by those who rule? It is precisely on the basis of this recognition of reality that proletarian activists are compelled to resort to violence in order to realize their ideal society.

'''B:''' You speak of “those who control the instruments of power,” but these are the nation’s military and police. Surely they do not belong to any one particular class.

'''A:''' That is true in name only. Look at the facts: which class actually controls the military and the police? You have to open your eyes to reality. Today, the justice and morality spoken of by the ruling class are entirely one-sided—a morality of the strong. Otherwise, how could they enjoy such lives of splendor while ignoring the masses living at the very bottom?

'''B:''' Still, their present position is one they have attained by prevailing in competition. Surely being the victor does not necessarily make one unjust.

'''A:''' If that is not unjust, then why is it considered unjust—and impermissible—for the proletariat today to seek victory through unions and solidarity?

'''B:''' Isn’t that because it would disrupt the existing social order?

<span id="Page 280"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 280|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 280</div>

'''A:''' For whose benefit is the present social order arranged? Look at the facts. Today, justice and morality are all colored by class. They are a class-based justice and order, and by no means genuine justice. Nevertheless, the educators either unconsciously—or sometimes consciously, and quite brazenly—serve as mouthpieces for the ruling class. If it is just for the present ruling class to use its power to suppress the proletarian movement, then it must equally be just for proletarian activists to seize power and turn it back against them. If religious people are to condemn violence as unjust, then from which class should they first demand its abandonment? And if, under certain circumstances, violence itself can be regarded as just, then which movement contains within it more of the true essence of justice? The impossible neutral standpoint that is neither bourgeois nor proletarian belongs now to the realm of ghosts. True justice must be sought in securing the welfare of the masses. So, what do you think? I believe that the Revitalized Buddhist movement can ultimately find its true social ground only among the proletarian class.

'''B:''' I think I understand now. Justice is an ideology that becomes concretely felt through opposition. Looking back over history, the true character of justice has been recognized most clearly in struggles against the powerful on behalf of the weak of their time. In fact, I myself have been inwardly dissatisfied with calling myself “neutral.” I have always tried to formulate a conception of justice by working from the concrete calculations of actual life rather than from abstraction. On that point, I should read your pamphlet carefully and think it over.

'''A:''' Until now, almost all Buddhists have, more or less without exception, adhered to a conceptual and conservative faith in “gratitude.” As a result, they have been blind to the problems of actual social life, have conducted no research whatsoever into socialism, and have been driven from the outset into a blindly reactionary movement. This is a grave anachronism. The original ideal of Buddhism was, on the contrary, itself socialist. On this point, too, I am genuinely glad that the narcotic effect of the opium has begun to wear off and that the force of actual life has begun to move.

'''B:''' I understand quite well. Let’s discuss this question again after I’ve read your pamphlet. (Shōwa 6 [1931], “Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism,” April inaugural issue)

<span id="Page 281"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 281|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 281</div>

=== The Economy Is the Foundation of Life ===
'''B:''' You promised me last month that you would explain the relationship between the Revitalized Buddhist movement and the transformation of the economic system.

'''A:''' Yes. Since launching this new movement, I have become painfully aware that the reason nearly all the comrades who initially joined me but later withdrew did so was the third item in our program: “opposition to capitalism.” This has made me realize all the more clearly that economic problems are the very foundation of human life, and that our thoughts and actions are therefore inevitably conditioned by them. Generally speaking, an edification movement that ignores economic problems is nothing more than a conceptual game. Indeed, I have become even more firmly convinced that any edification movement that does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to advancing the transformation of the present capitalist economic system is nothing less than an opiate-like form of wrongdoing. And surely there is no longer any need to explain that capitalism is a mechanism of selfishness and self-interest that runs counter to the Buddhist spirit.

'''B:''' From the enthusiastic response of the audience at the April 5 inaugural commemorative lecture meeting of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, I too could clearly sense how thoroughly society has become disillusioned with capitalism and with the established Buddhist institutions.

But what about organizations such as the Hope Society and the Cultivation Society, which have recently been conducting very active edification movements? Don’t you think they possess some contemporary value?<ref>Kibōsha 希望社 (“Hope Society”), founded by Gotō Seikō 後藤静香 (1884–1969) in 1918, and Shūyōdan 修養団 (“Self-Cultivation Association”), founded by Hasunuma Monzō 蓮沼門三 (1882–1980) in 1906, were prominent organizations in Japan’s modern moral-edification (kyōka 教化) and self-cultivation (shūyō 修養) movements. Both emphasized personal discipline, service, and social harmony. Seno’o rejects such movements as inadequate responses to structural economic problems, arguing that their emphasis on individual moral cultivation ultimately leaves capitalist relations intact.</ref>

'''A:''' They are both organizations for officially sanctioned edification, and in the end the result is the same. Precisely because they are novel edification movements, they may temporarily attract young men and women and, for that very reason, function all the more effectively as an opiate. Recently, however, I hear that even within the Cultivation Society an anti-capitalist consciousness has gradually begun to emerge. And didn’t the Hope Society recently fall several months behind in paying its employees’ salaries, leading to an employees’ strike and even a lawsuit? As the saying goes, “A hundred days of preaching are undone by a single fart.”<ref>A traditional Japanese proverb: Hyakunichi no seppō, he hitotsu 百日の説法、屁一つ (literally, “A hundred days of preaching, one fart”), meaning that prolonged preaching or painstaking effort can be undone by a single act that renders it ridiculous or ineffective. Seno’o invokes the deliberately coarse expression to suggest that moral edification is rendered futile when the social conditions produced by capitalism remain unchanged.</ref> There is also that amusing saying, “Faith, too, comes from an excess of ''toku''.” Here ''toku'' means “profit.” That one saying alone explains rather well the relationship between economic problems and established edification organizations.<ref>“Faith, too, comes from an excess of toku” plays on the proverb shinjin mo toku no amari 信心も徳の余り, meaning that religious devotion becomes possible only when one has sufficient material ease. Seno’o pointedly interprets toku here in the material sense of profit or economic gain, reinforcing his argument that religious and moral life cannot be separated from economic conditions.</ref>

<span id="Page 282"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 282|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 282</div>

=== The Anachronism of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''B:''' You did quite a bit of arguing at the conference of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation on April 2 and 3. Was it about what you were just discussing?

'''A:''' It wasn’t only that, but I said everything that needed to be said. The obvious question was whether, in determining its attitude toward capitalism, which runs counter to the Buddhist spirit, the Federation would return to the Buddha—but they could not reach a decision. Worse still, although Buddhist youth from throughout Japan had joined together in a federation with the intention of advancing into a new society, they were still debating whether guiding principles were even necessary. It was like firing a gun in the dark; there was no real question to discuss.

'''B:''' Doesn’t the Federation’s second stated objective say, “We aim to awaken to the Buddhist spirit and promote its revitalization”?

'''A:''' However impressive such abstract phrases may sound, unless something new actually follows from them, things will simply continue as before. Even if they spend several hundred yen to establish another grand federation, what meaning can it possibly have unless they articulate concrete guiding principles appropriate to the demands of the new age? As I was saying, so long as the various sects each possess bodies of teaching that are historically incompatible with one another, the more faithfully each adheres to the doctrines of its own sect, the less what sect A regards as the Buddhist spirit will correspond to what sects B and C regard as the Buddhist spirit. Take the Nichiren sect: if it loudly proclaims the Buddhist spirit embodied in its Four Dicta, how can it possibly form a united front with the Nenbutsu and other sects? And if the Pure Land sect clings to the “Five Miscellaneous Practices,” wouldn’t the result be the same?<ref>The Five Miscellaneous Practices (gozōgyō 五雑行), derived from Shandao’s Pure Land classification, designate practices directed toward buddhas and teachings other than Amitābha and the Pure Land as “miscellaneous,” in contrast to the five “right practices” (goshōgyō 五正行). Seno’o juxtaposes this Pure Land exclusivism with Nichiren’s Four Dicta (see n. 30) to expose the unresolved doctrinal contradictions underlying claims of Buddhist unity.</ref> If they say cooperation is nevertheless possible, then that is shameless—unless, of course, they have already sublated their sectarian doctrines in accordance with the times. In any case, if the Federation is to become something more than a kind of religious social club and actually inaugurate a Buddhist movement appropriate to the new age, it must set forth a guiding principle of faith capable of unifying the Federation as a whole and, on that basis, a guiding principle for solving social problems. Otherwise, it is useless.

'''B:''' Surely people chosen to represent their respective regions must have thought about something as basic as that.

'''A:''' Exactly. Marx said that “humanity always sets itself only such problems as it is able to solve.”<ref>Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface (1859): “Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve.”</ref> Since these people have joined the Federation in order to join hands with one another, there must be some common point on which they ''can'' join hands—some problem capable of solution. That is why I proposed that we…

<span id="Page 283"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 283|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 283</div>

…identify this concrete point and launch a new movement.

=== Two Major Proposals to the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''A:''' Needless to say, I advocated the two fundamental principles of our Revitalized Buddhism. They took the following form:

(1)'' We recognize that the divisions among the established Buddhist institutions run counter to the Buddhist way of harmony; returning to the Buddha, we resolve to promote Buddhism anew in a manner appropriate to the age.''

(2)'' We recognize that the suffering of present society arises primarily from its contradictory social organization, and we resolve to reform that organization and build an ideal society grounded in the Buddhist spirit.''<ref>Compare these two proposals with the three founding principles subsequently proclaimed by the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism at its inaugural meeting on April 5, 1931: opposition to established Buddhist institutions, the construction of a new Buddhist movement suited to the present age, and opposition to capitalism.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t these proposals rather abstract?

'''A:''' I think they are sufficient as fundamental principles realistically possible under the present circumstances of the Buddhist Federation.

'''B:''' I hear there was considerable opposition.

'''A:''' There was. But the truth was self-evident. Whatever anyone might say, the only possible point of unity for such a federation was “returning to the Buddha.” The spirit of the proposal was therefore generally accepted. But time was short, and the matter was referred to the platform-drafting committee, so the proceedings came to an end. As the newspapers harshly criticized them the next day, however, a federation like this might almost have been better left unformed. They did not even have the courage to decide upon the obvious first proposal. As for the second, in practice it must have seemed about as remote as the Pure Land ten billion lands to the west.

=== Shin Buddhism’s Self-Reckoning ===
'''B:''' I understand that most of the delegates in attendance were Shin Buddhists. But if you say “Return to the Buddha,” doesn’t that amount to a declaration of bankruptcy for the Amida teaching of absolute Other Power?

'''A:''' Strictly speaking, I suppose it does. Recently, I saw an explanation by Dr. Takakusu published in the Yomiuri Shimbun under the title “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism.” Even there, Amida faith and the like have been completely disposed of. It seems to me that any seeker who reads one as one, correctly and without distortion, could have no possible objection to Shin Buddhism also “returning to the Buddha.” In the section on “atheism” in Dr. Takakusu’s “Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism,” he writes:

Human destiny is not governed by God; it is entirely self-governed. Through the principle that one reaps the consequences of one’s own actions, each person is continually opening up their own destiny. There is therefore no need to await God’s judgment: it is entirely a matter of self-judgment. Good causes and good effects do not arise through God’s judgment, but rather through natural law. Thus Śākyamuni stands firmly upon his own human personality, develops that personality upward, and attains complete buddhahood. Amida Nyorai and Dainichi Nyorai, too, are ideals manifested from Śākyamuni’s own ideal…

<span id="Page 284"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 284|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 284</div>

… they are, after all, human beings brought to completion. Therefore, the Buddha has not the slightest trace of the meaning of a creator god, a sovereign god, or a judicial god. Rather, the Buddha himself attains the ultimate state of self-awakening and, from compassion for other unenlightened beings, begins the activity of awakening others so as to bring them to the same ultimate state of self-awakening.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945), a prominent scholar of Buddhism and Sanskrit, developed a modern systematic interpretation of Buddhist doctrine that included an explicitly “atheistic” (mushinshugi 無神主義) principle. Seno’o here quotes Takakusu’s “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no konpon gi 仏教の根本義), published in the morning edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun, March 22, 1931. See also Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref>

Accordingly, self-awakening, awakening others, and the perfection of awakened practice are the Buddha’s fundamental concern. As you know, Dr. Takakusu is a universally acknowledged authority on Shin Buddhism. Therefore, shouldn’t we simply dispense with an Amida Nyorai of Other-Power salvation, stand firmly upon our own human personality, and direct that personality upward toward the liberated Buddha? The destiny of the doctor himself lies in opening up his own self; in other words, it is a matter of an Amida Nyorai who saves himself through the development of his own self. Therefore, casting aside naïve reliance on Amida Buddha and Other Power, should not all Buddhists stand upon their own personhood and strive to develop and perfect it, uniting around the liberated Buddha, seeking the light of life in reverence for this ideal personality, and devoting themselves to responsible effort? Would this not be a Buddhist movement that modern people could find convincing?

'''B:''' I think that is exactly right. The conception of Other-Power Buddhism is quite similar to the Christian conception of a sovereign and judging God. Such an explanation can hardly satisfy the religion of tomorrow. If all this is so clear, why can’t they raise a platform and launch a new Buddhist movement?

=== The Resolve to Bear the Cross ===
'''A:''' From this point on, however, the issue becomes one of religious resolve. There is always a distance between explanation and practice. Between them stand inherited conventions, personal ties and feelings, and, above all, the many difficult problems accumulated through economic relationships and the circumstances of actual life. It is easy enough to speak of decisive action, but making the leap itself is by no means simple. Such a leap can only come from the earnest seeking spirit of a revolutionary who is driven by an irresistible inner necessity and is prepared even to bear the cross. This is especially true of our second principle. Without such determination, it would be impossible to revolutionize the tradition of religion in service to established power and launch a new Buddhist movement for the sake of the masses.

=== Sinclair’s View of Religion ===
'''B:''' At the Revitalized Buddhist founding commemorative lecture on the fifth, there were an awful lot of police present,…

<span id="Page 285"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 285|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 285</div>

…keeping a very conspicuous watch. Was that because of Revitalized Buddhism’s third principle—the slogan “Down with Capitalism”?

'''A:''' Exactly. When I was summoned to the police station over the notification for the meeting, that was what they told me. They were not particularly concerned about the destruction of the established Buddhist institutions. What concerned them was the anti-capitalist movement. If the content of our Revitalized Buddhist movement consisted merely in destroying the established religious institutions and unifying Buddhism, that would amount to little more than destroying a number of robots and manufacturing one enormous robot in their place. The real problem is that, unless the Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a movement against capitalism—the modern devil that is mercilessly turning human beings into robots through the religious institutions—it cannot truly be called a religious movement that engages actual life. That is what I believe.

'''B:''' I can understand what you’re saying, but surely religion and economic movements are, by their very nature, separate fields?

'''A:''' That is a reasonable point, at least at first. But I believe that true religion should not divide things into two, economics on one side and spirit on the other; it should demand the idealization of life as a whole. Genuine love between a man and a woman cannot be satisfied with Platonic love; only where flesh and spirit are united can love attain fulfillment.

On this point, Upton Sinclair writes in his well-known book Is Religion Worth Believing?<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968) was an American socialist writer and political activist. The passages quoted here are from his The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation (1918), a socialist critique of organized religion as an ally of economic exploitation. Seno’o encountered the work in Japanese as Shūkyō wa shinzuru ni taru ka 宗教は信ずるに足るか (Is Religion Worth Believing?; trans. Sakai Toshihiko et al., Tokyo: Kōbunsha, 1920). The English here translates the Japanese passages quoted by Seno’o rather than substituting Sinclair’s original English wording.</ref>

Religion, in the true sense, is the most fundamental of spiritual impulses: an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and foster life. In this sense, every thinking human being must be religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal and the true nature of humanity itself. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. Indeed, I wish to make clear that religion, understood in this sense, is something that simply cannot be attacked.

But the word ‘religion’ has also been given another meaning, and as a result we have been deprived of the pleasure of using this word in that straightforward sense. For most people, the word ‘religion’ does not mean ‘the soul’s desire to grow’ or ‘the pursuit of righteousness as though hungering and thirsting for it.’ Instead, it means the historical forms in which that desire has appeared, and…

<span id="Page 286"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 286|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 286</div>

…the doctrines, ‘revelations,’ creeds, and rituals it has acquired; a system under which the moral impulses of the people, the love of children, and the aspirations of youth are exploited and turned into a source of privilege and commercial profit for the clergy. ‘Religion’ in this sense is the natural ally of parasitic income and of every form of oppression and exploitation.

Can we not clearly understand from this the difference between true “religion” and distorted, so-called “religion”? ''Thus the actual path followed by the true religious person, who “hungers and thirsts after righteousness,” naturally diverges from the ideological dream-world in which the half-paralyzed pseudo-religionist dances, taking fixed doctrines and revelations, creeds and rituals to be religion.'' Sinclair’s next words express almost exactly my own present conviction:

I am certainly no shallow materialist. I am not so superficial as to think that human beings can be satisfied by meaningless rationalism. I know that the symbols of the old religions arose from the human heart. They arose because they corresponded to certain desires of the human heart. And I also know that, together with those desires, the symbols of a new religion suited to the needs of the present age can be discovered. If I am trying here to tear down an old, dilapidated building, it is not out of a blind impulse to destroy, but because I am an architect who wishes to build in its place a new and sturdier structure.

=== The True Character of Temple Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then today’s Nichiren sect, Nenbutsu sect, Shingon sect, and so forth, with their ruling hierarchies claiming divine authority and their fixed doctrines, “revelations,” creeds, and rituals, are what might be called “religion in the ordinary sense.”

'''A:''' They are indeed typical examples. Look at Mount Minobu, the eastern and western Honganji temples, or Narita’s Fudō temple. Where in any of them do we find a “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” or the “most fundamental spiritual impulse,” the vital force of life, being nurtured and fostered? What kind of contact do these sacred places have with young people, in whom spiritual impulses are at their strongest? Among the pilgrims to these sacred places, most are old people with no future, people making selfish petitions, or perhaps bourgeois and petit-bourgeois youth. What kind of promise do they make to the young people of tomorrow?

And speaking of that,…

<span id="Page 287"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 287|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 287</div>

…Tsukiji Honganji, I hear, is planning to construct an enormous reinforced-concrete temple hall with a building budget of more than two million yen. The reason for doing so is truly remarkable. Since the Great Earthquake destroyed its main hall, most large funerals have been going instead to Zōjōji in Shiba. The new building, it is rumored, is therefore a scheme to win those customers back.<ref>Tsukiji Honganji 築地本願寺, the major Honganji-ha temple in Tokyo, lost its main hall in the fires following the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923. Its replacement, designed by Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954), was constructed in reinforced concrete between 1931 and 1934 in a distinctive Indian-inspired style, at a cost of more than two million yen. Seno’o refers critically to reports that the expensive reconstruction was driven partly by competition with Zōjōji 増上寺, the prominent Jōdo-shū temple in Shiba, for lucrative funerals. He presents the episode as an example of Buddhist institutions pursuing wealth and institutional prestige rather than the welfare of the masses.</ref> What kind of grotesque commercial competition between funeral corporations is this?

Given Buddhism under the leadership of temples like these, there is hardly any need to explain what the lives of ordinary Buddhists look like today. It amounts to little more than mouthing phrases such as “From Impermanence to Devotion,” accompanied by a smiling face, as though economic life were an entirely separate matter. People may shed grateful tears at the thought that “the founder spent ninety years clothed in paper,”<ref>“The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” alludes to a celebrated haiku by Ōtani Kubutsu 大谷句仏 (Ōtani Kōen, 1875–1943), the twenty-third head of Higashi Honganji: “How humbling! The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” (勿体なや祖師は紙衣の九十年). The “founder” is Shinran (1173–1263), while “paper clothing” (kamiko 紙衣) evokes the austerity traditionally associated with his life. Seno’o invokes the verse ironically to contrast Shinran’s celebrated simplicity with the wealth and institutional practices of contemporary Shin Buddhism.</ref> and may be deeply moved as they recall his exile at Tsukahara; but how is any of that spirit actually woven into the everyday lives of believers? Look again at the recent practice of the ruling class, as one means of ideological guidance, of having elementary-school teachers install ''kamidana'' in their classrooms in order to instill the ideology of reverence for the gods and veneration of the ancestors. These are precisely the fossilized religious rites Sinclair was describing. What a strange situation we have today: at a time when there are said to be as many as a thousand villages where teachers’ salaries go unpaid, the gods and buddhas whose very life is equality and love are shut up inside such little boxes, while the ruling class orders teachers to bow before them in the name of ideological guidance.<ref>Seno’o refers to the increasing use of State Shintō rites in public education during the early Shōwa period, when practices such as the installation of kamidana 神棚 and shrine worship were promoted as expressions of civic morality and reverence for the emperor rather than as “religion.” He juxtaposes this ideological mobilization of elementary-school teachers with their low salaries and precarious economic position, exposing what he sees as the contradiction between state-sponsored moral edification and the material conditions of those charged with carrying it out.</ref> The ruling class is bad enough—but surely the teachers who have no choice but to reply, “Yes, indeed,” and obey deserve our sympathy as well. Think about it. Why should governors and department heads receive monthly salaries of four or five hundred yen, while elementary-school teachers receive only sixty or seventy? And isn’t the amount of time they actually spend working in precisely the opposite proportion?

Earlier I mentioned Dr. Takakusu’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism.” Among its four outward-facing principles are non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no hachidai kōryō 仏教の八大綱領) distinguished four inward-facing principles from four outward-facing social principles, the latter comprising non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality. See Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref> He says that Buddhism’s distinctive characteristic lies in carrying each of these principles through to its fullest possible extent. But that is merely a story about the past. Where do we see these principles being practiced today? Where are Buddhists even calling for their practice? Indeed, what could be more upside-down and confused than the fact that Buddhism now attacks socialism—which seeks to put those very principles into practice—as though it were the devil itself? We must once again recover the Buddha’s life of equality.

=== The Transformation of the Economic System is Essential ===
'''B:''' Then, from what you have said, is the concrete problem advocated by the Revitalized Buddhist movement ultimately the need for “a new religion integrated with the needs of the present age”?

'''A:''' Exactly. As I said before, generally speaking, economic relationships regulate our thought and action. Under the present profit-oriented…

<span id="Page 288"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 288|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 288</div>

…capitalist economic system, antisocial egoism is naturally mass-produced. That is why I regard the transformation of this mechanism as a fundamental problem.

'''B:''' I asked you this before, but isn’t the proper function of religion nevertheless a spiritual one?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that. But the moment religion fixes itself exclusively in that role, it acquires the first qualification of a religion in the service of established power, and then becomes capable of reactionary preaching. If you could guarantee, for people in general, that they could perform hard physical labor even when hungry and remain mentally clear even when deprived of sleep, then I would accept your argument.

'''B:''' But many accomplished people have managed to transcend adverse circumstances. Doesn’t that show that spiritual power can rise above environment? And haven’t extraordinary powers of mind sometimes developed precisely under difficult conditions?

'''A:''' That is precisely the stock-in-trade of establishment preachers. Of course, there is the saying, “Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool.” <ref>“Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool” (shintō mekkyaku sureba hi mo mata suzushi 心頭滅却すれば火もまた涼し) is a traditional expression for transcending physical suffering through mental composure, famously associated in Japan with the Zen monk Kaisen Jōki 快川紹喜 (d. 1582), who is said to have uttered it as he faced death by fire at Erinji.</ref> But, as I have repeatedly said in this conversation, I am speaking generally. Ordinary people tend to lack constancy of mind when they lack a secure livelihood. You can argue as you do now because you have no anxiety over food and clothing. But imagine yourself being hounded by the need to obtain today’s bread: a religion of spiritual bliss would inevitably become a secondary concern.

''Human beings, after all, exist within nature. Just as pine branches exposed to the sea wind are shaped in much the same way, we too are generally subject to the influence of our environment. It is therefore impossible simply to ignore those influences and speak only of ideals. Is this not precisely why the Confucian tradition could say:''

<span id="Page 289"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 289|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 289</div>

''“When the granaries are full, people know propriety and decorum”?''<ref>A well-known maxim from the Guanzi 管子, “Mumin” 牧民: 倉廩実則知礼節 (“When the granaries are full, [the people] know ritual propriety”). Traditionally associated with Guan Zhong 管仲 (d. 645 BCE), it expresses the idea that material security is a prerequisite for moral and social order. Seno’o invokes the maxim here to support his increasingly materialist insistence that religious or ethical transformation cannot be separated from the economic conditions of everyday life.</ref>'' Unless the movement to establish a true Buddha-land takes this objective reality of human nature as its point of departure, it will remain an eternal dream.''

=== An Example of Economic Conditions Determining Action ===
'''A:''' On the eve of the formation of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, one incident gave me decisive confirmation on this issue: the withdrawal of the Kōfu branch.<ref>The Kōfu branch (Kōfu shibu 甲府支部) in Yamanashi Prefecture was one of the strongest regional bases of Seno’o’s earlier Nichirenist movement. It withdrew immediately before the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism on April 5, 1931, following disagreement over the new movement’s explicit opposition to capitalism. As Seno’o explains here, many Kōfu members were shopkeepers and salaried workers whose livelihoods made such a commitment particularly difficult. He treats the episode as concrete evidence of the extent to which material conditions shape religious conviction and action.</ref>

'''B:''' That was actually something of a surprise to me as well. After all, that branch had been the one into which you had put the greatest effort ever since you first launched the Nichirenist movement, and it was also the most influential branch. What was the reason for its withdrawal?

'''A:''' Five comrades had even promised to come up to Tokyo for the founding ceremony on the fifth. But the anti-capitalist declaration contained in our third principle, published in the inaugural issue of Buddhist Banner delivered on the third, proved fatal.<ref>“Buddhist Banner” (Bukki 佛旗) is Seno’o’s abbreviated designation for Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni (新興仏教の旗の下に, Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism), the original title of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism’s journal.</ref> Since the branch included quite a few members of the petit-bourgeois class and salaried employees, the basic reason was that opposition to capitalism threatened their own livelihoods and made it difficult for them to carry on. That, roughly speaking, was the reason.

'''B:''' But surely none of them were actually supporters of capitalism. And among the younger members, I heard there were some quite energetic people who had even told you that you ought to join a proletarian political party immediately.

'''A:''' When reform remains at the level of ideas and words, one can say almost anything. But when it comes time, as the saying goes, to “put the bell on the cat,” things no longer proceed according to one’s professed convictions. That, too, is ordinary human nature.

'''B:''' But for a religious organization that had worked hand in hand with you for ten years, wasn’t that an extraordinarily faithless response?

'''A:''' If blame is to be assigned, then my own lack of virtue and lack of ability deserve blame first. I cannot bring myself simply to condemn the attitude of the branch with the word “faithlessness,” because I still remember the genuine goodwill the comrades there had shown us. I also believe that among them were comrades who opposed withdrawal, or who thought the decision should at least be postponed. Nevertheless, the fact that the entire branch ultimately decided to withdraw revealed both human weakness in the face of the problem of bread and the workings of a group psychology that transcends the individual.

If this movement were really to deprive comrades of their jobs and cut off their means of obtaining bread—and I do not think that must necessarily happen—then, for someone with a wife, children, parents, or siblings, it would generally be unreasonable to expect him simply to advance in a straight line according to a single-minded conception of justice. If, despite such circumstances, the comrades who withdrew had merely disguised their own weakness and invented other reasons for leaving, then they would indeed deserve blame. But that was not what happened.

<span id="Page 290"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 290|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 290</div>

'''A:''' In reality, even while cursing the tyranny of capitalism, they dropped out because they were forced to consider the immediate problems of making a living. “You can’t trade your belly for your back,” as the saying goes. ''Here we can see just how powerfully economic problems tend to govern human action, and how the ruling class, through its tyrannical repression, threatens the lives of the vulnerable masses. This, I think, demonstrates all the more clearly the significance of our having placed the transformation of the capitalist economic system in our third principle''.

=== The Historical Task Borne by Revitalized Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then if you had simply left out the third principle, you would not have had to part from close comrades?

'''A:''' Probably so. But suppose that we affirmed capitalism—or criticized it only in words, while in practice carrying on just as before, happily singing hymns to the Buddha and loudly proclaiming socialism while indulging in an intellectual game. How much of the blood and sweat of the proletarian masses would have to be sacrificed to sustain us? Think, for example, of the countless comrades who labor thousands of feet underground, where the light of day never reaches, receiving scarcely enough to cover the bare cost of living. When are they to be liberated and allowed to live lives worthy of human beings? And then look at the luxurious lives of the handful of bourgeoisie. Is this really a social condition that Buddhists—who ought to carry the principles of great compassion and equality through to their fullest extent—can continue to overlook forever?

'''B:''' I understand how you feel. But Buddhism also has ways of looking at things such as “flowers are red, willows are green,” “differentiation is precisely equality,” and “karmic cause and recompense.” Isn’t one distinctive feature of Buddhism precisely its ability to endure painful realities through perspectives such as these?

'''A:''' Such interpretations are precisely the hundred-percent opiate sermons on which establishment religious figures have traditionally feasted. The historical task borne by Revitalized Buddhism must instead be to re-examine these distorted teachings, properly proclaim the Buddhist spirit, and make it a guiding principle for securing the welfare of the masses.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” May issue)

== Part Three ==

=== Is Poverty the Result of Previous-Life Karma? ===
'''B:''' Then how exactly have doctrines such as “karmic cause and recompense” been distorted so as to perform the function of religion in the service of established power?

<span id="Page 291"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 291|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 291</div>

'''A:''' Let’s begin with “karmic cause and recompense.” As I said earlier, Buddhism is neither fatalism, creationism, nor a doctrine of chance. Of course Buddhism teaches the law of cause and effect, so differences between rich and poor certainly have causes. The distortion lies in placing the cause entirely on one side and thereby imposing resignation and submission. Take the proletarian masses who remain poor no matter how hard they work. How have priests traditionally explained the cause of their poverty? “It is karma from a previous existence. It is your own karma and your own recompense. It is neither the capitalist’s fault nor society’s responsibility. Therefore, instead of blaming capitalists or society, you should simply work even harder.” That is how they have solemnly explained it.

But anyone with even a little knowledge of the capitalist system can already see through such an explanation; there is hardly any need to belabor the point. Last year’s so-called “bumper-crop hell” is an excellent example. The weather was favorable and the farmers labored until the sweat poured from them, yet that unprecedented bumper crop actually became a cause of increased hardship for farming households. Can that fact really be disposed of through a doctrine of causation from a previous life? Or look at bank interest rates: small borrowers are charged more, while large borrowers receive more favorable rates, pushing the small borrower into an increasingly disadvantageous position. Or consider the grossly unequal distribution of profits generated through the cooperation of labor and capital, and the suppression by governmental authority of those who protest. If economic inequality is produced by such unfair social causes, can all of it really be dismissed as the poor person’s karmic consequence from a former existence?

=== Poverty Is Also a Matter of Collective Responsibility ===
'''A:''' Buddhist reasoning does not permit such one-sidedness. In this case Buddhism clearly asserts social “joint responsibility” (rentai sekinin, 連帯責任); it does not assign responsibility to one side alone. This is what Buddhism means by “collective karma, collectively experienced” (gūgō shokan 共業所感).<ref>Gūgō shokan 共業所感 refers to the collective experience of conditions arising from “shared karma” (gūgō 共業), in contrast to karmic consequences attributed solely to an individual’s actions. Seno’o invokes the concept here to reinterpret karma socially: poverty and economic inequality are not simply the individual karmic responsibility of the poor but conditions collectively produced and therefore entailing collective responsibility.</ref> ''If responsibility is joint, then capitalists too must bear part of the responsibility for the impoverished lives of the proletarian masses. More broadly, it is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Once we discover that defects in the capitalist economic system are among the causes of poverty, shouldn’t reform of that system become the first question confronting us as a matter of joint responsibility?''

'''B:''' But if that is so, how should we understand such ideas as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” (jigō jitoku, 自業自得) and “cause and effect through the three existences” (sanze inga, 三世因果)? Are you saying there is absolutely no individual responsibility…

<span id="Page 292"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 292|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 292</div>

…at all?

'''A:''' I am not saying that individual responsibility does not exist. The question is whether responsibility is confined to an individual’s private life or whether the transformation of society is regarded as fundamental. We cannot determine which is fundamental without correctly understanding the relationship between the individual and society.

Now, in “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” an individual self is posited, and the actions it performs through the cycle of rebirth are described as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” or “cause and effect through the three existences.” But so long as no-self is a fundamental principle of Buddhism, this way of thinking must naturally be re-examined.

For if we assert an individualistic doctrine of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” Buddhism’s fundamental principle collapses; while if we assert no-self, “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” cannot stand in that form. In this connection, a scholar named Rhys Davids is said to have explained that “the view current at the time”—the individualistic theory of karmic causation through the three existences—“was added to the teachings of original Buddhism without being logically integrated into them.”<ref>T. W. Rhys Davids (1843–1922), a pioneering British scholar of Pāli Buddhism who emphasized the tension between the Buddhist denial of an enduring self and the doctrine of karmic continuity across successive lives, describing the latter not as transmigration of a soul but as the “transmigration of character.” Seno’o draws upon this historical-critical interpretation to argue that an individualistic doctrine of karmic recompense was not fully consistent with Buddhism’s fundamental teaching of no-self.</ref> I suspect that is indeed the case.

=== The True Liberation of Humanity and Religion ===
The idea of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” was a transitional conception belonging to an age in which individuality was exaggerated at the expense of sociality. Buddhism’s fundamental principle, however, remains no-self, together with “the conjunction of many conditions; no single cause produces anything” (shuen wagō, ichiin hishō, 衆縁和合・一因非生).<ref>Shuen wagō 衆縁和合 (“the conjunction of manifold conditions”) expresses the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through the convergence of multiple causes and conditions rather than through an isolated cause. The principle is developed extensively in Madhyamaka literature, including Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Chūron 中論; T 30, no. 1564) and the Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T 25, no. 1509). Seno’o invokes it against an individualistic interpretation of jigō jitoku 自業自得 (“one’s own karma, one’s own recompense”), arguing that poverty must be understood in relation to social and economic conditions rather than attributed solely to an individual’s past karma. He thereby develops no-self (muga 無我) and dependent arising into principles of collective responsibility and structural social reform.</ref> Consequently, an individualistic theory of jigō jitoku cannot stand. If “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is properly interpreted, the “self” in that expression is not an isolated individual ego but a social self—a greater self—formed through the conjunction of causes and conditions. The causes of poverty must therefore be explained socially as well. Accordingly, the means of eliminating those causes should also be sought through positive and concrete social methods. And although society as a whole bears joint responsibility, so long as there remains a distinction between ruler and ruled, it is only reasonable that a greater share of responsibility be sought from the ruling class. To treat poverty simply as the proletarian’s “own karma and own recompense,” making individuals resign themselves, submit, sweat away at their labor, and be exploited for the gratification of the ruling class—could there be a more grotesque inversion of right and wrong on the part of priests? ''Therefore, ''jigō jitoku'' must be reconsidered through the Buddhist teaching of no-self. We must be liberated from the distinction between “self” and “other,” and through the true spirit of no-self seek a thoroughgoing, concrete social movement directed toward resolving the problem as a whole. Especially under a modern capitalist system organized as thoroughly as ours, surely it is here that the true liberation of humanity is to be found…''

<span id="Page 293"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 293|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 293</div>

…and this is what it means to be a Buddha: a human being who attains such an awakening and then strives vigorously to realize it in society. The Buddha was precisely the exemplary embodiment of such a human personality.

'''B:''' I see. Explained that way, the statement I once heard attributed to the abbot of Zōjōji—that “the fundamental solution to the problem of labor and capital is to make workers understand the law of karmic causation”—really is, quite literally, an opiate sermon.

'''A:''' Exactly. And even if we interpret jigō jitoku in the traditional, individualistic way, such preaching amounts to nothing more than the self-indictment of utterly heartless pseudo-religious figures. For if the poverty suffered by workers is the consequence of causes from a previous life, then surely the difficulties capitalists experience when confronted by strikes of the proletarian masses must likewise be consequences of causes from a previous life. And if the same law of cause and effect applies in both cases, then rather than using it to make proletarians who presently lack material necessities submit and endure, how much more in keeping with the Buddha’s path of saving the weak would it be to use that blessed law of cause and effect to persuade the bourgeoisie, who possess more than enough, to satisfy the demands of the proletarian masses? Even from a practical standpoint, surely there is a far greater possibility of solving the problem by persuading those with abundant material goods simply to give some of them up than by trying to persuade masses who presently lack even bread. And yet in reality precisely the opposite occurs. Isn’t that astonishing?

'''B:''' Exactly. Isn’t this what Lenin meant when he said:

Religion teaches those who toil and suffer throughout their lives to be submissive and patient here on earth, consoling them with the hope of reward in heaven. But to those who live by the labor of others, it teaches charity while they are on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them tickets to heavenly bliss at a moderate price. <ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (1905), originally published in Novaya Zhizn, no. 28 (December 3, 1905); see Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, pp. 83–87. Seno’o’s wording reflects the Japanese translation available to him rather than corresponding exactly to later English translations.</ref>

But there is one thing I still wonder about. If responsibility is located socially in this way, won’t individual effort become weaker?

'''A:''' People accustomed to the kind of individualistic social life we have today may easily think so. But in reality, the more thoroughly a consciousness of belonging to a community with shared interests takes hold, the more strongly individual effort is intensified. Anyone who has committed himself wholeheartedly to a genuine communal life knows this from experience.

''Every pioneer worthy of respect has been someone who saw the whole of society within himself and understood himself in relation to social life. Such people could not help but engage in social action. ''The Buddha’s rejection of the individual ego and private possession, and his teaching of our indebtedness to society, arose from precisely this…

<span id="Page 294"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 294|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 294</div>

…reason. And far from being misguided, were not the efforts of Marx and Lenin—who maintained that “the human essence is the totality of social relations”—magnificent?<ref>Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis VI (1845): “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Seno’o invokes the formulation to reinforce his reinterpretation of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self in explicitly social terms.</ref> Individual self-interest is, of course, also part of ordinary human nature, and in that sense “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is undoubtedly a transitional mode of thought rooted in that aspect of human nature. ''But the truth of no-self points eternally toward humanity’s highest liberation and toward a life of common production and common flourishing.''

=== The Distorted Doctrine of “Differentiation Is Precisely Equality” ===
'''A:''' Next comes the distorted doctrine of “differentiation is precisely equality.” Here too, as you said earlier with the expression “flowers are red, willows are green,” priests have devised clever explanations designed to make people accept irrational and unjust social inequalities exactly as they are.<ref>“Differentiation is precisely equality” (shabetsu soku byōdō 差別即平等) is a conventional Buddhist formulation, particularly associated with Tiantai and Huayan (J. Kegon) thought, expressing the nondual relation between the equality of phenomena and their particular differences. Rather than a quotation from a single classical text, the formula summarizes such doctrines as Tiantai’s perfect interpenetration of the Three Truths and Huayan’s interpenetration of identity and difference. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of this principle that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. “Willows are green, flowers are red” (yanagi wa midori, hana wa kurenai 柳緑花紅), a phrase common in Zen discourse, similarly evokes things as they are in their particularity. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of such formulas that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. For him, inequalities produced by social and economic institutions cannot be equated with natural differences such as the colors of flowers and leaves.</ref>

'''B:''' But as you yourself have often said, if a flowerpot requiring seven gō of water receives seven gō, and one requiring three gō receives three, neither has too much nor too little.<ref>Gō 合 is a traditional Japanese unit of volume equal to one-tenth of a shō 升, or approximately 180 milliliters. Seno’o uses the proportion of seven gō to three gō to illustrate a conception of equity—distribution according to differing needs—rather than rigid numerical equality.</ref> Isn’t that “differentiation is precisely equality”—a natural differentiation rather than an unjust one?

'''A:''' As far as that explanation goes, it is perfectly correct. Five gō is insufficient for someone who needs seven, while five is too much for someone who needs three. The one who needs seven should receive seven, and the one who needs three should receive three. But are the differences in present society really arranged in that way? A poor family of seven may be crammed into a three-tatami-mat tenement, suffering because they do not even have enough rice for today’s meal. Meanwhile, another couple may live spaciously in an enormous mansion, possessing more wealth than they could ever use and idling away their time in amusements.

A poor old man may be jostled about in third class on a train, while a wealthy young man sits grandly in second class. An ordinary laborer may work throughout the day for a daily wage of barely two yen, while someone else puts in an appearance at the company for four or five hours and pockets several hundred yen. A bright, physically capable child may be unable to proceed to higher education simply because there is no money, while elsewhere even a frail child of little ability can find some way through the examination ordeal. Present society is certainly not differentiated according to need in the way you described—seven gō to the person who needs seven and three to the person who needs three.

=== How Is True Equality to Be Realized? ===
'''B:''' But although these inequalities may at first look like nothing more than the selfishness of the wealthy, haven’t the wealthy made the effort necessary to become wealthy? Couldn’t those differences therefore be regarded as legitimate distinctions corresponding to differences in effort?

<span id="Page 295"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 295|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 295</div>

'''A:''' If human society were no different from the competitive life of plants and animals—the strong devouring the weak in the struggle for survival—then I would have no objection to such differences. But insofar as human beings are beings possessed of personality, the differences within human society must themselves be ordered in a manner worthy of human personality. Otherwise, they cannot properly be called the differentiations of human society. Take the example we just used. If a two-person household receives six gō of rice, then a seven-person household should receive two shō and one gō. If a train has second- and third-class accommodation, then perhaps the elderly and children should ride second class, while young people ride third. If someone working two hour receives four yen, then someone working six hours should receive twelve. There would still be differences, but they would not simply be differences produced as the outcome of free competition. That, I think, is what “differentiation is precisely equality” ought to mean in human life. Moreover, as I said earlier, if poverty is not merely a matter of jigō jitoku but a matter of social joint responsibility, then wealth too must be regarded not simply as an individual’s own karmic reward but as something social. A person’s wealth therefore ought not to be used freely and arbitrarily for that person alone. Should not the genuine “differentiation that is precisely equality” of human society consist instead in differences rationally and purposively ordered under social regulation?

Yet on the one hand people loudly proclaim mutual aid and harmony between labor and capital, while on the other, religious figures in the service of established power preach that the differences produced by heartless, ruthless free competition are somehow the absolute truth of “differentiation is precisely equality.” What kind of gospel is that? Just think about it. The many spend their entire lives breaking their bodies in dark mine shafts extracting gold and silver, while the few freely appropriate that gold and silver and spend their lives in luxury. If we simply say that this too is the result of free competition, there is nothing more to discuss. But to take mastery of life and transform instinct into rational, purposive action—to make the world into a consciously ordered product—this is humanity’s task. If that is so, surely it is utterly irrational simply to contemplate these inequalities as they are and call them “differentiation is precisely equality.” Human society is not merely a natural phenomenon. ''It is a society endowed with reason and creative power. Therefore, insofar as this is possible, should not the phrase “differentiation is precisely equality” mean consciously using reason to order differences and thereby create the greatest practicable degree of equality?''

<span id="Page 296"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 296|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 296</div>

=== Free Competition and Cooperative Harmony ===
'''B:''' But competitiveness is also part of human nature. Wouldn’t such an ideal society ultimately be nothing more than a fantasy? And if we impose a strong order upon society, might the result not instead be the mass production of idlers?

'''A:''' That is a concern one commonly hears. But just as human beings possess a capacity for competition, they also clearly possess a capacity for harmony. Indeed, it is precisely this capacity for harmony—this sociality—that is characteristic of human beings. Unfortunately, we have not yet attained a form of organized life in which it can be sufficiently cultivated and developed.

Consider the early stages of human evolution. Human beings did not possess the sharp and powerful weapons found naturally in other animals—fangs, claws, and the like. In the natural struggle for survival, therefore, they were at an extreme disadvantage. ''Why, despite this, were they able to become masters of the earth? Was it not because they possessed reason and creative power, and because they lived lives of cooperation and solidarity? If that is so, individual free competition cannot be the primary principle of human society; the primary principle must instead be the sociality of cooperation and harmony. Only within such a conscious society can individual freedom itself be guaranteed and established. This rational mode of existence, I believe, is both the distinctive characteristic and the destiny of humanity. ''

We can understand this quite well simply by considering the course of an individual human life.

From infancy through childhood we may be innocent, but we are virtually self-interest embodied as instinct. At no other stage do we wield the instinct of self-interest so unrestrainedly. Yet as the sphere of life expands from the family to school, and from school to society, self-control increases, we become more social, and as we enter old age we grow increasingly mature. Looking at the facts, I believe that the history of human society will probably develop in much the same way: with the development of reason, it will advance toward an ideal society. Unfortunately, however, present society is still entangled in the net of a capitalist economic system woven by instinctive free competition. It may therefore seem that if economic competition were abolished, life itself would lose its purpose. ''But competition need not be confined to economics. On the contrary, scientific…''

<span id="Page 297"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 297|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 297</div>

''…artistic, moral, and other forms of competition will surely bring about an age of true competition worthy of humanity. ''At present, however, all the diverse capacities of human beings have been driven down the single path of economic competition and, grotesquely, have themselves been turned into commodities. We have become so accustomed to this that we have even constructed the conceptual formula “human life = economic life.” Consequently, even if people’s livelihoods were guaranteed, we imagine that without economic free competition they would lose all capacity for activity—like a morphine addict deprived of morphine. But I don’t believe that. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely when we are liberated from economic competition that the true stage of human life will finally open before us. Take manual labor, for example. If it were socially planned and distributed equally, workers and farmers who have traditionally suffered from overwork would of course be relieved of that burden. At the same time, appropriate work could be assigned to those members of society who had previously passed their days in idleness, allowing both groups to enjoy healthy lives in body and mind.

Yet today, while ordinary people have no rice for tomorrow and go hungry, the government has some four million koku of surplus rice piled up in warehouses and does not know what to do with it. In such a merciless and uncoordinated capitalist society, those who work must labor night and day simply to survive. Labor itself therefore comes generally to be hated. But appropriate labor ought, on the contrary, to be a source of joy. ''If appropriate work were available to everyone within a planned society, no one would simply want to be idle. People would come to spend a certain number of hours working less as a social duty than as an enjoyable right.''

Look, for example, at the lives of the people of Ittōen. They obtain only enough food for the day, yet are content with that and work happily throughout the day. Isn’t this evidence that human beings can live contentedly and work without necessarily accumulating private property?

=== The Role of Ittōen at the Present Stage ===
'''B:''' But is that sort of austere life really the ideal form of human life?

'''A:''' Of course I don’t think it is. I doubt that Tenkō-san thinks so either. Buddhism has the expression “ordinary people attached to appearances” (shusō no bonbu). There are those who are inclined to take the outward form of such a life of coarse clothing and simple food as though that itself constituted the ideal life of a sage. I don’t accept that.

''A truly human life…''

<span id="Page 298"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 298|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 298</div>

''…I think, demands not only spiritual development but also a material life that is rich, wholesome, and beautiful. ''There is nothing unjust about seeking this. When such a life cannot be enjoyed by everyone, restraint born of compassion for others has meaning. But coarse clothing and simple food have no absolute value in themselves. The history of human development proves this. ''Humanity’s task is not to return to primitive life by cutting itself off from civilization, but rather to advance toward an ever higher form of cultural life.''

'''B:''' Then wouldn’t the ideal be to realize Ittōen’s cooperative life without private property throughout society, but in a materially more advanced cultural form?

'''A:''' Ideally, yes. But Ittōen is, after all, an anomalous form of utopian socialism born under the oppressive conditions of capitalist society. It has significance as a training ground in which intellectually and spiritually troubled people can experience the spirit of non-possession. Yet, viewed objectively in relation to present social conditions, one cannot expect it to function as a practical movement for social reconstruction. On the contrary, I think it has unconsciously come to play something like an opiate-like role.

=== The Proletarian Movement and the Realization of an Ideal Society ===
'''B:''' Then how do you envision the practical movement for realizing such an ideal society?

'''A:''' As I said before, I see no path to reconstruction other than through the political power of the emerging proletarian class, provided that it develops properly.

'''B:''' Legally or illegally?

'''A:''' In principle, I would like it to proceed legally. But I do not believe that what is illegal is necessarily unjust. A commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains it this way:

Whether monastic or lay, those who would protect the Dharma should take account of the original intention, setting aside the particular act while preserving the principle, and thereby rightly propagate the Great Teaching. Thus, in “protecting and upholding the True Dharma,” one must not be constrained by minor observances. … In former times, when conditions were peaceful and the Dharma flourished, one should have upheld the precepts. Now, in a dangerous age when the Dharma is obscured, one should take up the staff. … Choose and reject according to circumstances; one must not adhere exclusively to a single course.<ref>Seno’o cites Guanding 灌頂 (561–632), Dabanniepan jing shu (大般涅槃經疏; J. Daihatsu Nehangyō Sho, “Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra”; T 1767), concerning the protection of the True Dharma (shōbō goji 正法護持). The underlying Nirvāṇa Sutra famously permits lay defenders of the Dharma to bear weapons in dangerous circumstances while prohibiting them from taking life. Seno’o uses the commentary to argue that Buddhist ethical action must respond to historical circumstances rather than adhere inflexibly to outward forms, extending this principle here to the possible use of force in pursuit of social transformation.</ref>

''In short, one must not cling to forms.'' ''If the motive is right, then depending on circumstances one may even have to resolve matters through force.'' There is also the saying, “Kill one in order to let ten thousand live.” Thus illegality is not necessarily evil. Whether an act is to be approved should be determined by examining its fundamental motive and the circumstances of the particular case. Japanese history itself provides examples. The reforms of the Meiji Restoration are an obvious case.

<span id="Page 299"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 299|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 299</div>

But naturally,'' what I hope for is a transformation that is legal from the outset and involves as little sacrifice as possible. For that to happen, people throughout society must recognize as quickly as possible the evils of capitalist society and the historical necessity of the emergence of the new class, until this becomes common knowledge. By giving the proletarian movement as'' ''much sympathy and support as possible, we can minimize the unavoidable sacrifices accompanying social transformation.''

=== The Anti-Religion Movement and Our Position ===
'''B:''' What exactly is this anti-religion movement that has recently begun as one wing of the proletarian movement?

'''A:''' In fact, just last night I participated in a joint public meeting at the Central Buddhist Hall with Takatsu Seidō of the anti-religion movement, Honjō Kasō, Kon Tōkō, a certain Mr. Miwa, secretary-general of the Buddhist Youth Federation, Shibata Ichinō of the Nichiren school, and others.<ref>This public meeting brought together representatives of the anti-religion movement and several currents of Buddhist reform. Participants included Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a socialist activist and politician active in the contemporary anti-religion movement; Kon Tōkō 今東光 (1898–1977), novelist and Tendai monk; Honjō Kasō 本莊可宗 (1891–1987); Mibu Shōjun 壬生照順 (1908–1987), Tendai monk, secretary-general of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation and soon-to-be member of Seno’o’s Youth League; and Nichiren monk Shibata Ichinō 柴田一能 (1873–1951). Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), a playwright and prominent figure in the proletarian cultural movement, served as chairman of the Japan Anti-Religious League (Nihon Han-Shūkyō Dōmei 日本反宗教同盟). According to Seno’o’s account of an article by Akita in the Yomiuri Shimbun, disagreement arose over the movement’s attitude toward the “Social Democrats”: more radical members favored their exclusion, while Takatsu opposed this position and withdrew.</ref> According to Takatsu’s explanation, the basic argument of the anti-religion movement, from his socialist standpoint, is this: “Justice is that which guarantees the welfare of the masses. Anything that obstructs the welfare of the masses must therefore be attacked. Religion is the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the masses because it serves as the watchdog of capitalism. Religion must therefore be attacked.”

'''B:''' Is Takatsu’s position different from that of Akita Ujaku and the League for Anti-Religious Struggle?

'''A:''' According to something Akita wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the issue was the value to be placed on making use of the Social Democrats. The more radical members of the League wanted to exclude them, while Takatsu disagreed and withdrew. But if, as Takatsu explained last night, his anti-religion movement takes justice as its starting point, then theoretically it contains something that cannot be reconciled with pure Marxism. As a practical movement, however, the two are alike insofar as they attack religion as an opiate.

'''B:''' Then what attitude do they take toward your Revitalized Buddhist movement? You too reject capitalism and attack the established religious institutions. Do they attack you as well?

'''A:''' Even though we agree on those points, the anti-religion movement arose from a Marxism that denies religion itself. So naturally they cannot exempt Revitalized Buddhism from their attack.

Indeed, precisely because we are “Red Buddhists,” they may regard us as all the more troublesome.

<span id="Page 300"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 300|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 300</div>

For our part, although we likewise reject capitalism and the established religious institutions, so long as our understanding differs from that of Marxism, we cannot simply throw ourselves wholesale into Marxism. ''But this is no different from the fact that, even though they belong to the same anti-religion movement, differences between Akita and Takatsu have unfortunately produced a split between them. ''The fundamental issue, therefore, must be a critique of Marxism itself—particularly its conception of religion.

In his Feuerbach, Engels writes: “If religion can exist without God, then alchemy can exist without the philosopher’s stone.”

And: “Nothing exists outside nature and humanity. The higher beings created by our religious fantasies are nothing other than the fantastic reflection of our own essence.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), especially sections II–III. Engels there discusses Feuerbach’s critique of theism, according to which the supernatural beings of religion are projections or “fantastic reflections” of human beings themselves, while criticizing Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve a non-theistic “religion”: “if religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.” The work circulated in prewar Japan as Foierubahha ron (フォイエルバッハ論). Seno’o uses Engels’s argument to distinguish the Marxist critique of theistic religion from Buddhism, which he argues requires no creator, ruling, or judging God.</ref>

With this, the spell was broken. The Marxist conception of religion represented in this passage is, after all, a response to the Christian creator God. If the essence of religion consisted in believing in the actual existence of such a God, then we too would deny religion along with Marx. Why? Because Buddhism did not arise by acknowledging anything like a “creator God, ruling God, or judging God.” ''Moreover, since Buddhism has undeniably existed as a religion, religion as such cannot be something that must simply be rejected. Established religious institutions that exploit the masses, of course, may be rejected—and indeed ought to be rejected. I doubt that anyone desires their rejection more strongly than we do. Precisely for that reason, we respect the ideal of the anti-religion movement insofar as it is motivated by concern for the masses.''

But suppose that, as expressed in the aspiration “I desire only to become a Buddha,” we understand religiosity as the whole-person demand that ceaselessly seeks the ideal of the complete human being—the Buddha. Then the various sectarian forms found in established religions are simply forms in which this religiosity has been conceived at different stages of cultural development. Those established religious institutions must naturally undergo the appropriate historical reckoning demanded by their age. ''But a movement that denies religiosity itself reveals, on the contrary, an inadequate understanding of human life. What we should demand is a religion appropriate to the age. In this sense, should not the anti-religion movement itself be properly sublated? Needless to say, if religion is to be rejected wholesale because it obstructs the welfare of the masses, that judgment can properly apply only to established religious institutions.''

<span id="Page 301"></span>
<div style="float: right; position: relative; z-index: 10; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0.9em; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: -1.75em; padding-top: 1.4em;">[[SG31SBE#Page 301|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 301</div>

''The essence of religion itself emphatically does not run counter to the welfare of the masses. ''The Buddha and Christ are obvious examples. Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves provides another striking one. Is not religiosity itself the source of the great ideal of mutual love among the masses and of the passionate energy required to put that ideal into practice?

'''B:''' I understand much better now. On May 23, the League for Anti-Religious Struggle is holding its inaugural lecture meeting at the Jichikan in Ueno, and apparently your movement will be criticized there too. After I’ve heard what they have to say, I’d like to ask your opinion again.

'''A:''' I’d like to hear it myself, but unfortunately I have to attend the Kanazawa branch meeting on the twenty-third, so I can’t go. Listen carefully for me. ''If by any chance there is even the slightest error in my convictions, I will never hesitate to stop this movement. ''Nichiren said:'' ''“Even if I am defeated in argument, if my mind does not change, may the gods take my life.” But he also said: “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person, I will not use it.”'' ''It is in this spirit that I want to press forward single-mindedly with the Revitalized Buddhist movement.'' ''Blind faith is no good.

=== Rational Religion and Reverence for Śākyamuni Buddha ===
'''B:''' But isn’t precisely that attitude the genuinely religious attitude? Rational religion! Isn’t the very motive force behind humanity’s limitless capacity for renewal precisely this rational religiosity?

'''A:''' ''When we desire this kind of rational passion, we are necessarily drawn in reverence toward humanity’s highest exemplar, Śākyamuni Buddha. And when we revere Śākyamuni Buddha, this rational passion that we cannot cease desiring naturally burns still more intensely.'' Thus reason calmly subjects problems to criticism, while passion drives us directly toward the realization of the ideal, even at the risk of death. The scripture says: “Single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives.” And elsewhere: “Because their hearts yearn for him, he then appears and preaches the Dharma for them.”<ref>Seno’o brings together two statements by Nichiren with two passages from the Lotus Sutra. “Even if I am defeated in argument...” derives from Nichiren’s Hōō-shō 法王抄, 1267 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 438), while “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person...” is from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄, 1272 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 572). The scriptural passages—“single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives”) and “because their hearts yearn for him ... he then appears and preaches the Dharma”)—are from chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, “The Life Span of the Thus Come One” (Nyorai Juryō-hon 如来寿量品第十六; T 9, no. 262, 43c). Seno’o juxtaposes Nichiren’s insistence on rational scrutiny with the Lotus Sutra’s language of passionate devotion to articulate his ideal of a “rational religion” (gōriteki shūkyō 合理的宗教) combining critical inquiry with commitment to realizing the Buddhist ideal.</ref> These too must surely be confessions of precisely this kind of religious experience. In any event, this is how our Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a religious movement that unifies the whole of life within reverence for the person of Śākyamuni Buddha.

'''B:''' I think I now more or less understand what you mean by your “conversion to Revitalized Buddhism.”

'''A:''' Then let’s bring this conversation to a close for now and promise to talk again another time.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” June issue)

<references />

SG31SBE-T

2026-08-30T16:38:11Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism''}}

{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身 [“Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism”]. Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' 新興佛教の旗の下に, beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” 新興佛教への転身. In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

== Translation ==

{{opage|260}}

'''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism'''

=== The Rejection of Established Buddhist Institutions and Capitalism ===
'''B:''' I hear that you’ve recently given up on Nichirenism<ref>Nichirenism (Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義) was a modern ideological formulation of Nichiren Buddhism that emerged in the late Meiji period under the leadership of Tanaka Chigaku 田中智學 (1861–1939) and became influential during the Taishō and early Shōwa periods. Seno’o was an active proponent of Nichirenism before breaking with it and establishing the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref> and are starting something called the Revitalized Buddhist movement.<ref>Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō 新興仏教) was Seno’o Girō’s term for the new Buddhist movement he launched in 1931—technically, the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Domei 新興仏教青年同盟). Shinkō literally suggests something newly arising or emergent; “Revitalized Buddhism” is used here to emphasize Seno’o’s conception of the movement as a renewal of Buddhism rather than the establishment of a new Buddhist sect.</ref> Is that true?

'''A:''' It is.

'''B:''' What’s the purpose of it?

'''A:''' First, I want to attack the corrupt established Buddhist institutions and demonstrate the true value of Buddhism in the present age. Second, I want to unify a divided Buddhism and put an end to these ugly sectarian quarrels. Third, I want to participate in the movement to transform the capitalist economic system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Buddha, and realize an ideal society of love and equality.

'''B:''' Isn’t that impossible? Won’t it end up as nothing more than a fantasy?

'''A:''' It’s no fantasy. I believe that both the destruction of established Buddhist institutions and the collapse of capitalism are now simply a matter of time.

'''B:''' Leaving aside the transformation of capitalism, couldn’t you simply pursue Nichirenism more thoroughly instead of starting an entirely new religious movement? Especially since you’ve devoted yourself all these years to building up Nichirenism—don’t you feel some regret at abandoning it?

'''A:''' It’s not in my nature to make calculations when confronted with the truth. There was no path left open to me except to launch a new movement. Nichirenism as we have known it has reached an impasse in all sorts of ways. Of course, the other Buddhist institutions have as well. At this point, I don’t think Buddhism can be revived without undertaking a fundamental revolution. Just as capitalism cannot be fixed through a few minor adjustments, the corruption of the Buddhist institutions has penetrated to the very marrow.

'''B:''' But isn’t this just a sudden impulse to go along with the times?

'''A:''' You know how long my life of faith has been.

'''B:''' It certainly has been a long time. How many years has it been, anyway?

'''A:''' I embraced the faith of Nichirenism in 1911.

{{opage|261}}

And it was in the autumn of 1920 that I began publishing the magazine ''Youth''<ref>Wakōdo 若人 (“Youth”) was a Buddhist journal with which Seno’o was closely associated and in which he published extensively during the 1920s and early 1930s. It became an important venue for the development of the ideas that eventually led him beyond Nichirenism and toward Revitalized Buddhism.</ref> and advocating Nichirenism. So I have spent twelve years in public propagation and fully twenty-one years in my personal life of faith. And I don’t think I’ve ever been second to anyone in the intensity of my faith. I have devoted my entire life to that faith and to spreading it right up to the present day. After all that, surely this isn’t something I could simply switch away from on a passing whim.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I suppose so. They say that even after living with someone for only three days, you don’t easily forget them. So you must have thought this through very seriously. Still, it’s quite a decisive step—to go so far as to abandon Master Nichiren himself.

'''A:''' Nothing could be further from the truth. My reverence for Master Nichiren only grows stronger with the years. Looking back now, my past life of faith seems to have been nothing more than a game. The more deeply the spirit of love enters my heart, and the more I strive to put even a little of the bodhisattva practice into concrete action, the more deeply Master Nichiren’s life and words impress themselves upon me, right down to the bone. I truly believe there has never been a greater person.

'''B:''' Then why give up Nichirenism?

'''A:''' If you call it “giving it up,” I suppose that’s how it may look. As I see it, I am casting off Master Nichiren’s old forms precisely in order to revive his spirit in the present. The more single-mindedly I devote myself to reviving Master Nichiren’s fundamental spirit in the present age, the more firmly convinced I become of the possibility of this Revitalized Buddhist movement—and that this alone is the form of salvation most suited to our age. Indeed, I have come firmly to believe that the revival of Buddhism as a whole is to be found in this movement.

'''B:''' Calling it “casting off the old forms” makes it sound reasonable enough, but whatever words you use, in practice you are rejecting Nichirenism, aren’t you?

=== It is a Revival of Nichirenism ===
'''A:''' That’s right.

'''B:''' Even if you reject Nichirenism to that extent, doesn’t that amount to betraying Master Nichiren?

'''A:''' Not at all. Nichirenism, too, is one particular form that arose in response to the needs of its age. Looking at the history of the Master’s propagation of his teaching and the many writings he left behind, there is nothing objectionable about changing forms. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by reforming them in response to objective circumstances that one truly comes into contact with the spirit of Master Nichiren. The Master was in fact a man possessed of an extraordinarily enlightened and discerning…

{{opage|262}}

…intelligence. He was certainly no inflexible conservative who “stood by a tree stump waiting for a rabbit” or “glued the tuning pegs of a lute”—someone incapable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Mencius praised Confucius as “the sage who was timely,” but even more than this, our Master Nichiren was the exemplary sage who discerned the demands of the time. He said, “Everything depends upon the country and the time”; “Although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice must vary in countless ways according to people’s capacities and the circumstances of the age”; and “One should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country, it must necessarily be suitable for this country as well.”<ref>Seno’o assembles a series of classical and Nichirenist references around the importance of historical circumstance. The idioms “waiting by a stump” (守株) and “gluing the tuning pegs of a lute” (膠柱) denote foolish adherence to fixed conditions. “The sage who was timely” (聖之時者也) is Mencius’s famous characterization of Confucius (Mencius, “Wan Zhang II”). Nichiren’s statements that “everything depends upon the country and the time” (Senji-shō 撰時抄, 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, p. 1003); “although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice vary…” (Shōji Ichidaiji Ketsumyaku-shō 生死一大事血脈抄, 1272; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 523); and “one should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country…” (Kyōki Jikoku-shō 教機時国抄, 1262; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 242) allow Seno’o to present adaptation to modern social conditions not as a departure from Nichiren but as fidelity to his method.</ref> I could go on indefinitely. As these examples show, the religion of the Master was a religion of criticism. And if criticism is not equally rigorous in examining and settling accounts with oneself, can it really be called criticism? Perhaps this is also what Confucius meant when he said, “If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?”<ref>Confucius, Analects (Lunyu 論語), 4.1 (“Li Ren” 里仁): 「子曰、里仁爲美。擇不處仁、焉得知」 (“The Master said: ‘To dwell in benevolence is beautiful. If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?’”). The passage connects wisdom or discernment (zhi 知) with commitment to benevolence (ren 仁). Seno’o invokes it here to reinforce his claim that genuine criticism must also be directed toward oneself.</ref>

=== The Essence of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' I can see your point, at least to some extent.

'''A:''' Buddhism itself is fundamentally like this. Indeed, the Buddha is even described as “one whose bonds have been untied.” One of Buddhism’s distinctive features is precisely its refusal to cling to any fixed form. And that, too, is liberation.

To put it somewhat more technically, Buddhism denies “self” and “what belongs to the self”—that is, the individual ego and private property—and teaches “no-self” and “non-possession.” Even the last of the famous Three Dharma Seals, known as Buddhism’s three fundamental principles—“all conditioned things are impermanent,” “all dharmas are without self,” and “nirvana is tranquility”—ultimately comes down to the single word “emptiness.”<ref>The Three Dharma Seals (sanbōin 三法印) are impermanence (shogyō mujō), no-self (shohō muga), and the tranquility of nirvana (nehan jakujō). Seno’o interprets all three here in terms of emptiness (kū).</ref> It means not clinging to either A or B and therefore, depending upon circumstances, being capable of being either A or B: a teaching of unrestricted adaptability. In the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'', this is taught as “all dharmas are empty”; in the “Skillful Means” chapter it is called the “true aspect of all dharmas,” explained through the so-called Ten Suchnesses—“such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity,” and so forth—in order to demonstrate the capacity of things to change according to causes and conditions. Thus it is also taught that “dharmas have no fixed nature; the Buddha-seed arises through conditions.”<ref>The Ten Suchnesses (jūnyoze 十如是) appear in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the Lotus Sutra and describe ten aspects of the reality of phenomena, beginning with “such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity.”</ref>

Again, the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', which serves as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'', says: “Such non-form is not form; being without form, it is called the true aspect. Having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is clear and certain and not in vain, and among sentient beings they are truly able to remove suffering.”<ref>Muryōgi Kyō 無量義経 (Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings), Chapter 2, “Preaching the Dharma” (Seppō-bon 説法品第二); T 9, no. 276. The passage connects realization of the “true aspect” (jissō 実相), characterized by formlessness (musō 無相), directly with compassion: having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is “clear and certain and not in vain” and are thereby “truly able to remove suffering” (真能拔苦). The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is traditionally regarded in East Asia as the introductory scripture (kaikyō 開経) to the Lotus Sutra. Seno’o uses the passage to argue that nonattachment to fixed forms enables practical compassionate action rather than withdrawal from the world.</ref> According to the meaning of this passage, in short, one takes no fixed standpoint—a standpoint that even negates “no standpoint” as a fixed standpoint—and ultimately stands in a position that clings to nothing…

{{opage|263}}

…whatsoever. It is precisely in an attitude of freely adapting oneself according to time, place, and circumstance that thoroughgoing compassion manifests itself and the masses can truly be saved. Nichirenism is no exception to this Buddhist philosophical principle. Depending upon time, place, and circumstances, there should therefore be no objection to sublating it as well.<ref>“Sublate” renders yōki 揚棄, a modern philosophical term used to translate the Hegelian Aufheben or Aufhebung: the dialectical overcoming of a form while preserving what remains valid within it.</ref> The real question is whether there are sufficient grounds for reform in light of the culture of a particular age. When there are, isn’t it only by boldly carrying out such reform that we remain faithful to Buddhism’s true character and penetrate to the spirit of Master Nichiren?

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I can see that even the forms adopted by Master Nichiren may be reformed as the times change.

=== Forms Change ===
'''A:''' Exactly. Take an egg, for example. As long as the white and yolk remain as they are, the shell is an indispensable outer form. But once the egg has been nurtured by the mother bird and a chick begins to develop inside, that shell becomes an unnecessary opposing force. And unless it is broken, new life cannot emerge.

'''B:''' That sounds like Marx’s materialist dialectic.

'''A:''' Truth doesn’t become two different things depending on who says it. “Time” really is a mysterious force. It bears down upon us with a necessity that cannot be altered by the ideas of one or two individuals. That is why Master Nichiren began his ''Selection of the Time'' (''Senji-shō'') by writing, “In studying the Buddha Dharma, one must first of all learn the time.” He went on to say, “The cuckoo awaits spring and the cock awaits the dawn. Even animals are like this; how much more so a Dharma teacher practicing the Buddha Dharma!” Elsewhere, speaking in relation to the capacities of those being taught, he judged that “the wise person is one who accords with the time.” By invoking the examples of the cuckoo awaiting spring and the cock awaiting dawn, he made perfectly clear that the Dharma must never be taught apart from its “time.” Isn’t that an extraordinarily thoroughgoing insight?<ref>Nichiren (1222–1282), Senji-shō 撰時抄 (“Selection of the Time”), composed in 1275. The treatise emphasizes the necessity of discerning the historical “time” (toki) in determining the appropriate form in which the Buddhist Dharma should be propagated. Seno’o draws upon this principle repeatedly to justify the transformation of inherited Buddhist forms in response to modern conditions.</ref> Here ‘capacity’ means the particular character of the individual. The passage therefore rejects an individualistic movement of salvation based on the model of ‘prescribing medicine according to the illness,’ which takes the particular characteristics of individual persons as its object. Instead, it lays down the firm principle that we must move beyond the individual, take as our object the objective conditions of society as a whole, and make our primary concern a method of social salvation suited to the age.

'''B:''' That sounds very much like what the social sciences tell us.

'''A:''' There is another striking parallel. Among Master Nichiren’s writings is this passage, which explains the possibility of mass struggle in the present age. It is from the Shōgu mondō-shō:

The present age is a defiled age, and human feelings have become warped and distorted. Because provisional teachings and slanders of the Dharma abound, it is difficult for the True Dharma to spread. At such a time, practices such as reciting and copying the scriptures, as well as contemplation, reflection, and spiritual cultivation, are of no use. One must simply practice shakubuku<ref>Shakubuku 折伏, literally “to break and subdue,” refers to the forceful refutation of erroneous views and is conventionally contrasted with shōju 摂受, the more accommodating method of leading others toward the Dharma without directly refuting their views. The distinction became particularly important in Nichiren Buddhism, where shakubuku was understood as especially appropriate to circumstances in which erroneous teachings obstructed the Dharma.</ref>: if one has the power, use that power and authority to crush slander of the Dharma, and use Buddhist doctrine to attack erroneous…

{{opage|264}}

…teachings. Yet one must properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected and never cling exclusively to a single course.”<ref>Shōgu Mondō-shō 聖愚問答抄 (“Questions and Answers between a Sage and a Fool”); see Shōwa Teihon Nichiren Shōnin Ibun, vol. 1, pp. 363–64 (Gosho Zenshū, p. 143). The treatise argues that the appropriate method of propagation depends upon historical circumstances. Seno’o appropriates the passage to argue that the conditions of the present age demand open struggle rather than quietist self-cultivation.</ref>

What an uncompromising declaration! People who, when they hear the word Buddhism, immediately think of practicing seated meditation, or who tend to associate Buddhism with nonresistance, may well imagine a passage like this to be some kind of reverse propaganda by the Devil. But once we look squarely at actual society, we can see just how much what today passes for “self-cultivation” actually performs an opiate-like function,<ref>“Opiate-like function” (ahenteki yakuwari 阿片的役割) unmistakably evokes Marx’s characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Seno’o applies the criticism here specifically to contemporary Buddhist practices of “self-cultivation” (shūyō).</ref> castrating promising young people. In an age such as this, it seems to me that there is simply no way to build heaven on earth except through an open and forthright struggle. Yet struggle for struggle’s sake would be equally troublesome. This is why the phrase, “properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected,” strikes me as an extraordinarily well-considered teaching.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, it makes me think that the Buddhism we have known until now has been almost completely off the mark.

'''A:''' To speak frankly, much of it has indeed been completely off the mark. That is a consequence of religion’s having repeated the same formalistic sermons day after day, year after year—either unconscious of the character of the age or, even when conscious of it, tragically reduced to the role of a religion in service to established power. Society is moving increasingly toward equality of opportunity without distinctions in human worth between someone dressed in work clothes and someone dressed in a morning coat. Yet within the Buddhist institutions, which ought to be leading the way, they still make an endless fuss over the colors of clerical robes and distinctions in ecclesiastical rank. Social policy advances day by day in society at large—but what on earth are the Buddhist institutions doing?

'''B:''' On that point, I agree. I understand now that forms have to be reformed in accordance with the age. In the end, then, yours is a movement to revive Buddhism within the present age by giving it forms appropriate to that age.

=== The Central Aim of the Revitalized Buddhist Movement ===
'''B:''' But I hear that you’re going to stop chanting ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—“Homage to Śākyamuni Buddha.”

'''A:''' That is precisely the central aim of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. All disciples of the Buddha who profess Buddhism should give up the ''nenbutsu'', give up faith in Mahāvairocana, and give up all the forms of the established Buddhist institutions. First, we should unite under the banner of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', expressing our reverence for the person of the Buddha, and from there attempt a new advance into society. Can you think of any better form than this…

{{opage|265}}

…one that could serve both as the single fundamental form common to all Buddhists and, at the same time, as a means of unifying Buddhism? Of course, this form has already been advocated in the past by earnest pioneers. Perhaps because the times were not yet ripe, however, it has never acquired much influence. But whether or not it presently has influence is beside the point. I believe this to be the inevitable destiny of Buddhism from the present into the future, and I intend to put my whole spirit into casting this one stone.

'''B:''' I understand what you’re striving for. But there’s one thing I still can’t accept. You said that you’re trying to “bring the spirit of Master Nichiren to life.” Yet Nichiren himself said, “The soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”<ref>Nichiren, Kyō’ō-dono Gohenji 経王殿御返事 (“Reply to Kyō’ō”), composed in 1273. The passage reads: “The Buddha’s intent is the Lotus Sutra; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”</ref> If you abandon the ''daimoku'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', doesn’t that amount to abandoning the spirit of the Master?

'''A:''' That is a perfectly reasonable question. But immediately before that passage come the words, “The Buddha’s intent is the ''Lotus Sutra''; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”

In other words, if it has been established that the ''Lotus Sutra'' is not the unique scripture embodying the fundamental spirit of the Buddha whom Master Nichiren so ceaselessly revered, then chanting the name of that very Buddha—''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—rather than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' would actually be more faithful to the spirit of Master Nichiren, who founded his teaching on the basis of scholarly inquiry. I certainly do not believe that doing so constitutes a desecration of the Master.

'''B:''' If that way of understanding the ''Lotus Sutra'' is correct, then your argument makes sense. But are you saying that the ''Lotus Sutra'' does not embody the fundamental spirit of Buddhism?

=== The Theory That the Mahāyāna Was Not Taught by the Buddha ===
'''A:''' That is precisely where the problem arises. Have you ever heard of the scholarly theory being advanced in modern Buddhist circles known as “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (''Daijō hi-Bussetsu'')?<ref>“The Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (Daijō hi-bussetsu 大乗非仏説) refers to the historical-critical view that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the lifetime of the historical Buddha rather than constituting direct records of his preaching. Although the question had earlier precedents in Japan, it became a major problem for modern Japanese Buddhist scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century, notably in the work of Murakami Senshō (1851–1929). The theory posed an obvious challenge to sectarian traditions, including Nichiren Buddhism, whose authority rested upon particular Mahāyāna scriptures as the Buddha’s own teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' I can’t say I’ve never heard of it, but I don’t really know what it means. Tell me about it.

'''A:''' I’ll explain it briefly. Buddhist scriptures had broadly been classified into Mahāyāna scriptures—the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sutras'', ''Lotus Sutra'', ''Amida Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Laṅkāvatāra Sutra'', and so forth—and the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures, such as the Āgamas. Both groups had been regarded as scriptures recording sermons preached by the Buddha.

In recent times, however, scholars have argued that those Mahāyāna scriptures were not actually preached directly by the Buddha. That is what is meant by the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.”

'''B:''' Then how did those scriptures come to be composed?

'''A:''' Well, that’s because Buddhism too developed as the times changed and society and culture…

{{opage|266}}

…advanced, and in order to adapt to the changing age, numerous new scriptures were composed by later disciples of the Buddha. Those became the Mahāyāna sutras. Since the Mahāyāna sutras are therefore not direct records of the Buddha’s preaching, this is called the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.” In other words, it means Buddhism as a developing tradition.<ref>“Buddhism as a developing tradition” renders hattatsu bukkyō 発達仏教, the modern conception of Buddhism as a historically developing religious tradition rather than a fixed body of doctrine delivered in its entirety by Śākyamuni. This conception allowed modern Buddhist thinkers to accept the later historical origins of the Mahāyāna sutras while continuing to regard them as legitimate developments of the Buddha’s teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' Then from the standpoint of this theory, the ''Lotus Sutra'' too is one example of this “developing Buddhism.” ''So the Lotus Sutra cannot simply be identified with the Buddha’s fundamental spirit.''<ref>Seno’o’s emphasis.</ref>

'''A:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' But in Master Nichiren’s time, the roughly seven thousand fascicles comprising the entire Buddhist canon were all regarded as direct records of the Buddha’s preaching. Given that assumption, why did Master Nichiren single out the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone and declare it to embody ''Buddhism’s fundamental spirit''?

'''A:''' Because that was how the scriptures themselves were understood to explain the matter. More particularly, this was the explanation offered by Tiantai doctrine, which formed the matrix of Japanese Buddhism. According to that teaching, the entire Buddhist canon consisted of sermons preached during the fifty years between the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment at age thirty and his entry into nirvana at age eighty. These fifty years were divided into two periods. The first forty-two years comprised all the teachings preached before the ''Lotus Sutra'', known as the pre-Lotus teachings (''nizenkyō''). The ''Lotus Sutra'', preached during the final eight years, was regarded as the true scripture in which the Buddha revealed his genuine spirit. All the earlier scriptures were judged to be expedient teachings preached in preparation for the revelation of the ''Lotus Sutra''.<ref>The Tiantai (J. Tendai) system of doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (goji hakkyō, 五時八教) organized the Buddha’s teaching career into a chronological and hierarchical sequence culminating in the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sutras. Within this scheme, the Lotus Sutra represented the fullest disclosure of the Buddha’s teaching. Nichiren inherited this framework and radicalized its elevation of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

'''B:''' Was there substantial scriptural evidence for that?

'''A:''' Yes. For example, in the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'' we find the statement, “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost.” There are many other passages that assign the ''Lotus Sutra'' supreme value. Particularly influential was the statement in the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', regarded as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Because the desires and dispositions of beings differ, various teachings were preached; these various teachings were preached through the power of expedient means. For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed.” And in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way.” These were powerful pieces of scriptural evidence. From the standpoint of Buddhist unification available at the time, the Tiantai doctrinal interpretation was therefore hardly unreasonable. There was also the scriptural proof supplied by the “Medicine King Bodhisattva” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': that in the “last five hundred years” it would be “widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa.” Tiantai likewise looked forward to the age of the Final Dharma, declaring, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide.”<ref>The text cites four key passages that provided a scriptural foundation for the Tiantai (J. Tendai) classification of doctrines (kyōhan 教判) and Nichiren’s later elevation of the Lotus Sutra: (1) “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost” (Lotus Sutra, ch. 10, “Dharma Preacher”; T 9, no. 262, 31b); (2) “For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed” (四十余年未顕真実; Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, ch. 2; T 9, no. 276, 386b); (3) “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way” (正直捨方便但説無上道; Lotus Sutra, ch. 2, “Skillful Means”; T 9, no. 262, 10a); and (4) “In the last five hundred years, it will be widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa” (後五百歳広宣流布; Lotus Sutra, ch. 23, “Medicine King Bodhisattva”; T 9, no. 262, 54c). The accompanying statement, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide” (後五百歳妙道広行), is from Zhiyi’s Fahua Wenju (法華文句; T 34, no. 1718, 129a).</ref> And Dengyō Daishi, the pioneer of the Lotus Sutra in Japan, likewise expressed the same conviction and prediction.<ref>Saichō (767–822), posthumously Dengyō Daishi, founder of the Japanese Tendai school.</ref>

{{opage|267}}

Now, it was within this tradition that Master Nichiren appeared. Outraged by the fragmentation and degeneration of Buddhism, he made its reform and unification the aspiration of his entire life. Moreover, his historical moment was the beginning of the age of the Final Dharma, more than two thousand years after the Buddha’s passing. There is no need to explain how powerfully the ''Lotus Sutra'' must have resonated with Nichiren’s intelligence and passionate commitment.<ref>The “Three Ages” (sanji 三時) is an East Asian Buddhist scheme describing the historical decline of the Dharma after the Buddha’s passing: the age of the True Dharma (shōbō 正法), the age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō 像法), and the age of the Final Dharma (mappō 末法), conventionally assigned durations of 1000, 1000, and 10,000 years respectively. According to a widely accepted Japanese chronology, mappō began in 1052. Drawing upon scriptural traditions concerning the decline of the Dharma, Nichiren understood his thirteenth-century age as mappō, a period of corruption in which the Lotus Sutra required urgent propagation. See Nichiren, Senji-shō 撰時抄, “Selection of the Time,” 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, pp. 1001–1058. Seno’o invokes this historical framework to emphasize Nichiren’s conviction that Buddhist practice must respond to the particular demands of its age.</ref>

'''B:''' Hearing it explained that way, there certainly seems to have been a powerful sense of historical necessity behind Nichiren’s self-understanding as “Nichiren, practitioner of the ''Lotus Sutra''.” It’s easy to see why he therefore felt compelled to reject every Buddhist school outside the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Within the limits of that doctrinal framework, there was no Buddhist spirit in the age of the Final Dharma apart from the ''Lotus Sutra''. A passage from Nichiren’s ''Hōon-shō'' (''Essay on Gratitude'') makes the situation particularly clear.<ref>Nichiren’s Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude”), composed in 1276, is one of his major writings and contains a sustained defense of the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

The various schools all rely upon their own basic sutras and treatises and claim, each in its own way, that theirs is foremost among all the scriptures. The Shingon school says, “Among all the scriptures, the ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' is first”; the other scriptures are like idle chatter. The Zen school says that sutras such as the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' are fingers pointing at the moon, while Zen itself is the moon. And so forth. We ordinary people ought to be able to trust whichever teacher we follow, revering that teacher in faith; yet Nichiren’s doubts could not be dispelled. Looking at the world, everyone may claim, “I, I,” but there is only one sovereign of a country. If there are two, the country will not be at peace; if a household has two masters, that household will surely fall into ruin. Might it not be the same with all the scriptures? Among all the sutras, must there not be one scripture that is sovereign over all the others? Yet the ten schools and seven schools each contend with one another and refuse to submit. It is as though a country had seventy or eighty sovereigns: its people could never live in peace. Wondering what was to be done, I made a single resolve: I would follow none of the eight schools or ten schools. Instead, just as the Great Master Tiantai took the scriptural texts themselves as his teacher and judged the relative superiority of the teachings preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, I would open and examine all the scriptures. In the ''Nirvana Sutra'' it is said: “Rely on the Dharma, not on persons.” “Rely on the Dharma” means to rely on all the scriptures; “not on persons” means not to rely upon teachers other than the Buddha himself, including such figures as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī and the various masters mentioned above.

The same sutra also says: “Rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning.” Here the “sutra of definitive meaning” is the Lotus Sutra, while the “sutras of provisional meaning” are the ''Avataṃsaka Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Nirvana Sutra'', and all the other sutras of the past, present, and future. But if one trusts the Buddha's final testament, then one must take the Lotus Sutra as the bright mirror through which to understand all…

{{opage|268}}

…the scriptures. Hence, when we open the ''Lotus Sutra'', we find the words: “This ''Lotus Sutra'' stands highest among all the sutras,” and so on.

'''B:''' I see. That makes it quite clear. Master Nichiren’s judgment that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' is supreme” was therefore not simply his own dogmatic assertion. It was the result of his seeking the Buddha’s spirit through the scriptures themselves. In other words, after attempting as objectively and as scholarly as possible to determine Buddhism’s fundamental spirit, he concluded that it was embodied in the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Nichiren himself explained this by saying: “This is not because Nichiren is especially wise. It is simply what the time demands. In spring the flowers bloom, in autumn the fruit appears, summer is warm and winter is cold. Is this not simply what the time brings about?”

In this way he explained the historical necessity of the ''Lotus Sutra'' spreading in the age of the Final Dharma. Now, if that were the end of the matter, there would be no problem. But if we accept as true the theory I mentioned earlier—that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—then the scholarly foundation underlying this whole structure collapses. The ''Lotus Sutra'', which Master Nichiren propagated with sixty years of blood and tears, must itself be subjected to a historical reckoning.

'''B:''' So in the end it really was a matter of Master Nichiren’s inadequate understanding?

'''A:''' You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. Far from it. As a Buddhist revolutionary movement in his own age, this was the only possible path. It was an entirely defensible position.

But “time” moved on, and modern scientific research into the scriptures produced new conclusions. That is not something we should blame on Nichiren’s lack of understanding. And a man who declared that “one must first learn the time” surely would not cling sentimentally to his position when confronted by the criticism of a later age. That, at least, is what I believe.

=== The Reckoning with Tiantai Doctrine ===
'''A:''' Speaking of “time,” there is another problem. Modern research has drastically changed the dating of the Buddha’s birth.

'''B:''' So it’s no longer three thousand years ago? I remember singing in Sunday school, “Long, long ago—three thousand years ago.”

'''A:''' Today, according to Dr. Takakusu, it was 2,497 years ago, while according to Dr. Ui, it was 2,397 years ago.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945) and Ui Hakuju (宇井伯寿, 1882–1963) were leading Japanese scholars of Buddhism whose historical and philological research contributed to the modern reassessment of traditional Buddhist chronology. Seno’o invokes their differing calculations of the Buddha’s dates to illustrate the incompatibility of modern historical scholarship with the chronology presupposed by traditional Tiantai doctrine.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t those just scholars’ arbitrary guesses?

'''A:''' You shouldn’t dismiss scholarship out of hand like that. Those conclusions are the result of research. Whatever the precise answer may be, the Buddha is now generally placed around the fourth or fifth century BCE. And whereas tradition had said that he left home at nineteen, attained enlightenment at thirty, and entered nirvana at eighty,…

{{opage|269}}

…the accepted view has become that he left home at twenty-nine, attained enlightenment at thirty-five, and entered nirvana at eighty.

'''B:''' Then he taught for forty-five years. That means Tiantai’s system of the Five Periods, which was based on the old account of fifty years of teaching from enlightenment at thirty to nirvana at eighty, becomes questionable too.<ref>The Five Periods (goji 五時) is the chronological scheme systematized by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi (智顗 538–597) to classify the Buddha’s teachings into five sequential stages: (1) Kegon (Avataṃsaka, three weeks); (2) Agon (Āgama, twelve years); (3) Hōdō (Vaipulya, eight years); (4) Hannya (Prajñāpāramitā, twenty-two years); and (5) Hokke-Nehan (Lotus and Nirvāṇa, the final eight years). The scheme presupposes the traditional chronology in which the Buddha attained enlightenment at age thirty and taught until his death at eighty. Modern historical-critical scholarship instead dated his enlightenment to approximately age thirty-five and his teaching career to about forty-five years, while also treating the Mahāyāna sutras as later compositions. Seno’o invokes these discrepancies to argue that the traditional Tiantai chronology—and consequently the historical framework inherited by Nichiren—must itself be subjected to modern critical scrutiny.</ref>

'''A:''' There’s no avoiding it. If the ''Lotus Sutra'' was preached for eight years, then the pre-Lotus teachings could only have lasted thirty-seven years, which makes the phrase “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed” unstable. And if the pre-Lotus teachings lasted forty-two years, then the ''Lotus Sutra'' could only have been taught for three years.

'''B:''' Still, we’re talking about events from twenty-four or twenty-five hundred years ago. Even if we calculate things that precisely, how can we really know which account is correct?

'''A:''' India was hardly a country with a strong tradition of historical record keeping, so perfect precision may be impossible. But scholarship still deserves our respect. This is, after all, an age in which science can calculate the numbers of the astronomical world with extraordinary accuracy. At any rate, one fact is unavoidable: Tiantai doctrine must undergo a reckoning, and Nichiren doctrine must therefore also be reexamined. Nor is that all. Modern scholarship has also proposed an account of how the ''Lotus Sutra'' itself was formed. According to this theory, the earliest form of the sutra ran from the “Introduction” chapter through the tenth chapter, “Dharma Preacher.” Later material was added through the twenty-second chapter, “Entrustment,” and then another six chapters were added, producing the present twenty-eight-chapter form.<ref>Seno’o here summarizes a modern historical-critical theory according to which the Lotus Sutra developed in successive stages: an initial text comprising chapters 1–10, a subsequent expansion through chapter 22, and the later addition of six chapters producing the received twenty-eight-chapter version.</ref>

I myself have lectured on the ''Lotus Sutra'' several times, and the breaks in the textual structure certainly can give that impression. In any event, I think we may safely say that it is now virtually impossible to deny that the ''Lotus Sutra'', like the other Mahāyāna scriptures, represents Buddhism in the process of historical development.

'''B:''' Then were the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures actually written by Śākyamuni himself?

'''A:''' No. Those scriptures too were compiled by his disciples after his death.

'''B:''' Then strictly speaking, couldn’t we say that the Hīnayāna scriptures were also “not taught by the Buddha”? And if we are prepared to call them the Buddha’s teaching, why couldn’t we equally call the Mahāyāna scriptures the Buddha’s teaching?

'''A:''' There is something to that argument, and people have made it before. But I think it is sophistry. Shouldn’t we properly distinguish between the Buddha’s immediate disciples gathering together and reciting what remained vivid in their memories, and later generations—disciples of disciples and their descendants—composing scriptures on the basis of those earlier records?

'''B:''' Is there really enough evidence to establish the Mahāyāna as later development?

'''A:''' Scholars have reached that conclusion on the basis of writing, literary style, and many other forms of textual evidence.

{{opage|270}}

Scholarly conscience leaves us no choice but to acknowledge it.

=== Faith Requires Objectivity ===
'''B:''' I understand that. But faith and scholarship are different things. Even if the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha is true, why should faith have to concern itself with it?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that too. As the saying goes, “Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it.”<ref>“Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it” renders the proverb iwashi no atama mo shinjin kara (鰯の頭も信心から), an ironic expression for the power of faith to invest even an insignificant object with religious value.</ref> But that is precisely where the crucial issue lies. It marks the dividing line between superstition and genuine faith. A scripture says that faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith increases wrong views; faith and understanding must be harmonized and become the basis of life.<ref>Seno’o cites a Tiantai formulation attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597): “Faith without understanding increases ignorance; understanding without faith increases wrong views” (信而不解、増長無明。解而不信、増長邪見). See Zhiyi, Weimojing Xuanshu (維摩經玄疏, J. Yuimakyō Gensho).</ref> A merely subjective faith that says “just believe,” while ignoring science, cannot be called genuine faith. Unless the content of faith possesses objectivity, it lacks social universality and cannot provide genuine satisfaction. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose there is an old woman devoted to Tenrikyō. She is completely absorbed in her faith. Then her only son, who has been educated in school, begins searching for a religion of his own. Naturally, he first examines the Tenrikyō faith practiced by his mother. But suppose it fails to satisfy him intellectually, and he turns instead to Christianity. Now you have one person in the household crying, “Save me!” and the other saying, “Amen!” What kind of atmosphere would that create in the family? Can they simply shrug and say that faith is subjective and leave each other alone? The more authority each of them invests in their own faith, and the more faithfully each adheres to it, the more each will inevitably look upon the other with a certain painful sense of dissatisfaction. But suppose, by contrast, that the mother’s faith were something that could also be accepted on scholarly grounds, and the son came to embrace the same Tenrikyō faith. Their perspectives and degree of commitment might still differ, but the whole household could at least share a common religious life, and wouldn’t that bring greater satisfaction?

'''B:''' That’s true. And not just in religion—it’s always pleasant when people see eye to eye.

'''A:''' Exactly. If the object of faith has a content that can withstand scholarly, moral, and aesthetic judgment, then even if people approach it from different perspectives, it can gather and embrace a greater number of spiritual brothers and sisters throughout the world. That is why faith too requires an objective and scientific element, especially in the modern age. Nichiren himself said, “The Buddha Dharma is reason.”<ref>“The Buddha Dharma is reason” (buppō wa dōri 仏法は道理なり). Nichiren, Shijō Kingo-dono Gohenji 四条金吾殿御返事 (“Reply to Shijō Kingo,” 1277).</ref>

{{opage|271}}

For a seeker who tries to ground faith in reason, it is no longer possible to ignore the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha and simply assert dogmatically that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone embodies the Buddha’s spirit.” Such a religion will become increasingly incapable of speaking to the present or the future.

'''B:''' I understand now that religion cannot survive as merely subjective belief. And I also understand that, in light of the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha, Nichiren doctrine exactly as it stood six hundred and fifty years ago cannot simply be applied to modern people. So if Master Nichiren were born today, do you really think he would still invoke the polemical spirit of the Four Dicta—“the other schools cannot lead to enlightenment,” “they are the root cause of falling into hell,” “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone is the Dharma of buddhahood”—and make chanting the ''daimoku'' his one and only method for saving the modern world?<ref>Nichiren’s Four Dicta (shika kakugen 四箇格言) are conventionally summarized as “Nenbutsu leads to the Avīci hell” (nenbutsu muken 念仏無間), “Zen is the work of the devil” (zen tenma 禅天魔), “Shingon destroys the nation” (shingon bōkoku 真言亡国), and “Ritsu is treasonous” (ritsu kokuzoku 律国賊). The four formulas encapsulate Nichiren’s polemical rejection of the principal rival Buddhist traditions of his day.</ref>

'''A:''' I don’t think so. In fact, I began this new movement only after asking myself over and over for a long time: “If Master Nichiren appeared in the world today, what would he do?” A man with a scholarly conscience as sharp as his would not close his eyes, six hundred and fifty years later, to the transformed culture and social conditions of the modern world—much less to everything that modern Buddhist scholarship has discovered—and simply repeat the old formulas: “The other schools cannot attain the Way; the ''Lotus Sutra'' is the path to buddhahood.” Nor would he insist upon the absolute supremacy of ''daimoku'' chanting.

'''B:''' Then what form do you think he would take?

'''A:''' Probably something very much like this new movement—when considered from the standpoint of Buddhism’s essential nature and the demands of the present age.

=== Love and Equality Are the Spirit of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Speaking of the various schools, how does Shin Buddhism view the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha?

'''A:''' It seems that all serious modern seekers are adherents of that theory. Kaneko Daiei was even excommunicated over precisely this issue.<ref>Kaneko Daiei (金子大栄 1881–1976) was a prominent modern Jōdo Shinshū thinker and professor at Ōtani University. Employing modern historical-critical scholarship, he reinterpreted Amida Buddha and the Pure Land in symbolic rather than conventionally ontological terms. His views were condemned as doctrinal heterodoxy (ianjin 異安心), and in 1928 he was forced to leave his position at Ōtani University. Seno’o’s description of this as “excommunication” is somewhat stronger than the institutional action actually taken.</ref> Anyone with the least rational sense can hardly still become ecstatic today over things like a Pure Land ten billion worlds away or salvation through Other Power, as preached in the ''nenbutsu'' tradition.

'''B:''' Then how should we understand Amida Buddha?

'''A:''' Amida Buddha is the idealized self, and the Western Pure Land, countless worlds away, is idealized reality. The monk Dharmākara represents the fundamental human self, and his practice toward becoming Amida signifies a life of self-realization. Thus the wish to be saved by Amida symbolizes the joy inherent in a life that seeks what is right; salvation, in the final analysis, is nothing other than the life of love itself. To put it simply, love strides courageously even across the terrifying boundary of death. The scripture says, “When the mind of compassion is firmly determined, there is no fear.” This surely expresses the same principle.

{{opage|272}}

'''B:''' Then the central meaning of the ''Lotus Sutra'' must teach something similar.

'''A:''' Exactly. Even the words “Since I attained buddhahood” in the “Life Span” chapter, regarded as the heart of the ''Lotus Sutra'', are ultimately a celebration of the awakening of the self. The scriptures differ in expression, but their meaning is fundamentally the same. If we regard the entire canon as literally spoken by the Buddha, then, given the statements in the ''Lotus Sutra'' and the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'' that “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed,” scriptures such as the ''Amida Sutra'' and ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' would have to be regarded merely as expedient teachings to be set aside before the ''Lotus Sutra''. But if we understand them instead as products of Buddhism’s historical development, then the whole canon is an explanation of the content of Śākyamuni Buddha’s awakening. Reduced to its essence, it is a symbolic expression of love and equality. And from that awakening comes the rule running through all Buddhism: “Do no evil; practice all that is good; purify one’s own mind: this is the teaching of all buddhas.”<ref>“Do no evil; practice every good; purify your own mind: this is the teaching of all Buddhas” is traditionally known in East Asian Buddhism as the “Verse of the Common Admonition of the Seven Buddhas” (shichibutsu tsūkai ge 七仏通誡偈). The verse corresponds to Dhammapada 183 and appears widely in East Asian Buddhist literature.</ref>

'''B:''' Then practices such as esoteric rites and prayers, as well as faith in worldly benefits, so common among Buddhists, are decisively not the proper Buddhist path.

'''A:''' Correct. In the strict sense, Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic. There is a teaching in the Kōkigyōkyō that says something like this:

Disciples, there are three mistaken views here. A wise person examines these errors and leads others to abandon them. If these views are followed through to their conclusion, they negate human action in this world. What are the three? One renunciant claims that whatever suffering, pleasure, or neither-suffering-nor-pleasure a human being experiences in this life is entirely the result of karma from a previous existence. Another claims that all of it is caused by the creative activity of Īśvara. Still another claims that everything occurs without cause or condition.<ref>Seno’o attributes this passage to the Kōki-gyō-kyō 興起行経 (T 4, no. 197), though the refutation of the “Three Wrong Views” (三邪見) has a close parallel in the Dokyō 度経 (Madhyama Āgama 13; T 1, no. 26, pp. 435a–436b; corresponding to the Pali Titthāyatana Sutta, AN 3.61). The passage rejects three views that undermine moral agency: (1) strict fatalism (shukumeiron 宿命論), attributing all experience solely to past karma; (2) divine creationism (sōzōshinron 創造神論), attributing it to a creator god; and (3) accidentalism (gūzenron 偶然論), denying cause and condition. Seno’o invokes the passage to emphasize that Śākyamuni rejected fatalistic interpretations of karma and instead grounded Buddhist practice in causality, human agency, and the possibility of transforming the conditions that produce suffering.</ref>

In other words, it rejects fatalism, creationism, and accidentalism, and continues: “Disciples, in opposition to these mistaken views, I teach the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. This teaching of mine is such that no reasonable person can abuse, defile, slander, or reject it.” The Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination describe the path from delusion to awakening. Human suffering arises from inadequate understanding; the Buddha therefore taught the Eightfold Path as the method by which correct wisdom is to be fully attained. Buddhism therefore teaches us to see reality correctly and to act correctly. Even the word “Buddha” means “one who has attained perfect wisdom.”

'''B:''' By “creationism,” you mean something like the Christian God?

=== Buddhism Is Atheistic ===
'''B:''' Modern people are, of course, becoming less and less willing to accept that kind of deity. On this subject, Archbishop Brown wrote something like the following in ''God and the Capitalist'':

{{opage|273}}

“Does God wish to remove evil from this world but lack the power? Or is he able to remove it but unwilling? If he wishes to but cannot, then he is impotent, which contradicts the nature of God. If he can but will not, then he is evil, which likewise contradicts the nature of God. If he neither wishes nor is able, then he is both evil and impotent. But if he both wishes to remove evil and is able to do so—which is the only conception appropriate to God—then how can evil exist in the world?”<ref>William Montgomery Brown (1855–1937) was an American Episcopal bishop who became an outspoken socialist and communist and was deposed for heresy in 1925. Seno’o cites Brown’s critique of the Christian conception of God in God and the Capitalist, which circulated in Japanese as Kami to shihonka (神と資本家). The argument itself is a version of the classical “Epicurean paradox” concerning divine omnipotence and the existence of evil.</ref>

'''A:''' That is a painful criticism for Christianity. Before Buddhism, Brahmanism taught gods who created heaven and earth and also advocated ascetic practices of various kinds. The Buddha rejected these and, as I said before, taught the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. There is another story related to this. An apostate named Sunakkhatta went around criticizing the Buddha, saying: “The Buddha possesses no superhuman teaching and no exceptional knowledge or vision. He simply teaches ideas he has thought up in his own head. And he claims that anyone who thinks according to that teaching can reach a state free from suffering.” When the Buddha heard this, he told Śāriputra that Sunakkhatta, speaking in anger, thought he was criticizing the Buddha but was actually praising him.<ref>Sunakkhatta, a Licchavi and former disciple of the Buddha, appears in the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 12) criticizing his former teacher for possessing no “superhuman states” or extraordinary knowledge and vision. Significantly for Seno’o’s argument, Sunakkhatta’s demythological reading nevertheless acknowledges that the Buddha’s teaching leads those who practice it to the destruction of suffering.</ref> For to say that “according to his teaching, anyone who thinks properly can reach a state free from suffering” is itself praise of the Buddha. As this shows, the heart of Buddhism is to see the true nature of human life correctly, think correctly, and then live correctly.

'''B:''' But isn’t it said that Saint Nichiren himself performed prayers and rites?

'''A:''' Those are merely peripheral matters. Nichiren’s real spirit is found in the ''Kaimoku-shō'', where he declared: “Let heaven abandon me if it will; let every hardship befall me; I will stake my life upon this.... I vowed that I would become the pillar of Japan, that I would become the eyes of Japan, that I would become the great ship of Japan. These vows must never be broken.”<ref>Nichiren’s Kaimoku-shō (開目抄 “Opening of the Eyes”), composed in 1272 during his exile on Sado Island, is one of his major writings. It examines the grounds for religious authority and Nichiren’s understanding of his own mission in relation to the Lotus Sutra.</ref> That was his great religious resolve. The prayer rites being performed today are a disgrace to Master Nichiren.

=== The Proper Meaning of Faith in the Buddha ===
'''B:''' Then what do you mean when you chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''?

{{opage|274}}

'''A:''' It expresses gratitude and reverence toward Śākyamuni as the founder and teacher—not belief in him as an actually existing creator god. Buddhism teaches that “one who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.”<ref>“One who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha” (Pāli: yo dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati) derives from the Vakkali Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 22.87), where the Buddha tells the monk Vakkali: “One who sees the Dharma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dharma.”</ref> Anyone who follows the Buddha’s teaching, comes to understand and embody even a little of the truth, and experiences joy as a result will naturally come to praise, revere, and feel gratitude toward Śākyamuni Buddha as the ideal person who realized that truth.

And praising, revering, and thanking such a person in turn helps lead us more deeply into a life of truth. Praying to Śākyamuni Buddha will not make rice suddenly appear in your rice chest. If you are poor, the Buddha would tell you to work hard and figure out how to earn money.

But if, as under our present economic system, people work and yet their labor brings no worthwhile return, then the Buddha would surely tell us first to transform that bad system and guarantee the welfare of the masses. He would not mechanically repeat some maxim like “poverty can never catch up with hard work.” If you are sick, rather than making vows or relying on prayer rites, the Buddha would tell you first to seek proper treatment, reflect upon the causes of the illness, and observe the principles of health. That is the Buddha I understand.

'''B:''' As expected, the Buddha even seems to have understood Marxist theory.

'''A:''' That’s giving him too much credit. There is no way the Buddha could have known Marx’s theories. And his authority is not diminished in the least by not knowing them. He lived twenty-five hundred years ago; of course he did not know them. The point is that those who genuinely understand the Buddha’s life of love and equality naturally acquire the kind of understanding appropriate to their own time, place, and circumstances. Buddhism therefore develops continuously along with the age. That is the process I meant earlier when speaking of historically developing Buddhism. What we need to learn from Buddhism is the fundamental orientation of human life. Once we stand upon that foundation, an appropriate way of life will unfold in accordance with circumstances. I express this in the slogan: “From Impermanence to Devotion.”

'''B:''' Then Confucius’s saying, “A neighborhood is beautiful when there is benevolence; if one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one be called wise?” expresses the same view of life.

'''A:''' I think so. The ''tian'' of Confucianism, the God of Christianity, Japanese Shintō and the Buddha of Buddhism may all be explained differently, but if we follow them to their roots, I believe they all rest upon the same path of sacred love.

=== Buddhism and Christianity Will Merge ===
'''B:''' Some time ago, an organization called the Concordia Association was established to bring together the three teachings of Shintō, Confucianism, and Buddhism.<ref>The Concordia Association (Kiitsu Kyōkai 帰一協会) was a private interreligious organization founded in June 1912 by leading intellectuals and public figures, including industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi 渋沢栄一, educator Naruse Jinzō 成瀬仁蔵, religious scholar Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治, and philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. Formed in the same year as the government-sponsored Three Religions Conference (Sankyō Kaidō 三教会同), the association sought to foster moral and intellectual unity (kiitsu 帰一) across religious and philosophical traditions. Seno’o regarded such ecumenical efforts critically, seeing them as attempts to achieve an abstract religious harmony without confronting the social and economic conflicts of capitalist society.</ref>

{{opage|275}}

If what you’re saying is right, then Buddhism should ultimately be able to unite with Christianity as well.

'''A:''' I believe the day will come when they do. As the languages and writing systems of the world, and culture more generally, gradually converge—and especially as economic structures become increasingly integrated—religion alone cannot remain forever in a state of warring kingdoms. I think a new movement will emerge in which the two are sublated. After all, the innermost sanctuary of the human spirit must fundamentally be one. Religions should not continue opposing one another as they do today. Indeed, from the standpoint of religion’s true purpose, a world federation of religions ought to be proposed even before the political world federation now being discussed. I believe the mission of religious movements must be to work toward the realization of a worldwide human fellowship.

=== The Disappearance of the Established Buddhist Institutions Is Inevitable ===
'''B:''' I agree. In that case, the immediate priority would have to be a movement to unify Buddhism. The present fragmentation amounts to nothing more than Buddhists demonstrating their own lack of religious resolve. How many schools and branches does Buddhism actually have today?

'''A:''' I’ve heard there are thirteen schools and fifty-six branches.<ref>“Thirteen schools and fifty-six branches” (jūsanshū gojūrokuha, 十三宗五十六派) was a conventional enumeration of the institutional divisions of Japanese Buddhism in the modern period. Seno’o invokes the formula as evidence of the sectarian fragmentation that his movement sought to overcome.</ref>

'''B:''' But if you start a movement for unification, won’t you in practice simply create one more sect?

'''A:''' Even if it means adding one more sect for the moment, if the movement truly corresponds to the needs of the age, then as it expands and grows stronger, the established Buddhist institutions that have fallen out of step with the times will gradually lose their power and naturally undergo liquidation and disappear. That is just what happened when the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period displaced the established Buddhism of Nara and Heian and caused its older forms gradually to dissolve.

'''B:''' Then you’re saying that this Revitalized Buddhist movement represents the highest form of Buddhism demanded by the modern age.

'''A:''' As I said before, so long as Buddhism has its source in the person of the Buddha, is there really any other path by which it can be brought back into unity?

'''B:''' At the very least, it seems to be a method that should be acceptable across the schools. In fact, whichever Buddhist institution you examine, each has doctrines of some substance. But if every school keeps proclaiming exclusively, “Our school alone has grasped the Buddha’s intent,” the beginning seeker is completely bewildered. And if, despite all those differences, they all offer essentially the same opiate-like sermons of escape from reality, modern people will not merely reject Buddhism—they will quite naturally become advocates of its repudiation.

'''A:''' “Rotten wood cannot be carved.”<ref>“Rotten wood cannot be carved” (朽木不可雕也) derives from the Analects 5.10, where Confucius uses the image to describe someone upon whom further instruction would be wasted.</ref> There is no need to fear revolution.

{{opage|276}}

Even Shinran, regarded as the very model of humility, declared at the establishment of his teaching that “the teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace.”<ref>“The teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace” (釈迦の遺法ことごとく龍宮にいりたまいにき) is from Shinran’s Shōzōmatsu Wasan (正像末和讃, “Hymns of the Dharma-Ages”). The verse describes the disappearance of Śākyamuni’s conventional path of practice and realization in the age of the Final Dharma; the Dragon Palace (ryūgū, 龍宮) is the mythical undersea realm in which Buddhist scriptures were said to be preserved beyond the human world.</ref> To put it plainly, he too rejected the whole of established Buddhism as obsolete.

=== On the Scriptural Basis of the New Movement ===
'''B:''' I understand. Earlier you said ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''. Would ''Namu Shakamuni Butsu'' not be sufficient?

'''A:''' According to correct Sanskrit usage, when ''namu''—“homage”—is used, the ending ''-āya'' must be added to indicate the dative case. Only then does it properly mean “homage to Śākyamuni Buddha” or “I take refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha.” With Namu Shakamuni Butsu, by contrast, “Śākyamuni Buddha” remains in the nominative, so the grammatical relationship between namu and “Śākyamuni Buddha” does not work properly. Or so I am told. Since we are launching a new movement aimed at Buddhist unity, we have taken the opportunity to correct the expression as well.<ref>Seno’o prefers Namu Shakamuni Budaya 南無釈迦牟尼仏陀耶 to the conventional Namu Shakamuni Butsu 南無釈迦牟尼仏, explaining the former as grammatically preferable on the basis of Sanskrit namas (“homage”) and the dative buddhāya. The phonetic form Budaya is retained here as Seno’o gives it rather than Sanskritized. The formula became characteristic of the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref>

'''B:''' I understand that too. But what about your authoritative scripture? You can hardly choose one scripture now—the ''Lotus Sutra'', the ''Amida Sutra'', or some other text—and carrying around the entire enormous Buddhist canon is obviously impossible.

'''A:''' You’re right. If we take the position that, despite differences of importance and emphasis, the entire Buddhist canon arises from the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, then it is impossible—especially after abandoning our former sectarian standpoint—to choose a single scripture as uniquely authoritative. So, for practical purposes, we have decided for the time being to adopt the ''Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures'' compiled by Kizu Muan and others.<ref>Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1876–1943) was a lay Buddhist reformer associated with efforts to make Buddhist scripture accessible beyond sectarian boundaries. His Shin’yaku Bukkyō Seiten (新訳仏教聖典 Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures), published in 1925, presented selections from major Buddhist scriptures in accessible modern Japanese and was intended to provide ordinary Japanese Buddhists with a common scriptural anthology</ref> It is a handy modern translation containing selections from the essential teachings of the entire canon.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t Kizu and the other compilers inevitably impose their own personalities upon such an anthology?

'''A:''' That cannot entirely be avoided. I would prefer something more thoroughly revised. If possible, I would like the members of our own movement eventually to compile and publish such a translation ourselves.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t that plant the seeds for yet another inevitable division?

'''A:''' I can’t deny that possibility. Since believers differ in their inclinations, if we make scriptures themselves the basis, division will naturally arise again. Indeed, the scriptures themselves recognize the necessity of diversified teaching. We find statements such as “innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma” and “because desires and dispositions differ, various teachings are preached.” A scripture could even be called the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings precisely because it recognizes the necessity of the Dharma being expressed in different forms. So if we make scripture the basis, division will certainly recur. Instead of defining the Buddha through the scriptures,…

{{opage|277}}

…we should take the person of the Buddha as our starting point and reduce the essential meaning of the entire canon to the realization of love and equality. Wouldn’t Buddhism then be able to unite without strain? The essential point is to recognize that Amida Buddha, Mahāvairocana Buddha, and the other figures who came to be believed in as actually existing beings through faith in the scriptures are all representations of the person of Śākyamuni. I therefore propose that all Buddhists unite in Namu Shakamuni Budaya. It is like Christianity: however many denominations there may be, they are united in their object of faith—the one God—to whom they say “Amen.”

'''B:''' Wasn’t that ultimately the real intention behind Master Nichiren’s religious revolution as well?

'''A:''' Exactly. We should now subject it to modern criticism—including the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—and thereby purify it, while at the same time stripping away the old shell of ''daimoku'' chanting, corroded by all manner of popular beliefs and superstitions. In that way we can make the central principle of Buddhist unification unmistakably clear and, beyond that, establish the spiritual basis for a worldwide human fellowship. And this cry of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'' necessarily leads us to scrutinize the economic system that forms the basic condition of actual life. Since the present capitalist economic system violates the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, we have no choice but, in the name of that love and equality, to join the movement to transform it.

'''B:''' That seems to be one of the three central aims of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. But before you explain that, what does your movement intend to do about funerals? You certainly aren’t going to ask the priests to perform them.

=== On Funerals ===
'''A:''' Don’t be ridiculous. What good would it do to have priests like that perform the final rites over us? Today I attended the private funeral of a certain eminent archbishop. A certain head priest who had betrayed his teacher while the latter was still alive acted as officiant. Arrayed in a gold-brocade kesa, with a procession of similarly dressed priests behind him, he recited sutras and chanted the ''daimoku'' as he performed the final rites. If my teacher had been able to speak from within the jeweled ''stūpa'', what would he have said?<ref>The deceased “teacher” was Honda Nisshō 本多日生 (1867–1931), the influential Nichiren Buddhist leader under whom Seno’o had studied and with whom he had long been associated before his break with Nichirenism. Honda’s death in March 1931 thus occurred at precisely the moment of Seno’o’s turn toward Revitalized Buddhism. Seno’o’s discomfort at the elaborate funeral rites of his former teacher underscores both the personal and institutional dimensions of that break. The jeweled stūpa (hōtō 宝塔) alludes to chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra, in which a magnificent stūpa emerges from the earth containing the Buddha Prabhūtaratna (J. Tahō Nyorai).</ref> I could do nothing but weep. There they were in a main hall beautifully decorated with donations—unearned income contributed by the bourgeoisie—a group of seemingly castrated priests banging away on their old-fashioned gongs, interminably reciting ''dhāraṇī''s whose meaning no one could understand, and putting on an air of solemnity. For someone who sincerely mourns his teacher and is resolved to bring that teacher’s aspirations to life in a new age, how could a ''dhāraṇī''-style funeral like that possibly be satisfying? No doubt such forms once possessed value appropriate to their age,…

{{opage|278}}

…but today, from beginning to end, they are nothing but anachronisms. They are like beer left sitting for days, with sediment collecting in it. In the end, that is what happens when a funeral has lost its spirit.

'''B:''' Then what sort of form do you propose replacing it with?

'''A:''' Are you so worried about the form of the funeral that you can’t attain buddhahood? As long as the movement itself is genuinely alive and substantial, I believe forms appropriate to the age will arise naturally in the course of the movement. Look at how solemn a makeshift burial on the battlefield can be. Think, too, how deeply moving Yamasen’s funeral was.<ref>“Yamasen” was the familiar name of Yamamoto Senji 山本宣治 (1889–1929), a biologist, birth-control advocate, socialist politician, and labor activist assassinated by a right-wing nationalist in 1929. His funeral and memorial processions became major public events for the Japanese left.</ref> The point is that appropriate forms arise in proportion to the intensity of one’s commitment to justice in life. So I don’t think we need to calculate the form of a funeral in advance. The essential thing is to adopt a simple, spiritual form appropriate to the modern age; beyond that, we can proceed as circumstances require.

'''B:''' But a funeral does adorn the end of a person’s life....

'''A:''' The end isn’t something you decorate once you’ve reached it. To put it strongly, think of a funeral as little more than disposing of used coffee grounds. What matters is rebuilding each living day into a life of justice and love. Isn’t that what Nichiren meant when he said, “A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world”?<ref>“A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world.” Nichiren, Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude,” 1276).</ref> To think of a funeral as a ceremony that “adorns the end” is itself a variant of bourgeois ideology: people donate or contribute some percentage of wealth accumulated through sinful exploitation and imagine that this constitutes admirable faith and atonement. ''Why be calculating funeral arrangements before the banner has even been raised? Those advancing arm in arm in the march of justice should already be prepared to leave their corpses by the roadside. Would the dead not prefer the tearful offering of a single comrade to the hymns of a thousand people without heart? “Let the dead bury their dead!”''<ref>Matthew 8:22; cf. Luke 9:60.</ref> The fundamental ideology of our Revitalized Buddhist movement must be the resolve to embody the Buddhist spirit in actual life—a resolve that will make even our funerals bleed tears.

'''B:''' I understand. Then will you go on to explain the relationship between reform of the economic system and the Revitalized Buddhist movement?

=== Revitalized Buddhism and Class Struggle ===
'''A:''' We’ve talked for quite a long time today, so let’s leave this subject until next time. In the meantime, from January through March of this year I published my views in Youth on the attitude Buddhists should take toward…

{{opage|279}}

…capitalism. I’ll eventually publish those articles as a pamphlet, so study them when it comes out.<ref>Seno’o refers to his essay series “Capitalism and the Stance of Buddhists” (Shihonshugi ni taisuru Bukkyōto no taido 資本主義に対する仏教徒の態度), serialized in Wakōdo 若人 from January through March 1931 and subsequently published as Shihonshugi to Bukkyō 資本主義と仏教 (Capitalism and Buddhism; Tokyo: Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei Shuppanbu, 1931).</ref> In the end, Buddhist priests too are parasites of capitalism and, generally speaking, cannot avoid becoming its servants. The shortest road to religious revolution therefore lies in transforming capitalism, the underlying condition that sustains them. In any case, doesn’t this new movement acquire value only when it advances into the concrete problems of actual life?

'''B:''' Let me ask you one thing. In the end, then, you recognize “joining the proletarian movement”—that is, class struggle?

'''A:''' Yes.

'''B:''' Earlier you said that Buddhism is “emptiness” and that it occupies “no standpoint.” But if you endorse class struggle and side with the proletarian movement, doesn’t that contradict the Buddhist spirit?

'''A:''' It is precisely because Buddhism is “emptiness” and occupies “no standpoint” that, when circumstances require it, participation in the proletarian movement can be justified. To look at the class struggle actually taking place before our eyes and simply disregard it amounts to nothing more than indifference to the conditions of our own lives. The question is which side it is right to support. That alone is the issue.

'''B:''' But proletarian activists are often inclined to resort to violence. Can that too be called just?

'''A:''' Before speaking of violence by the proletarian movement, don’t you recognize the overwhelming presence of the military, the police, and all the other instruments of power controlled by those who rule? It is precisely on the basis of this recognition of reality that proletarian activists are compelled to resort to violence in order to realize their ideal society.

'''B:''' You speak of “those who control the instruments of power,” but these are the nation’s military and police. Surely they do not belong to any one particular class.

'''A:''' That is true in name only. Look at the facts: which class actually controls the military and the police? You have to open your eyes to reality. Today, the justice and morality spoken of by the ruling class are entirely one-sided—a morality of the strong. Otherwise, how could they enjoy such lives of splendor while ignoring the masses living at the very bottom?

'''B:''' Still, their present position is one they have attained by prevailing in competition. Surely being the victor does not necessarily make one unjust.

'''A:''' If that is not unjust, then why is it considered unjust—and impermissible—for the proletariat today to seek victory through unions and solidarity?

'''B:''' Isn’t that because it would disrupt the existing social order?

{{opage|280}}

'''A:''' For whose benefit is the present social order arranged? Look at the facts. Today, justice and morality are all colored by class. They are a class-based justice and order, and by no means genuine justice. Nevertheless, the educators either unconsciously—or sometimes consciously, and quite brazenly—serve as mouthpieces for the ruling class. If it is just for the present ruling class to use its power to suppress the proletarian movement, then it must equally be just for proletarian activists to seize power and turn it back against them. If religious people are to condemn violence as unjust, then from which class should they first demand its abandonment? And if, under certain circumstances, violence itself can be regarded as just, then which movement contains within it more of the true essence of justice? The impossible neutral standpoint that is neither bourgeois nor proletarian belongs now to the realm of ghosts. True justice must be sought in securing the welfare of the masses. So, what do you think? I believe that the Revitalized Buddhist movement can ultimately find its true social ground only among the proletarian class.

'''B:''' I think I understand now. Justice is an ideology that becomes concretely felt through opposition. Looking back over history, the true character of justice has been recognized most clearly in struggles against the powerful on behalf of the weak of their time. In fact, I myself have been inwardly dissatisfied with calling myself “neutral.” I have always tried to formulate a conception of justice by working from the concrete calculations of actual life rather than from abstraction. On that point, I should read your pamphlet carefully and think it over.

'''A:''' Until now, almost all Buddhists have, more or less without exception, adhered to a conceptual and conservative faith in “gratitude.” As a result, they have been blind to the problems of actual social life, have conducted no research whatsoever into socialism, and have been driven from the outset into a blindly reactionary movement. This is a grave anachronism. The original ideal of Buddhism was, on the contrary, itself socialist. On this point, too, I am genuinely glad that the narcotic effect of the opium has begun to wear off and that the force of actual life has begun to move.

'''B:''' I understand quite well. Let’s discuss this question again after I’ve read your pamphlet. (Shōwa 6 [1931], “Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism,” April inaugural issue)

{{opage|281}}

=== The Economy Is the Foundation of Life ===
'''B:''' You promised me last month that you would explain the relationship between the Revitalized Buddhist movement and the transformation of the economic system.

'''A:''' Yes. Since launching this new movement, I have become painfully aware that the reason nearly all the comrades who initially joined me but later withdrew did so was the third item in our program: “opposition to capitalism.” This has made me realize all the more clearly that economic problems are the very foundation of human life, and that our thoughts and actions are therefore inevitably conditioned by them. Generally speaking, an edification movement that ignores economic problems is nothing more than a conceptual game. Indeed, I have become even more firmly convinced that any edification movement that does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to advancing the transformation of the present capitalist economic system is nothing less than an opiate-like form of wrongdoing. And surely there is no longer any need to explain that capitalism is a mechanism of selfishness and self-interest that runs counter to the Buddhist spirit.

'''B:''' From the enthusiastic response of the audience at the April 5 inaugural commemorative lecture meeting of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, I too could clearly sense how thoroughly society has become disillusioned with capitalism and with the established Buddhist institutions.

But what about organizations such as the Hope Society and the Cultivation Society, which have recently been conducting very active edification movements? Don’t you think they possess some contemporary value?<ref>Kibōsha 希望社 (“Hope Society”), founded by Gotō Seikō 後藤静香 (1884–1969) in 1918, and Shūyōdan 修養団 (“Self-Cultivation Association”), founded by Hasunuma Monzō 蓮沼門三 (1882–1980) in 1906, were prominent organizations in Japan’s modern moral-edification (kyōka 教化) and self-cultivation (shūyō 修養) movements. Both emphasized personal discipline, service, and social harmony. Seno’o rejects such movements as inadequate responses to structural economic problems, arguing that their emphasis on individual moral cultivation ultimately leaves capitalist relations intact.</ref>

'''A:''' They are both organizations for officially sanctioned edification, and in the end the result is the same. Precisely because they are novel edification movements, they may temporarily attract young men and women and, for that very reason, function all the more effectively as an opiate. Recently, however, I hear that even within the Cultivation Society an anti-capitalist consciousness has gradually begun to emerge. And didn’t the Hope Society recently fall several months behind in paying its employees’ salaries, leading to an employees’ strike and even a lawsuit? As the saying goes, “A hundred days of preaching are undone by a single fart.”<ref>A traditional Japanese proverb: Hyakunichi no seppō, he hitotsu 百日の説法、屁一つ (literally, “A hundred days of preaching, one fart”), meaning that prolonged preaching or painstaking effort can be undone by a single act that renders it ridiculous or ineffective. Seno’o invokes the deliberately coarse expression to suggest that moral edification is rendered futile when the social conditions produced by capitalism remain unchanged.</ref> There is also that amusing saying, “Faith, too, comes from an excess of ''toku''.” Here ''toku'' means “profit.” That one saying alone explains rather well the relationship between economic problems and established edification organizations.<ref>“Faith, too, comes from an excess of toku” plays on the proverb shinjin mo toku no amari 信心も徳の余り, meaning that religious devotion becomes possible only when one has sufficient material ease. Seno’o pointedly interprets toku here in the material sense of profit or economic gain, reinforcing his argument that religious and moral life cannot be separated from economic conditions.</ref>

{{opage|282}}

=== The Anachronism of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''B:''' You did quite a bit of arguing at the conference of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation on April 2 and 3. Was it about what you were just discussing?

'''A:''' It wasn’t only that, but I said everything that needed to be said. The obvious question was whether, in determining its attitude toward capitalism, which runs counter to the Buddhist spirit, the Federation would return to the Buddha—but they could not reach a decision. Worse still, although Buddhist youth from throughout Japan had joined together in a federation with the intention of advancing into a new society, they were still debating whether guiding principles were even necessary. It was like firing a gun in the dark; there was no real question to discuss.

'''B:''' Doesn’t the Federation’s second stated objective say, “We aim to awaken to the Buddhist spirit and promote its revitalization”?

'''A:''' However impressive such abstract phrases may sound, unless something new actually follows from them, things will simply continue as before. Even if they spend several hundred yen to establish another grand federation, what meaning can it possibly have unless they articulate concrete guiding principles appropriate to the demands of the new age? As I was saying, so long as the various sects each possess bodies of teaching that are historically incompatible with one another, the more faithfully each adheres to the doctrines of its own sect, the less what sect A regards as the Buddhist spirit will correspond to what sects B and C regard as the Buddhist spirit. Take the Nichiren sect: if it loudly proclaims the Buddhist spirit embodied in its Four Dicta, how can it possibly form a united front with the Nenbutsu and other sects? And if the Pure Land sect clings to the “Five Miscellaneous Practices,” wouldn’t the result be the same?<ref>The Five Miscellaneous Practices (gozōgyō 五雑行), derived from Shandao’s Pure Land classification, designate practices directed toward buddhas and teachings other than Amitābha and the Pure Land as “miscellaneous,” in contrast to the five “right practices” (goshōgyō 五正行). Seno’o juxtaposes this Pure Land exclusivism with Nichiren’s Four Dicta (see n. 30) to expose the unresolved doctrinal contradictions underlying claims of Buddhist unity.</ref> If they say cooperation is nevertheless possible, then that is shameless—unless, of course, they have already sublated their sectarian doctrines in accordance with the times. In any case, if the Federation is to become something more than a kind of religious social club and actually inaugurate a Buddhist movement appropriate to the new age, it must set forth a guiding principle of faith capable of unifying the Federation as a whole and, on that basis, a guiding principle for solving social problems. Otherwise, it is useless.

'''B:''' Surely people chosen to represent their respective regions must have thought about something as basic as that.

'''A:''' Exactly. Marx said that “humanity always sets itself only such problems as it is able to solve.”<ref>Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface (1859): “Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve.”</ref> Since these people have joined the Federation in order to join hands with one another, there must be some common point on which they ''can'' join hands—some problem capable of solution. That is why I proposed that we…

{{opage|283}}

…identify this concrete point and launch a new movement.

=== Two Major Proposals to the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''A:''' Needless to say, I advocated the two fundamental principles of our Revitalized Buddhism. They took the following form:

(1)'' We recognize that the divisions among the established Buddhist institutions run counter to the Buddhist way of harmony; returning to the Buddha, we resolve to promote Buddhism anew in a manner appropriate to the age.''

(2)'' We recognize that the suffering of present society arises primarily from its contradictory social organization, and we resolve to reform that organization and build an ideal society grounded in the Buddhist spirit.''<ref>Compare these two proposals with the three founding principles subsequently proclaimed by the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism at its inaugural meeting on April 5, 1931: opposition to established Buddhist institutions, the construction of a new Buddhist movement suited to the present age, and opposition to capitalism.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t these proposals rather abstract?

'''A:''' I think they are sufficient as fundamental principles realistically possible under the present circumstances of the Buddhist Federation.

'''B:''' I hear there was considerable opposition.

'''A:''' There was. But the truth was self-evident. Whatever anyone might say, the only possible point of unity for such a federation was “returning to the Buddha.” The spirit of the proposal was therefore generally accepted. But time was short, and the matter was referred to the platform-drafting committee, so the proceedings came to an end. As the newspapers harshly criticized them the next day, however, a federation like this might almost have been better left unformed. They did not even have the courage to decide upon the obvious first proposal. As for the second, in practice it must have seemed about as remote as the Pure Land ten billion lands to the west.

=== Shin Buddhism’s Self-Reckoning ===
'''B:''' I understand that most of the delegates in attendance were Shin Buddhists. But if you say “Return to the Buddha,” doesn’t that amount to a declaration of bankruptcy for the Amida teaching of absolute Other Power?

'''A:''' Strictly speaking, I suppose it does. Recently, I saw an explanation by Dr. Takakusu published in the Yomiuri Shimbun under the title “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism.” Even there, Amida faith and the like have been completely disposed of. It seems to me that any seeker who reads one as one, correctly and without distortion, could have no possible objection to Shin Buddhism also “returning to the Buddha.” In the section on “atheism” in Dr. Takakusu’s “Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism,” he writes:

Human destiny is not governed by God; it is entirely self-governed. Through the principle that one reaps the consequences of one’s own actions, each person is continually opening up their own destiny. There is therefore no need to await God’s judgment: it is entirely a matter of self-judgment. Good causes and good effects do not arise through God’s judgment, but rather through natural law. Thus Śākyamuni stands firmly upon his own human personality, develops that personality upward, and attains complete buddhahood. Amida Nyorai and Dainichi Nyorai, too, are ideals manifested from Śākyamuni’s own ideal…

{{opage|284}}

… they are, after all, human beings brought to completion. Therefore, the Buddha has not the slightest trace of the meaning of a creator god, a sovereign god, or a judicial god. Rather, the Buddha himself attains the ultimate state of self-awakening and, from compassion for other unenlightened beings, begins the activity of awakening others so as to bring them to the same ultimate state of self-awakening.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945), a prominent scholar of Buddhism and Sanskrit, developed a modern systematic interpretation of Buddhist doctrine that included an explicitly “atheistic” (mushinshugi 無神主義) principle. Seno’o here quotes Takakusu’s “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no konpon gi 仏教の根本義), published in the morning edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun, March 22, 1931. See also Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref>

Accordingly, self-awakening, awakening others, and the perfection of awakened practice are the Buddha’s fundamental concern. As you know, Dr. Takakusu is a universally acknowledged authority on Shin Buddhism. Therefore, shouldn’t we simply dispense with an Amida Nyorai of Other-Power salvation, stand firmly upon our own human personality, and direct that personality upward toward the liberated Buddha? The destiny of the doctor himself lies in opening up his own self; in other words, it is a matter of an Amida Nyorai who saves himself through the development of his own self. Therefore, casting aside naïve reliance on Amida Buddha and Other Power, should not all Buddhists stand upon their own personhood and strive to develop and perfect it, uniting around the liberated Buddha, seeking the light of life in reverence for this ideal personality, and devoting themselves to responsible effort? Would this not be a Buddhist movement that modern people could find convincing?

'''B:''' I think that is exactly right. The conception of Other-Power Buddhism is quite similar to the Christian conception of a sovereign and judging God. Such an explanation can hardly satisfy the religion of tomorrow. If all this is so clear, why can’t they raise a platform and launch a new Buddhist movement?

=== The Resolve to Bear the Cross ===
'''A:''' From this point on, however, the issue becomes one of religious resolve. There is always a distance between explanation and practice. Between them stand inherited conventions, personal ties and feelings, and, above all, the many difficult problems accumulated through economic relationships and the circumstances of actual life. It is easy enough to speak of decisive action, but making the leap itself is by no means simple. Such a leap can only come from the earnest seeking spirit of a revolutionary who is driven by an irresistible inner necessity and is prepared even to bear the cross. This is especially true of our second principle. Without such determination, it would be impossible to revolutionize the tradition of religion in service to established power and launch a new Buddhist movement for the sake of the masses.

=== Sinclair’s View of Religion ===
'''B:''' At the Revitalized Buddhist founding commemorative lecture on the fifth, there were an awful lot of police present,…

{{opage|285}}

…keeping a very conspicuous watch. Was that because of Revitalized Buddhism’s third principle—the slogan “Down with Capitalism”?

'''A:''' Exactly. When I was summoned to the police station over the notification for the meeting, that was what they told me. They were not particularly concerned about the destruction of the established Buddhist institutions. What concerned them was the anti-capitalist movement. If the content of our Revitalized Buddhist movement consisted merely in destroying the established religious institutions and unifying Buddhism, that would amount to little more than destroying a number of robots and manufacturing one enormous robot in their place. The real problem is that, unless the Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a movement against capitalism—the modern devil that is mercilessly turning human beings into robots through the religious institutions—it cannot truly be called a religious movement that engages actual life. That is what I believe.

'''B:''' I can understand what you’re saying, but surely religion and economic movements are, by their very nature, separate fields?

'''A:''' That is a reasonable point, at least at first. But I believe that true religion should not divide things into two, economics on one side and spirit on the other; it should demand the idealization of life as a whole. Genuine love between a man and a woman cannot be satisfied with Platonic love; only where flesh and spirit are united can love attain fulfillment.

On this point, Upton Sinclair writes in his well-known book Is Religion Worth Believing?<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968) was an American socialist writer and political activist. The passages quoted here are from his The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation (1918), a socialist critique of organized religion as an ally of economic exploitation. Seno’o encountered the work in Japanese as Shūkyō wa shinzuru ni taru ka 宗教は信ずるに足るか (Is Religion Worth Believing?; trans. Sakai Toshihiko et al., Tokyo: Kōbunsha, 1920). The English here translates the Japanese passages quoted by Seno’o rather than substituting Sinclair’s original English wording.</ref>

Religion, in the true sense, is the most fundamental of spiritual impulses: an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and foster life. In this sense, every thinking human being must be religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal and the true nature of humanity itself. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. Indeed, I wish to make clear that religion, understood in this sense, is something that simply cannot be attacked.

But the word ‘religion’ has also been given another meaning, and as a result we have been deprived of the pleasure of using this word in that straightforward sense. For most people, the word ‘religion’ does not mean ‘the soul’s desire to grow’ or ‘the pursuit of righteousness as though hungering and thirsting for it.’ Instead, it means the historical forms in which that desire has appeared, and…

{{opage|286}}

…the doctrines, ‘revelations,’ creeds, and rituals it has acquired; a system under which the moral impulses of the people, the love of children, and the aspirations of youth are exploited and turned into a source of privilege and commercial profit for the clergy. ‘Religion’ in this sense is the natural ally of parasitic income and of every form of oppression and exploitation.

Can we not clearly understand from this the difference between true “religion” and distorted, so-called “religion”? ''Thus the actual path followed by the true religious person, who “hungers and thirsts after righteousness,” naturally diverges from the ideological dream-world in which the half-paralyzed pseudo-religionist dances, taking fixed doctrines and revelations, creeds and rituals to be religion.'' Sinclair’s next words express almost exactly my own present conviction:

I am certainly no shallow materialist. I am not so superficial as to think that human beings can be satisfied by meaningless rationalism. I know that the symbols of the old religions arose from the human heart. They arose because they corresponded to certain desires of the human heart. And I also know that, together with those desires, the symbols of a new religion suited to the needs of the present age can be discovered. If I am trying here to tear down an old, dilapidated building, it is not out of a blind impulse to destroy, but because I am an architect who wishes to build in its place a new and sturdier structure.

=== The True Character of Temple Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then today’s Nichiren sect, Nenbutsu sect, Shingon sect, and so forth, with their ruling hierarchies claiming divine authority and their fixed doctrines, “revelations,” creeds, and rituals, are what might be called “religion in the ordinary sense.”

'''A:''' They are indeed typical examples. Look at Mount Minobu, the eastern and western Honganji temples, or Narita’s Fudō temple. Where in any of them do we find a “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” or the “most fundamental spiritual impulse,” the vital force of life, being nurtured and fostered? What kind of contact do these sacred places have with young people, in whom spiritual impulses are at their strongest? Among the pilgrims to these sacred places, most are old people with no future, people making selfish petitions, or perhaps bourgeois and petit-bourgeois youth. What kind of promise do they make to the young people of tomorrow?

And speaking of that,…

{{opage|287}}

…Tsukiji Honganji, I hear, is planning to construct an enormous reinforced-concrete temple hall with a building budget of more than two million yen. The reason for doing so is truly remarkable. Since the Great Earthquake destroyed its main hall, most large funerals have been going instead to Zōjōji in Shiba. The new building, it is rumored, is therefore a scheme to win those customers back.<ref>Tsukiji Honganji 築地本願寺, the major Honganji-ha temple in Tokyo, lost its main hall in the fires following the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923. Its replacement, designed by Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954), was constructed in reinforced concrete between 1931 and 1934 in a distinctive Indian-inspired style, at a cost of more than two million yen. Seno’o refers critically to reports that the expensive reconstruction was driven partly by competition with Zōjōji 増上寺, the prominent Jōdo-shū temple in Shiba, for lucrative funerals. He presents the episode as an example of Buddhist institutions pursuing wealth and institutional prestige rather than the welfare of the masses.</ref> What kind of grotesque commercial competition between funeral corporations is this?

Given Buddhism under the leadership of temples like these, there is hardly any need to explain what the lives of ordinary Buddhists look like today. It amounts to little more than mouthing phrases such as “From Impermanence to Devotion,” accompanied by a smiling face, as though economic life were an entirely separate matter. People may shed grateful tears at the thought that “the founder spent ninety years clothed in paper,”<ref>“The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” alludes to a celebrated haiku by Ōtani Kubutsu 大谷句仏 (Ōtani Kōen, 1875–1943), the twenty-third head of Higashi Honganji: “How humbling! The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” (勿体なや祖師は紙衣の九十年). The “founder” is Shinran (1173–1263), while “paper clothing” (kamiko 紙衣) evokes the austerity traditionally associated with his life. Seno’o invokes the verse ironically to contrast Shinran’s celebrated simplicity with the wealth and institutional practices of contemporary Shin Buddhism.</ref> and may be deeply moved as they recall his exile at Tsukahara; but how is any of that spirit actually woven into the everyday lives of believers? Look again at the recent practice of the ruling class, as one means of ideological guidance, of having elementary-school teachers install ''kamidana'' in their classrooms in order to instill the ideology of reverence for the gods and veneration of the ancestors. These are precisely the fossilized religious rites Sinclair was describing. What a strange situation we have today: at a time when there are said to be as many as a thousand villages where teachers’ salaries go unpaid, the gods and buddhas whose very life is equality and love are shut up inside such little boxes, while the ruling class orders teachers to bow before them in the name of ideological guidance.<ref>Seno’o refers to the increasing use of State Shintō rites in public education during the early Shōwa period, when practices such as the installation of kamidana 神棚 and shrine worship were promoted as expressions of civic morality and reverence for the emperor rather than as “religion.” He juxtaposes this ideological mobilization of elementary-school teachers with their low salaries and precarious economic position, exposing what he sees as the contradiction between state-sponsored moral edification and the material conditions of those charged with carrying it out.</ref> The ruling class is bad enough—but surely the teachers who have no choice but to reply, “Yes, indeed,” and obey deserve our sympathy as well. Think about it. Why should governors and department heads receive monthly salaries of four or five hundred yen, while elementary-school teachers receive only sixty or seventy? And isn’t the amount of time they actually spend working in precisely the opposite proportion?

Earlier I mentioned Dr. Takakusu’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism.” Among its four outward-facing principles are non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no hachidai kōryō 仏教の八大綱領) distinguished four inward-facing principles from four outward-facing social principles, the latter comprising non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality. See Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref> He says that Buddhism’s distinctive characteristic lies in carrying each of these principles through to its fullest possible extent. But that is merely a story about the past. Where do we see these principles being practiced today? Where are Buddhists even calling for their practice? Indeed, what could be more upside-down and confused than the fact that Buddhism now attacks socialism—which seeks to put those very principles into practice—as though it were the devil itself? We must once again recover the Buddha’s life of equality.

=== The Transformation of the Economic System is Essential ===
'''B:''' Then, from what you have said, is the concrete problem advocated by the Revitalized Buddhist movement ultimately the need for “a new religion integrated with the needs of the present age”?

'''A:''' Exactly. As I said before, generally speaking, economic relationships regulate our thought and action. Under the present profit-oriented…

{{opage|288}}

…capitalist economic system, antisocial egoism is naturally mass-produced. That is why I regard the transformation of this mechanism as a fundamental problem.

'''B:''' I asked you this before, but isn’t the proper function of religion nevertheless a spiritual one?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that. But the moment religion fixes itself exclusively in that role, it acquires the first qualification of a religion in the service of established power, and then becomes capable of reactionary preaching. If you could guarantee, for people in general, that they could perform hard physical labor even when hungry and remain mentally clear even when deprived of sleep, then I would accept your argument.

'''B:''' But many accomplished people have managed to transcend adverse circumstances. Doesn’t that show that spiritual power can rise above environment? And haven’t extraordinary powers of mind sometimes developed precisely under difficult conditions?

'''A:''' That is precisely the stock-in-trade of establishment preachers. Of course, there is the saying, “Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool.” <ref>“Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool” (shintō mekkyaku sureba hi mo mata suzushi 心頭滅却すれば火もまた涼し) is a traditional expression for transcending physical suffering through mental composure, famously associated in Japan with the Zen monk Kaisen Jōki 快川紹喜 (d. 1582), who is said to have uttered it as he faced death by fire at Erinji.</ref> But, as I have repeatedly said in this conversation, I am speaking generally. Ordinary people tend to lack constancy of mind when they lack a secure livelihood. You can argue as you do now because you have no anxiety over food and clothing. But imagine yourself being hounded by the need to obtain today’s bread: a religion of spiritual bliss would inevitably become a secondary concern.

''Human beings, after all, exist within nature. Just as pine branches exposed to the sea wind are shaped in much the same way, we too are generally subject to the influence of our environment. It is therefore impossible simply to ignore those influences and speak only of ideals. Is this not precisely why the Confucian tradition could say:''

{{opage|289}}

''“When the granaries are full, people know propriety and decorum”?''<ref>A well-known maxim from the Guanzi 管子, “Mumin” 牧民: 倉廩実則知礼節 (“When the granaries are full, [the people] know ritual propriety”). Traditionally associated with Guan Zhong 管仲 (d. 645 BCE), it expresses the idea that material security is a prerequisite for moral and social order. Seno’o invokes the maxim here to support his increasingly materialist insistence that religious or ethical transformation cannot be separated from the economic conditions of everyday life.</ref>'' Unless the movement to establish a true Buddha-land takes this objective reality of human nature as its point of departure, it will remain an eternal dream.''

=== An Example of Economic Conditions Determining Action ===
'''A:''' On the eve of the formation of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, one incident gave me decisive confirmation on this issue: the withdrawal of the Kōfu branch.<ref>The Kōfu branch (Kōfu shibu 甲府支部) in Yamanashi Prefecture was one of the strongest regional bases of Seno’o’s earlier Nichirenist movement. It withdrew immediately before the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism on April 5, 1931, following disagreement over the new movement’s explicit opposition to capitalism. As Seno’o explains here, many Kōfu members were shopkeepers and salaried workers whose livelihoods made such a commitment particularly difficult. He treats the episode as concrete evidence of the extent to which material conditions shape religious conviction and action.</ref>

'''B:''' That was actually something of a surprise to me as well. After all, that branch had been the one into which you had put the greatest effort ever since you first launched the Nichirenist movement, and it was also the most influential branch. What was the reason for its withdrawal?

'''A:''' Five comrades had even promised to come up to Tokyo for the founding ceremony on the fifth. But the anti-capitalist declaration contained in our third principle, published in the inaugural issue of Buddhist Banner delivered on the third, proved fatal.<ref>“Buddhist Banner” (Bukki 佛旗) is Seno’o’s abbreviated designation for Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni (新興仏教の旗の下に, Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism), the original title of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism’s journal.</ref> Since the branch included quite a few members of the petit-bourgeois class and salaried employees, the basic reason was that opposition to capitalism threatened their own livelihoods and made it difficult for them to carry on. That, roughly speaking, was the reason.

'''B:''' But surely none of them were actually supporters of capitalism. And among the younger members, I heard there were some quite energetic people who had even told you that you ought to join a proletarian political party immediately.

'''A:''' When reform remains at the level of ideas and words, one can say almost anything. But when it comes time, as the saying goes, to “put the bell on the cat,” things no longer proceed according to one’s professed convictions. That, too, is ordinary human nature.

'''B:''' But for a religious organization that had worked hand in hand with you for ten years, wasn’t that an extraordinarily faithless response?

'''A:''' If blame is to be assigned, then my own lack of virtue and lack of ability deserve blame first. I cannot bring myself simply to condemn the attitude of the branch with the word “faithlessness,” because I still remember the genuine goodwill the comrades there had shown us. I also believe that among them were comrades who opposed withdrawal, or who thought the decision should at least be postponed. Nevertheless, the fact that the entire branch ultimately decided to withdraw revealed both human weakness in the face of the problem of bread and the workings of a group psychology that transcends the individual.

If this movement were really to deprive comrades of their jobs and cut off their means of obtaining bread—and I do not think that must necessarily happen—then, for someone with a wife, children, parents, or siblings, it would generally be unreasonable to expect him simply to advance in a straight line according to a single-minded conception of justice. If, despite such circumstances, the comrades who withdrew had merely disguised their own weakness and invented other reasons for leaving, then they would indeed deserve blame. But that was not what happened.

{{opage|290}}

'''A:''' In reality, even while cursing the tyranny of capitalism, they dropped out because they were forced to consider the immediate problems of making a living. “You can’t trade your belly for your back,” as the saying goes. ''Here we can see just how powerfully economic problems tend to govern human action, and how the ruling class, through its tyrannical repression, threatens the lives of the vulnerable masses. This, I think, demonstrates all the more clearly the significance of our having placed the transformation of the capitalist economic system in our third principle''.

=== The Historical Task Borne by Revitalized Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then if you had simply left out the third principle, you would not have had to part from close comrades?

'''A:''' Probably so. But suppose that we affirmed capitalism—or criticized it only in words, while in practice carrying on just as before, happily singing hymns to the Buddha and loudly proclaiming socialism while indulging in an intellectual game. How much of the blood and sweat of the proletarian masses would have to be sacrificed to sustain us? Think, for example, of the countless comrades who labor thousands of feet underground, where the light of day never reaches, receiving scarcely enough to cover the bare cost of living. When are they to be liberated and allowed to live lives worthy of human beings? And then look at the luxurious lives of the handful of bourgeoisie. Is this really a social condition that Buddhists—who ought to carry the principles of great compassion and equality through to their fullest extent—can continue to overlook forever?

'''B:''' I understand how you feel. But Buddhism also has ways of looking at things such as “flowers are red, willows are green,” “differentiation is precisely equality,” and “karmic cause and recompense.” Isn’t one distinctive feature of Buddhism precisely its ability to endure painful realities through perspectives such as these?

'''A:''' Such interpretations are precisely the hundred-percent opiate sermons on which establishment religious figures have traditionally feasted. The historical task borne by Revitalized Buddhism must instead be to re-examine these distorted teachings, properly proclaim the Buddhist spirit, and make it a guiding principle for securing the welfare of the masses.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” May issue)

== Part Three ==

=== Is Poverty the Result of Previous-Life Karma? ===
'''B:''' Then how exactly have doctrines such as “karmic cause and recompense” been distorted so as to perform the function of religion in the service of established power?

{{opage|291}}

'''A:''' Let’s begin with “karmic cause and recompense.” As I said earlier, Buddhism is neither fatalism, creationism, nor a doctrine of chance. Of course Buddhism teaches the law of cause and effect, so differences between rich and poor certainly have causes. The distortion lies in placing the cause entirely on one side and thereby imposing resignation and submission. Take the proletarian masses who remain poor no matter how hard they work. How have priests traditionally explained the cause of their poverty? “It is karma from a previous existence. It is your own karma and your own recompense. It is neither the capitalist’s fault nor society’s responsibility. Therefore, instead of blaming capitalists or society, you should simply work even harder.” That is how they have solemnly explained it.

But anyone with even a little knowledge of the capitalist system can already see through such an explanation; there is hardly any need to belabor the point. Last year’s so-called “bumper-crop hell” is an excellent example. The weather was favorable and the farmers labored until the sweat poured from them, yet that unprecedented bumper crop actually became a cause of increased hardship for farming households. Can that fact really be disposed of through a doctrine of causation from a previous life? Or look at bank interest rates: small borrowers are charged more, while large borrowers receive more favorable rates, pushing the small borrower into an increasingly disadvantageous position. Or consider the grossly unequal distribution of profits generated through the cooperation of labor and capital, and the suppression by governmental authority of those who protest. If economic inequality is produced by such unfair social causes, can all of it really be dismissed as the poor person’s karmic consequence from a former existence?

=== Poverty Is Also a Matter of Collective Responsibility ===
'''A:''' Buddhist reasoning does not permit such one-sidedness. In this case Buddhism clearly asserts social “joint responsibility” (rentai sekinin, 連帯責任); it does not assign responsibility to one side alone. This is what Buddhism means by “collective karma, collectively experienced” (gūgō shokan 共業所感).<ref>Gūgō shokan 共業所感 refers to the collective experience of conditions arising from “shared karma” (gūgō 共業), in contrast to karmic consequences attributed solely to an individual’s actions. Seno’o invokes the concept here to reinterpret karma socially: poverty and economic inequality are not simply the individual karmic responsibility of the poor but conditions collectively produced and therefore entailing collective responsibility.</ref> ''If responsibility is joint, then capitalists too must bear part of the responsibility for the impoverished lives of the proletarian masses. More broadly, it is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Once we discover that defects in the capitalist economic system are among the causes of poverty, shouldn’t reform of that system become the first question confronting us as a matter of joint responsibility?''

'''B:''' But if that is so, how should we understand such ideas as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” (jigō jitoku, 自業自得) and “cause and effect through the three existences” (sanze inga, 三世因果)? Are you saying there is absolutely no individual responsibility…

{{opage|292}}

…at all?

'''A:''' I am not saying that individual responsibility does not exist. The question is whether responsibility is confined to an individual’s private life or whether the transformation of society is regarded as fundamental. We cannot determine which is fundamental without correctly understanding the relationship between the individual and society.

Now, in “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” an individual self is posited, and the actions it performs through the cycle of rebirth are described as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” or “cause and effect through the three existences.” But so long as no-self is a fundamental principle of Buddhism, this way of thinking must naturally be re-examined.

For if we assert an individualistic doctrine of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” Buddhism’s fundamental principle collapses; while if we assert no-self, “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” cannot stand in that form. In this connection, a scholar named Rhys Davids is said to have explained that “the view current at the time”—the individualistic theory of karmic causation through the three existences—“was added to the teachings of original Buddhism without being logically integrated into them.”<ref>T. W. Rhys Davids (1843–1922), a pioneering British scholar of Pāli Buddhism who emphasized the tension between the Buddhist denial of an enduring self and the doctrine of karmic continuity across successive lives, describing the latter not as transmigration of a soul but as the “transmigration of character.” Seno’o draws upon this historical-critical interpretation to argue that an individualistic doctrine of karmic recompense was not fully consistent with Buddhism’s fundamental teaching of no-self.</ref> I suspect that is indeed the case.

=== The True Liberation of Humanity and Religion ===
The idea of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” was a transitional conception belonging to an age in which individuality was exaggerated at the expense of sociality. Buddhism’s fundamental principle, however, remains no-self, together with “the conjunction of many conditions; no single cause produces anything” (shuen wagō, ichiin hishō, 衆縁和合・一因非生).<ref>Shuen wagō 衆縁和合 (“the conjunction of manifold conditions”) expresses the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through the convergence of multiple causes and conditions rather than through an isolated cause. The principle is developed extensively in Madhyamaka literature, including Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Chūron 中論; T 30, no. 1564) and the Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T 25, no. 1509). Seno’o invokes it against an individualistic interpretation of jigō jitoku 自業自得 (“one’s own karma, one’s own recompense”), arguing that poverty must be understood in relation to social and economic conditions rather than attributed solely to an individual’s past karma. He thereby develops no-self (muga 無我) and dependent arising into principles of collective responsibility and structural social reform.</ref> Consequently, an individualistic theory of jigō jitoku cannot stand. If “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is properly interpreted, the “self” in that expression is not an isolated individual ego but a social self—a greater self—formed through the conjunction of causes and conditions. The causes of poverty must therefore be explained socially as well. Accordingly, the means of eliminating those causes should also be sought through positive and concrete social methods. And although society as a whole bears joint responsibility, so long as there remains a distinction between ruler and ruled, it is only reasonable that a greater share of responsibility be sought from the ruling class. To treat poverty simply as the proletarian’s “own karma and own recompense,” making individuals resign themselves, submit, sweat away at their labor, and be exploited for the gratification of the ruling class—could there be a more grotesque inversion of right and wrong on the part of priests? ''Therefore, ''jigō jitoku'' must be reconsidered through the Buddhist teaching of no-self. We must be liberated from the distinction between “self” and “other,” and through the true spirit of no-self seek a thoroughgoing, concrete social movement directed toward resolving the problem as a whole. Especially under a modern capitalist system organized as thoroughly as ours, surely it is here that the true liberation of humanity is to be found…''

{{opage|293}}

…and this is what it means to be a Buddha: a human being who attains such an awakening and then strives vigorously to realize it in society. The Buddha was precisely the exemplary embodiment of such a human personality.

'''B:''' I see. Explained that way, the statement I once heard attributed to the abbot of Zōjōji—that “the fundamental solution to the problem of labor and capital is to make workers understand the law of karmic causation”—really is, quite literally, an opiate sermon.

'''A:''' Exactly. And even if we interpret jigō jitoku in the traditional, individualistic way, such preaching amounts to nothing more than the self-indictment of utterly heartless pseudo-religious figures. For if the poverty suffered by workers is the consequence of causes from a previous life, then surely the difficulties capitalists experience when confronted by strikes of the proletarian masses must likewise be consequences of causes from a previous life. And if the same law of cause and effect applies in both cases, then rather than using it to make proletarians who presently lack material necessities submit and endure, how much more in keeping with the Buddha’s path of saving the weak would it be to use that blessed law of cause and effect to persuade the bourgeoisie, who possess more than enough, to satisfy the demands of the proletarian masses? Even from a practical standpoint, surely there is a far greater possibility of solving the problem by persuading those with abundant material goods simply to give some of them up than by trying to persuade masses who presently lack even bread. And yet in reality precisely the opposite occurs. Isn’t that astonishing?

'''B:''' Exactly. Isn’t this what Lenin meant when he said:

Religion teaches those who toil and suffer throughout their lives to be submissive and patient here on earth, consoling them with the hope of reward in heaven. But to those who live by the labor of others, it teaches charity while they are on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them tickets to heavenly bliss at a moderate price. <ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (1905), originally published in Novaya Zhizn, no. 28 (December 3, 1905); see Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, pp. 83–87. Seno’o’s wording reflects the Japanese translation available to him rather than corresponding exactly to later English translations.</ref>

But there is one thing I still wonder about. If responsibility is located socially in this way, won’t individual effort become weaker?

'''A:''' People accustomed to the kind of individualistic social life we have today may easily think so. But in reality, the more thoroughly a consciousness of belonging to a community with shared interests takes hold, the more strongly individual effort is intensified. Anyone who has committed himself wholeheartedly to a genuine communal life knows this from experience.

''Every pioneer worthy of respect has been someone who saw the whole of society within himself and understood himself in relation to social life. Such people could not help but engage in social action. ''The Buddha’s rejection of the individual ego and private possession, and his teaching of our indebtedness to society, arose from precisely this…

{{opage|294}}

…reason. And far from being misguided, were not the efforts of Marx and Lenin—who maintained that “the human essence is the totality of social relations”—magnificent?<ref>Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis VI (1845): “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Seno’o invokes the formulation to reinforce his reinterpretation of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self in explicitly social terms.</ref> Individual self-interest is, of course, also part of ordinary human nature, and in that sense “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is undoubtedly a transitional mode of thought rooted in that aspect of human nature. ''But the truth of no-self points eternally toward humanity’s highest liberation and toward a life of common production and common flourishing.''

=== The Distorted Doctrine of “Differentiation Is Precisely Equality” ===
'''A:''' Next comes the distorted doctrine of “differentiation is precisely equality.” Here too, as you said earlier with the expression “flowers are red, willows are green,” priests have devised clever explanations designed to make people accept irrational and unjust social inequalities exactly as they are.<ref>“Differentiation is precisely equality” (shabetsu soku byōdō 差別即平等) is a conventional Buddhist formulation, particularly associated with Tiantai and Huayan (J. Kegon) thought, expressing the nondual relation between the equality of phenomena and their particular differences. Rather than a quotation from a single classical text, the formula summarizes such doctrines as Tiantai’s perfect interpenetration of the Three Truths and Huayan’s interpenetration of identity and difference. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of this principle that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. “Willows are green, flowers are red” (yanagi wa midori, hana wa kurenai 柳緑花紅), a phrase common in Zen discourse, similarly evokes things as they are in their particularity. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of such formulas that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. For him, inequalities produced by social and economic institutions cannot be equated with natural differences such as the colors of flowers and leaves.</ref>

'''B:''' But as you yourself have often said, if a flowerpot requiring seven gō of water receives seven gō, and one requiring three gō receives three, neither has too much nor too little.<ref>Gō 合 is a traditional Japanese unit of volume equal to one-tenth of a shō 升, or approximately 180 milliliters. Seno’o uses the proportion of seven gō to three gō to illustrate a conception of equity—distribution according to differing needs—rather than rigid numerical equality.</ref> Isn’t that “differentiation is precisely equality”—a natural differentiation rather than an unjust one?

'''A:''' As far as that explanation goes, it is perfectly correct. Five gō is insufficient for someone who needs seven, while five is too much for someone who needs three. The one who needs seven should receive seven, and the one who needs three should receive three. But are the differences in present society really arranged in that way? A poor family of seven may be crammed into a three-tatami-mat tenement, suffering because they do not even have enough rice for today’s meal. Meanwhile, another couple may live spaciously in an enormous mansion, possessing more wealth than they could ever use and idling away their time in amusements.

A poor old man may be jostled about in third class on a train, while a wealthy young man sits grandly in second class. An ordinary laborer may work throughout the day for a daily wage of barely two yen, while someone else puts in an appearance at the company for four or five hours and pockets several hundred yen. A bright, physically capable child may be unable to proceed to higher education simply because there is no money, while elsewhere even a frail child of little ability can find some way through the examination ordeal. Present society is certainly not differentiated according to need in the way you described—seven gō to the person who needs seven and three to the person who needs three.

=== How Is True Equality to Be Realized? ===
'''B:''' But although these inequalities may at first look like nothing more than the selfishness of the wealthy, haven’t the wealthy made the effort necessary to become wealthy? Couldn’t those differences therefore be regarded as legitimate distinctions corresponding to differences in effort?

{{opage|295}}

'''A:''' If human society were no different from the competitive life of plants and animals—the strong devouring the weak in the struggle for survival—then I would have no objection to such differences. But insofar as human beings are beings possessed of personality, the differences within human society must themselves be ordered in a manner worthy of human personality. Otherwise, they cannot properly be called the differentiations of human society. Take the example we just used. If a two-person household receives six gō of rice, then a seven-person household should receive two shō and one gō. If a train has second- and third-class accommodation, then perhaps the elderly and children should ride second class, while young people ride third. If someone working two hour receives four yen, then someone working six hours should receive twelve. There would still be differences, but they would not simply be differences produced as the outcome of free competition. That, I think, is what “differentiation is precisely equality” ought to mean in human life. Moreover, as I said earlier, if poverty is not merely a matter of jigō jitoku but a matter of social joint responsibility, then wealth too must be regarded not simply as an individual’s own karmic reward but as something social. A person’s wealth therefore ought not to be used freely and arbitrarily for that person alone. Should not the genuine “differentiation that is precisely equality” of human society consist instead in differences rationally and purposively ordered under social regulation?

Yet on the one hand people loudly proclaim mutual aid and harmony between labor and capital, while on the other, religious figures in the service of established power preach that the differences produced by heartless, ruthless free competition are somehow the absolute truth of “differentiation is precisely equality.” What kind of gospel is that? Just think about it. The many spend their entire lives breaking their bodies in dark mine shafts extracting gold and silver, while the few freely appropriate that gold and silver and spend their lives in luxury. If we simply say that this too is the result of free competition, there is nothing more to discuss. But to take mastery of life and transform instinct into rational, purposive action—to make the world into a consciously ordered product—this is humanity’s task. If that is so, surely it is utterly irrational simply to contemplate these inequalities as they are and call them “differentiation is precisely equality.” Human society is not merely a natural phenomenon. ''It is a society endowed with reason and creative power. Therefore, insofar as this is possible, should not the phrase “differentiation is precisely equality” mean consciously using reason to order differences and thereby create the greatest practicable degree of equality?''

{{opage|296}}

=== Free Competition and Cooperative Harmony ===
'''B:''' But competitiveness is also part of human nature. Wouldn’t such an ideal society ultimately be nothing more than a fantasy? And if we impose a strong order upon society, might the result not instead be the mass production of idlers?

'''A:''' That is a concern one commonly hears. But just as human beings possess a capacity for competition, they also clearly possess a capacity for harmony. Indeed, it is precisely this capacity for harmony—this sociality—that is characteristic of human beings. Unfortunately, we have not yet attained a form of organized life in which it can be sufficiently cultivated and developed.

Consider the early stages of human evolution. Human beings did not possess the sharp and powerful weapons found naturally in other animals—fangs, claws, and the like. In the natural struggle for survival, therefore, they were at an extreme disadvantage. ''Why, despite this, were they able to become masters of the earth? Was it not because they possessed reason and creative power, and because they lived lives of cooperation and solidarity? If that is so, individual free competition cannot be the primary principle of human society; the primary principle must instead be the sociality of cooperation and harmony. Only within such a conscious society can individual freedom itself be guaranteed and established. This rational mode of existence, I believe, is both the distinctive characteristic and the destiny of humanity. ''

We can understand this quite well simply by considering the course of an individual human life.

From infancy through childhood we may be innocent, but we are virtually self-interest embodied as instinct. At no other stage do we wield the instinct of self-interest so unrestrainedly. Yet as the sphere of life expands from the family to school, and from school to society, self-control increases, we become more social, and as we enter old age we grow increasingly mature. Looking at the facts, I believe that the history of human society will probably develop in much the same way: with the development of reason, it will advance toward an ideal society. Unfortunately, however, present society is still entangled in the net of a capitalist economic system woven by instinctive free competition. It may therefore seem that if economic competition were abolished, life itself would lose its purpose. ''But competition need not be confined to economics. On the contrary, scientific…''

{{opage|297}}

''…artistic, moral, and other forms of competition will surely bring about an age of true competition worthy of humanity. ''At present, however, all the diverse capacities of human beings have been driven down the single path of economic competition and, grotesquely, have themselves been turned into commodities. We have become so accustomed to this that we have even constructed the conceptual formula “human life = economic life.” Consequently, even if people’s livelihoods were guaranteed, we imagine that without economic free competition they would lose all capacity for activity—like a morphine addict deprived of morphine. But I don’t believe that. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely when we are liberated from economic competition that the true stage of human life will finally open before us. Take manual labor, for example. If it were socially planned and distributed equally, workers and farmers who have traditionally suffered from overwork would of course be relieved of that burden. At the same time, appropriate work could be assigned to those members of society who had previously passed their days in idleness, allowing both groups to enjoy healthy lives in body and mind.

Yet today, while ordinary people have no rice for tomorrow and go hungry, the government has some four million koku of surplus rice piled up in warehouses and does not know what to do with it. In such a merciless and uncoordinated capitalist society, those who work must labor night and day simply to survive. Labor itself therefore comes generally to be hated. But appropriate labor ought, on the contrary, to be a source of joy. ''If appropriate work were available to everyone within a planned society, no one would simply want to be idle. People would come to spend a certain number of hours working less as a social duty than as an enjoyable right.''

Look, for example, at the lives of the people of Ittōen. They obtain only enough food for the day, yet are content with that and work happily throughout the day. Isn’t this evidence that human beings can live contentedly and work without necessarily accumulating private property?

=== The Role of Ittōen at the Present Stage ===
'''B:''' But is that sort of austere life really the ideal form of human life?

'''A:''' Of course I don’t think it is. I doubt that Tenkō-san thinks so either. Buddhism has the expression “ordinary people attached to appearances” (shusō no bonbu). There are those who are inclined to take the outward form of such a life of coarse clothing and simple food as though that itself constituted the ideal life of a sage. I don’t accept that.

''A truly human life…''

{{opage|298}}

''…I think, demands not only spiritual development but also a material life that is rich, wholesome, and beautiful. ''There is nothing unjust about seeking this. When such a life cannot be enjoyed by everyone, restraint born of compassion for others has meaning. But coarse clothing and simple food have no absolute value in themselves. The history of human development proves this. ''Humanity’s task is not to return to primitive life by cutting itself off from civilization, but rather to advance toward an ever higher form of cultural life.''

'''B:''' Then wouldn’t the ideal be to realize Ittōen’s cooperative life without private property throughout society, but in a materially more advanced cultural form?

'''A:''' Ideally, yes. But Ittōen is, after all, an anomalous form of utopian socialism born under the oppressive conditions of capitalist society. It has significance as a training ground in which intellectually and spiritually troubled people can experience the spirit of non-possession. Yet, viewed objectively in relation to present social conditions, one cannot expect it to function as a practical movement for social reconstruction. On the contrary, I think it has unconsciously come to play something like an opiate-like role.

=== The Proletarian Movement and the Realization of an Ideal Society ===
'''B:''' Then how do you envision the practical movement for realizing such an ideal society?

'''A:''' As I said before, I see no path to reconstruction other than through the political power of the emerging proletarian class, provided that it develops properly.

'''B:''' Legally or illegally?

'''A:''' In principle, I would like it to proceed legally. But I do not believe that what is illegal is necessarily unjust. A commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains it this way:

Whether monastic or lay, those who would protect the Dharma should take account of the original intention, setting aside the particular act while preserving the principle, and thereby rightly propagate the Great Teaching. Thus, in “protecting and upholding the True Dharma,” one must not be constrained by minor observances. … In former times, when conditions were peaceful and the Dharma flourished, one should have upheld the precepts. Now, in a dangerous age when the Dharma is obscured, one should take up the staff. … Choose and reject according to circumstances; one must not adhere exclusively to a single course.<ref>Seno’o cites Guanding 灌頂 (561–632), Dabanniepan jing shu (大般涅槃經疏; J. Daihatsu Nehangyō Sho, “Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra”; T 1767), concerning the protection of the True Dharma (shōbō goji 正法護持). The underlying Nirvāṇa Sutra famously permits lay defenders of the Dharma to bear weapons in dangerous circumstances while prohibiting them from taking life. Seno’o uses the commentary to argue that Buddhist ethical action must respond to historical circumstances rather than adhere inflexibly to outward forms, extending this principle here to the possible use of force in pursuit of social transformation.</ref>

''In short, one must not cling to forms.'' ''If the motive is right, then depending on circumstances one may even have to resolve matters through force.'' There is also the saying, “Kill one in order to let ten thousand live.” Thus illegality is not necessarily evil. Whether an act is to be approved should be determined by examining its fundamental motive and the circumstances of the particular case. Japanese history itself provides examples. The reforms of the Meiji Restoration are an obvious case.

{{opage|299}}

But naturally,'' what I hope for is a transformation that is legal from the outset and involves as little sacrifice as possible. For that to happen, people throughout society must recognize as quickly as possible the evils of capitalist society and the historical necessity of the emergence of the new class, until this becomes common knowledge. By giving the proletarian movement as'' ''much sympathy and support as possible, we can minimize the unavoidable sacrifices accompanying social transformation.''

=== The Anti-Religion Movement and Our Position ===
'''B:''' What exactly is this anti-religion movement that has recently begun as one wing of the proletarian movement?

'''A:''' In fact, just last night I participated in a joint public meeting at the Central Buddhist Hall with Takatsu Seidō of the anti-religion movement, Honjō Kasō, Kon Tōkō, a certain Mr. Miwa, secretary-general of the Buddhist Youth Federation, Shibata Ichinō of the Nichiren school, and others.<ref>This public meeting brought together representatives of the anti-religion movement and several currents of Buddhist reform. Participants included Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a socialist activist and politician active in the contemporary anti-religion movement; Kon Tōkō 今東光 (1898–1977), novelist and Tendai monk; Honjō Kasō 本莊可宗 (1891–1987); Mibu Shōjun 壬生照順 (1908–1987), Tendai monk, secretary-general of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation and soon-to-be member of Seno’o’s Youth League; and Nichiren monk Shibata Ichinō 柴田一能 (1873–1951). Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), a playwright and prominent figure in the proletarian cultural movement, served as chairman of the Japan Anti-Religious League (Nihon Han-Shūkyō Dōmei 日本反宗教同盟). According to Seno’o’s account of an article by Akita in the Yomiuri Shimbun, disagreement arose over the movement’s attitude toward the “Social Democrats”: more radical members favored their exclusion, while Takatsu opposed this position and withdrew.</ref> According to Takatsu’s explanation, the basic argument of the anti-religion movement, from his socialist standpoint, is this: “Justice is that which guarantees the welfare of the masses. Anything that obstructs the welfare of the masses must therefore be attacked. Religion is the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the masses because it serves as the watchdog of capitalism. Religion must therefore be attacked.”

'''B:''' Is Takatsu’s position different from that of Akita Ujaku and the League for Anti-Religious Struggle?

'''A:''' According to something Akita wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the issue was the value to be placed on making use of the Social Democrats. The more radical members of the League wanted to exclude them, while Takatsu disagreed and withdrew. But if, as Takatsu explained last night, his anti-religion movement takes justice as its starting point, then theoretically it contains something that cannot be reconciled with pure Marxism. As a practical movement, however, the two are alike insofar as they attack religion as an opiate.

'''B:''' Then what attitude do they take toward your Revitalized Buddhist movement? You too reject capitalism and attack the established religious institutions. Do they attack you as well?

'''A:''' Even though we agree on those points, the anti-religion movement arose from a Marxism that denies religion itself. So naturally they cannot exempt Revitalized Buddhism from their attack.

Indeed, precisely because we are “Red Buddhists,” they may regard us as all the more troublesome.

{{opage|300}}

For our part, although we likewise reject capitalism and the established religious institutions, so long as our understanding differs from that of Marxism, we cannot simply throw ourselves wholesale into Marxism. ''But this is no different from the fact that, even though they belong to the same anti-religion movement, differences between Akita and Takatsu have unfortunately produced a split between them. ''The fundamental issue, therefore, must be a critique of Marxism itself—particularly its conception of religion.

In his Feuerbach, Engels writes: “If religion can exist without God, then alchemy can exist without the philosopher’s stone.”

And: “Nothing exists outside nature and humanity. The higher beings created by our religious fantasies are nothing other than the fantastic reflection of our own essence.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), especially sections II–III. Engels there discusses Feuerbach’s critique of theism, according to which the supernatural beings of religion are projections or “fantastic reflections” of human beings themselves, while criticizing Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve a non-theistic “religion”: “if religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.” The work circulated in prewar Japan as Foierubahha ron (フォイエルバッハ論). Seno’o uses Engels’s argument to distinguish the Marxist critique of theistic religion from Buddhism, which he argues requires no creator, ruling, or judging God.</ref>

With this, the spell was broken. The Marxist conception of religion represented in this passage is, after all, a response to the Christian creator God. If the essence of religion consisted in believing in the actual existence of such a God, then we too would deny religion along with Marx. Why? Because Buddhism did not arise by acknowledging anything like a “creator God, ruling God, or judging God.” ''Moreover, since Buddhism has undeniably existed as a religion, religion as such cannot be something that must simply be rejected. Established religious institutions that exploit the masses, of course, may be rejected—and indeed ought to be rejected. I doubt that anyone desires their rejection more strongly than we do. Precisely for that reason, we respect the ideal of the anti-religion movement insofar as it is motivated by concern for the masses.''

But suppose that, as expressed in the aspiration “I desire only to become a Buddha,” we understand religiosity as the whole-person demand that ceaselessly seeks the ideal of the complete human being—the Buddha. Then the various sectarian forms found in established religions are simply forms in which this religiosity has been conceived at different stages of cultural development. Those established religious institutions must naturally undergo the appropriate historical reckoning demanded by their age. ''But a movement that denies religiosity itself reveals, on the contrary, an inadequate understanding of human life. What we should demand is a religion appropriate to the age. In this sense, should not the anti-religion movement itself be properly sublated? Needless to say, if religion is to be rejected wholesale because it obstructs the welfare of the masses, that judgment can properly apply only to established religious institutions.''

{{opage|301}}

''The essence of religion itself emphatically does not run counter to the welfare of the masses. ''The Buddha and Christ are obvious examples. Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves provides another striking one. Is not religiosity itself the source of the great ideal of mutual love among the masses and of the passionate energy required to put that ideal into practice?

'''B:''' I understand much better now. On May 23, the League for Anti-Religious Struggle is holding its inaugural lecture meeting at the Jichikan in Ueno, and apparently your movement will be criticized there too. After I’ve heard what they have to say, I’d like to ask your opinion again.

'''A:''' I’d like to hear it myself, but unfortunately I have to attend the Kanazawa branch meeting on the twenty-third, so I can’t go. Listen carefully for me. ''If by any chance there is even the slightest error in my convictions, I will never hesitate to stop this movement. ''Nichiren said:'' ''“Even if I am defeated in argument, if my mind does not change, may the gods take my life.” But he also said: “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person, I will not use it.”'' ''It is in this spirit that I want to press forward single-mindedly with the Revitalized Buddhist movement.'' ''Blind faith is no good.

=== Rational Religion and Reverence for Śākyamuni Buddha ===
'''B:''' But isn’t precisely that attitude the genuinely religious attitude? Rational religion! Isn’t the very motive force behind humanity’s limitless capacity for renewal precisely this rational religiosity?

'''A:''' ''When we desire this kind of rational passion, we are necessarily drawn in reverence toward humanity’s highest exemplar, Śākyamuni Buddha. And when we revere Śākyamuni Buddha, this rational passion that we cannot cease desiring naturally burns still more intensely.'' Thus reason calmly subjects problems to criticism, while passion drives us directly toward the realization of the ideal, even at the risk of death. The scripture says: “Single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives.” And elsewhere: “Because their hearts yearn for him, he then appears and preaches the Dharma for them.”<ref>Seno’o brings together two statements by Nichiren with two passages from the Lotus Sutra. “Even if I am defeated in argument...” derives from Nichiren’s Hōō-shō 法王抄, 1267 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 438), while “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person...” is from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄, 1272 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 572). The scriptural passages—“single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives”) and “because their hearts yearn for him ... he then appears and preaches the Dharma”)—are from chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, “The Life Span of the Thus Come One” (Nyorai Juryō-hon 如来寿量品第十六; T 9, no. 262, 43c). Seno’o juxtaposes Nichiren’s insistence on rational scrutiny with the Lotus Sutra’s language of passionate devotion to articulate his ideal of a “rational religion” (gōriteki shūkyō 合理的宗教) combining critical inquiry with commitment to realizing the Buddhist ideal.</ref> These too must surely be confessions of precisely this kind of religious experience. In any event, this is how our Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a religious movement that unifies the whole of life within reverence for the person of Śākyamuni Buddha.

'''B:''' I think I now more or less understand what you mean by your “conversion to Revitalized Buddhism.”

'''A:''' Then let’s bring this conversation to a close for now and promise to talk again another time.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” June issue)

<references />

SG31SBE

2026-08-30T16:33:17Z

James: James moved page SG31SBE to SG31SBE-T

#REDIRECT [[SG31SBE-T]]

SG31SBE-T

2026-08-30T16:33:17Z

James: James moved page SG31SBE to SG31SBE-T

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism''}}

{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” (新興佛教への転身; Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism). Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' (新興佛教の旗の下に), beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' (妹尾義郎宗教論集), ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==

'''[p. 260]'''

'''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism'''

=== The Rejection of Established Buddhist Institutions and Capitalism ===
'''B:''' I hear that you’ve recently given up on Nichirenism<ref>Nichirenism (Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義) was a modern ideological formulation of Nichiren Buddhism that emerged in the late Meiji period under the leadership of Tanaka Chigaku 田中智學 (1861–1939) and became influential during the Taishō and early Shōwa periods. Seno’o was an active proponent of Nichirenism before breaking with it and establishing the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref> and are starting something called the Revitalized Buddhist movement.<ref>Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō 新興仏教) was Seno’o Girō’s term for the new Buddhist movement he launched in 1931—technically, the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Domei 新興仏教青年同盟). Shinkō literally suggests something newly arising or emergent; “Revitalized Buddhism” is used here to emphasize Seno’o’s conception of the movement as a renewal of Buddhism rather than the establishment of a new Buddhist sect.</ref> Is that true?

'''A:''' It is.

'''B:''' What’s the purpose of it?

'''A:''' First, I want to attack the corrupt established Buddhist institutions and demonstrate the true value of Buddhism in the present age. Second, I want to unify a divided Buddhism and put an end to these ugly sectarian quarrels. Third, I want to participate in the movement to transform the capitalist economic system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Buddha, and realize an ideal society of love and equality.

'''B:''' Isn’t that impossible? Won’t it end up as nothing more than a fantasy?

'''A:''' It’s no fantasy. I believe that both the destruction of established Buddhist institutions and the collapse of capitalism are now simply a matter of time.

'''B:''' Leaving aside the transformation of capitalism, couldn’t you simply pursue Nichirenism more thoroughly instead of starting an entirely new religious movement? Especially since you’ve devoted yourself all these years to building up Nichirenism—don’t you feel some regret at abandoning it?

'''A:''' It’s not in my nature to make calculations when confronted with the truth. There was no path left open to me except to launch a new movement. Nichirenism as we have known it has reached an impasse in all sorts of ways. Of course, the other Buddhist institutions have as well. At this point, I don’t think Buddhism can be revived without undertaking a fundamental revolution. Just as capitalism cannot be fixed through a few minor adjustments, the corruption of the Buddhist institutions has penetrated to the very marrow.

'''B:''' But isn’t this just a sudden impulse to go along with the times?

'''A:''' You know how long my life of faith has been.

'''B:''' It certainly has been a long time. How many years has it been, anyway?

'''A:''' I embraced the faith of Nichirenism in 1911.

'''[p. 261]'''

And it was in the autumn of 1920 that I began publishing the magazine ''Youth''<ref>Wakōdo 若人 (“Youth”) was a Buddhist journal with which Seno’o was closely associated and in which he published extensively during the 1920s and early 1930s. It became an important venue for the development of the ideas that eventually led him beyond Nichirenism and toward Revitalized Buddhism.</ref> and advocating Nichirenism. So I have spent twelve years in public propagation and fully twenty-one years in my personal life of faith. And I don’t think I’ve ever been second to anyone in the intensity of my faith. I have devoted my entire life to that faith and to spreading it right up to the present day. After all that, surely this isn’t something I could simply switch away from on a passing whim.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I suppose so. They say that even after living with someone for only three days, you don’t easily forget them. So you must have thought this through very seriously. Still, it’s quite a decisive step—to go so far as to abandon Master Nichiren himself.

'''A:''' Nothing could be further from the truth. My reverence for Master Nichiren only grows stronger with the years. Looking back now, my past life of faith seems to have been nothing more than a game. The more deeply the spirit of love enters my heart, and the more I strive to put even a little of the bodhisattva practice into concrete action, the more deeply Master Nichiren’s life and words impress themselves upon me, right down to the bone. I truly believe there has never been a greater person.

'''B:''' Then why give up Nichirenism?

'''A:''' If you call it “giving it up,” I suppose that’s how it may look. As I see it, I am casting off Master Nichiren’s old forms precisely in order to revive his spirit in the present. The more single-mindedly I devote myself to reviving Master Nichiren’s fundamental spirit in the present age, the more firmly convinced I become of the possibility of this Revitalized Buddhist movement—and that this alone is the form of salvation most suited to our age. Indeed, I have come firmly to believe that the revival of Buddhism as a whole is to be found in this movement.

'''B:''' Calling it “casting off the old forms” makes it sound reasonable enough, but whatever words you use, in practice you are rejecting Nichirenism, aren’t you?

=== It is a Revival of Nichirenism ===
'''A:''' That’s right.

'''B:''' Even if you reject Nichirenism to that extent, doesn’t that amount to betraying Master Nichiren?

'''A:''' Not at all. Nichirenism, too, is one particular form that arose in response to the needs of its age. Looking at the history of the Master’s propagation of his teaching and the many writings he left behind, there is nothing objectionable about changing forms. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by reforming them in response to objective circumstances that one truly comes into contact with the spirit of Master Nichiren. The Master was in fact a man possessed of an extraordinarily enlightened and discerning…

'''[p. 262]'''

…intelligence. He was certainly no inflexible conservative who “stood by a tree stump waiting for a rabbit” or “glued the tuning pegs of a lute”—someone incapable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Mencius praised Confucius as “the sage who was timely,” but even more than this, our Master Nichiren was the exemplary sage who discerned the demands of the time. He said, “Everything depends upon the country and the time”; “Although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice must vary in countless ways according to people’s capacities and the circumstances of the age”; and “One should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country, it must necessarily be suitable for this country as well.”<ref>Seno’o assembles a series of classical and Nichirenist references around the importance of historical circumstance. The idioms “waiting by a stump” (守株) and “gluing the tuning pegs of a lute” (膠柱) denote foolish adherence to fixed conditions. “The sage who was timely” (聖之時者也) is Mencius’s famous characterization of Confucius (Mencius, “Wan Zhang II”). Nichiren’s statements that “everything depends upon the country and the time” (Senji-shō 撰時抄, 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, p. 1003); “although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice vary…” (Shōji Ichidaiji Ketsumyaku-shō 生死一大事血脈抄, 1272; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 523); and “one should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country…” (Kyōki Jikoku-shō 教機時国抄, 1262; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 242) allow Seno’o to present adaptation to modern social conditions not as a departure from Nichiren but as fidelity to his method.</ref> I could go on indefinitely. As these examples show, the religion of the Master was a religion of criticism. And if criticism is not equally rigorous in examining and settling accounts with oneself, can it really be called criticism? Perhaps this is also what Confucius meant when he said, “If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?”<ref>Confucius, Analects (Lunyu 論語), 4.1 (“Li Ren” 里仁): 「子曰、里仁爲美。擇不處仁、焉得知」 (“The Master said: ‘To dwell in benevolence is beautiful. If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?’”). The passage connects wisdom or discernment (zhi 知) with commitment to benevolence (ren 仁). Seno’o invokes it here to reinforce his claim that genuine criticism must also be directed toward oneself.</ref>

=== The Essence of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' I can see your point, at least to some extent.

'''A:''' Buddhism itself is fundamentally like this. Indeed, the Buddha is even described as “one whose bonds have been untied.” One of Buddhism’s distinctive features is precisely its refusal to cling to any fixed form. And that, too, is liberation.

To put it somewhat more technically, Buddhism denies “self” and “what belongs to the self”—that is, the individual ego and private property—and teaches “no-self” and “non-possession.” Even the last of the famous Three Dharma Seals, known as Buddhism’s three fundamental principles—“all conditioned things are impermanent,” “all dharmas are without self,” and “nirvana is tranquility”—ultimately comes down to the single word “emptiness.”<ref>The Three Dharma Seals (sanbōin 三法印) are impermanence (shogyō mujō), no-self (shohō muga), and the tranquility of nirvana (nehan jakujō). Seno’o interprets all three here in terms of emptiness (kū).</ref> It means not clinging to either A or B and therefore, depending upon circumstances, being capable of being either A or B: a teaching of unrestricted adaptability. In the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'', this is taught as “all dharmas are empty”; in the “Skillful Means” chapter it is called the “true aspect of all dharmas,” explained through the so-called Ten Suchnesses—“such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity,” and so forth—in order to demonstrate the capacity of things to change according to causes and conditions. Thus it is also taught that “dharmas have no fixed nature; the Buddha-seed arises through conditions.”<ref>The Ten Suchnesses (jūnyoze 十如是) appear in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the Lotus Sutra and describe ten aspects of the reality of phenomena, beginning with “such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity.”</ref>

Again, the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', which serves as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'', says: “Such non-form is not form; being without form, it is called the true aspect. Having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is clear and certain and not in vain, and among sentient beings they are truly able to remove suffering.”<ref>Muryōgi Kyō 無量義経 (Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings), Chapter 2, “Preaching the Dharma” (Seppō-bon 説法品第二); T 9, no. 276. The passage connects realization of the “true aspect” (jissō 実相), characterized by formlessness (musō 無相), directly with compassion: having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is “clear and certain and not in vain” and are thereby “truly able to remove suffering” (真能拔苦). The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is traditionally regarded in East Asia as the introductory scripture (kaikyō 開経) to the Lotus Sutra. Seno’o uses the passage to argue that nonattachment to fixed forms enables practical compassionate action rather than withdrawal from the world.</ref> According to the meaning of this passage, in short, one takes no fixed standpoint—a standpoint that even negates “no standpoint” as a fixed standpoint—and ultimately stands in a position that clings to nothing…

'''[p. 263]'''

…whatsoever. It is precisely in an attitude of freely adapting oneself according to time, place, and circumstance that thoroughgoing compassion manifests itself and the masses can truly be saved. Nichirenism is no exception to this Buddhist philosophical principle. Depending upon time, place, and circumstances, there should therefore be no objection to sublating it as well.<ref>“Sublate” renders yōki 揚棄, a modern philosophical term used to translate the Hegelian Aufheben or Aufhebung: the dialectical overcoming of a form while preserving what remains valid within it.</ref> The real question is whether there are sufficient grounds for reform in light of the culture of a particular age. When there are, isn’t it only by boldly carrying out such reform that we remain faithful to Buddhism’s true character and penetrate to the spirit of Master Nichiren?

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I can see that even the forms adopted by Master Nichiren may be reformed as the times change.

=== Forms Change ===
'''A:''' Exactly. Take an egg, for example. As long as the white and yolk remain as they are, the shell is an indispensable outer form. But once the egg has been nurtured by the mother bird and a chick begins to develop inside, that shell becomes an unnecessary opposing force. And unless it is broken, new life cannot emerge.

'''B:''' That sounds like Marx’s materialist dialectic.

'''A:''' Truth doesn’t become two different things depending on who says it. “Time” really is a mysterious force. It bears down upon us with a necessity that cannot be altered by the ideas of one or two individuals. That is why Master Nichiren began his ''Selection of the Time'' (''Senji-shō'') by writing, “In studying the Buddha Dharma, one must first of all learn the time.” He went on to say, “The cuckoo awaits spring and the cock awaits the dawn. Even animals are like this; how much more so a Dharma teacher practicing the Buddha Dharma!” Elsewhere, speaking in relation to the capacities of those being taught, he judged that “the wise person is one who accords with the time.” By invoking the examples of the cuckoo awaiting spring and the cock awaiting dawn, he made perfectly clear that the Dharma must never be taught apart from its “time.” Isn’t that an extraordinarily thoroughgoing insight?<ref>Nichiren (1222–1282), Senji-shō 撰時抄 (“Selection of the Time”), composed in 1275. The treatise emphasizes the necessity of discerning the historical “time” (toki) in determining the appropriate form in which the Buddhist Dharma should be propagated. Seno’o draws upon this principle repeatedly to justify the transformation of inherited Buddhist forms in response to modern conditions.</ref> Here ‘capacity’ means the particular character of the individual. The passage therefore rejects an individualistic movement of salvation based on the model of ‘prescribing medicine according to the illness,’ which takes the particular characteristics of individual persons as its object. Instead, it lays down the firm principle that we must move beyond the individual, take as our object the objective conditions of society as a whole, and make our primary concern a method of social salvation suited to the age.

'''B:''' That sounds very much like what the social sciences tell us.

'''A:''' There is another striking parallel. Among Master Nichiren’s writings is this passage, which explains the possibility of mass struggle in the present age. It is from the Shōgu mondō-shō:

The present age is a defiled age, and human feelings have become warped and distorted. Because provisional teachings and slanders of the Dharma abound, it is difficult for the True Dharma to spread. At such a time, practices such as reciting and copying the scriptures, as well as contemplation, reflection, and spiritual cultivation, are of no use. One must simply practice shakubuku<ref>Shakubuku 折伏, literally “to break and subdue,” refers to the forceful refutation of erroneous views and is conventionally contrasted with shōju 摂受, the more accommodating method of leading others toward the Dharma without directly refuting their views. The distinction became particularly important in Nichiren Buddhism, where shakubuku was understood as especially appropriate to circumstances in which erroneous teachings obstructed the Dharma.</ref>: if one has the power, use that power and authority to crush slander of the Dharma, and use Buddhist doctrine to attack erroneous…

'''[p. 264]'''

…teachings. Yet one must properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected and never cling exclusively to a single course.”<ref>Shōgu Mondō-shō 聖愚問答抄 (“Questions and Answers between a Sage and a Fool”); see Shōwa Teihon Nichiren Shōnin Ibun, vol. 1, pp. 363–64 (Gosho Zenshū, p. 143). The treatise argues that the appropriate method of propagation depends upon historical circumstances. Seno’o appropriates the passage to argue that the conditions of the present age demand open struggle rather than quietist self-cultivation.</ref>

What an uncompromising declaration! People who, when they hear the word Buddhism, immediately think of practicing seated meditation, or who tend to associate Buddhism with nonresistance, may well imagine a passage like this to be some kind of reverse propaganda by the Devil. But once we look squarely at actual society, we can see just how much what today passes for “self-cultivation” actually performs an opiate-like function,<ref>“Opiate-like function” (ahenteki yakuwari 阿片的役割) unmistakably evokes Marx’s characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Seno’o applies the criticism here specifically to contemporary Buddhist practices of “self-cultivation” (shūyō).</ref> castrating promising young people. In an age such as this, it seems to me that there is simply no way to build heaven on earth except through an open and forthright struggle. Yet struggle for struggle’s sake would be equally troublesome. This is why the phrase, “properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected,” strikes me as an extraordinarily well-considered teaching.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, it makes me think that the Buddhism we have known until now has been almost completely off the mark.

'''A:''' To speak frankly, much of it has indeed been completely off the mark. That is a consequence of religion’s having repeated the same formalistic sermons day after day, year after year—either unconscious of the character of the age or, even when conscious of it, tragically reduced to the role of a religion in service to established power. Society is moving increasingly toward equality of opportunity without distinctions in human worth between someone dressed in work clothes and someone dressed in a morning coat. Yet within the Buddhist institutions, which ought to be leading the way, they still make an endless fuss over the colors of clerical robes and distinctions in ecclesiastical rank. Social policy advances day by day in society at large—but what on earth are the Buddhist institutions doing?

'''B:''' On that point, I agree. I understand now that forms have to be reformed in accordance with the age. In the end, then, yours is a movement to revive Buddhism within the present age by giving it forms appropriate to that age.

=== The Central Aim of the Revitalized Buddhist Movement ===
'''B:''' But I hear that you’re going to stop chanting ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—“Homage to Śākyamuni Buddha.”

'''A:''' That is precisely the central aim of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. All disciples of the Buddha who profess Buddhism should give up the ''nenbutsu'', give up faith in Mahāvairocana, and give up all the forms of the established Buddhist institutions. First, we should unite under the banner of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', expressing our reverence for the person of the Buddha, and from there attempt a new advance into society. Can you think of any better form than this…

'''[p. 265]'''

…one that could serve both as the single fundamental form common to all Buddhists and, at the same time, as a means of unifying Buddhism? Of course, this form has already been advocated in the past by earnest pioneers. Perhaps because the times were not yet ripe, however, it has never acquired much influence. But whether or not it presently has influence is beside the point. I believe this to be the inevitable destiny of Buddhism from the present into the future, and I intend to put my whole spirit into casting this one stone.

'''B:''' I understand what you’re striving for. But there’s one thing I still can’t accept. You said that you’re trying to “bring the spirit of Master Nichiren to life.” Yet Nichiren himself said, “The soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”<ref>Nichiren, Kyō’ō-dono Gohenji 経王殿御返事 (“Reply to Kyō’ō”), composed in 1273. The passage reads: “The Buddha’s intent is the Lotus Sutra; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”</ref> If you abandon the ''daimoku'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', doesn’t that amount to abandoning the spirit of the Master?

'''A:''' That is a perfectly reasonable question. But immediately before that passage come the words, “The Buddha’s intent is the ''Lotus Sutra''; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”

In other words, if it has been established that the ''Lotus Sutra'' is not the unique scripture embodying the fundamental spirit of the Buddha whom Master Nichiren so ceaselessly revered, then chanting the name of that very Buddha—''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—rather than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' would actually be more faithful to the spirit of Master Nichiren, who founded his teaching on the basis of scholarly inquiry. I certainly do not believe that doing so constitutes a desecration of the Master.

'''B:''' If that way of understanding the ''Lotus Sutra'' is correct, then your argument makes sense. But are you saying that the ''Lotus Sutra'' does not embody the fundamental spirit of Buddhism?

=== The Theory That the Mahāyāna Was Not Taught by the Buddha ===
'''A:''' That is precisely where the problem arises. Have you ever heard of the scholarly theory being advanced in modern Buddhist circles known as “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (''Daijō hi-Bussetsu'')?<ref>“The Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (Daijō hi-bussetsu 大乗非仏説) refers to the historical-critical view that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the lifetime of the historical Buddha rather than constituting direct records of his preaching. Although the question had earlier precedents in Japan, it became a major problem for modern Japanese Buddhist scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century, notably in the work of Murakami Senshō (1851–1929). The theory posed an obvious challenge to sectarian traditions, including Nichiren Buddhism, whose authority rested upon particular Mahāyāna scriptures as the Buddha’s own teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' I can’t say I’ve never heard of it, but I don’t really know what it means. Tell me about it.

'''A:''' I’ll explain it briefly. Buddhist scriptures had broadly been classified into Mahāyāna scriptures—the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sutras'', ''Lotus Sutra'', ''Amida Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Laṅkāvatāra Sutra'', and so forth—and the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures, such as the Āgamas. Both groups had been regarded as scriptures recording sermons preached by the Buddha.

In recent times, however, scholars have argued that those Mahāyāna scriptures were not actually preached directly by the Buddha. That is what is meant by the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.”

'''B:''' Then how did those scriptures come to be composed?

'''A:''' Well, that’s because Buddhism too developed as the times changed and society and culture…

'''[p. 266]'''

…advanced, and in order to adapt to the changing age, numerous new scriptures were composed by later disciples of the Buddha. Those became the Mahāyāna sutras. Since the Mahāyāna sutras are therefore not direct records of the Buddha’s preaching, this is called the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.” In other words, it means Buddhism as a developing tradition.<ref>“Buddhism as a developing tradition” renders hattatsu bukkyō 発達仏教, the modern conception of Buddhism as a historically developing religious tradition rather than a fixed body of doctrine delivered in its entirety by Śākyamuni. This conception allowed modern Buddhist thinkers to accept the later historical origins of the Mahāyāna sutras while continuing to regard them as legitimate developments of the Buddha’s teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' Then from the standpoint of this theory, the ''Lotus Sutra'' too is one example of this “developing Buddhism.” ''So the Lotus Sutra cannot simply be identified with the Buddha’s fundamental spirit.''<ref>Seno’o’s emphasis.</ref>

'''A:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' But in Master Nichiren’s time, the roughly seven thousand fascicles comprising the entire Buddhist canon were all regarded as direct records of the Buddha’s preaching. Given that assumption, why did Master Nichiren single out the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone and declare it to embody ''Buddhism’s fundamental spirit''?

'''A:''' Because that was how the scriptures themselves were understood to explain the matter. More particularly, this was the explanation offered by Tiantai doctrine, which formed the matrix of Japanese Buddhism. According to that teaching, the entire Buddhist canon consisted of sermons preached during the fifty years between the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment at age thirty and his entry into nirvana at age eighty. These fifty years were divided into two periods. The first forty-two years comprised all the teachings preached before the ''Lotus Sutra'', known as the pre-Lotus teachings (''nizenkyō''). The ''Lotus Sutra'', preached during the final eight years, was regarded as the true scripture in which the Buddha revealed his genuine spirit. All the earlier scriptures were judged to be expedient teachings preached in preparation for the revelation of the ''Lotus Sutra''.<ref>The Tiantai (J. Tendai) system of doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (goji hakkyō, 五時八教) organized the Buddha’s teaching career into a chronological and hierarchical sequence culminating in the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sutras. Within this scheme, the Lotus Sutra represented the fullest disclosure of the Buddha’s teaching. Nichiren inherited this framework and radicalized its elevation of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

'''B:''' Was there substantial scriptural evidence for that?

'''A:''' Yes. For example, in the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'' we find the statement, “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost.” There are many other passages that assign the ''Lotus Sutra'' supreme value. Particularly influential was the statement in the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', regarded as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Because the desires and dispositions of beings differ, various teachings were preached; these various teachings were preached through the power of expedient means. For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed.” And in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way.” These were powerful pieces of scriptural evidence. From the standpoint of Buddhist unification available at the time, the Tiantai doctrinal interpretation was therefore hardly unreasonable. There was also the scriptural proof supplied by the “Medicine King Bodhisattva” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': that in the “last five hundred years” it would be “widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa.” Tiantai likewise looked forward to the age of the Final Dharma, declaring, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide.”<ref>The text cites four key passages that provided a scriptural foundation for the Tiantai (J. Tendai) classification of doctrines (kyōhan 教判) and Nichiren’s later elevation of the Lotus Sutra: (1) “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost” (Lotus Sutra, ch. 10, “Dharma Preacher”; T 9, no. 262, 31b); (2) “For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed” (四十余年未顕真実; Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, ch. 2; T 9, no. 276, 386b); (3) “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way” (正直捨方便但説無上道; Lotus Sutra, ch. 2, “Skillful Means”; T 9, no. 262, 10a); and (4) “In the last five hundred years, it will be widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa” (後五百歳広宣流布; Lotus Sutra, ch. 23, “Medicine King Bodhisattva”; T 9, no. 262, 54c). The accompanying statement, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide” (後五百歳妙道広行), is from Zhiyi’s Fahua Wenju (法華文句; T 34, no. 1718, 129a).</ref> And Dengyō Daishi, the pioneer of the Lotus Sutra in Japan, likewise expressed the same conviction and prediction.<ref>Saichō (767–822), posthumously Dengyō Daishi, founder of the Japanese Tendai school.</ref>

'''[p. 267]'''

Now, it was within this tradition that Master Nichiren appeared. Outraged by the fragmentation and degeneration of Buddhism, he made its reform and unification the aspiration of his entire life. Moreover, his historical moment was the beginning of the age of the Final Dharma, more than two thousand years after the Buddha’s passing. There is no need to explain how powerfully the ''Lotus Sutra'' must have resonated with Nichiren’s intelligence and passionate commitment.<ref>The “Three Ages” (sanji 三時) is an East Asian Buddhist scheme describing the historical decline of the Dharma after the Buddha’s passing: the age of the True Dharma (shōbō 正法), the age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō 像法), and the age of the Final Dharma (mappō 末法), conventionally assigned durations of 1000, 1000, and 10,000 years respectively. According to a widely accepted Japanese chronology, mappō began in 1052. Drawing upon scriptural traditions concerning the decline of the Dharma, Nichiren understood his thirteenth-century age as mappō, a period of corruption in which the Lotus Sutra required urgent propagation. See Nichiren, Senji-shō 撰時抄, “Selection of the Time,” 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, pp. 1001–1058. Seno’o invokes this historical framework to emphasize Nichiren’s conviction that Buddhist practice must respond to the particular demands of its age.</ref>

'''B:''' Hearing it explained that way, there certainly seems to have been a powerful sense of historical necessity behind Nichiren’s self-understanding as “Nichiren, practitioner of the ''Lotus Sutra''.” It’s easy to see why he therefore felt compelled to reject every Buddhist school outside the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Within the limits of that doctrinal framework, there was no Buddhist spirit in the age of the Final Dharma apart from the ''Lotus Sutra''. A passage from Nichiren’s ''Hōon-shō'' (''Essay on Gratitude'') makes the situation particularly clear.<ref>Nichiren’s Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude”), composed in 1276, is one of his major writings and contains a sustained defense of the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

The various schools all rely upon their own basic sutras and treatises and claim, each in its own way, that theirs is foremost among all the scriptures. The Shingon school says, “Among all the scriptures, the ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' is first”; the other scriptures are like idle chatter. The Zen school says that sutras such as the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' are fingers pointing at the moon, while Zen itself is the moon. And so forth. We ordinary people ought to be able to trust whichever teacher we follow, revering that teacher in faith; yet Nichiren’s doubts could not be dispelled. Looking at the world, everyone may claim, “I, I,” but there is only one sovereign of a country. If there are two, the country will not be at peace; if a household has two masters, that household will surely fall into ruin. Might it not be the same with all the scriptures? Among all the sutras, must there not be one scripture that is sovereign over all the others? Yet the ten schools and seven schools each contend with one another and refuse to submit. It is as though a country had seventy or eighty sovereigns: its people could never live in peace. Wondering what was to be done, I made a single resolve: I would follow none of the eight schools or ten schools. Instead, just as the Great Master Tiantai took the scriptural texts themselves as his teacher and judged the relative superiority of the teachings preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, I would open and examine all the scriptures. In the ''Nirvana Sutra'' it is said: “Rely on the Dharma, not on persons.” “Rely on the Dharma” means to rely on all the scriptures; “not on persons” means not to rely upon teachers other than the Buddha himself, including such figures as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī and the various masters mentioned above.

The same sutra also says: “Rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning.” Here the “sutra of definitive meaning” is the Lotus Sutra, while the “sutras of provisional meaning” are the ''Avataṃsaka Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Nirvana Sutra'', and all the other sutras of the past, present, and future. But if one trusts the Buddha's final testament, then one must take the Lotus Sutra as the bright mirror through which to understand all…

'''[p. 268]'''

…the scriptures. Hence, when we open the ''Lotus Sutra'', we find the words: “This ''Lotus Sutra'' stands highest among all the sutras,” and so on.

'''B:''' I see. That makes it quite clear. Master Nichiren’s judgment that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' is supreme” was therefore not simply his own dogmatic assertion. It was the result of his seeking the Buddha’s spirit through the scriptures themselves. In other words, after attempting as objectively and as scholarly as possible to determine Buddhism’s fundamental spirit, he concluded that it was embodied in the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Nichiren himself explained this by saying: “This is not because Nichiren is especially wise. It is simply what the time demands. In spring the flowers bloom, in autumn the fruit appears, summer is warm and winter is cold. Is this not simply what the time brings about?”

In this way he explained the historical necessity of the ''Lotus Sutra'' spreading in the age of the Final Dharma. Now, if that were the end of the matter, there would be no problem. But if we accept as true the theory I mentioned earlier—that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—then the scholarly foundation underlying this whole structure collapses. The ''Lotus Sutra'', which Master Nichiren propagated with sixty years of blood and tears, must itself be subjected to a historical reckoning.

'''B:''' So in the end it really was a matter of Master Nichiren’s inadequate understanding?

'''A:''' You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. Far from it. As a Buddhist revolutionary movement in his own age, this was the only possible path. It was an entirely defensible position.

But “time” moved on, and modern scientific research into the scriptures produced new conclusions. That is not something we should blame on Nichiren’s lack of understanding. And a man who declared that “one must first learn the time” surely would not cling sentimentally to his position when confronted by the criticism of a later age. That, at least, is what I believe.

=== The Reckoning with Tiantai Doctrine ===
'''A:''' Speaking of “time,” there is another problem. Modern research has drastically changed the dating of the Buddha’s birth.

'''B:''' So it’s no longer three thousand years ago? I remember singing in Sunday school, “Long, long ago—three thousand years ago.”

'''A:''' Today, according to Dr. Takakusu, it was 2,497 years ago, while according to Dr. Ui, it was 2,397 years ago.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945) and Ui Hakuju (宇井伯寿, 1882–1963) were leading Japanese scholars of Buddhism whose historical and philological research contributed to the modern reassessment of traditional Buddhist chronology. Seno’o invokes their differing calculations of the Buddha’s dates to illustrate the incompatibility of modern historical scholarship with the chronology presupposed by traditional Tiantai doctrine.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t those just scholars’ arbitrary guesses?

'''A:''' You shouldn’t dismiss scholarship out of hand like that. Those conclusions are the result of research. Whatever the precise answer may be, the Buddha is now generally placed around the fourth or fifth century BCE. And whereas tradition had said that he left home at nineteen, attained enlightenment at thirty, and entered nirvana at eighty,…

'''[p. 269]'''

…the accepted view has become that he left home at twenty-nine, attained enlightenment at thirty-five, and entered nirvana at eighty.

'''B:''' Then he taught for forty-five years. That means Tiantai’s system of the Five Periods, which was based on the old account of fifty years of teaching from enlightenment at thirty to nirvana at eighty, becomes questionable too.<ref>The Five Periods (goji 五時) is the chronological scheme systematized by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi (智顗 538–597) to classify the Buddha’s teachings into five sequential stages: (1) Kegon (Avataṃsaka, three weeks); (2) Agon (Āgama, twelve years); (3) Hōdō (Vaipulya, eight years); (4) Hannya (Prajñāpāramitā, twenty-two years); and (5) Hokke-Nehan (Lotus and Nirvāṇa, the final eight years). The scheme presupposes the traditional chronology in which the Buddha attained enlightenment at age thirty and taught until his death at eighty. Modern historical-critical scholarship instead dated his enlightenment to approximately age thirty-five and his teaching career to about forty-five years, while also treating the Mahāyāna sutras as later compositions. Seno’o invokes these discrepancies to argue that the traditional Tiantai chronology—and consequently the historical framework inherited by Nichiren—must itself be subjected to modern critical scrutiny.</ref>

'''A:''' There’s no avoiding it. If the ''Lotus Sutra'' was preached for eight years, then the pre-Lotus teachings could only have lasted thirty-seven years, which makes the phrase “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed” unstable. And if the pre-Lotus teachings lasted forty-two years, then the ''Lotus Sutra'' could only have been taught for three years.

'''B:''' Still, we’re talking about events from twenty-four or twenty-five hundred years ago. Even if we calculate things that precisely, how can we really know which account is correct?

'''A:''' India was hardly a country with a strong tradition of historical record keeping, so perfect precision may be impossible. But scholarship still deserves our respect. This is, after all, an age in which science can calculate the numbers of the astronomical world with extraordinary accuracy. At any rate, one fact is unavoidable: Tiantai doctrine must undergo a reckoning, and Nichiren doctrine must therefore also be reexamined. Nor is that all. Modern scholarship has also proposed an account of how the ''Lotus Sutra'' itself was formed. According to this theory, the earliest form of the sutra ran from the “Introduction” chapter through the tenth chapter, “Dharma Preacher.” Later material was added through the twenty-second chapter, “Entrustment,” and then another six chapters were added, producing the present twenty-eight-chapter form.<ref>Seno’o here summarizes a modern historical-critical theory according to which the Lotus Sutra developed in successive stages: an initial text comprising chapters 1–10, a subsequent expansion through chapter 22, and the later addition of six chapters producing the received twenty-eight-chapter version.</ref>

I myself have lectured on the ''Lotus Sutra'' several times, and the breaks in the textual structure certainly can give that impression. In any event, I think we may safely say that it is now virtually impossible to deny that the ''Lotus Sutra'', like the other Mahāyāna scriptures, represents Buddhism in the process of historical development.

'''B:''' Then were the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures actually written by Śākyamuni himself?

'''A:''' No. Those scriptures too were compiled by his disciples after his death.

'''B:''' Then strictly speaking, couldn’t we say that the Hīnayāna scriptures were also “not taught by the Buddha”? And if we are prepared to call them the Buddha’s teaching, why couldn’t we equally call the Mahāyāna scriptures the Buddha’s teaching?

'''A:''' There is something to that argument, and people have made it before. But I think it is sophistry. Shouldn’t we properly distinguish between the Buddha’s immediate disciples gathering together and reciting what remained vivid in their memories, and later generations—disciples of disciples and their descendants—composing scriptures on the basis of those earlier records?

'''B:''' Is there really enough evidence to establish the Mahāyāna as later development?

'''A:''' Scholars have reached that conclusion on the basis of writing, literary style, and many other forms of textual evidence.

'''[p. 270]'''

Scholarly conscience leaves us no choice but to acknowledge it.

=== Faith Requires Objectivity ===
'''B:''' I understand that. But faith and scholarship are different things. Even if the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha is true, why should faith have to concern itself with it?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that too. As the saying goes, “Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it.”<ref>“Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it” renders the proverb iwashi no atama mo shinjin kara (鰯の頭も信心から), an ironic expression for the power of faith to invest even an insignificant object with religious value.</ref> But that is precisely where the crucial issue lies. It marks the dividing line between superstition and genuine faith. A scripture says that faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith increases wrong views; faith and understanding must be harmonized and become the basis of life.<ref>Seno’o cites a Tiantai formulation attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597): “Faith without understanding increases ignorance; understanding without faith increases wrong views” (信而不解、増長無明。解而不信、増長邪見). See Zhiyi, Weimojing Xuanshu (維摩經玄疏, J. Yuimakyō Gensho).</ref> A merely subjective faith that says “just believe,” while ignoring science, cannot be called genuine faith. Unless the content of faith possesses objectivity, it lacks social universality and cannot provide genuine satisfaction. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose there is an old woman devoted to Tenrikyō. She is completely absorbed in her faith. Then her only son, who has been educated in school, begins searching for a religion of his own. Naturally, he first examines the Tenrikyō faith practiced by his mother. But suppose it fails to satisfy him intellectually, and he turns instead to Christianity. Now you have one person in the household crying, “Save me!” and the other saying, “Amen!” What kind of atmosphere would that create in the family? Can they simply shrug and say that faith is subjective and leave each other alone? The more authority each of them invests in their own faith, and the more faithfully each adheres to it, the more each will inevitably look upon the other with a certain painful sense of dissatisfaction. But suppose, by contrast, that the mother’s faith were something that could also be accepted on scholarly grounds, and the son came to embrace the same Tenrikyō faith. Their perspectives and degree of commitment might still differ, but the whole household could at least share a common religious life, and wouldn’t that bring greater satisfaction?

'''B:''' That’s true. And not just in religion—it’s always pleasant when people see eye to eye.

'''A:''' Exactly. If the object of faith has a content that can withstand scholarly, moral, and aesthetic judgment, then even if people approach it from different perspectives, it can gather and embrace a greater number of spiritual brothers and sisters throughout the world. That is why faith too requires an objective and scientific element, especially in the modern age. Nichiren himself said, “The Buddha Dharma is reason.”<ref>“The Buddha Dharma is reason” (buppō wa dōri 仏法は道理なり). Nichiren, Shijō Kingo-dono Gohenji 四条金吾殿御返事 (“Reply to Shijō Kingo,” 1277).</ref>

'''[p. 271]'''

For a seeker who tries to ground faith in reason, it is no longer possible to ignore the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha and simply assert dogmatically that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone embodies the Buddha’s spirit.” Such a religion will become increasingly incapable of speaking to the present or the future.

'''B:''' I understand now that religion cannot survive as merely subjective belief. And I also understand that, in light of the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha, Nichiren doctrine exactly as it stood six hundred and fifty years ago cannot simply be applied to modern people. So if Master Nichiren were born today, do you really think he would still invoke the polemical spirit of the Four Dicta—“the other schools cannot lead to enlightenment,” “they are the root cause of falling into hell,” “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone is the Dharma of buddhahood”—and make chanting the ''daimoku'' his one and only method for saving the modern world?<ref>Nichiren’s Four Dicta (shika kakugen 四箇格言) are conventionally summarized as “Nenbutsu leads to the Avīci hell” (nenbutsu muken 念仏無間), “Zen is the work of the devil” (zen tenma 禅天魔), “Shingon destroys the nation” (shingon bōkoku 真言亡国), and “Ritsu is treasonous” (ritsu kokuzoku 律国賊). The four formulas encapsulate Nichiren’s polemical rejection of the principal rival Buddhist traditions of his day.</ref>

'''A:''' I don’t think so. In fact, I began this new movement only after asking myself over and over for a long time: “If Master Nichiren appeared in the world today, what would he do?” A man with a scholarly conscience as sharp as his would not close his eyes, six hundred and fifty years later, to the transformed culture and social conditions of the modern world—much less to everything that modern Buddhist scholarship has discovered—and simply repeat the old formulas: “The other schools cannot attain the Way; the ''Lotus Sutra'' is the path to buddhahood.” Nor would he insist upon the absolute supremacy of ''daimoku'' chanting.

'''B:''' Then what form do you think he would take?

'''A:''' Probably something very much like this new movement—when considered from the standpoint of Buddhism’s essential nature and the demands of the present age.

=== Love and Equality Are the Spirit of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Speaking of the various schools, how does Shin Buddhism view the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha?

'''A:''' It seems that all serious modern seekers are adherents of that theory. Kaneko Daiei was even excommunicated over precisely this issue.<ref>Kaneko Daiei (金子大栄 1881–1976) was a prominent modern Jōdo Shinshū thinker and professor at Ōtani University. Employing modern historical-critical scholarship, he reinterpreted Amida Buddha and the Pure Land in symbolic rather than conventionally ontological terms. His views were condemned as doctrinal heterodoxy (ianjin 異安心), and in 1928 he was forced to leave his position at Ōtani University. Seno’o’s description of this as “excommunication” is somewhat stronger than the institutional action actually taken.</ref> Anyone with the least rational sense can hardly still become ecstatic today over things like a Pure Land ten billion worlds away or salvation through Other Power, as preached in the ''nenbutsu'' tradition.

'''B:''' Then how should we understand Amida Buddha?

'''A:''' Amida Buddha is the idealized self, and the Western Pure Land, countless worlds away, is idealized reality. The monk Dharmākara represents the fundamental human self, and his practice toward becoming Amida signifies a life of self-realization. Thus the wish to be saved by Amida symbolizes the joy inherent in a life that seeks what is right; salvation, in the final analysis, is nothing other than the life of love itself. To put it simply, love strides courageously even across the terrifying boundary of death. The scripture says, “When the mind of compassion is firmly determined, there is no fear.” This surely expresses the same principle.

'''[p. 272]'''

'''B:''' Then the central meaning of the ''Lotus Sutra'' must teach something similar.

'''A:''' Exactly. Even the words “Since I attained buddhahood” in the “Life Span” chapter, regarded as the heart of the ''Lotus Sutra'', are ultimately a celebration of the awakening of the self. The scriptures differ in expression, but their meaning is fundamentally the same. If we regard the entire canon as literally spoken by the Buddha, then, given the statements in the ''Lotus Sutra'' and the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'' that “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed,” scriptures such as the ''Amida Sutra'' and ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' would have to be regarded merely as expedient teachings to be set aside before the ''Lotus Sutra''. But if we understand them instead as products of Buddhism’s historical development, then the whole canon is an explanation of the content of Śākyamuni Buddha’s awakening. Reduced to its essence, it is a symbolic expression of love and equality. And from that awakening comes the rule running through all Buddhism: “Do no evil; practice all that is good; purify one’s own mind: this is the teaching of all buddhas.”<ref>“Do no evil; practice every good; purify your own mind: this is the teaching of all Buddhas” is traditionally known in East Asian Buddhism as the “Verse of the Common Admonition of the Seven Buddhas” (shichibutsu tsūkai ge 七仏通誡偈). The verse corresponds to Dhammapada 183 and appears widely in East Asian Buddhist literature.</ref>

'''B:''' Then practices such as esoteric rites and prayers, as well as faith in worldly benefits, so common among Buddhists, are decisively not the proper Buddhist path.

'''A:''' Correct. In the strict sense, Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic. There is a teaching in the Kōkigyōkyō that says something like this:

Disciples, there are three mistaken views here. A wise person examines these errors and leads others to abandon them. If these views are followed through to their conclusion, they negate human action in this world. What are the three? One renunciant claims that whatever suffering, pleasure, or neither-suffering-nor-pleasure a human being experiences in this life is entirely the result of karma from a previous existence. Another claims that all of it is caused by the creative activity of Īśvara. Still another claims that everything occurs without cause or condition.<ref>Seno’o attributes this passage to the Kōki-gyō-kyō 興起行経 (T 4, no. 197), though the refutation of the “Three Wrong Views” (三邪見) has a close parallel in the Dokyō 度経 (Madhyama Āgama 13; T 1, no. 26, pp. 435a–436b; corresponding to the Pali Titthāyatana Sutta, AN 3.61). The passage rejects three views that undermine moral agency: (1) strict fatalism (shukumeiron 宿命論), attributing all experience solely to past karma; (2) divine creationism (sōzōshinron 創造神論), attributing it to a creator god; and (3) accidentalism (gūzenron 偶然論), denying cause and condition. Seno’o invokes the passage to emphasize that Śākyamuni rejected fatalistic interpretations of karma and instead grounded Buddhist practice in causality, human agency, and the possibility of transforming the conditions that produce suffering.</ref>

In other words, it rejects fatalism, creationism, and accidentalism, and continues: “Disciples, in opposition to these mistaken views, I teach the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. This teaching of mine is such that no reasonable person can abuse, defile, slander, or reject it.” The Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination describe the path from delusion to awakening. Human suffering arises from inadequate understanding; the Buddha therefore taught the Eightfold Path as the method by which correct wisdom is to be fully attained. Buddhism therefore teaches us to see reality correctly and to act correctly. Even the word “Buddha” means “one who has attained perfect wisdom.”

'''B:''' By “creationism,” you mean something like the Christian God?

=== Buddhism Is Atheistic ===
'''B:''' Modern people are, of course, becoming less and less willing to accept that kind of deity. On this subject, Archbishop Brown wrote something like the following in ''God and the Capitalist'':

'''[p. 273]'''

“Does God wish to remove evil from this world but lack the power? Or is he able to remove it but unwilling? If he wishes to but cannot, then he is impotent, which contradicts the nature of God. If he can but will not, then he is evil, which likewise contradicts the nature of God. If he neither wishes nor is able, then he is both evil and impotent. But if he both wishes to remove evil and is able to do so—which is the only conception appropriate to God—then how can evil exist in the world?”<ref>William Montgomery Brown (1855–1937) was an American Episcopal bishop who became an outspoken socialist and communist and was deposed for heresy in 1925. Seno’o cites Brown’s critique of the Christian conception of God in God and the Capitalist, which circulated in Japanese as Kami to shihonka (神と資本家). The argument itself is a version of the classical “Epicurean paradox” concerning divine omnipotence and the existence of evil.</ref>

'''A:''' That is a painful criticism for Christianity. Before Buddhism, Brahmanism taught gods who created heaven and earth and also advocated ascetic practices of various kinds. The Buddha rejected these and, as I said before, taught the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. There is another story related to this. An apostate named Sunakkhatta went around criticizing the Buddha, saying: “The Buddha possesses no superhuman teaching and no exceptional knowledge or vision. He simply teaches ideas he has thought up in his own head. And he claims that anyone who thinks according to that teaching can reach a state free from suffering.” When the Buddha heard this, he told Śāriputra that Sunakkhatta, speaking in anger, thought he was criticizing the Buddha but was actually praising him.<ref>Sunakkhatta, a Licchavi and former disciple of the Buddha, appears in the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 12) criticizing his former teacher for possessing no “superhuman states” or extraordinary knowledge and vision. Significantly for Seno’o’s argument, Sunakkhatta’s demythological reading nevertheless acknowledges that the Buddha’s teaching leads those who practice it to the destruction of suffering.</ref> For to say that “according to his teaching, anyone who thinks properly can reach a state free from suffering” is itself praise of the Buddha. As this shows, the heart of Buddhism is to see the true nature of human life correctly, think correctly, and then live correctly.

'''B:''' But isn’t it said that Saint Nichiren himself performed prayers and rites?

'''A:''' Those are merely peripheral matters. Nichiren’s real spirit is found in the ''Kaimoku-shō'', where he declared: “Let heaven abandon me if it will; let every hardship befall me; I will stake my life upon this.... I vowed that I would become the pillar of Japan, that I would become the eyes of Japan, that I would become the great ship of Japan. These vows must never be broken.”<ref>Nichiren’s Kaimoku-shō (開目抄 “Opening of the Eyes”), composed in 1272 during his exile on Sado Island, is one of his major writings. It examines the grounds for religious authority and Nichiren’s understanding of his own mission in relation to the Lotus Sutra.</ref> That was his great religious resolve. The prayer rites being performed today are a disgrace to Master Nichiren.

=== The Proper Meaning of Faith in the Buddha ===
'''B:''' Then what do you mean when you chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''?

'''[p. 274]'''

'''A:''' It expresses gratitude and reverence toward Śākyamuni as the founder and teacher—not belief in him as an actually existing creator god. Buddhism teaches that “one who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.”<ref>“One who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha” (Pāli: yo dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati) derives from the Vakkali Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 22.87), where the Buddha tells the monk Vakkali: “One who sees the Dharma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dharma.”</ref> Anyone who follows the Buddha’s teaching, comes to understand and embody even a little of the truth, and experiences joy as a result will naturally come to praise, revere, and feel gratitude toward Śākyamuni Buddha as the ideal person who realized that truth.

And praising, revering, and thanking such a person in turn helps lead us more deeply into a life of truth. Praying to Śākyamuni Buddha will not make rice suddenly appear in your rice chest. If you are poor, the Buddha would tell you to work hard and figure out how to earn money.

But if, as under our present economic system, people work and yet their labor brings no worthwhile return, then the Buddha would surely tell us first to transform that bad system and guarantee the welfare of the masses. He would not mechanically repeat some maxim like “poverty can never catch up with hard work.” If you are sick, rather than making vows or relying on prayer rites, the Buddha would tell you first to seek proper treatment, reflect upon the causes of the illness, and observe the principles of health. That is the Buddha I understand.

'''B:''' As expected, the Buddha even seems to have understood Marxist theory.

'''A:''' That’s giving him too much credit. There is no way the Buddha could have known Marx’s theories. And his authority is not diminished in the least by not knowing them. He lived twenty-five hundred years ago; of course he did not know them. The point is that those who genuinely understand the Buddha’s life of love and equality naturally acquire the kind of understanding appropriate to their own time, place, and circumstances. Buddhism therefore develops continuously along with the age. That is the process I meant earlier when speaking of historically developing Buddhism. What we need to learn from Buddhism is the fundamental orientation of human life. Once we stand upon that foundation, an appropriate way of life will unfold in accordance with circumstances. I express this in the slogan: “From Impermanence to Devotion.”

'''B:''' Then Confucius’s saying, “A neighborhood is beautiful when there is benevolence; if one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one be called wise?” expresses the same view of life.

'''A:''' I think so. The ''tian'' of Confucianism, the God of Christianity, Japanese Shintō and the Buddha of Buddhism may all be explained differently, but if we follow them to their roots, I believe they all rest upon the same path of sacred love.

=== Buddhism and Christianity Will Merge ===
'''B:''' Some time ago, an organization called the Concordia Association was established to bring together the three teachings of Shintō, Confucianism, and Buddhism.<ref>The Concordia Association (Kiitsu Kyōkai 帰一協会) was a private interreligious organization founded in June 1912 by leading intellectuals and public figures, including industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi 渋沢栄一, educator Naruse Jinzō 成瀬仁蔵, religious scholar Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治, and philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. Formed in the same year as the government-sponsored Three Religions Conference (Sankyō Kaidō 三教会同), the association sought to foster moral and intellectual unity (kiitsu 帰一) across religious and philosophical traditions. Seno’o regarded such ecumenical efforts critically, seeing them as attempts to achieve an abstract religious harmony without confronting the social and economic conflicts of capitalist society.</ref>

'''[p. 275]'''

If what you’re saying is right, then Buddhism should ultimately be able to unite with Christianity as well.

'''A:''' I believe the day will come when they do. As the languages and writing systems of the world, and culture more generally, gradually converge—and especially as economic structures become increasingly integrated—religion alone cannot remain forever in a state of warring kingdoms. I think a new movement will emerge in which the two are sublated. After all, the innermost sanctuary of the human spirit must fundamentally be one. Religions should not continue opposing one another as they do today. Indeed, from the standpoint of religion’s true purpose, a world federation of religions ought to be proposed even before the political world federation now being discussed. I believe the mission of religious movements must be to work toward the realization of a worldwide human fellowship.

=== The Disappearance of the Established Buddhist Institutions Is Inevitable ===
'''B:''' I agree. In that case, the immediate priority would have to be a movement to unify Buddhism. The present fragmentation amounts to nothing more than Buddhists demonstrating their own lack of religious resolve. How many schools and branches does Buddhism actually have today?

'''A:''' I’ve heard there are thirteen schools and fifty-six branches.<ref>“Thirteen schools and fifty-six branches” (jūsanshū gojūrokuha, 十三宗五十六派) was a conventional enumeration of the institutional divisions of Japanese Buddhism in the modern period. Seno’o invokes the formula as evidence of the sectarian fragmentation that his movement sought to overcome.</ref>

'''B:''' But if you start a movement for unification, won’t you in practice simply create one more sect?

'''A:''' Even if it means adding one more sect for the moment, if the movement truly corresponds to the needs of the age, then as it expands and grows stronger, the established Buddhist institutions that have fallen out of step with the times will gradually lose their power and naturally undergo liquidation and disappear. That is just what happened when the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period displaced the established Buddhism of Nara and Heian and caused its older forms gradually to dissolve.

'''B:''' Then you’re saying that this Revitalized Buddhist movement represents the highest form of Buddhism demanded by the modern age.

'''A:''' As I said before, so long as Buddhism has its source in the person of the Buddha, is there really any other path by which it can be brought back into unity?

'''B:''' At the very least, it seems to be a method that should be acceptable across the schools. In fact, whichever Buddhist institution you examine, each has doctrines of some substance. But if every school keeps proclaiming exclusively, “Our school alone has grasped the Buddha’s intent,” the beginning seeker is completely bewildered. And if, despite all those differences, they all offer essentially the same opiate-like sermons of escape from reality, modern people will not merely reject Buddhism—they will quite naturally become advocates of its repudiation.

'''A:''' “Rotten wood cannot be carved.”<ref>“Rotten wood cannot be carved” (朽木不可雕也) derives from the Analects 5.10, where Confucius uses the image to describe someone upon whom further instruction would be wasted.</ref> There is no need to fear revolution.

'''[p. 276]'''

Even Shinran, regarded as the very model of humility, declared at the establishment of his teaching that “the teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace.”<ref>“The teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace” (釈迦の遺法ことごとく龍宮にいりたまいにき) is from Shinran’s Shōzōmatsu Wasan (正像末和讃, “Hymns of the Dharma-Ages”). The verse describes the disappearance of Śākyamuni’s conventional path of practice and realization in the age of the Final Dharma; the Dragon Palace (ryūgū, 龍宮) is the mythical undersea realm in which Buddhist scriptures were said to be preserved beyond the human world.</ref> To put it plainly, he too rejected the whole of established Buddhism as obsolete.

=== On the Scriptural Basis of the New Movement ===
'''B:''' I understand. Earlier you said ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''. Would ''Namu Shakamuni Butsu'' not be sufficient?

'''A:''' According to correct Sanskrit usage, when ''namu''—“homage”—is used, the ending ''-āya'' must be added to indicate the dative case. Only then does it properly mean “homage to Śākyamuni Buddha” or “I take refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha.” With Namu Shakamuni Butsu, by contrast, “Śākyamuni Buddha” remains in the nominative, so the grammatical relationship between namu and “Śākyamuni Buddha” does not work properly. Or so I am told. Since we are launching a new movement aimed at Buddhist unity, we have taken the opportunity to correct the expression as well.<ref>Seno’o prefers Namu Shakamuni Budaya 南無釈迦牟尼仏陀耶 to the conventional Namu Shakamuni Butsu 南無釈迦牟尼仏, explaining the former as grammatically preferable on the basis of Sanskrit namas (“homage”) and the dative buddhāya. The phonetic form Budaya is retained here as Seno’o gives it rather than Sanskritized. The formula became characteristic of the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref>

'''B:''' I understand that too. But what about your authoritative scripture? You can hardly choose one scripture now—the ''Lotus Sutra'', the ''Amida Sutra'', or some other text—and carrying around the entire enormous Buddhist canon is obviously impossible.

'''A:''' You’re right. If we take the position that, despite differences of importance and emphasis, the entire Buddhist canon arises from the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, then it is impossible—especially after abandoning our former sectarian standpoint—to choose a single scripture as uniquely authoritative. So, for practical purposes, we have decided for the time being to adopt the ''Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures'' compiled by Kizu Muan and others.<ref>Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1876–1943) was a lay Buddhist reformer associated with efforts to make Buddhist scripture accessible beyond sectarian boundaries. His Shin’yaku Bukkyō Seiten (新訳仏教聖典 Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures), published in 1925, presented selections from major Buddhist scriptures in accessible modern Japanese and was intended to provide ordinary Japanese Buddhists with a common scriptural anthology</ref> It is a handy modern translation containing selections from the essential teachings of the entire canon.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t Kizu and the other compilers inevitably impose their own personalities upon such an anthology?

'''A:''' That cannot entirely be avoided. I would prefer something more thoroughly revised. If possible, I would like the members of our own movement eventually to compile and publish such a translation ourselves.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t that plant the seeds for yet another inevitable division?

'''A:''' I can’t deny that possibility. Since believers differ in their inclinations, if we make scriptures themselves the basis, division will naturally arise again. Indeed, the scriptures themselves recognize the necessity of diversified teaching. We find statements such as “innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma” and “because desires and dispositions differ, various teachings are preached.” A scripture could even be called the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings precisely because it recognizes the necessity of the Dharma being expressed in different forms. So if we make scripture the basis, division will certainly recur. Instead of defining the Buddha through the scriptures,…

'''[p. 277]'''

…we should take the person of the Buddha as our starting point and reduce the essential meaning of the entire canon to the realization of love and equality. Wouldn’t Buddhism then be able to unite without strain? The essential point is to recognize that Amida Buddha, Mahāvairocana Buddha, and the other figures who came to be believed in as actually existing beings through faith in the scriptures are all representations of the person of Śākyamuni. I therefore propose that all Buddhists unite in Namu Shakamuni Budaya. It is like Christianity: however many denominations there may be, they are united in their object of faith—the one God—to whom they say “Amen.”

'''B:''' Wasn’t that ultimately the real intention behind Master Nichiren’s religious revolution as well?

'''A:''' Exactly. We should now subject it to modern criticism—including the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—and thereby purify it, while at the same time stripping away the old shell of ''daimoku'' chanting, corroded by all manner of popular beliefs and superstitions. In that way we can make the central principle of Buddhist unification unmistakably clear and, beyond that, establish the spiritual basis for a worldwide human fellowship. And this cry of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'' necessarily leads us to scrutinize the economic system that forms the basic condition of actual life. Since the present capitalist economic system violates the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, we have no choice but, in the name of that love and equality, to join the movement to transform it.

'''B:''' That seems to be one of the three central aims of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. But before you explain that, what does your movement intend to do about funerals? You certainly aren’t going to ask the priests to perform them.

=== On Funerals ===
'''A:''' Don’t be ridiculous. What good would it do to have priests like that perform the final rites over us? Today I attended the private funeral of a certain eminent archbishop. A certain head priest who had betrayed his teacher while the latter was still alive acted as officiant. Arrayed in a gold-brocade kesa, with a procession of similarly dressed priests behind him, he recited sutras and chanted the ''daimoku'' as he performed the final rites. If my teacher had been able to speak from within the jeweled ''stūpa'', what would he have said?<ref>The deceased “teacher” was Honda Nisshō 本多日生 (1867–1931), the influential Nichiren Buddhist leader under whom Seno’o had studied and with whom he had long been associated before his break with Nichirenism. Honda’s death in March 1931 thus occurred at precisely the moment of Seno’o’s turn toward Revitalized Buddhism. Seno’o’s discomfort at the elaborate funeral rites of his former teacher underscores both the personal and institutional dimensions of that break. The jeweled stūpa (hōtō 宝塔) alludes to chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra, in which a magnificent stūpa emerges from the earth containing the Buddha Prabhūtaratna (J. Tahō Nyorai).</ref> I could do nothing but weep. There they were in a main hall beautifully decorated with donations—unearned income contributed by the bourgeoisie—a group of seemingly castrated priests banging away on their old-fashioned gongs, interminably reciting ''dhāraṇī''s whose meaning no one could understand, and putting on an air of solemnity. For someone who sincerely mourns his teacher and is resolved to bring that teacher’s aspirations to life in a new age, how could a ''dhāraṇī''-style funeral like that possibly be satisfying? No doubt such forms once possessed value appropriate to their age,…

'''[p. 278]'''

…but today, from beginning to end, they are nothing but anachronisms. They are like beer left sitting for days, with sediment collecting in it. In the end, that is what happens when a funeral has lost its spirit.

'''B:''' Then what sort of form do you propose replacing it with?

'''A:''' Are you so worried about the form of the funeral that you can’t attain buddhahood? As long as the movement itself is genuinely alive and substantial, I believe forms appropriate to the age will arise naturally in the course of the movement. Look at how solemn a makeshift burial on the battlefield can be. Think, too, how deeply moving Yamasen’s funeral was.<ref>“Yamasen” was the familiar name of Yamamoto Senji 山本宣治 (1889–1929), a biologist, birth-control advocate, socialist politician, and labor activist assassinated by a right-wing nationalist in 1929. His funeral and memorial processions became major public events for the Japanese left.</ref> The point is that appropriate forms arise in proportion to the intensity of one’s commitment to justice in life. So I don’t think we need to calculate the form of a funeral in advance. The essential thing is to adopt a simple, spiritual form appropriate to the modern age; beyond that, we can proceed as circumstances require.

'''B:''' But a funeral does adorn the end of a person’s life....

'''A:''' The end isn’t something you decorate once you’ve reached it. To put it strongly, think of a funeral as little more than disposing of used coffee grounds. What matters is rebuilding each living day into a life of justice and love. Isn’t that what Nichiren meant when he said, “A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world”?<ref>“A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world.” Nichiren, Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude,” 1276).</ref> To think of a funeral as a ceremony that “adorns the end” is itself a variant of bourgeois ideology: people donate or contribute some percentage of wealth accumulated through sinful exploitation and imagine that this constitutes admirable faith and atonement. ''Why be calculating funeral arrangements before the banner has even been raised? Those advancing arm in arm in the march of justice should already be prepared to leave their corpses by the roadside. Would the dead not prefer the tearful offering of a single comrade to the hymns of a thousand people without heart? “Let the dead bury their dead!”''<ref>Matthew 8:22; cf. Luke 9:60.</ref> The fundamental ideology of our Revitalized Buddhist movement must be the resolve to embody the Buddhist spirit in actual life—a resolve that will make even our funerals bleed tears.

'''B:''' I understand. Then will you go on to explain the relationship between reform of the economic system and the Revitalized Buddhist movement?

=== Revitalized Buddhism and Class Struggle ===
'''A:''' We’ve talked for quite a long time today, so let’s leave this subject until next time. In the meantime, from January through March of this year I published my views in Youth on the attitude Buddhists should take toward…

'''[p. 279]'''

…capitalism. I’ll eventually publish those articles as a pamphlet, so study them when it comes out.<ref>Seno’o refers to his essay series “Capitalism and the Stance of Buddhists” (Shihonshugi ni taisuru Bukkyōto no taido 資本主義に対する仏教徒の態度), serialized in Wakōdo 若人 from January through March 1931 and subsequently published as Shihonshugi to Bukkyō 資本主義と仏教 (Capitalism and Buddhism; Tokyo: Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei Shuppanbu, 1931).</ref> In the end, Buddhist priests too are parasites of capitalism and, generally speaking, cannot avoid becoming its servants. The shortest road to religious revolution therefore lies in transforming capitalism, the underlying condition that sustains them. In any case, doesn’t this new movement acquire value only when it advances into the concrete problems of actual life?

'''B:''' Let me ask you one thing. In the end, then, you recognize “joining the proletarian movement”—that is, class struggle?

'''A:''' Yes.

'''B:''' Earlier you said that Buddhism is “emptiness” and that it occupies “no standpoint.” But if you endorse class struggle and side with the proletarian movement, doesn’t that contradict the Buddhist spirit?

'''A:''' It is precisely because Buddhism is “emptiness” and occupies “no standpoint” that, when circumstances require it, participation in the proletarian movement can be justified. To look at the class struggle actually taking place before our eyes and simply disregard it amounts to nothing more than indifference to the conditions of our own lives. The question is which side it is right to support. That alone is the issue.

'''B:''' But proletarian activists are often inclined to resort to violence. Can that too be called just?

'''A:''' Before speaking of violence by the proletarian movement, don’t you recognize the overwhelming presence of the military, the police, and all the other instruments of power controlled by those who rule? It is precisely on the basis of this recognition of reality that proletarian activists are compelled to resort to violence in order to realize their ideal society.

'''B:''' You speak of “those who control the instruments of power,” but these are the nation’s military and police. Surely they do not belong to any one particular class.

'''A:''' That is true in name only. Look at the facts: which class actually controls the military and the police? You have to open your eyes to reality. Today, the justice and morality spoken of by the ruling class are entirely one-sided—a morality of the strong. Otherwise, how could they enjoy such lives of splendor while ignoring the masses living at the very bottom?

'''B:''' Still, their present position is one they have attained by prevailing in competition. Surely being the victor does not necessarily make one unjust.

'''A:''' If that is not unjust, then why is it considered unjust—and impermissible—for the proletariat today to seek victory through unions and solidarity?

'''B:''' Isn’t that because it would disrupt the existing social order?

'''[p. 280]'''

'''A:''' For whose benefit is the present social order arranged? Look at the facts. Today, justice and morality are all colored by class. They are a class-based justice and order, and by no means genuine justice. Nevertheless, the educators either unconsciously—or sometimes consciously, and quite brazenly—serve as mouthpieces for the ruling class. If it is just for the present ruling class to use its power to suppress the proletarian movement, then it must equally be just for proletarian activists to seize power and turn it back against them. If religious people are to condemn violence as unjust, then from which class should they first demand its abandonment? And if, under certain circumstances, violence itself can be regarded as just, then which movement contains within it more of the true essence of justice? The impossible neutral standpoint that is neither bourgeois nor proletarian belongs now to the realm of ghosts. True justice must be sought in securing the welfare of the masses. So, what do you think? I believe that the Revitalized Buddhist movement can ultimately find its true social ground only among the proletarian class.

'''B:''' I think I understand now. Justice is an ideology that becomes concretely felt through opposition. Looking back over history, the true character of justice has been recognized most clearly in struggles against the powerful on behalf of the weak of their time. In fact, I myself have been inwardly dissatisfied with calling myself “neutral.” I have always tried to formulate a conception of justice by working from the concrete calculations of actual life rather than from abstraction. On that point, I should read your pamphlet carefully and think it over.

'''A:''' Until now, almost all Buddhists have, more or less without exception, adhered to a conceptual and conservative faith in “gratitude.” As a result, they have been blind to the problems of actual social life, have conducted no research whatsoever into socialism, and have been driven from the outset into a blindly reactionary movement. This is a grave anachronism. The original ideal of Buddhism was, on the contrary, itself socialist. On this point, too, I am genuinely glad that the narcotic effect of the opium has begun to wear off and that the force of actual life has begun to move.

'''B:''' I understand quite well. Let’s discuss this question again after I’ve read your pamphlet. (Shōwa 6 [1931], “Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism,” April inaugural issue)

'''[p. 281]'''

=== The Economy Is the Foundation of Life ===
'''B:''' You promised me last month that you would explain the relationship between the Revitalized Buddhist movement and the transformation of the economic system.

'''A:''' Yes. Since launching this new movement, I have become painfully aware that the reason nearly all the comrades who initially joined me but later withdrew did so was the third item in our program: “opposition to capitalism.” This has made me realize all the more clearly that economic problems are the very foundation of human life, and that our thoughts and actions are therefore inevitably conditioned by them. Generally speaking, an edification movement that ignores economic problems is nothing more than a conceptual game. Indeed, I have become even more firmly convinced that any edification movement that does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to advancing the transformation of the present capitalist economic system is nothing less than an opiate-like form of wrongdoing. And surely there is no longer any need to explain that capitalism is a mechanism of selfishness and self-interest that runs counter to the Buddhist spirit.

'''B:''' From the enthusiastic response of the audience at the April 5 inaugural commemorative lecture meeting of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, I too could clearly sense how thoroughly society has become disillusioned with capitalism and with the established Buddhist institutions.

But what about organizations such as the Hope Society and the Cultivation Society, which have recently been conducting very active edification movements? Don’t you think they possess some contemporary value?<ref>Kibōsha 希望社 (“Hope Society”), founded by Gotō Seikō 後藤静香 (1884–1969) in 1918, and Shūyōdan 修養団 (“Self-Cultivation Association”), founded by Hasunuma Monzō 蓮沼門三 (1882–1980) in 1906, were prominent organizations in Japan’s modern moral-edification (kyōka 教化) and self-cultivation (shūyō 修養) movements. Both emphasized personal discipline, service, and social harmony. Seno’o rejects such movements as inadequate responses to structural economic problems, arguing that their emphasis on individual moral cultivation ultimately leaves capitalist relations intact.</ref>

'''A:''' They are both organizations for officially sanctioned edification, and in the end the result is the same. Precisely because they are novel edification movements, they may temporarily attract young men and women and, for that very reason, function all the more effectively as an opiate. Recently, however, I hear that even within the Cultivation Society an anti-capitalist consciousness has gradually begun to emerge. And didn’t the Hope Society recently fall several months behind in paying its employees’ salaries, leading to an employees’ strike and even a lawsuit? As the saying goes, “A hundred days of preaching are undone by a single fart.”<ref>A traditional Japanese proverb: Hyakunichi no seppō, he hitotsu 百日の説法、屁一つ (literally, “A hundred days of preaching, one fart”), meaning that prolonged preaching or painstaking effort can be undone by a single act that renders it ridiculous or ineffective. Seno’o invokes the deliberately coarse expression to suggest that moral edification is rendered futile when the social conditions produced by capitalism remain unchanged.</ref> There is also that amusing saying, “Faith, too, comes from an excess of ''toku''.” Here ''toku'' means “profit.” That one saying alone explains rather well the relationship between economic problems and established edification organizations.<ref>“Faith, too, comes from an excess of toku” plays on the proverb shinjin mo toku no amari 信心も徳の余り, meaning that religious devotion becomes possible only when one has sufficient material ease. Seno’o pointedly interprets toku here in the material sense of profit or economic gain, reinforcing his argument that religious and moral life cannot be separated from economic conditions.</ref>

'''[p. 282]'''

=== The Anachronism of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''B:''' You did quite a bit of arguing at the conference of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation on April 2 and 3. Was it about what you were just discussing?

'''A:''' It wasn’t only that, but I said everything that needed to be said. The obvious question was whether, in determining its attitude toward capitalism, which runs counter to the Buddhist spirit, the Federation would return to the Buddha—but they could not reach a decision. Worse still, although Buddhist youth from throughout Japan had joined together in a federation with the intention of advancing into a new society, they were still debating whether guiding principles were even necessary. It was like firing a gun in the dark; there was no real question to discuss.

'''B:''' Doesn’t the Federation’s second stated objective say, “We aim to awaken to the Buddhist spirit and promote its revitalization”?

'''A:''' However impressive such abstract phrases may sound, unless something new actually follows from them, things will simply continue as before. Even if they spend several hundred yen to establish another grand federation, what meaning can it possibly have unless they articulate concrete guiding principles appropriate to the demands of the new age? As I was saying, so long as the various sects each possess bodies of teaching that are historically incompatible with one another, the more faithfully each adheres to the doctrines of its own sect, the less what sect A regards as the Buddhist spirit will correspond to what sects B and C regard as the Buddhist spirit. Take the Nichiren sect: if it loudly proclaims the Buddhist spirit embodied in its Four Dicta, how can it possibly form a united front with the Nenbutsu and other sects? And if the Pure Land sect clings to the “Five Miscellaneous Practices,” wouldn’t the result be the same?<ref>The Five Miscellaneous Practices (gozōgyō 五雑行), derived from Shandao’s Pure Land classification, designate practices directed toward buddhas and teachings other than Amitābha and the Pure Land as “miscellaneous,” in contrast to the five “right practices” (goshōgyō 五正行). Seno’o juxtaposes this Pure Land exclusivism with Nichiren’s Four Dicta (see n. 30) to expose the unresolved doctrinal contradictions underlying claims of Buddhist unity.</ref> If they say cooperation is nevertheless possible, then that is shameless—unless, of course, they have already sublated their sectarian doctrines in accordance with the times. In any case, if the Federation is to become something more than a kind of religious social club and actually inaugurate a Buddhist movement appropriate to the new age, it must set forth a guiding principle of faith capable of unifying the Federation as a whole and, on that basis, a guiding principle for solving social problems. Otherwise, it is useless.

'''B:''' Surely people chosen to represent their respective regions must have thought about something as basic as that.

'''A:''' Exactly. Marx said that “humanity always sets itself only such problems as it is able to solve.”<ref>Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface (1859): “Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve.”</ref> Since these people have joined the Federation in order to join hands with one another, there must be some common point on which they ''can'' join hands—some problem capable of solution. That is why I proposed that we…

'''[p. 283]'''

…identify this concrete point and launch a new movement.

=== Two Major Proposals to the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''A:''' Needless to say, I advocated the two fundamental principles of our Revitalized Buddhism. They took the following form:

(1)'' We recognize that the divisions among the established Buddhist institutions run counter to the Buddhist way of harmony; returning to the Buddha, we resolve to promote Buddhism anew in a manner appropriate to the age.''

(2)'' We recognize that the suffering of present society arises primarily from its contradictory social organization, and we resolve to reform that organization and build an ideal society grounded in the Buddhist spirit.''<ref>Compare these two proposals with the three founding principles subsequently proclaimed by the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism at its inaugural meeting on April 5, 1931: opposition to established Buddhist institutions, the construction of a new Buddhist movement suited to the present age, and opposition to capitalism.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t these proposals rather abstract?

'''A:''' I think they are sufficient as fundamental principles realistically possible under the present circumstances of the Buddhist Federation.

'''B:''' I hear there was considerable opposition.

'''A:''' There was. But the truth was self-evident. Whatever anyone might say, the only possible point of unity for such a federation was “returning to the Buddha.” The spirit of the proposal was therefore generally accepted. But time was short, and the matter was referred to the platform-drafting committee, so the proceedings came to an end. As the newspapers harshly criticized them the next day, however, a federation like this might almost have been better left unformed. They did not even have the courage to decide upon the obvious first proposal. As for the second, in practice it must have seemed about as remote as the Pure Land ten billion lands to the west.

=== Shin Buddhism’s Self-Reckoning ===
'''B:''' I understand that most of the delegates in attendance were Shin Buddhists. But if you say “Return to the Buddha,” doesn’t that amount to a declaration of bankruptcy for the Amida teaching of absolute Other Power?

'''A:''' Strictly speaking, I suppose it does. Recently, I saw an explanation by Dr. Takakusu published in the Yomiuri Shimbun under the title “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism.” Even there, Amida faith and the like have been completely disposed of. It seems to me that any seeker who reads one as one, correctly and without distortion, could have no possible objection to Shin Buddhism also “returning to the Buddha.” In the section on “atheism” in Dr. Takakusu’s “Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism,” he writes:

Human destiny is not governed by God; it is entirely self-governed. Through the principle that one reaps the consequences of one’s own actions, each person is continually opening up their own destiny. There is therefore no need to await God’s judgment: it is entirely a matter of self-judgment. Good causes and good effects do not arise through God’s judgment, but rather through natural law. Thus Śākyamuni stands firmly upon his own human personality, develops that personality upward, and attains complete buddhahood. Amida Nyorai and Dainichi Nyorai, too, are ideals manifested from Śākyamuni’s own ideal…

'''[p. 284]'''

… they are, after all, human beings brought to completion. Therefore, the Buddha has not the slightest trace of the meaning of a creator god, a sovereign god, or a judicial god. Rather, the Buddha himself attains the ultimate state of self-awakening and, from compassion for other unenlightened beings, begins the activity of awakening others so as to bring them to the same ultimate state of self-awakening.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945), a prominent scholar of Buddhism and Sanskrit, developed a modern systematic interpretation of Buddhist doctrine that included an explicitly “atheistic” (mushinshugi 無神主義) principle. Seno’o here quotes Takakusu’s “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no konpon gi 仏教の根本義), published in the morning edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun, March 22, 1931. See also Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref>

Accordingly, self-awakening, awakening others, and the perfection of awakened practice are the Buddha’s fundamental concern. As you know, Dr. Takakusu is a universally acknowledged authority on Shin Buddhism. Therefore, shouldn’t we simply dispense with an Amida Nyorai of Other-Power salvation, stand firmly upon our own human personality, and direct that personality upward toward the liberated Buddha? The destiny of the doctor himself lies in opening up his own self; in other words, it is a matter of an Amida Nyorai who saves himself through the development of his own self. Therefore, casting aside naïve reliance on Amida Buddha and Other Power, should not all Buddhists stand upon their own personhood and strive to develop and perfect it, uniting around the liberated Buddha, seeking the light of life in reverence for this ideal personality, and devoting themselves to responsible effort? Would this not be a Buddhist movement that modern people could find convincing?

'''B:''' I think that is exactly right. The conception of Other-Power Buddhism is quite similar to the Christian conception of a sovereign and judging God. Such an explanation can hardly satisfy the religion of tomorrow. If all this is so clear, why can’t they raise a platform and launch a new Buddhist movement?

=== The Resolve to Bear the Cross ===
'''A:''' From this point on, however, the issue becomes one of religious resolve. There is always a distance between explanation and practice. Between them stand inherited conventions, personal ties and feelings, and, above all, the many difficult problems accumulated through economic relationships and the circumstances of actual life. It is easy enough to speak of decisive action, but making the leap itself is by no means simple. Such a leap can only come from the earnest seeking spirit of a revolutionary who is driven by an irresistible inner necessity and is prepared even to bear the cross. This is especially true of our second principle. Without such determination, it would be impossible to revolutionize the tradition of religion in service to established power and launch a new Buddhist movement for the sake of the masses.

=== Sinclair’s View of Religion ===
'''B:''' At the Revitalized Buddhist founding commemorative lecture on the fifth, there were an awful lot of police present,…

'''[p. 285]'''

…keeping a very conspicuous watch. Was that because of Revitalized Buddhism’s third principle—the slogan “Down with Capitalism”?

'''A:''' Exactly. When I was summoned to the police station over the notification for the meeting, that was what they told me. They were not particularly concerned about the destruction of the established Buddhist institutions. What concerned them was the anti-capitalist movement. If the content of our Revitalized Buddhist movement consisted merely in destroying the established religious institutions and unifying Buddhism, that would amount to little more than destroying a number of robots and manufacturing one enormous robot in their place. The real problem is that, unless the Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a movement against capitalism—the modern devil that is mercilessly turning human beings into robots through the religious institutions—it cannot truly be called a religious movement that engages actual life. That is what I believe.

'''B:''' I can understand what you’re saying, but surely religion and economic movements are, by their very nature, separate fields?

'''A:''' That is a reasonable point, at least at first. But I believe that true religion should not divide things into two, economics on one side and spirit on the other; it should demand the idealization of life as a whole. Genuine love between a man and a woman cannot be satisfied with Platonic love; only where flesh and spirit are united can love attain fulfillment.

On this point, Upton Sinclair writes in his well-known book Is Religion Worth Believing?<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968) was an American socialist writer and political activist. The passages quoted here are from his The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation (1918), a socialist critique of organized religion as an ally of economic exploitation. Seno’o encountered the work in Japanese as Shūkyō wa shinzuru ni taru ka 宗教は信ずるに足るか (Is Religion Worth Believing?; trans. Sakai Toshihiko et al., Tokyo: Kōbunsha, 1920). The English here translates the Japanese passages quoted by Seno’o rather than substituting Sinclair’s original English wording.</ref>

Religion, in the true sense, is the most fundamental of spiritual impulses: an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and foster life. In this sense, every thinking human being must be religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal and the true nature of humanity itself. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. Indeed, I wish to make clear that religion, understood in this sense, is something that simply cannot be attacked.

But the word ‘religion’ has also been given another meaning, and as a result we have been deprived of the pleasure of using this word in that straightforward sense. For most people, the word ‘religion’ does not mean ‘the soul’s desire to grow’ or ‘the pursuit of righteousness as though hungering and thirsting for it.’ Instead, it means the historical forms in which that desire has appeared, and…

'''[p. 286]'''

…the doctrines, ‘revelations,’ creeds, and rituals it has acquired; a system under which the moral impulses of the people, the love of children, and the aspirations of youth are exploited and turned into a source of privilege and commercial profit for the clergy. ‘Religion’ in this sense is the natural ally of parasitic income and of every form of oppression and exploitation.

Can we not clearly understand from this the difference between true “religion” and distorted, so-called “religion”? ''Thus the actual path followed by the true religious person, who “hungers and thirsts after righteousness,” naturally diverges from the ideological dream-world in which the half-paralyzed pseudo-religionist dances, taking fixed doctrines and revelations, creeds and rituals to be religion.'' Sinclair’s next words express almost exactly my own present conviction:

I am certainly no shallow materialist. I am not so superficial as to think that human beings can be satisfied by meaningless rationalism. I know that the symbols of the old religions arose from the human heart. They arose because they corresponded to certain desires of the human heart. And I also know that, together with those desires, the symbols of a new religion suited to the needs of the present age can be discovered. If I am trying here to tear down an old, dilapidated building, it is not out of a blind impulse to destroy, but because I am an architect who wishes to build in its place a new and sturdier structure.

=== The True Character of Temple Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then today’s Nichiren sect, Nenbutsu sect, Shingon sect, and so forth, with their ruling hierarchies claiming divine authority and their fixed doctrines, “revelations,” creeds, and rituals, are what might be called “religion in the ordinary sense.”

'''A:''' They are indeed typical examples. Look at Mount Minobu, the eastern and western Honganji temples, or Narita’s Fudō temple. Where in any of them do we find a “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” or the “most fundamental spiritual impulse,” the vital force of life, being nurtured and fostered? What kind of contact do these sacred places have with young people, in whom spiritual impulses are at their strongest? Among the pilgrims to these sacred places, most are old people with no future, people making selfish petitions, or perhaps bourgeois and petit-bourgeois youth. What kind of promise do they make to the young people of tomorrow?

And speaking of that,…

'''[p. 287]'''

…Tsukiji Honganji, I hear, is planning to construct an enormous reinforced-concrete temple hall with a building budget of more than two million yen. The reason for doing so is truly remarkable. Since the Great Earthquake destroyed its main hall, most large funerals have been going instead to Zōjōji in Shiba. The new building, it is rumored, is therefore a scheme to win those customers back.<ref>Tsukiji Honganji 築地本願寺, the major Honganji-ha temple in Tokyo, lost its main hall in the fires following the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923. Its replacement, designed by Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954), was constructed in reinforced concrete between 1931 and 1934 in a distinctive Indian-inspired style, at a cost of more than two million yen. Seno’o refers critically to reports that the expensive reconstruction was driven partly by competition with Zōjōji 増上寺, the prominent Jōdo-shū temple in Shiba, for lucrative funerals. He presents the episode as an example of Buddhist institutions pursuing wealth and institutional prestige rather than the welfare of the masses.</ref> What kind of grotesque commercial competition between funeral corporations is this?

Given Buddhism under the leadership of temples like these, there is hardly any need to explain what the lives of ordinary Buddhists look like today. It amounts to little more than mouthing phrases such as “From Impermanence to Devotion,” accompanied by a smiling face, as though economic life were an entirely separate matter. People may shed grateful tears at the thought that “the founder spent ninety years clothed in paper,”<ref>“The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” alludes to a celebrated haiku by Ōtani Kubutsu 大谷句仏 (Ōtani Kōen, 1875–1943), the twenty-third head of Higashi Honganji: “How humbling! The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” (勿体なや祖師は紙衣の九十年). The “founder” is Shinran (1173–1263), while “paper clothing” (kamiko 紙衣) evokes the austerity traditionally associated with his life. Seno’o invokes the verse ironically to contrast Shinran’s celebrated simplicity with the wealth and institutional practices of contemporary Shin Buddhism.</ref> and may be deeply moved as they recall his exile at Tsukahara; but how is any of that spirit actually woven into the everyday lives of believers? Look again at the recent practice of the ruling class, as one means of ideological guidance, of having elementary-school teachers install ''kamidana'' in their classrooms in order to instill the ideology of reverence for the gods and veneration of the ancestors. These are precisely the fossilized religious rites Sinclair was describing. What a strange situation we have today: at a time when there are said to be as many as a thousand villages where teachers’ salaries go unpaid, the gods and buddhas whose very life is equality and love are shut up inside such little boxes, while the ruling class orders teachers to bow before them in the name of ideological guidance.<ref>Seno’o refers to the increasing use of State Shintō rites in public education during the early Shōwa period, when practices such as the installation of kamidana 神棚 and shrine worship were promoted as expressions of civic morality and reverence for the emperor rather than as “religion.” He juxtaposes this ideological mobilization of elementary-school teachers with their low salaries and precarious economic position, exposing what he sees as the contradiction between state-sponsored moral edification and the material conditions of those charged with carrying it out.</ref> The ruling class is bad enough—but surely the teachers who have no choice but to reply, “Yes, indeed,” and obey deserve our sympathy as well. Think about it. Why should governors and department heads receive monthly salaries of four or five hundred yen, while elementary-school teachers receive only sixty or seventy? And isn’t the amount of time they actually spend working in precisely the opposite proportion?

Earlier I mentioned Dr. Takakusu’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism.” Among its four outward-facing principles are non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no hachidai kōryō 仏教の八大綱領) distinguished four inward-facing principles from four outward-facing social principles, the latter comprising non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality. See Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref> He says that Buddhism’s distinctive characteristic lies in carrying each of these principles through to its fullest possible extent. But that is merely a story about the past. Where do we see these principles being practiced today? Where are Buddhists even calling for their practice? Indeed, what could be more upside-down and confused than the fact that Buddhism now attacks socialism—which seeks to put those very principles into practice—as though it were the devil itself? We must once again recover the Buddha’s life of equality.

=== The Transformation of the Economic System is Essential ===
'''B:''' Then, from what you have said, is the concrete problem advocated by the Revitalized Buddhist movement ultimately the need for “a new religion integrated with the needs of the present age”?

'''A:''' Exactly. As I said before, generally speaking, economic relationships regulate our thought and action. Under the present profit-oriented…

'''[p. 288]'''

…capitalist economic system, antisocial egoism is naturally mass-produced. That is why I regard the transformation of this mechanism as a fundamental problem.

'''B:''' I asked you this before, but isn’t the proper function of religion nevertheless a spiritual one?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that. But the moment religion fixes itself exclusively in that role, it acquires the first qualification of a religion in the service of established power, and then becomes capable of reactionary preaching. If you could guarantee, for people in general, that they could perform hard physical labor even when hungry and remain mentally clear even when deprived of sleep, then I would accept your argument.

'''B:''' But many accomplished people have managed to transcend adverse circumstances. Doesn’t that show that spiritual power can rise above environment? And haven’t extraordinary powers of mind sometimes developed precisely under difficult conditions?

'''A:''' That is precisely the stock-in-trade of establishment preachers. Of course, there is the saying, “Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool.” <ref>“Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool” (shintō mekkyaku sureba hi mo mata suzushi 心頭滅却すれば火もまた涼し) is a traditional expression for transcending physical suffering through mental composure, famously associated in Japan with the Zen monk Kaisen Jōki 快川紹喜 (d. 1582), who is said to have uttered it as he faced death by fire at Erinji.</ref> But, as I have repeatedly said in this conversation, I am speaking generally. Ordinary people tend to lack constancy of mind when they lack a secure livelihood. You can argue as you do now because you have no anxiety over food and clothing. But imagine yourself being hounded by the need to obtain today’s bread: a religion of spiritual bliss would inevitably become a secondary concern.

''Human beings, after all, exist within nature. Just as pine branches exposed to the sea wind are shaped in much the same way, we too are generally subject to the influence of our environment. It is therefore impossible simply to ignore those influences and speak only of ideals. Is this not precisely why the Confucian tradition could say:''

'''[p. 289]'''

''“When the granaries are full, people know propriety and decorum”?''<ref>A well-known maxim from the Guanzi 管子, “Mumin” 牧民: 倉廩実則知礼節 (“When the granaries are full, [the people] know ritual propriety”). Traditionally associated with Guan Zhong 管仲 (d. 645 BCE), it expresses the idea that material security is a prerequisite for moral and social order. Seno’o invokes the maxim here to support his increasingly materialist insistence that religious or ethical transformation cannot be separated from the economic conditions of everyday life.</ref>'' Unless the movement to establish a true Buddha-land takes this objective reality of human nature as its point of departure, it will remain an eternal dream.''

=== An Example of Economic Conditions Determining Action ===
'''A:''' On the eve of the formation of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, one incident gave me decisive confirmation on this issue: the withdrawal of the Kōfu branch.<ref>The Kōfu branch (Kōfu shibu 甲府支部) in Yamanashi Prefecture was one of the strongest regional bases of Seno’o’s earlier Nichirenist movement. It withdrew immediately before the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism on April 5, 1931, following disagreement over the new movement’s explicit opposition to capitalism. As Seno’o explains here, many Kōfu members were shopkeepers and salaried workers whose livelihoods made such a commitment particularly difficult. He treats the episode as concrete evidence of the extent to which material conditions shape religious conviction and action.</ref>

'''B:''' That was actually something of a surprise to me as well. After all, that branch had been the one into which you had put the greatest effort ever since you first launched the Nichirenist movement, and it was also the most influential branch. What was the reason for its withdrawal?

'''A:''' Five comrades had even promised to come up to Tokyo for the founding ceremony on the fifth. But the anti-capitalist declaration contained in our third principle, published in the inaugural issue of Buddhist Banner delivered on the third, proved fatal.<ref>“Buddhist Banner” (Bukki 佛旗) is Seno’o’s abbreviated designation for Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni (新興仏教の旗の下に, Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism), the original title of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism’s journal.</ref> Since the branch included quite a few members of the petit-bourgeois class and salaried employees, the basic reason was that opposition to capitalism threatened their own livelihoods and made it difficult for them to carry on. That, roughly speaking, was the reason.

'''B:''' But surely none of them were actually supporters of capitalism. And among the younger members, I heard there were some quite energetic people who had even told you that you ought to join a proletarian political party immediately.

'''A:''' When reform remains at the level of ideas and words, one can say almost anything. But when it comes time, as the saying goes, to “put the bell on the cat,” things no longer proceed according to one’s professed convictions. That, too, is ordinary human nature.

'''B:''' But for a religious organization that had worked hand in hand with you for ten years, wasn’t that an extraordinarily faithless response?

'''A:''' If blame is to be assigned, then my own lack of virtue and lack of ability deserve blame first. I cannot bring myself simply to condemn the attitude of the branch with the word “faithlessness,” because I still remember the genuine goodwill the comrades there had shown us. I also believe that among them were comrades who opposed withdrawal, or who thought the decision should at least be postponed. Nevertheless, the fact that the entire branch ultimately decided to withdraw revealed both human weakness in the face of the problem of bread and the workings of a group psychology that transcends the individual.

If this movement were really to deprive comrades of their jobs and cut off their means of obtaining bread—and I do not think that must necessarily happen—then, for someone with a wife, children, parents, or siblings, it would generally be unreasonable to expect him simply to advance in a straight line according to a single-minded conception of justice. If, despite such circumstances, the comrades who withdrew had merely disguised their own weakness and invented other reasons for leaving, then they would indeed deserve blame. But that was not what happened.

'''[p. 290]'''

'''A:''' In reality, even while cursing the tyranny of capitalism, they dropped out because they were forced to consider the immediate problems of making a living. “You can’t trade your belly for your back,” as the saying goes. ''Here we can see just how powerfully economic problems tend to govern human action, and how the ruling class, through its tyrannical repression, threatens the lives of the vulnerable masses. This, I think, demonstrates all the more clearly the significance of our having placed the transformation of the capitalist economic system in our third principle''.

=== The Historical Task Borne by Revitalized Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then if you had simply left out the third principle, you would not have had to part from close comrades?

'''A:''' Probably so. But suppose that we affirmed capitalism—or criticized it only in words, while in practice carrying on just as before, happily singing hymns to the Buddha and loudly proclaiming socialism while indulging in an intellectual game. How much of the blood and sweat of the proletarian masses would have to be sacrificed to sustain us? Think, for example, of the countless comrades who labor thousands of feet underground, where the light of day never reaches, receiving scarcely enough to cover the bare cost of living. When are they to be liberated and allowed to live lives worthy of human beings? And then look at the luxurious lives of the handful of bourgeoisie. Is this really a social condition that Buddhists—who ought to carry the principles of great compassion and equality through to their fullest extent—can continue to overlook forever?

'''B:''' I understand how you feel. But Buddhism also has ways of looking at things such as “flowers are red, willows are green,” “differentiation is precisely equality,” and “karmic cause and recompense.” Isn’t one distinctive feature of Buddhism precisely its ability to endure painful realities through perspectives such as these?

'''A:''' Such interpretations are precisely the hundred-percent opiate sermons on which establishment religious figures have traditionally feasted. The historical task borne by Revitalized Buddhism must instead be to re-examine these distorted teachings, properly proclaim the Buddhist spirit, and make it a guiding principle for securing the welfare of the masses.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” May issue)

== Part Three ==

=== Is Poverty the Result of Previous-Life Karma? ===
'''B:''' Then how exactly have doctrines such as “karmic cause and recompense” been distorted so as to perform the function of religion in the service of established power?

'''[p. 291]'''

'''A:''' Let’s begin with “karmic cause and recompense.” As I said earlier, Buddhism is neither fatalism, creationism, nor a doctrine of chance. Of course Buddhism teaches the law of cause and effect, so differences between rich and poor certainly have causes. The distortion lies in placing the cause entirely on one side and thereby imposing resignation and submission. Take the proletarian masses who remain poor no matter how hard they work. How have priests traditionally explained the cause of their poverty? “It is karma from a previous existence. It is your own karma and your own recompense. It is neither the capitalist’s fault nor society’s responsibility. Therefore, instead of blaming capitalists or society, you should simply work even harder.” That is how they have solemnly explained it.

But anyone with even a little knowledge of the capitalist system can already see through such an explanation; there is hardly any need to belabor the point. Last year’s so-called “bumper-crop hell” is an excellent example. The weather was favorable and the farmers labored until the sweat poured from them, yet that unprecedented bumper crop actually became a cause of increased hardship for farming households. Can that fact really be disposed of through a doctrine of causation from a previous life? Or look at bank interest rates: small borrowers are charged more, while large borrowers receive more favorable rates, pushing the small borrower into an increasingly disadvantageous position. Or consider the grossly unequal distribution of profits generated through the cooperation of labor and capital, and the suppression by governmental authority of those who protest. If economic inequality is produced by such unfair social causes, can all of it really be dismissed as the poor person’s karmic consequence from a former existence?

=== Poverty Is Also a Matter of Collective Responsibility ===
'''A:''' Buddhist reasoning does not permit such one-sidedness. In this case Buddhism clearly asserts social “joint responsibility” (rentai sekinin, 連帯責任); it does not assign responsibility to one side alone. This is what Buddhism means by “collective karma, collectively experienced” (gūgō shokan 共業所感).<ref>Gūgō shokan 共業所感 refers to the collective experience of conditions arising from “shared karma” (gūgō 共業), in contrast to karmic consequences attributed solely to an individual’s actions. Seno’o invokes the concept here to reinterpret karma socially: poverty and economic inequality are not simply the individual karmic responsibility of the poor but conditions collectively produced and therefore entailing collective responsibility.</ref> ''If responsibility is joint, then capitalists too must bear part of the responsibility for the impoverished lives of the proletarian masses. More broadly, it is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Once we discover that defects in the capitalist economic system are among the causes of poverty, shouldn’t reform of that system become the first question confronting us as a matter of joint responsibility?''

'''B:''' But if that is so, how should we understand such ideas as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” (jigō jitoku, 自業自得) and “cause and effect through the three existences” (sanze inga, 三世因果)? Are you saying there is absolutely no individual responsibility…

'''[p. 292]'''

…at all?

'''A:''' I am not saying that individual responsibility does not exist. The question is whether responsibility is confined to an individual’s private life or whether the transformation of society is regarded as fundamental. We cannot determine which is fundamental without correctly understanding the relationship between the individual and society.

Now, in “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” an individual self is posited, and the actions it performs through the cycle of rebirth are described as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” or “cause and effect through the three existences.” But so long as no-self is a fundamental principle of Buddhism, this way of thinking must naturally be re-examined.

For if we assert an individualistic doctrine of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” Buddhism’s fundamental principle collapses; while if we assert no-self, “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” cannot stand in that form. In this connection, a scholar named Rhys Davids is said to have explained that “the view current at the time”—the individualistic theory of karmic causation through the three existences—“was added to the teachings of original Buddhism without being logically integrated into them.”<ref>T. W. Rhys Davids (1843–1922), a pioneering British scholar of Pāli Buddhism who emphasized the tension between the Buddhist denial of an enduring self and the doctrine of karmic continuity across successive lives, describing the latter not as transmigration of a soul but as the “transmigration of character.” Seno’o draws upon this historical-critical interpretation to argue that an individualistic doctrine of karmic recompense was not fully consistent with Buddhism’s fundamental teaching of no-self.</ref> I suspect that is indeed the case.

=== The True Liberation of Humanity and Religion ===
The idea of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” was a transitional conception belonging to an age in which individuality was exaggerated at the expense of sociality. Buddhism’s fundamental principle, however, remains no-self, together with “the conjunction of many conditions; no single cause produces anything” (shuen wagō, ichiin hishō, 衆縁和合・一因非生).<ref>Shuen wagō 衆縁和合 (“the conjunction of manifold conditions”) expresses the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through the convergence of multiple causes and conditions rather than through an isolated cause. The principle is developed extensively in Madhyamaka literature, including Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Chūron 中論; T 30, no. 1564) and the Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T 25, no. 1509). Seno’o invokes it against an individualistic interpretation of jigō jitoku 自業自得 (“one’s own karma, one’s own recompense”), arguing that poverty must be understood in relation to social and economic conditions rather than attributed solely to an individual’s past karma. He thereby develops no-self (muga 無我) and dependent arising into principles of collective responsibility and structural social reform.</ref> Consequently, an individualistic theory of jigō jitoku cannot stand. If “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is properly interpreted, the “self” in that expression is not an isolated individual ego but a social self—a greater self—formed through the conjunction of causes and conditions. The causes of poverty must therefore be explained socially as well. Accordingly, the means of eliminating those causes should also be sought through positive and concrete social methods. And although society as a whole bears joint responsibility, so long as there remains a distinction between ruler and ruled, it is only reasonable that a greater share of responsibility be sought from the ruling class. To treat poverty simply as the proletarian’s “own karma and own recompense,” making individuals resign themselves, submit, sweat away at their labor, and be exploited for the gratification of the ruling class—could there be a more grotesque inversion of right and wrong on the part of priests? ''Therefore, ''jigō jitoku'' must be reconsidered through the Buddhist teaching of no-self. We must be liberated from the distinction between “self” and “other,” and through the true spirit of no-self seek a thoroughgoing, concrete social movement directed toward resolving the problem as a whole. Especially under a modern capitalist system organized as thoroughly as ours, surely it is here that the true liberation of humanity is to be found…''

'''[p. 293]'''

…and this is what it means to be a Buddha: a human being who attains such an awakening and then strives vigorously to realize it in society. The Buddha was precisely the exemplary embodiment of such a human personality.

'''B:''' I see. Explained that way, the statement I once heard attributed to the abbot of Zōjōji—that “the fundamental solution to the problem of labor and capital is to make workers understand the law of karmic causation”—really is, quite literally, an opiate sermon.

'''A:''' Exactly. And even if we interpret jigō jitoku in the traditional, individualistic way, such preaching amounts to nothing more than the self-indictment of utterly heartless pseudo-religious figures. For if the poverty suffered by workers is the consequence of causes from a previous life, then surely the difficulties capitalists experience when confronted by strikes of the proletarian masses must likewise be consequences of causes from a previous life. And if the same law of cause and effect applies in both cases, then rather than using it to make proletarians who presently lack material necessities submit and endure, how much more in keeping with the Buddha’s path of saving the weak would it be to use that blessed law of cause and effect to persuade the bourgeoisie, who possess more than enough, to satisfy the demands of the proletarian masses? Even from a practical standpoint, surely there is a far greater possibility of solving the problem by persuading those with abundant material goods simply to give some of them up than by trying to persuade masses who presently lack even bread. And yet in reality precisely the opposite occurs. Isn’t that astonishing?

'''B:''' Exactly. Isn’t this what Lenin meant when he said:

Religion teaches those who toil and suffer throughout their lives to be submissive and patient here on earth, consoling them with the hope of reward in heaven. But to those who live by the labor of others, it teaches charity while they are on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them tickets to heavenly bliss at a moderate price. <ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (1905), originally published in Novaya Zhizn, no. 28 (December 3, 1905); see Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, pp. 83–87. Seno’o’s wording reflects the Japanese translation available to him rather than corresponding exactly to later English translations.</ref>

But there is one thing I still wonder about. If responsibility is located socially in this way, won’t individual effort become weaker?

'''A:''' People accustomed to the kind of individualistic social life we have today may easily think so. But in reality, the more thoroughly a consciousness of belonging to a community with shared interests takes hold, the more strongly individual effort is intensified. Anyone who has committed himself wholeheartedly to a genuine communal life knows this from experience.

''Every pioneer worthy of respect has been someone who saw the whole of society within himself and understood himself in relation to social life. Such people could not help but engage in social action. ''The Buddha’s rejection of the individual ego and private possession, and his teaching of our indebtedness to society, arose from precisely this…

'''[p. 294]'''

…reason. And far from being misguided, were not the efforts of Marx and Lenin—who maintained that “the human essence is the totality of social relations”—magnificent?<ref>Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis VI (1845): “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Seno’o invokes the formulation to reinforce his reinterpretation of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self in explicitly social terms.</ref> Individual self-interest is, of course, also part of ordinary human nature, and in that sense “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is undoubtedly a transitional mode of thought rooted in that aspect of human nature. ''But the truth of no-self points eternally toward humanity’s highest liberation and toward a life of common production and common flourishing.''

=== The Distorted Doctrine of “Differentiation Is Precisely Equality” ===
'''A:''' Next comes the distorted doctrine of “differentiation is precisely equality.” Here too, as you said earlier with the expression “flowers are red, willows are green,” priests have devised clever explanations designed to make people accept irrational and unjust social inequalities exactly as they are.<ref>“Differentiation is precisely equality” (shabetsu soku byōdō 差別即平等) is a conventional Buddhist formulation, particularly associated with Tiantai and Huayan (J. Kegon) thought, expressing the nondual relation between the equality of phenomena and their particular differences. Rather than a quotation from a single classical text, the formula summarizes such doctrines as Tiantai’s perfect interpenetration of the Three Truths and Huayan’s interpenetration of identity and difference. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of this principle that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. “Willows are green, flowers are red” (yanagi wa midori, hana wa kurenai 柳緑花紅), a phrase common in Zen discourse, similarly evokes things as they are in their particularity. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of such formulas that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. For him, inequalities produced by social and economic institutions cannot be equated with natural differences such as the colors of flowers and leaves.</ref>

'''B:''' But as you yourself have often said, if a flowerpot requiring seven gō of water receives seven gō, and one requiring three gō receives three, neither has too much nor too little.<ref>Gō 合 is a traditional Japanese unit of volume equal to one-tenth of a shō 升, or approximately 180 milliliters. Seno’o uses the proportion of seven gō to three gō to illustrate a conception of equity—distribution according to differing needs—rather than rigid numerical equality.</ref> Isn’t that “differentiation is precisely equality”—a natural differentiation rather than an unjust one?

'''A:''' As far as that explanation goes, it is perfectly correct. Five gō is insufficient for someone who needs seven, while five is too much for someone who needs three. The one who needs seven should receive seven, and the one who needs three should receive three. But are the differences in present society really arranged in that way? A poor family of seven may be crammed into a three-tatami-mat tenement, suffering because they do not even have enough rice for today’s meal. Meanwhile, another couple may live spaciously in an enormous mansion, possessing more wealth than they could ever use and idling away their time in amusements.

A poor old man may be jostled about in third class on a train, while a wealthy young man sits grandly in second class. An ordinary laborer may work throughout the day for a daily wage of barely two yen, while someone else puts in an appearance at the company for four or five hours and pockets several hundred yen. A bright, physically capable child may be unable to proceed to higher education simply because there is no money, while elsewhere even a frail child of little ability can find some way through the examination ordeal. Present society is certainly not differentiated according to need in the way you described—seven gō to the person who needs seven and three to the person who needs three.

=== How Is True Equality to Be Realized? ===
'''B:''' But although these inequalities may at first look like nothing more than the selfishness of the wealthy, haven’t the wealthy made the effort necessary to become wealthy? Couldn’t those differences therefore be regarded as legitimate distinctions corresponding to differences in effort?

'''[p. 295]'''

'''A:''' If human society were no different from the competitive life of plants and animals—the strong devouring the weak in the struggle for survival—then I would have no objection to such differences. But insofar as human beings are beings possessed of personality, the differences within human society must themselves be ordered in a manner worthy of human personality. Otherwise, they cannot properly be called the differentiations of human society. Take the example we just used. If a two-person household receives six gō of rice, then a seven-person household should receive two shō and one gō. If a train has second- and third-class accommodation, then perhaps the elderly and children should ride second class, while young people ride third. If someone working two hour receives four yen, then someone working six hours should receive twelve. There would still be differences, but they would not simply be differences produced as the outcome of free competition. That, I think, is what “differentiation is precisely equality” ought to mean in human life. Moreover, as I said earlier, if poverty is not merely a matter of jigō jitoku but a matter of social joint responsibility, then wealth too must be regarded not simply as an individual’s own karmic reward but as something social. A person’s wealth therefore ought not to be used freely and arbitrarily for that person alone. Should not the genuine “differentiation that is precisely equality” of human society consist instead in differences rationally and purposively ordered under social regulation?

Yet on the one hand people loudly proclaim mutual aid and harmony between labor and capital, while on the other, religious figures in the service of established power preach that the differences produced by heartless, ruthless free competition are somehow the absolute truth of “differentiation is precisely equality.” What kind of gospel is that? Just think about it. The many spend their entire lives breaking their bodies in dark mine shafts extracting gold and silver, while the few freely appropriate that gold and silver and spend their lives in luxury. If we simply say that this too is the result of free competition, there is nothing more to discuss. But to take mastery of life and transform instinct into rational, purposive action—to make the world into a consciously ordered product—this is humanity’s task. If that is so, surely it is utterly irrational simply to contemplate these inequalities as they are and call them “differentiation is precisely equality.” Human society is not merely a natural phenomenon. ''It is a society endowed with reason and creative power. Therefore, insofar as this is possible, should not the phrase “differentiation is precisely equality” mean consciously using reason to order differences and thereby create the greatest practicable degree of equality?''

'''[p. 296]'''

=== Free Competition and Cooperative Harmony ===
'''B:''' But competitiveness is also part of human nature. Wouldn’t such an ideal society ultimately be nothing more than a fantasy? And if we impose a strong order upon society, might the result not instead be the mass production of idlers?

'''A:''' That is a concern one commonly hears. But just as human beings possess a capacity for competition, they also clearly possess a capacity for harmony. Indeed, it is precisely this capacity for harmony—this sociality—that is characteristic of human beings. Unfortunately, we have not yet attained a form of organized life in which it can be sufficiently cultivated and developed.

Consider the early stages of human evolution. Human beings did not possess the sharp and powerful weapons found naturally in other animals—fangs, claws, and the like. In the natural struggle for survival, therefore, they were at an extreme disadvantage. ''Why, despite this, were they able to become masters of the earth? Was it not because they possessed reason and creative power, and because they lived lives of cooperation and solidarity? If that is so, individual free competition cannot be the primary principle of human society; the primary principle must instead be the sociality of cooperation and harmony. Only within such a conscious society can individual freedom itself be guaranteed and established. This rational mode of existence, I believe, is both the distinctive characteristic and the destiny of humanity. ''

We can understand this quite well simply by considering the course of an individual human life.

From infancy through childhood we may be innocent, but we are virtually self-interest embodied as instinct. At no other stage do we wield the instinct of self-interest so unrestrainedly. Yet as the sphere of life expands from the family to school, and from school to society, self-control increases, we become more social, and as we enter old age we grow increasingly mature. Looking at the facts, I believe that the history of human society will probably develop in much the same way: with the development of reason, it will advance toward an ideal society. Unfortunately, however, present society is still entangled in the net of a capitalist economic system woven by instinctive free competition. It may therefore seem that if economic competition were abolished, life itself would lose its purpose. ''But competition need not be confined to economics. On the contrary, scientific…''

'''[p. 297]'''

''…artistic, moral, and other forms of competition will surely bring about an age of true competition worthy of humanity. ''At present, however, all the diverse capacities of human beings have been driven down the single path of economic competition and, grotesquely, have themselves been turned into commodities. We have become so accustomed to this that we have even constructed the conceptual formula “human life = economic life.” Consequently, even if people’s livelihoods were guaranteed, we imagine that without economic free competition they would lose all capacity for activity—like a morphine addict deprived of morphine. But I don’t believe that. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely when we are liberated from economic competition that the true stage of human life will finally open before us. Take manual labor, for example. If it were socially planned and distributed equally, workers and farmers who have traditionally suffered from overwork would of course be relieved of that burden. At the same time, appropriate work could be assigned to those members of society who had previously passed their days in idleness, allowing both groups to enjoy healthy lives in body and mind.

Yet today, while ordinary people have no rice for tomorrow and go hungry, the government has some four million koku of surplus rice piled up in warehouses and does not know what to do with it. In such a merciless and uncoordinated capitalist society, those who work must labor night and day simply to survive. Labor itself therefore comes generally to be hated. But appropriate labor ought, on the contrary, to be a source of joy. ''If appropriate work were available to everyone within a planned society, no one would simply want to be idle. People would come to spend a certain number of hours working less as a social duty than as an enjoyable right.''

Look, for example, at the lives of the people of Ittōen. They obtain only enough food for the day, yet are content with that and work happily throughout the day. Isn’t this evidence that human beings can live contentedly and work without necessarily accumulating private property?

=== The Role of Ittōen at the Present Stage ===
'''B:''' But is that sort of austere life really the ideal form of human life?

'''A:''' Of course I don’t think it is. I doubt that Tenkō-san thinks so either. Buddhism has the expression “ordinary people attached to appearances” (shusō no bonbu). There are those who are inclined to take the outward form of such a life of coarse clothing and simple food as though that itself constituted the ideal life of a sage. I don’t accept that.

''A truly human life…''

'''[p. 298]'''

''…I think, demands not only spiritual development but also a material life that is rich, wholesome, and beautiful. ''There is nothing unjust about seeking this. When such a life cannot be enjoyed by everyone, restraint born of compassion for others has meaning. But coarse clothing and simple food have no absolute value in themselves. The history of human development proves this. ''Humanity’s task is not to return to primitive life by cutting itself off from civilization, but rather to advance toward an ever higher form of cultural life.''

'''B:''' Then wouldn’t the ideal be to realize Ittōen’s cooperative life without private property throughout society, but in a materially more advanced cultural form?

'''A:''' Ideally, yes. But Ittōen is, after all, an anomalous form of utopian socialism born under the oppressive conditions of capitalist society. It has significance as a training ground in which intellectually and spiritually troubled people can experience the spirit of non-possession. Yet, viewed objectively in relation to present social conditions, one cannot expect it to function as a practical movement for social reconstruction. On the contrary, I think it has unconsciously come to play something like an opiate-like role.

=== The Proletarian Movement and the Realization of an Ideal Society ===
'''B:''' Then how do you envision the practical movement for realizing such an ideal society?

'''A:''' As I said before, I see no path to reconstruction other than through the political power of the emerging proletarian class, provided that it develops properly.

'''B:''' Legally or illegally?

'''A:''' In principle, I would like it to proceed legally. But I do not believe that what is illegal is necessarily unjust. A commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains it this way:

Whether monastic or lay, those who would protect the Dharma should take account of the original intention, setting aside the particular act while preserving the principle, and thereby rightly propagate the Great Teaching. Thus, in “protecting and upholding the True Dharma,” one must not be constrained by minor observances. … In former times, when conditions were peaceful and the Dharma flourished, one should have upheld the precepts. Now, in a dangerous age when the Dharma is obscured, one should take up the staff. … Choose and reject according to circumstances; one must not adhere exclusively to a single course.<ref>Seno’o cites Guanding 灌頂 (561–632), Dabanniepan jing shu (大般涅槃經疏; J. Daihatsu Nehangyō Sho, “Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra”; T 1767), concerning the protection of the True Dharma (shōbō goji 正法護持). The underlying Nirvāṇa Sutra famously permits lay defenders of the Dharma to bear weapons in dangerous circumstances while prohibiting them from taking life. Seno’o uses the commentary to argue that Buddhist ethical action must respond to historical circumstances rather than adhere inflexibly to outward forms, extending this principle here to the possible use of force in pursuit of social transformation.</ref>

''In short, one must not cling to forms.'' ''If the motive is right, then depending on circumstances one may even have to resolve matters through force.'' There is also the saying, “Kill one in order to let ten thousand live.” Thus illegality is not necessarily evil. Whether an act is to be approved should be determined by examining its fundamental motive and the circumstances of the particular case. Japanese history itself provides examples. The reforms of the Meiji Restoration are an obvious case.

'''[p. 299]'''

But naturally,'' what I hope for is a transformation that is legal from the outset and involves as little sacrifice as possible. For that to happen, people throughout society must recognize as quickly as possible the evils of capitalist society and the historical necessity of the emergence of the new class, until this becomes common knowledge. By giving the proletarian movement as'' ''much sympathy and support as possible, we can minimize the unavoidable sacrifices accompanying social transformation.''

=== The Anti-Religion Movement and Our Position ===
'''B:''' What exactly is this anti-religion movement that has recently begun as one wing of the proletarian movement?

'''A:''' In fact, just last night I participated in a joint public meeting at the Central Buddhist Hall with Takatsu Seidō of the anti-religion movement, Honjō Kasō, Kon Tōkō, a certain Mr. Miwa, secretary-general of the Buddhist Youth Federation, Shibata Ichinō of the Nichiren school, and others.<ref>This public meeting brought together representatives of the anti-religion movement and several currents of Buddhist reform. Participants included Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a socialist activist and politician active in the contemporary anti-religion movement; Kon Tōkō 今東光 (1898–1977), novelist and Tendai monk; Honjō Kasō 本莊可宗 (1891–1987); Mibu Shōjun 壬生照順 (1908–1987), Tendai monk, secretary-general of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation and soon-to-be member of Seno’o’s Youth League; and Nichiren monk Shibata Ichinō 柴田一能 (1873–1951). Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), a playwright and prominent figure in the proletarian cultural movement, served as chairman of the Japan Anti-Religious League (Nihon Han-Shūkyō Dōmei 日本反宗教同盟). According to Seno’o’s account of an article by Akita in the Yomiuri Shimbun, disagreement arose over the movement’s attitude toward the “Social Democrats”: more radical members favored their exclusion, while Takatsu opposed this position and withdrew.</ref> According to Takatsu’s explanation, the basic argument of the anti-religion movement, from his socialist standpoint, is this: “Justice is that which guarantees the welfare of the masses. Anything that obstructs the welfare of the masses must therefore be attacked. Religion is the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the masses because it serves as the watchdog of capitalism. Religion must therefore be attacked.”

'''B:''' Is Takatsu’s position different from that of Akita Ujaku and the League for Anti-Religious Struggle?

'''A:''' According to something Akita wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the issue was the value to be placed on making use of the Social Democrats. The more radical members of the League wanted to exclude them, while Takatsu disagreed and withdrew. But if, as Takatsu explained last night, his anti-religion movement takes justice as its starting point, then theoretically it contains something that cannot be reconciled with pure Marxism. As a practical movement, however, the two are alike insofar as they attack religion as an opiate.

'''B:''' Then what attitude do they take toward your Revitalized Buddhist movement? You too reject capitalism and attack the established religious institutions. Do they attack you as well?

'''A:''' Even though we agree on those points, the anti-religion movement arose from a Marxism that denies religion itself. So naturally they cannot exempt Revitalized Buddhism from their attack.

Indeed, precisely because we are “Red Buddhists,” they may regard us as all the more troublesome.

'''[p. 300]'''

For our part, although we likewise reject capitalism and the established religious institutions, so long as our understanding differs from that of Marxism, we cannot simply throw ourselves wholesale into Marxism. ''But this is no different from the fact that, even though they belong to the same anti-religion movement, differences between Akita and Takatsu have unfortunately produced a split between them. ''The fundamental issue, therefore, must be a critique of Marxism itself—particularly its conception of religion.

In his Feuerbach, Engels writes: “If religion can exist without God, then alchemy can exist without the philosopher’s stone.”

And: “Nothing exists outside nature and humanity. The higher beings created by our religious fantasies are nothing other than the fantastic reflection of our own essence.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), especially sections II–III. Engels there discusses Feuerbach’s critique of theism, according to which the supernatural beings of religion are projections or “fantastic reflections” of human beings themselves, while criticizing Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve a non-theistic “religion”: “if religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.” The work circulated in prewar Japan as Foierubahha ron (フォイエルバッハ論). Seno’o uses Engels’s argument to distinguish the Marxist critique of theistic religion from Buddhism, which he argues requires no creator, ruling, or judging God.</ref>

With this, the spell was broken. The Marxist conception of religion represented in this passage is, after all, a response to the Christian creator God. If the essence of religion consisted in believing in the actual existence of such a God, then we too would deny religion along with Marx. Why? Because Buddhism did not arise by acknowledging anything like a “creator God, ruling God, or judging God.” ''Moreover, since Buddhism has undeniably existed as a religion, religion as such cannot be something that must simply be rejected. Established religious institutions that exploit the masses, of course, may be rejected—and indeed ought to be rejected. I doubt that anyone desires their rejection more strongly than we do. Precisely for that reason, we respect the ideal of the anti-religion movement insofar as it is motivated by concern for the masses.''

But suppose that, as expressed in the aspiration “I desire only to become a Buddha,” we understand religiosity as the whole-person demand that ceaselessly seeks the ideal of the complete human being—the Buddha. Then the various sectarian forms found in established religions are simply forms in which this religiosity has been conceived at different stages of cultural development. Those established religious institutions must naturally undergo the appropriate historical reckoning demanded by their age. ''But a movement that denies religiosity itself reveals, on the contrary, an inadequate understanding of human life. What we should demand is a religion appropriate to the age. In this sense, should not the anti-religion movement itself be properly sublated? Needless to say, if religion is to be rejected wholesale because it obstructs the welfare of the masses, that judgment can properly apply only to established religious institutions.''

'''[p. 301]'''

''The essence of religion itself emphatically does not run counter to the welfare of the masses. ''The Buddha and Christ are obvious examples. Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves provides another striking one. Is not religiosity itself the source of the great ideal of mutual love among the masses and of the passionate energy required to put that ideal into practice?

'''B:''' I understand much better now. On May 23, the League for Anti-Religious Struggle is holding its inaugural lecture meeting at the Jichikan in Ueno, and apparently your movement will be criticized there too. After I’ve heard what they have to say, I’d like to ask your opinion again.

'''A:''' I’d like to hear it myself, but unfortunately I have to attend the Kanazawa branch meeting on the twenty-third, so I can’t go. Listen carefully for me. ''If by any chance there is even the slightest error in my convictions, I will never hesitate to stop this movement. ''Nichiren said:'' ''“Even if I am defeated in argument, if my mind does not change, may the gods take my life.” But he also said: “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person, I will not use it.”'' ''It is in this spirit that I want to press forward single-mindedly with the Revitalized Buddhist movement.'' ''Blind faith is no good.

=== Rational Religion and Reverence for Śākyamuni Buddha ===
'''B:''' But isn’t precisely that attitude the genuinely religious attitude? Rational religion! Isn’t the very motive force behind humanity’s limitless capacity for renewal precisely this rational religiosity?

'''A:''' ''When we desire this kind of rational passion, we are necessarily drawn in reverence toward humanity’s highest exemplar, Śākyamuni Buddha. And when we revere Śākyamuni Buddha, this rational passion that we cannot cease desiring naturally burns still more intensely.'' Thus reason calmly subjects problems to criticism, while passion drives us directly toward the realization of the ideal, even at the risk of death. The scripture says: “Single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives.” And elsewhere: “Because their hearts yearn for him, he then appears and preaches the Dharma for them.”<ref>Seno’o brings together two statements by Nichiren with two passages from the Lotus Sutra. “Even if I am defeated in argument...” derives from Nichiren’s Hōō-shō 法王抄, 1267 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 438), while “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person...” is from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄, 1272 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 572). The scriptural passages—“single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives”) and “because their hearts yearn for him ... he then appears and preaches the Dharma”)—are from chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, “The Life Span of the Thus Come One” (Nyorai Juryō-hon 如来寿量品第十六; T 9, no. 262, 43c). Seno’o juxtaposes Nichiren’s insistence on rational scrutiny with the Lotus Sutra’s language of passionate devotion to articulate his ideal of a “rational religion” (gōriteki shūkyō 合理的宗教) combining critical inquiry with commitment to realizing the Buddhist ideal.</ref> These too must surely be confessions of precisely this kind of religious experience. In any event, this is how our Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a religious movement that unifies the whole of life within reverence for the person of Śākyamuni Buddha.

'''B:''' I think I now more or less understand what you mean by your “conversion to Revitalized Buddhism.”

'''A:''' Then let’s bring this conversation to a close for now and promise to talk again another time.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” June issue)

<references />

Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism

2026-08-30T16:32:55Z

James: James moved page Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism to SG31SBE

#REDIRECT [[SG31SBE]]

SG31SBE-T

2026-08-30T16:32:55Z

James: James moved page Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism to SG31SBE

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism''}}

{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” (新興佛教への転身; Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism). Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' (新興佛教の旗の下に), beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' (妹尾義郎宗教論集), ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==

'''[p. 260]'''

'''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism'''

=== The Rejection of Established Buddhist Institutions and Capitalism ===
'''B:''' I hear that you’ve recently given up on Nichirenism<ref>Nichirenism (Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義) was a modern ideological formulation of Nichiren Buddhism that emerged in the late Meiji period under the leadership of Tanaka Chigaku 田中智學 (1861–1939) and became influential during the Taishō and early Shōwa periods. Seno’o was an active proponent of Nichirenism before breaking with it and establishing the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref> and are starting something called the Revitalized Buddhist movement.<ref>Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō 新興仏教) was Seno’o Girō’s term for the new Buddhist movement he launched in 1931—technically, the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Domei 新興仏教青年同盟). Shinkō literally suggests something newly arising or emergent; “Revitalized Buddhism” is used here to emphasize Seno’o’s conception of the movement as a renewal of Buddhism rather than the establishment of a new Buddhist sect.</ref> Is that true?

'''A:''' It is.

'''B:''' What’s the purpose of it?

'''A:''' First, I want to attack the corrupt established Buddhist institutions and demonstrate the true value of Buddhism in the present age. Second, I want to unify a divided Buddhism and put an end to these ugly sectarian quarrels. Third, I want to participate in the movement to transform the capitalist economic system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Buddha, and realize an ideal society of love and equality.

'''B:''' Isn’t that impossible? Won’t it end up as nothing more than a fantasy?

'''A:''' It’s no fantasy. I believe that both the destruction of established Buddhist institutions and the collapse of capitalism are now simply a matter of time.

'''B:''' Leaving aside the transformation of capitalism, couldn’t you simply pursue Nichirenism more thoroughly instead of starting an entirely new religious movement? Especially since you’ve devoted yourself all these years to building up Nichirenism—don’t you feel some regret at abandoning it?

'''A:''' It’s not in my nature to make calculations when confronted with the truth. There was no path left open to me except to launch a new movement. Nichirenism as we have known it has reached an impasse in all sorts of ways. Of course, the other Buddhist institutions have as well. At this point, I don’t think Buddhism can be revived without undertaking a fundamental revolution. Just as capitalism cannot be fixed through a few minor adjustments, the corruption of the Buddhist institutions has penetrated to the very marrow.

'''B:''' But isn’t this just a sudden impulse to go along with the times?

'''A:''' You know how long my life of faith has been.

'''B:''' It certainly has been a long time. How many years has it been, anyway?

'''A:''' I embraced the faith of Nichirenism in 1911.

'''[p. 261]'''

And it was in the autumn of 1920 that I began publishing the magazine ''Youth''<ref>Wakōdo 若人 (“Youth”) was a Buddhist journal with which Seno’o was closely associated and in which he published extensively during the 1920s and early 1930s. It became an important venue for the development of the ideas that eventually led him beyond Nichirenism and toward Revitalized Buddhism.</ref> and advocating Nichirenism. So I have spent twelve years in public propagation and fully twenty-one years in my personal life of faith. And I don’t think I’ve ever been second to anyone in the intensity of my faith. I have devoted my entire life to that faith and to spreading it right up to the present day. After all that, surely this isn’t something I could simply switch away from on a passing whim.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I suppose so. They say that even after living with someone for only three days, you don’t easily forget them. So you must have thought this through very seriously. Still, it’s quite a decisive step—to go so far as to abandon Master Nichiren himself.

'''A:''' Nothing could be further from the truth. My reverence for Master Nichiren only grows stronger with the years. Looking back now, my past life of faith seems to have been nothing more than a game. The more deeply the spirit of love enters my heart, and the more I strive to put even a little of the bodhisattva practice into concrete action, the more deeply Master Nichiren’s life and words impress themselves upon me, right down to the bone. I truly believe there has never been a greater person.

'''B:''' Then why give up Nichirenism?

'''A:''' If you call it “giving it up,” I suppose that’s how it may look. As I see it, I am casting off Master Nichiren’s old forms precisely in order to revive his spirit in the present. The more single-mindedly I devote myself to reviving Master Nichiren’s fundamental spirit in the present age, the more firmly convinced I become of the possibility of this Revitalized Buddhist movement—and that this alone is the form of salvation most suited to our age. Indeed, I have come firmly to believe that the revival of Buddhism as a whole is to be found in this movement.

'''B:''' Calling it “casting off the old forms” makes it sound reasonable enough, but whatever words you use, in practice you are rejecting Nichirenism, aren’t you?

=== It is a Revival of Nichirenism ===
'''A:''' That’s right.

'''B:''' Even if you reject Nichirenism to that extent, doesn’t that amount to betraying Master Nichiren?

'''A:''' Not at all. Nichirenism, too, is one particular form that arose in response to the needs of its age. Looking at the history of the Master’s propagation of his teaching and the many writings he left behind, there is nothing objectionable about changing forms. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by reforming them in response to objective circumstances that one truly comes into contact with the spirit of Master Nichiren. The Master was in fact a man possessed of an extraordinarily enlightened and discerning…

'''[p. 262]'''

…intelligence. He was certainly no inflexible conservative who “stood by a tree stump waiting for a rabbit” or “glued the tuning pegs of a lute”—someone incapable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Mencius praised Confucius as “the sage who was timely,” but even more than this, our Master Nichiren was the exemplary sage who discerned the demands of the time. He said, “Everything depends upon the country and the time”; “Although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice must vary in countless ways according to people’s capacities and the circumstances of the age”; and “One should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country, it must necessarily be suitable for this country as well.”<ref>Seno’o assembles a series of classical and Nichirenist references around the importance of historical circumstance. The idioms “waiting by a stump” (守株) and “gluing the tuning pegs of a lute” (膠柱) denote foolish adherence to fixed conditions. “The sage who was timely” (聖之時者也) is Mencius’s famous characterization of Confucius (Mencius, “Wan Zhang II”). Nichiren’s statements that “everything depends upon the country and the time” (Senji-shō 撰時抄, 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, p. 1003); “although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice vary…” (Shōji Ichidaiji Ketsumyaku-shō 生死一大事血脈抄, 1272; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 523); and “one should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country…” (Kyōki Jikoku-shō 教機時国抄, 1262; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 242) allow Seno’o to present adaptation to modern social conditions not as a departure from Nichiren but as fidelity to his method.</ref> I could go on indefinitely. As these examples show, the religion of the Master was a religion of criticism. And if criticism is not equally rigorous in examining and settling accounts with oneself, can it really be called criticism? Perhaps this is also what Confucius meant when he said, “If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?”<ref>Confucius, Analects (Lunyu 論語), 4.1 (“Li Ren” 里仁): 「子曰、里仁爲美。擇不處仁、焉得知」 (“The Master said: ‘To dwell in benevolence is beautiful. If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?’”). The passage connects wisdom or discernment (zhi 知) with commitment to benevolence (ren 仁). Seno’o invokes it here to reinforce his claim that genuine criticism must also be directed toward oneself.</ref>

=== The Essence of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' I can see your point, at least to some extent.

'''A:''' Buddhism itself is fundamentally like this. Indeed, the Buddha is even described as “one whose bonds have been untied.” One of Buddhism’s distinctive features is precisely its refusal to cling to any fixed form. And that, too, is liberation.

To put it somewhat more technically, Buddhism denies “self” and “what belongs to the self”—that is, the individual ego and private property—and teaches “no-self” and “non-possession.” Even the last of the famous Three Dharma Seals, known as Buddhism’s three fundamental principles—“all conditioned things are impermanent,” “all dharmas are without self,” and “nirvana is tranquility”—ultimately comes down to the single word “emptiness.”<ref>The Three Dharma Seals (sanbōin 三法印) are impermanence (shogyō mujō), no-self (shohō muga), and the tranquility of nirvana (nehan jakujō). Seno’o interprets all three here in terms of emptiness (kū).</ref> It means not clinging to either A or B and therefore, depending upon circumstances, being capable of being either A or B: a teaching of unrestricted adaptability. In the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'', this is taught as “all dharmas are empty”; in the “Skillful Means” chapter it is called the “true aspect of all dharmas,” explained through the so-called Ten Suchnesses—“such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity,” and so forth—in order to demonstrate the capacity of things to change according to causes and conditions. Thus it is also taught that “dharmas have no fixed nature; the Buddha-seed arises through conditions.”<ref>The Ten Suchnesses (jūnyoze 十如是) appear in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the Lotus Sutra and describe ten aspects of the reality of phenomena, beginning with “such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity.”</ref>

Again, the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', which serves as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'', says: “Such non-form is not form; being without form, it is called the true aspect. Having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is clear and certain and not in vain, and among sentient beings they are truly able to remove suffering.”<ref>Muryōgi Kyō 無量義経 (Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings), Chapter 2, “Preaching the Dharma” (Seppō-bon 説法品第二); T 9, no. 276. The passage connects realization of the “true aspect” (jissō 実相), characterized by formlessness (musō 無相), directly with compassion: having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is “clear and certain and not in vain” and are thereby “truly able to remove suffering” (真能拔苦). The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is traditionally regarded in East Asia as the introductory scripture (kaikyō 開経) to the Lotus Sutra. Seno’o uses the passage to argue that nonattachment to fixed forms enables practical compassionate action rather than withdrawal from the world.</ref> According to the meaning of this passage, in short, one takes no fixed standpoint—a standpoint that even negates “no standpoint” as a fixed standpoint—and ultimately stands in a position that clings to nothing…

'''[p. 263]'''

…whatsoever. It is precisely in an attitude of freely adapting oneself according to time, place, and circumstance that thoroughgoing compassion manifests itself and the masses can truly be saved. Nichirenism is no exception to this Buddhist philosophical principle. Depending upon time, place, and circumstances, there should therefore be no objection to sublating it as well.<ref>“Sublate” renders yōki 揚棄, a modern philosophical term used to translate the Hegelian Aufheben or Aufhebung: the dialectical overcoming of a form while preserving what remains valid within it.</ref> The real question is whether there are sufficient grounds for reform in light of the culture of a particular age. When there are, isn’t it only by boldly carrying out such reform that we remain faithful to Buddhism’s true character and penetrate to the spirit of Master Nichiren?

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I can see that even the forms adopted by Master Nichiren may be reformed as the times change.

=== Forms Change ===
'''A:''' Exactly. Take an egg, for example. As long as the white and yolk remain as they are, the shell is an indispensable outer form. But once the egg has been nurtured by the mother bird and a chick begins to develop inside, that shell becomes an unnecessary opposing force. And unless it is broken, new life cannot emerge.

'''B:''' That sounds like Marx’s materialist dialectic.

'''A:''' Truth doesn’t become two different things depending on who says it. “Time” really is a mysterious force. It bears down upon us with a necessity that cannot be altered by the ideas of one or two individuals. That is why Master Nichiren began his ''Selection of the Time'' (''Senji-shō'') by writing, “In studying the Buddha Dharma, one must first of all learn the time.” He went on to say, “The cuckoo awaits spring and the cock awaits the dawn. Even animals are like this; how much more so a Dharma teacher practicing the Buddha Dharma!” Elsewhere, speaking in relation to the capacities of those being taught, he judged that “the wise person is one who accords with the time.” By invoking the examples of the cuckoo awaiting spring and the cock awaiting dawn, he made perfectly clear that the Dharma must never be taught apart from its “time.” Isn’t that an extraordinarily thoroughgoing insight?<ref>Nichiren (1222–1282), Senji-shō 撰時抄 (“Selection of the Time”), composed in 1275. The treatise emphasizes the necessity of discerning the historical “time” (toki) in determining the appropriate form in which the Buddhist Dharma should be propagated. Seno’o draws upon this principle repeatedly to justify the transformation of inherited Buddhist forms in response to modern conditions.</ref> Here ‘capacity’ means the particular character of the individual. The passage therefore rejects an individualistic movement of salvation based on the model of ‘prescribing medicine according to the illness,’ which takes the particular characteristics of individual persons as its object. Instead, it lays down the firm principle that we must move beyond the individual, take as our object the objective conditions of society as a whole, and make our primary concern a method of social salvation suited to the age.

'''B:''' That sounds very much like what the social sciences tell us.

'''A:''' There is another striking parallel. Among Master Nichiren’s writings is this passage, which explains the possibility of mass struggle in the present age. It is from the Shōgu mondō-shō:

The present age is a defiled age, and human feelings have become warped and distorted. Because provisional teachings and slanders of the Dharma abound, it is difficult for the True Dharma to spread. At such a time, practices such as reciting and copying the scriptures, as well as contemplation, reflection, and spiritual cultivation, are of no use. One must simply practice shakubuku<ref>Shakubuku 折伏, literally “to break and subdue,” refers to the forceful refutation of erroneous views and is conventionally contrasted with shōju 摂受, the more accommodating method of leading others toward the Dharma without directly refuting their views. The distinction became particularly important in Nichiren Buddhism, where shakubuku was understood as especially appropriate to circumstances in which erroneous teachings obstructed the Dharma.</ref>: if one has the power, use that power and authority to crush slander of the Dharma, and use Buddhist doctrine to attack erroneous…

'''[p. 264]'''

…teachings. Yet one must properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected and never cling exclusively to a single course.”<ref>Shōgu Mondō-shō 聖愚問答抄 (“Questions and Answers between a Sage and a Fool”); see Shōwa Teihon Nichiren Shōnin Ibun, vol. 1, pp. 363–64 (Gosho Zenshū, p. 143). The treatise argues that the appropriate method of propagation depends upon historical circumstances. Seno’o appropriates the passage to argue that the conditions of the present age demand open struggle rather than quietist self-cultivation.</ref>

What an uncompromising declaration! People who, when they hear the word Buddhism, immediately think of practicing seated meditation, or who tend to associate Buddhism with nonresistance, may well imagine a passage like this to be some kind of reverse propaganda by the Devil. But once we look squarely at actual society, we can see just how much what today passes for “self-cultivation” actually performs an opiate-like function,<ref>“Opiate-like function” (ahenteki yakuwari 阿片的役割) unmistakably evokes Marx’s characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Seno’o applies the criticism here specifically to contemporary Buddhist practices of “self-cultivation” (shūyō).</ref> castrating promising young people. In an age such as this, it seems to me that there is simply no way to build heaven on earth except through an open and forthright struggle. Yet struggle for struggle’s sake would be equally troublesome. This is why the phrase, “properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected,” strikes me as an extraordinarily well-considered teaching.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, it makes me think that the Buddhism we have known until now has been almost completely off the mark.

'''A:''' To speak frankly, much of it has indeed been completely off the mark. That is a consequence of religion’s having repeated the same formalistic sermons day after day, year after year—either unconscious of the character of the age or, even when conscious of it, tragically reduced to the role of a religion in service to established power. Society is moving increasingly toward equality of opportunity without distinctions in human worth between someone dressed in work clothes and someone dressed in a morning coat. Yet within the Buddhist institutions, which ought to be leading the way, they still make an endless fuss over the colors of clerical robes and distinctions in ecclesiastical rank. Social policy advances day by day in society at large—but what on earth are the Buddhist institutions doing?

'''B:''' On that point, I agree. I understand now that forms have to be reformed in accordance with the age. In the end, then, yours is a movement to revive Buddhism within the present age by giving it forms appropriate to that age.

=== The Central Aim of the Revitalized Buddhist Movement ===
'''B:''' But I hear that you’re going to stop chanting ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—“Homage to Śākyamuni Buddha.”

'''A:''' That is precisely the central aim of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. All disciples of the Buddha who profess Buddhism should give up the ''nenbutsu'', give up faith in Mahāvairocana, and give up all the forms of the established Buddhist institutions. First, we should unite under the banner of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', expressing our reverence for the person of the Buddha, and from there attempt a new advance into society. Can you think of any better form than this…

'''[p. 265]'''

…one that could serve both as the single fundamental form common to all Buddhists and, at the same time, as a means of unifying Buddhism? Of course, this form has already been advocated in the past by earnest pioneers. Perhaps because the times were not yet ripe, however, it has never acquired much influence. But whether or not it presently has influence is beside the point. I believe this to be the inevitable destiny of Buddhism from the present into the future, and I intend to put my whole spirit into casting this one stone.

'''B:''' I understand what you’re striving for. But there’s one thing I still can’t accept. You said that you’re trying to “bring the spirit of Master Nichiren to life.” Yet Nichiren himself said, “The soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”<ref>Nichiren, Kyō’ō-dono Gohenji 経王殿御返事 (“Reply to Kyō’ō”), composed in 1273. The passage reads: “The Buddha’s intent is the Lotus Sutra; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”</ref> If you abandon the ''daimoku'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', doesn’t that amount to abandoning the spirit of the Master?

'''A:''' That is a perfectly reasonable question. But immediately before that passage come the words, “The Buddha’s intent is the ''Lotus Sutra''; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”

In other words, if it has been established that the ''Lotus Sutra'' is not the unique scripture embodying the fundamental spirit of the Buddha whom Master Nichiren so ceaselessly revered, then chanting the name of that very Buddha—''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—rather than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' would actually be more faithful to the spirit of Master Nichiren, who founded his teaching on the basis of scholarly inquiry. I certainly do not believe that doing so constitutes a desecration of the Master.

'''B:''' If that way of understanding the ''Lotus Sutra'' is correct, then your argument makes sense. But are you saying that the ''Lotus Sutra'' does not embody the fundamental spirit of Buddhism?

=== The Theory That the Mahāyāna Was Not Taught by the Buddha ===
'''A:''' That is precisely where the problem arises. Have you ever heard of the scholarly theory being advanced in modern Buddhist circles known as “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (''Daijō hi-Bussetsu'')?<ref>“The Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (Daijō hi-bussetsu 大乗非仏説) refers to the historical-critical view that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the lifetime of the historical Buddha rather than constituting direct records of his preaching. Although the question had earlier precedents in Japan, it became a major problem for modern Japanese Buddhist scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century, notably in the work of Murakami Senshō (1851–1929). The theory posed an obvious challenge to sectarian traditions, including Nichiren Buddhism, whose authority rested upon particular Mahāyāna scriptures as the Buddha’s own teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' I can’t say I’ve never heard of it, but I don’t really know what it means. Tell me about it.

'''A:''' I’ll explain it briefly. Buddhist scriptures had broadly been classified into Mahāyāna scriptures—the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sutras'', ''Lotus Sutra'', ''Amida Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Laṅkāvatāra Sutra'', and so forth—and the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures, such as the Āgamas. Both groups had been regarded as scriptures recording sermons preached by the Buddha.

In recent times, however, scholars have argued that those Mahāyāna scriptures were not actually preached directly by the Buddha. That is what is meant by the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.”

'''B:''' Then how did those scriptures come to be composed?

'''A:''' Well, that’s because Buddhism too developed as the times changed and society and culture…

'''[p. 266]'''

…advanced, and in order to adapt to the changing age, numerous new scriptures were composed by later disciples of the Buddha. Those became the Mahāyāna sutras. Since the Mahāyāna sutras are therefore not direct records of the Buddha’s preaching, this is called the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.” In other words, it means Buddhism as a developing tradition.<ref>“Buddhism as a developing tradition” renders hattatsu bukkyō 発達仏教, the modern conception of Buddhism as a historically developing religious tradition rather than a fixed body of doctrine delivered in its entirety by Śākyamuni. This conception allowed modern Buddhist thinkers to accept the later historical origins of the Mahāyāna sutras while continuing to regard them as legitimate developments of the Buddha’s teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' Then from the standpoint of this theory, the ''Lotus Sutra'' too is one example of this “developing Buddhism.” ''So the Lotus Sutra cannot simply be identified with the Buddha’s fundamental spirit.''<ref>Seno’o’s emphasis.</ref>

'''A:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' But in Master Nichiren’s time, the roughly seven thousand fascicles comprising the entire Buddhist canon were all regarded as direct records of the Buddha’s preaching. Given that assumption, why did Master Nichiren single out the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone and declare it to embody ''Buddhism’s fundamental spirit''?

'''A:''' Because that was how the scriptures themselves were understood to explain the matter. More particularly, this was the explanation offered by Tiantai doctrine, which formed the matrix of Japanese Buddhism. According to that teaching, the entire Buddhist canon consisted of sermons preached during the fifty years between the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment at age thirty and his entry into nirvana at age eighty. These fifty years were divided into two periods. The first forty-two years comprised all the teachings preached before the ''Lotus Sutra'', known as the pre-Lotus teachings (''nizenkyō''). The ''Lotus Sutra'', preached during the final eight years, was regarded as the true scripture in which the Buddha revealed his genuine spirit. All the earlier scriptures were judged to be expedient teachings preached in preparation for the revelation of the ''Lotus Sutra''.<ref>The Tiantai (J. Tendai) system of doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (goji hakkyō, 五時八教) organized the Buddha’s teaching career into a chronological and hierarchical sequence culminating in the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sutras. Within this scheme, the Lotus Sutra represented the fullest disclosure of the Buddha’s teaching. Nichiren inherited this framework and radicalized its elevation of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

'''B:''' Was there substantial scriptural evidence for that?

'''A:''' Yes. For example, in the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'' we find the statement, “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost.” There are many other passages that assign the ''Lotus Sutra'' supreme value. Particularly influential was the statement in the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', regarded as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Because the desires and dispositions of beings differ, various teachings were preached; these various teachings were preached through the power of expedient means. For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed.” And in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way.” These were powerful pieces of scriptural evidence. From the standpoint of Buddhist unification available at the time, the Tiantai doctrinal interpretation was therefore hardly unreasonable. There was also the scriptural proof supplied by the “Medicine King Bodhisattva” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': that in the “last five hundred years” it would be “widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa.” Tiantai likewise looked forward to the age of the Final Dharma, declaring, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide.”<ref>The text cites four key passages that provided a scriptural foundation for the Tiantai (J. Tendai) classification of doctrines (kyōhan 教判) and Nichiren’s later elevation of the Lotus Sutra: (1) “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost” (Lotus Sutra, ch. 10, “Dharma Preacher”; T 9, no. 262, 31b); (2) “For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed” (四十余年未顕真実; Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, ch. 2; T 9, no. 276, 386b); (3) “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way” (正直捨方便但説無上道; Lotus Sutra, ch. 2, “Skillful Means”; T 9, no. 262, 10a); and (4) “In the last five hundred years, it will be widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa” (後五百歳広宣流布; Lotus Sutra, ch. 23, “Medicine King Bodhisattva”; T 9, no. 262, 54c). The accompanying statement, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide” (後五百歳妙道広行), is from Zhiyi’s Fahua Wenju (法華文句; T 34, no. 1718, 129a).</ref> And Dengyō Daishi, the pioneer of the Lotus Sutra in Japan, likewise expressed the same conviction and prediction.<ref>Saichō (767–822), posthumously Dengyō Daishi, founder of the Japanese Tendai school.</ref>

'''[p. 267]'''

Now, it was within this tradition that Master Nichiren appeared. Outraged by the fragmentation and degeneration of Buddhism, he made its reform and unification the aspiration of his entire life. Moreover, his historical moment was the beginning of the age of the Final Dharma, more than two thousand years after the Buddha’s passing. There is no need to explain how powerfully the ''Lotus Sutra'' must have resonated with Nichiren’s intelligence and passionate commitment.<ref>The “Three Ages” (sanji 三時) is an East Asian Buddhist scheme describing the historical decline of the Dharma after the Buddha’s passing: the age of the True Dharma (shōbō 正法), the age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō 像法), and the age of the Final Dharma (mappō 末法), conventionally assigned durations of 1000, 1000, and 10,000 years respectively. According to a widely accepted Japanese chronology, mappō began in 1052. Drawing upon scriptural traditions concerning the decline of the Dharma, Nichiren understood his thirteenth-century age as mappō, a period of corruption in which the Lotus Sutra required urgent propagation. See Nichiren, Senji-shō 撰時抄, “Selection of the Time,” 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, pp. 1001–1058. Seno’o invokes this historical framework to emphasize Nichiren’s conviction that Buddhist practice must respond to the particular demands of its age.</ref>

'''B:''' Hearing it explained that way, there certainly seems to have been a powerful sense of historical necessity behind Nichiren’s self-understanding as “Nichiren, practitioner of the ''Lotus Sutra''.” It’s easy to see why he therefore felt compelled to reject every Buddhist school outside the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Within the limits of that doctrinal framework, there was no Buddhist spirit in the age of the Final Dharma apart from the ''Lotus Sutra''. A passage from Nichiren’s ''Hōon-shō'' (''Essay on Gratitude'') makes the situation particularly clear.<ref>Nichiren’s Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude”), composed in 1276, is one of his major writings and contains a sustained defense of the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

The various schools all rely upon their own basic sutras and treatises and claim, each in its own way, that theirs is foremost among all the scriptures. The Shingon school says, “Among all the scriptures, the ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' is first”; the other scriptures are like idle chatter. The Zen school says that sutras such as the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' are fingers pointing at the moon, while Zen itself is the moon. And so forth. We ordinary people ought to be able to trust whichever teacher we follow, revering that teacher in faith; yet Nichiren’s doubts could not be dispelled. Looking at the world, everyone may claim, “I, I,” but there is only one sovereign of a country. If there are two, the country will not be at peace; if a household has two masters, that household will surely fall into ruin. Might it not be the same with all the scriptures? Among all the sutras, must there not be one scripture that is sovereign over all the others? Yet the ten schools and seven schools each contend with one another and refuse to submit. It is as though a country had seventy or eighty sovereigns: its people could never live in peace. Wondering what was to be done, I made a single resolve: I would follow none of the eight schools or ten schools. Instead, just as the Great Master Tiantai took the scriptural texts themselves as his teacher and judged the relative superiority of the teachings preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, I would open and examine all the scriptures. In the ''Nirvana Sutra'' it is said: “Rely on the Dharma, not on persons.” “Rely on the Dharma” means to rely on all the scriptures; “not on persons” means not to rely upon teachers other than the Buddha himself, including such figures as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī and the various masters mentioned above.

The same sutra also says: “Rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning.” Here the “sutra of definitive meaning” is the Lotus Sutra, while the “sutras of provisional meaning” are the ''Avataṃsaka Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Nirvana Sutra'', and all the other sutras of the past, present, and future. But if one trusts the Buddha's final testament, then one must take the Lotus Sutra as the bright mirror through which to understand all…

'''[p. 268]'''

…the scriptures. Hence, when we open the ''Lotus Sutra'', we find the words: “This ''Lotus Sutra'' stands highest among all the sutras,” and so on.

'''B:''' I see. That makes it quite clear. Master Nichiren’s judgment that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' is supreme” was therefore not simply his own dogmatic assertion. It was the result of his seeking the Buddha’s spirit through the scriptures themselves. In other words, after attempting as objectively and as scholarly as possible to determine Buddhism’s fundamental spirit, he concluded that it was embodied in the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Nichiren himself explained this by saying: “This is not because Nichiren is especially wise. It is simply what the time demands. In spring the flowers bloom, in autumn the fruit appears, summer is warm and winter is cold. Is this not simply what the time brings about?”

In this way he explained the historical necessity of the ''Lotus Sutra'' spreading in the age of the Final Dharma. Now, if that were the end of the matter, there would be no problem. But if we accept as true the theory I mentioned earlier—that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—then the scholarly foundation underlying this whole structure collapses. The ''Lotus Sutra'', which Master Nichiren propagated with sixty years of blood and tears, must itself be subjected to a historical reckoning.

'''B:''' So in the end it really was a matter of Master Nichiren’s inadequate understanding?

'''A:''' You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. Far from it. As a Buddhist revolutionary movement in his own age, this was the only possible path. It was an entirely defensible position.

But “time” moved on, and modern scientific research into the scriptures produced new conclusions. That is not something we should blame on Nichiren’s lack of understanding. And a man who declared that “one must first learn the time” surely would not cling sentimentally to his position when confronted by the criticism of a later age. That, at least, is what I believe.

=== The Reckoning with Tiantai Doctrine ===
'''A:''' Speaking of “time,” there is another problem. Modern research has drastically changed the dating of the Buddha’s birth.

'''B:''' So it’s no longer three thousand years ago? I remember singing in Sunday school, “Long, long ago—three thousand years ago.”

'''A:''' Today, according to Dr. Takakusu, it was 2,497 years ago, while according to Dr. Ui, it was 2,397 years ago.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945) and Ui Hakuju (宇井伯寿, 1882–1963) were leading Japanese scholars of Buddhism whose historical and philological research contributed to the modern reassessment of traditional Buddhist chronology. Seno’o invokes their differing calculations of the Buddha’s dates to illustrate the incompatibility of modern historical scholarship with the chronology presupposed by traditional Tiantai doctrine.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t those just scholars’ arbitrary guesses?

'''A:''' You shouldn’t dismiss scholarship out of hand like that. Those conclusions are the result of research. Whatever the precise answer may be, the Buddha is now generally placed around the fourth or fifth century BCE. And whereas tradition had said that he left home at nineteen, attained enlightenment at thirty, and entered nirvana at eighty,…

'''[p. 269]'''

…the accepted view has become that he left home at twenty-nine, attained enlightenment at thirty-five, and entered nirvana at eighty.

'''B:''' Then he taught for forty-five years. That means Tiantai’s system of the Five Periods, which was based on the old account of fifty years of teaching from enlightenment at thirty to nirvana at eighty, becomes questionable too.<ref>The Five Periods (goji 五時) is the chronological scheme systematized by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi (智顗 538–597) to classify the Buddha’s teachings into five sequential stages: (1) Kegon (Avataṃsaka, three weeks); (2) Agon (Āgama, twelve years); (3) Hōdō (Vaipulya, eight years); (4) Hannya (Prajñāpāramitā, twenty-two years); and (5) Hokke-Nehan (Lotus and Nirvāṇa, the final eight years). The scheme presupposes the traditional chronology in which the Buddha attained enlightenment at age thirty and taught until his death at eighty. Modern historical-critical scholarship instead dated his enlightenment to approximately age thirty-five and his teaching career to about forty-five years, while also treating the Mahāyāna sutras as later compositions. Seno’o invokes these discrepancies to argue that the traditional Tiantai chronology—and consequently the historical framework inherited by Nichiren—must itself be subjected to modern critical scrutiny.</ref>

'''A:''' There’s no avoiding it. If the ''Lotus Sutra'' was preached for eight years, then the pre-Lotus teachings could only have lasted thirty-seven years, which makes the phrase “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed” unstable. And if the pre-Lotus teachings lasted forty-two years, then the ''Lotus Sutra'' could only have been taught for three years.

'''B:''' Still, we’re talking about events from twenty-four or twenty-five hundred years ago. Even if we calculate things that precisely, how can we really know which account is correct?

'''A:''' India was hardly a country with a strong tradition of historical record keeping, so perfect precision may be impossible. But scholarship still deserves our respect. This is, after all, an age in which science can calculate the numbers of the astronomical world with extraordinary accuracy. At any rate, one fact is unavoidable: Tiantai doctrine must undergo a reckoning, and Nichiren doctrine must therefore also be reexamined. Nor is that all. Modern scholarship has also proposed an account of how the ''Lotus Sutra'' itself was formed. According to this theory, the earliest form of the sutra ran from the “Introduction” chapter through the tenth chapter, “Dharma Preacher.” Later material was added through the twenty-second chapter, “Entrustment,” and then another six chapters were added, producing the present twenty-eight-chapter form.<ref>Seno’o here summarizes a modern historical-critical theory according to which the Lotus Sutra developed in successive stages: an initial text comprising chapters 1–10, a subsequent expansion through chapter 22, and the later addition of six chapters producing the received twenty-eight-chapter version.</ref>

I myself have lectured on the ''Lotus Sutra'' several times, and the breaks in the textual structure certainly can give that impression. In any event, I think we may safely say that it is now virtually impossible to deny that the ''Lotus Sutra'', like the other Mahāyāna scriptures, represents Buddhism in the process of historical development.

'''B:''' Then were the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures actually written by Śākyamuni himself?

'''A:''' No. Those scriptures too were compiled by his disciples after his death.

'''B:''' Then strictly speaking, couldn’t we say that the Hīnayāna scriptures were also “not taught by the Buddha”? And if we are prepared to call them the Buddha’s teaching, why couldn’t we equally call the Mahāyāna scriptures the Buddha’s teaching?

'''A:''' There is something to that argument, and people have made it before. But I think it is sophistry. Shouldn’t we properly distinguish between the Buddha’s immediate disciples gathering together and reciting what remained vivid in their memories, and later generations—disciples of disciples and their descendants—composing scriptures on the basis of those earlier records?

'''B:''' Is there really enough evidence to establish the Mahāyāna as later development?

'''A:''' Scholars have reached that conclusion on the basis of writing, literary style, and many other forms of textual evidence.

'''[p. 270]'''

Scholarly conscience leaves us no choice but to acknowledge it.

=== Faith Requires Objectivity ===
'''B:''' I understand that. But faith and scholarship are different things. Even if the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha is true, why should faith have to concern itself with it?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that too. As the saying goes, “Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it.”<ref>“Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it” renders the proverb iwashi no atama mo shinjin kara (鰯の頭も信心から), an ironic expression for the power of faith to invest even an insignificant object with religious value.</ref> But that is precisely where the crucial issue lies. It marks the dividing line between superstition and genuine faith. A scripture says that faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith increases wrong views; faith and understanding must be harmonized and become the basis of life.<ref>Seno’o cites a Tiantai formulation attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597): “Faith without understanding increases ignorance; understanding without faith increases wrong views” (信而不解、増長無明。解而不信、増長邪見). See Zhiyi, Weimojing Xuanshu (維摩經玄疏, J. Yuimakyō Gensho).</ref> A merely subjective faith that says “just believe,” while ignoring science, cannot be called genuine faith. Unless the content of faith possesses objectivity, it lacks social universality and cannot provide genuine satisfaction. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose there is an old woman devoted to Tenrikyō. She is completely absorbed in her faith. Then her only son, who has been educated in school, begins searching for a religion of his own. Naturally, he first examines the Tenrikyō faith practiced by his mother. But suppose it fails to satisfy him intellectually, and he turns instead to Christianity. Now you have one person in the household crying, “Save me!” and the other saying, “Amen!” What kind of atmosphere would that create in the family? Can they simply shrug and say that faith is subjective and leave each other alone? The more authority each of them invests in their own faith, and the more faithfully each adheres to it, the more each will inevitably look upon the other with a certain painful sense of dissatisfaction. But suppose, by contrast, that the mother’s faith were something that could also be accepted on scholarly grounds, and the son came to embrace the same Tenrikyō faith. Their perspectives and degree of commitment might still differ, but the whole household could at least share a common religious life, and wouldn’t that bring greater satisfaction?

'''B:''' That’s true. And not just in religion—it’s always pleasant when people see eye to eye.

'''A:''' Exactly. If the object of faith has a content that can withstand scholarly, moral, and aesthetic judgment, then even if people approach it from different perspectives, it can gather and embrace a greater number of spiritual brothers and sisters throughout the world. That is why faith too requires an objective and scientific element, especially in the modern age. Nichiren himself said, “The Buddha Dharma is reason.”<ref>“The Buddha Dharma is reason” (buppō wa dōri 仏法は道理なり). Nichiren, Shijō Kingo-dono Gohenji 四条金吾殿御返事 (“Reply to Shijō Kingo,” 1277).</ref>

'''[p. 271]'''

For a seeker who tries to ground faith in reason, it is no longer possible to ignore the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha and simply assert dogmatically that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone embodies the Buddha’s spirit.” Such a religion will become increasingly incapable of speaking to the present or the future.

'''B:''' I understand now that religion cannot survive as merely subjective belief. And I also understand that, in light of the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha, Nichiren doctrine exactly as it stood six hundred and fifty years ago cannot simply be applied to modern people. So if Master Nichiren were born today, do you really think he would still invoke the polemical spirit of the Four Dicta—“the other schools cannot lead to enlightenment,” “they are the root cause of falling into hell,” “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone is the Dharma of buddhahood”—and make chanting the ''daimoku'' his one and only method for saving the modern world?<ref>Nichiren’s Four Dicta (shika kakugen 四箇格言) are conventionally summarized as “Nenbutsu leads to the Avīci hell” (nenbutsu muken 念仏無間), “Zen is the work of the devil” (zen tenma 禅天魔), “Shingon destroys the nation” (shingon bōkoku 真言亡国), and “Ritsu is treasonous” (ritsu kokuzoku 律国賊). The four formulas encapsulate Nichiren’s polemical rejection of the principal rival Buddhist traditions of his day.</ref>

'''A:''' I don’t think so. In fact, I began this new movement only after asking myself over and over for a long time: “If Master Nichiren appeared in the world today, what would he do?” A man with a scholarly conscience as sharp as his would not close his eyes, six hundred and fifty years later, to the transformed culture and social conditions of the modern world—much less to everything that modern Buddhist scholarship has discovered—and simply repeat the old formulas: “The other schools cannot attain the Way; the ''Lotus Sutra'' is the path to buddhahood.” Nor would he insist upon the absolute supremacy of ''daimoku'' chanting.

'''B:''' Then what form do you think he would take?

'''A:''' Probably something very much like this new movement—when considered from the standpoint of Buddhism’s essential nature and the demands of the present age.

=== Love and Equality Are the Spirit of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Speaking of the various schools, how does Shin Buddhism view the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha?

'''A:''' It seems that all serious modern seekers are adherents of that theory. Kaneko Daiei was even excommunicated over precisely this issue.<ref>Kaneko Daiei (金子大栄 1881–1976) was a prominent modern Jōdo Shinshū thinker and professor at Ōtani University. Employing modern historical-critical scholarship, he reinterpreted Amida Buddha and the Pure Land in symbolic rather than conventionally ontological terms. His views were condemned as doctrinal heterodoxy (ianjin 異安心), and in 1928 he was forced to leave his position at Ōtani University. Seno’o’s description of this as “excommunication” is somewhat stronger than the institutional action actually taken.</ref> Anyone with the least rational sense can hardly still become ecstatic today over things like a Pure Land ten billion worlds away or salvation through Other Power, as preached in the ''nenbutsu'' tradition.

'''B:''' Then how should we understand Amida Buddha?

'''A:''' Amida Buddha is the idealized self, and the Western Pure Land, countless worlds away, is idealized reality. The monk Dharmākara represents the fundamental human self, and his practice toward becoming Amida signifies a life of self-realization. Thus the wish to be saved by Amida symbolizes the joy inherent in a life that seeks what is right; salvation, in the final analysis, is nothing other than the life of love itself. To put it simply, love strides courageously even across the terrifying boundary of death. The scripture says, “When the mind of compassion is firmly determined, there is no fear.” This surely expresses the same principle.

'''[p. 272]'''

'''B:''' Then the central meaning of the ''Lotus Sutra'' must teach something similar.

'''A:''' Exactly. Even the words “Since I attained buddhahood” in the “Life Span” chapter, regarded as the heart of the ''Lotus Sutra'', are ultimately a celebration of the awakening of the self. The scriptures differ in expression, but their meaning is fundamentally the same. If we regard the entire canon as literally spoken by the Buddha, then, given the statements in the ''Lotus Sutra'' and the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'' that “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed,” scriptures such as the ''Amida Sutra'' and ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' would have to be regarded merely as expedient teachings to be set aside before the ''Lotus Sutra''. But if we understand them instead as products of Buddhism’s historical development, then the whole canon is an explanation of the content of Śākyamuni Buddha’s awakening. Reduced to its essence, it is a symbolic expression of love and equality. And from that awakening comes the rule running through all Buddhism: “Do no evil; practice all that is good; purify one’s own mind: this is the teaching of all buddhas.”<ref>“Do no evil; practice every good; purify your own mind: this is the teaching of all Buddhas” is traditionally known in East Asian Buddhism as the “Verse of the Common Admonition of the Seven Buddhas” (shichibutsu tsūkai ge 七仏通誡偈). The verse corresponds to Dhammapada 183 and appears widely in East Asian Buddhist literature.</ref>

'''B:''' Then practices such as esoteric rites and prayers, as well as faith in worldly benefits, so common among Buddhists, are decisively not the proper Buddhist path.

'''A:''' Correct. In the strict sense, Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic. There is a teaching in the Kōkigyōkyō that says something like this:

Disciples, there are three mistaken views here. A wise person examines these errors and leads others to abandon them. If these views are followed through to their conclusion, they negate human action in this world. What are the three? One renunciant claims that whatever suffering, pleasure, or neither-suffering-nor-pleasure a human being experiences in this life is entirely the result of karma from a previous existence. Another claims that all of it is caused by the creative activity of Īśvara. Still another claims that everything occurs without cause or condition.<ref>Seno’o attributes this passage to the Kōki-gyō-kyō 興起行経 (T 4, no. 197), though the refutation of the “Three Wrong Views” (三邪見) has a close parallel in the Dokyō 度経 (Madhyama Āgama 13; T 1, no. 26, pp. 435a–436b; corresponding to the Pali Titthāyatana Sutta, AN 3.61). The passage rejects three views that undermine moral agency: (1) strict fatalism (shukumeiron 宿命論), attributing all experience solely to past karma; (2) divine creationism (sōzōshinron 創造神論), attributing it to a creator god; and (3) accidentalism (gūzenron 偶然論), denying cause and condition. Seno’o invokes the passage to emphasize that Śākyamuni rejected fatalistic interpretations of karma and instead grounded Buddhist practice in causality, human agency, and the possibility of transforming the conditions that produce suffering.</ref>

In other words, it rejects fatalism, creationism, and accidentalism, and continues: “Disciples, in opposition to these mistaken views, I teach the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. This teaching of mine is such that no reasonable person can abuse, defile, slander, or reject it.” The Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination describe the path from delusion to awakening. Human suffering arises from inadequate understanding; the Buddha therefore taught the Eightfold Path as the method by which correct wisdom is to be fully attained. Buddhism therefore teaches us to see reality correctly and to act correctly. Even the word “Buddha” means “one who has attained perfect wisdom.”

'''B:''' By “creationism,” you mean something like the Christian God?

=== Buddhism Is Atheistic ===
'''B:''' Modern people are, of course, becoming less and less willing to accept that kind of deity. On this subject, Archbishop Brown wrote something like the following in ''God and the Capitalist'':

'''[p. 273]'''

“Does God wish to remove evil from this world but lack the power? Or is he able to remove it but unwilling? If he wishes to but cannot, then he is impotent, which contradicts the nature of God. If he can but will not, then he is evil, which likewise contradicts the nature of God. If he neither wishes nor is able, then he is both evil and impotent. But if he both wishes to remove evil and is able to do so—which is the only conception appropriate to God—then how can evil exist in the world?”<ref>William Montgomery Brown (1855–1937) was an American Episcopal bishop who became an outspoken socialist and communist and was deposed for heresy in 1925. Seno’o cites Brown’s critique of the Christian conception of God in God and the Capitalist, which circulated in Japanese as Kami to shihonka (神と資本家). The argument itself is a version of the classical “Epicurean paradox” concerning divine omnipotence and the existence of evil.</ref>

'''A:''' That is a painful criticism for Christianity. Before Buddhism, Brahmanism taught gods who created heaven and earth and also advocated ascetic practices of various kinds. The Buddha rejected these and, as I said before, taught the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. There is another story related to this. An apostate named Sunakkhatta went around criticizing the Buddha, saying: “The Buddha possesses no superhuman teaching and no exceptional knowledge or vision. He simply teaches ideas he has thought up in his own head. And he claims that anyone who thinks according to that teaching can reach a state free from suffering.” When the Buddha heard this, he told Śāriputra that Sunakkhatta, speaking in anger, thought he was criticizing the Buddha but was actually praising him.<ref>Sunakkhatta, a Licchavi and former disciple of the Buddha, appears in the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 12) criticizing his former teacher for possessing no “superhuman states” or extraordinary knowledge and vision. Significantly for Seno’o’s argument, Sunakkhatta’s demythological reading nevertheless acknowledges that the Buddha’s teaching leads those who practice it to the destruction of suffering.</ref> For to say that “according to his teaching, anyone who thinks properly can reach a state free from suffering” is itself praise of the Buddha. As this shows, the heart of Buddhism is to see the true nature of human life correctly, think correctly, and then live correctly.

'''B:''' But isn’t it said that Saint Nichiren himself performed prayers and rites?

'''A:''' Those are merely peripheral matters. Nichiren’s real spirit is found in the ''Kaimoku-shō'', where he declared: “Let heaven abandon me if it will; let every hardship befall me; I will stake my life upon this.... I vowed that I would become the pillar of Japan, that I would become the eyes of Japan, that I would become the great ship of Japan. These vows must never be broken.”<ref>Nichiren’s Kaimoku-shō (開目抄 “Opening of the Eyes”), composed in 1272 during his exile on Sado Island, is one of his major writings. It examines the grounds for religious authority and Nichiren’s understanding of his own mission in relation to the Lotus Sutra.</ref> That was his great religious resolve. The prayer rites being performed today are a disgrace to Master Nichiren.

=== The Proper Meaning of Faith in the Buddha ===
'''B:''' Then what do you mean when you chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''?

'''[p. 274]'''

'''A:''' It expresses gratitude and reverence toward Śākyamuni as the founder and teacher—not belief in him as an actually existing creator god. Buddhism teaches that “one who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.”<ref>“One who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha” (Pāli: yo dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati) derives from the Vakkali Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 22.87), where the Buddha tells the monk Vakkali: “One who sees the Dharma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dharma.”</ref> Anyone who follows the Buddha’s teaching, comes to understand and embody even a little of the truth, and experiences joy as a result will naturally come to praise, revere, and feel gratitude toward Śākyamuni Buddha as the ideal person who realized that truth.

And praising, revering, and thanking such a person in turn helps lead us more deeply into a life of truth. Praying to Śākyamuni Buddha will not make rice suddenly appear in your rice chest. If you are poor, the Buddha would tell you to work hard and figure out how to earn money.

But if, as under our present economic system, people work and yet their labor brings no worthwhile return, then the Buddha would surely tell us first to transform that bad system and guarantee the welfare of the masses. He would not mechanically repeat some maxim like “poverty can never catch up with hard work.” If you are sick, rather than making vows or relying on prayer rites, the Buddha would tell you first to seek proper treatment, reflect upon the causes of the illness, and observe the principles of health. That is the Buddha I understand.

'''B:''' As expected, the Buddha even seems to have understood Marxist theory.

'''A:''' That’s giving him too much credit. There is no way the Buddha could have known Marx’s theories. And his authority is not diminished in the least by not knowing them. He lived twenty-five hundred years ago; of course he did not know them. The point is that those who genuinely understand the Buddha’s life of love and equality naturally acquire the kind of understanding appropriate to their own time, place, and circumstances. Buddhism therefore develops continuously along with the age. That is the process I meant earlier when speaking of historically developing Buddhism. What we need to learn from Buddhism is the fundamental orientation of human life. Once we stand upon that foundation, an appropriate way of life will unfold in accordance with circumstances. I express this in the slogan: “From Impermanence to Devotion.”

'''B:''' Then Confucius’s saying, “A neighborhood is beautiful when there is benevolence; if one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one be called wise?” expresses the same view of life.

'''A:''' I think so. The ''tian'' of Confucianism, the God of Christianity, Japanese Shintō and the Buddha of Buddhism may all be explained differently, but if we follow them to their roots, I believe they all rest upon the same path of sacred love.

=== Buddhism and Christianity Will Merge ===
'''B:''' Some time ago, an organization called the Concordia Association was established to bring together the three teachings of Shintō, Confucianism, and Buddhism.<ref>The Concordia Association (Kiitsu Kyōkai 帰一協会) was a private interreligious organization founded in June 1912 by leading intellectuals and public figures, including industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi 渋沢栄一, educator Naruse Jinzō 成瀬仁蔵, religious scholar Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治, and philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. Formed in the same year as the government-sponsored Three Religions Conference (Sankyō Kaidō 三教会同), the association sought to foster moral and intellectual unity (kiitsu 帰一) across religious and philosophical traditions. Seno’o regarded such ecumenical efforts critically, seeing them as attempts to achieve an abstract religious harmony without confronting the social and economic conflicts of capitalist society.</ref>

'''[p. 275]'''

If what you’re saying is right, then Buddhism should ultimately be able to unite with Christianity as well.

'''A:''' I believe the day will come when they do. As the languages and writing systems of the world, and culture more generally, gradually converge—and especially as economic structures become increasingly integrated—religion alone cannot remain forever in a state of warring kingdoms. I think a new movement will emerge in which the two are sublated. After all, the innermost sanctuary of the human spirit must fundamentally be one. Religions should not continue opposing one another as they do today. Indeed, from the standpoint of religion’s true purpose, a world federation of religions ought to be proposed even before the political world federation now being discussed. I believe the mission of religious movements must be to work toward the realization of a worldwide human fellowship.

=== The Disappearance of the Established Buddhist Institutions Is Inevitable ===
'''B:''' I agree. In that case, the immediate priority would have to be a movement to unify Buddhism. The present fragmentation amounts to nothing more than Buddhists demonstrating their own lack of religious resolve. How many schools and branches does Buddhism actually have today?

'''A:''' I’ve heard there are thirteen schools and fifty-six branches.<ref>“Thirteen schools and fifty-six branches” (jūsanshū gojūrokuha, 十三宗五十六派) was a conventional enumeration of the institutional divisions of Japanese Buddhism in the modern period. Seno’o invokes the formula as evidence of the sectarian fragmentation that his movement sought to overcome.</ref>

'''B:''' But if you start a movement for unification, won’t you in practice simply create one more sect?

'''A:''' Even if it means adding one more sect for the moment, if the movement truly corresponds to the needs of the age, then as it expands and grows stronger, the established Buddhist institutions that have fallen out of step with the times will gradually lose their power and naturally undergo liquidation and disappear. That is just what happened when the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period displaced the established Buddhism of Nara and Heian and caused its older forms gradually to dissolve.

'''B:''' Then you’re saying that this Revitalized Buddhist movement represents the highest form of Buddhism demanded by the modern age.

'''A:''' As I said before, so long as Buddhism has its source in the person of the Buddha, is there really any other path by which it can be brought back into unity?

'''B:''' At the very least, it seems to be a method that should be acceptable across the schools. In fact, whichever Buddhist institution you examine, each has doctrines of some substance. But if every school keeps proclaiming exclusively, “Our school alone has grasped the Buddha’s intent,” the beginning seeker is completely bewildered. And if, despite all those differences, they all offer essentially the same opiate-like sermons of escape from reality, modern people will not merely reject Buddhism—they will quite naturally become advocates of its repudiation.

'''A:''' “Rotten wood cannot be carved.”<ref>“Rotten wood cannot be carved” (朽木不可雕也) derives from the Analects 5.10, where Confucius uses the image to describe someone upon whom further instruction would be wasted.</ref> There is no need to fear revolution.

'''[p. 276]'''

Even Shinran, regarded as the very model of humility, declared at the establishment of his teaching that “the teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace.”<ref>“The teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace” (釈迦の遺法ことごとく龍宮にいりたまいにき) is from Shinran’s Shōzōmatsu Wasan (正像末和讃, “Hymns of the Dharma-Ages”). The verse describes the disappearance of Śākyamuni’s conventional path of practice and realization in the age of the Final Dharma; the Dragon Palace (ryūgū, 龍宮) is the mythical undersea realm in which Buddhist scriptures were said to be preserved beyond the human world.</ref> To put it plainly, he too rejected the whole of established Buddhism as obsolete.

=== On the Scriptural Basis of the New Movement ===
'''B:''' I understand. Earlier you said ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''. Would ''Namu Shakamuni Butsu'' not be sufficient?

'''A:''' According to correct Sanskrit usage, when ''namu''—“homage”—is used, the ending ''-āya'' must be added to indicate the dative case. Only then does it properly mean “homage to Śākyamuni Buddha” or “I take refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha.” With Namu Shakamuni Butsu, by contrast, “Śākyamuni Buddha” remains in the nominative, so the grammatical relationship between namu and “Śākyamuni Buddha” does not work properly. Or so I am told. Since we are launching a new movement aimed at Buddhist unity, we have taken the opportunity to correct the expression as well.<ref>Seno’o prefers Namu Shakamuni Budaya 南無釈迦牟尼仏陀耶 to the conventional Namu Shakamuni Butsu 南無釈迦牟尼仏, explaining the former as grammatically preferable on the basis of Sanskrit namas (“homage”) and the dative buddhāya. The phonetic form Budaya is retained here as Seno’o gives it rather than Sanskritized. The formula became characteristic of the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref>

'''B:''' I understand that too. But what about your authoritative scripture? You can hardly choose one scripture now—the ''Lotus Sutra'', the ''Amida Sutra'', or some other text—and carrying around the entire enormous Buddhist canon is obviously impossible.

'''A:''' You’re right. If we take the position that, despite differences of importance and emphasis, the entire Buddhist canon arises from the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, then it is impossible—especially after abandoning our former sectarian standpoint—to choose a single scripture as uniquely authoritative. So, for practical purposes, we have decided for the time being to adopt the ''Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures'' compiled by Kizu Muan and others.<ref>Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1876–1943) was a lay Buddhist reformer associated with efforts to make Buddhist scripture accessible beyond sectarian boundaries. His Shin’yaku Bukkyō Seiten (新訳仏教聖典 Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures), published in 1925, presented selections from major Buddhist scriptures in accessible modern Japanese and was intended to provide ordinary Japanese Buddhists with a common scriptural anthology</ref> It is a handy modern translation containing selections from the essential teachings of the entire canon.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t Kizu and the other compilers inevitably impose their own personalities upon such an anthology?

'''A:''' That cannot entirely be avoided. I would prefer something more thoroughly revised. If possible, I would like the members of our own movement eventually to compile and publish such a translation ourselves.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t that plant the seeds for yet another inevitable division?

'''A:''' I can’t deny that possibility. Since believers differ in their inclinations, if we make scriptures themselves the basis, division will naturally arise again. Indeed, the scriptures themselves recognize the necessity of diversified teaching. We find statements such as “innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma” and “because desires and dispositions differ, various teachings are preached.” A scripture could even be called the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings precisely because it recognizes the necessity of the Dharma being expressed in different forms. So if we make scripture the basis, division will certainly recur. Instead of defining the Buddha through the scriptures,…

'''[p. 277]'''

…we should take the person of the Buddha as our starting point and reduce the essential meaning of the entire canon to the realization of love and equality. Wouldn’t Buddhism then be able to unite without strain? The essential point is to recognize that Amida Buddha, Mahāvairocana Buddha, and the other figures who came to be believed in as actually existing beings through faith in the scriptures are all representations of the person of Śākyamuni. I therefore propose that all Buddhists unite in Namu Shakamuni Budaya. It is like Christianity: however many denominations there may be, they are united in their object of faith—the one God—to whom they say “Amen.”

'''B:''' Wasn’t that ultimately the real intention behind Master Nichiren’s religious revolution as well?

'''A:''' Exactly. We should now subject it to modern criticism—including the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—and thereby purify it, while at the same time stripping away the old shell of ''daimoku'' chanting, corroded by all manner of popular beliefs and superstitions. In that way we can make the central principle of Buddhist unification unmistakably clear and, beyond that, establish the spiritual basis for a worldwide human fellowship. And this cry of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'' necessarily leads us to scrutinize the economic system that forms the basic condition of actual life. Since the present capitalist economic system violates the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, we have no choice but, in the name of that love and equality, to join the movement to transform it.

'''B:''' That seems to be one of the three central aims of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. But before you explain that, what does your movement intend to do about funerals? You certainly aren’t going to ask the priests to perform them.

=== On Funerals ===
'''A:''' Don’t be ridiculous. What good would it do to have priests like that perform the final rites over us? Today I attended the private funeral of a certain eminent archbishop. A certain head priest who had betrayed his teacher while the latter was still alive acted as officiant. Arrayed in a gold-brocade kesa, with a procession of similarly dressed priests behind him, he recited sutras and chanted the ''daimoku'' as he performed the final rites. If my teacher had been able to speak from within the jeweled ''stūpa'', what would he have said?<ref>The deceased “teacher” was Honda Nisshō 本多日生 (1867–1931), the influential Nichiren Buddhist leader under whom Seno’o had studied and with whom he had long been associated before his break with Nichirenism. Honda’s death in March 1931 thus occurred at precisely the moment of Seno’o’s turn toward Revitalized Buddhism. Seno’o’s discomfort at the elaborate funeral rites of his former teacher underscores both the personal and institutional dimensions of that break. The jeweled stūpa (hōtō 宝塔) alludes to chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra, in which a magnificent stūpa emerges from the earth containing the Buddha Prabhūtaratna (J. Tahō Nyorai).</ref> I could do nothing but weep. There they were in a main hall beautifully decorated with donations—unearned income contributed by the bourgeoisie—a group of seemingly castrated priests banging away on their old-fashioned gongs, interminably reciting ''dhāraṇī''s whose meaning no one could understand, and putting on an air of solemnity. For someone who sincerely mourns his teacher and is resolved to bring that teacher’s aspirations to life in a new age, how could a ''dhāraṇī''-style funeral like that possibly be satisfying? No doubt such forms once possessed value appropriate to their age,…

'''[p. 278]'''

…but today, from beginning to end, they are nothing but anachronisms. They are like beer left sitting for days, with sediment collecting in it. In the end, that is what happens when a funeral has lost its spirit.

'''B:''' Then what sort of form do you propose replacing it with?

'''A:''' Are you so worried about the form of the funeral that you can’t attain buddhahood? As long as the movement itself is genuinely alive and substantial, I believe forms appropriate to the age will arise naturally in the course of the movement. Look at how solemn a makeshift burial on the battlefield can be. Think, too, how deeply moving Yamasen’s funeral was.<ref>“Yamasen” was the familiar name of Yamamoto Senji 山本宣治 (1889–1929), a biologist, birth-control advocate, socialist politician, and labor activist assassinated by a right-wing nationalist in 1929. His funeral and memorial processions became major public events for the Japanese left.</ref> The point is that appropriate forms arise in proportion to the intensity of one’s commitment to justice in life. So I don’t think we need to calculate the form of a funeral in advance. The essential thing is to adopt a simple, spiritual form appropriate to the modern age; beyond that, we can proceed as circumstances require.

'''B:''' But a funeral does adorn the end of a person’s life....

'''A:''' The end isn’t something you decorate once you’ve reached it. To put it strongly, think of a funeral as little more than disposing of used coffee grounds. What matters is rebuilding each living day into a life of justice and love. Isn’t that what Nichiren meant when he said, “A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world”?<ref>“A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world.” Nichiren, Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude,” 1276).</ref> To think of a funeral as a ceremony that “adorns the end” is itself a variant of bourgeois ideology: people donate or contribute some percentage of wealth accumulated through sinful exploitation and imagine that this constitutes admirable faith and atonement. ''Why be calculating funeral arrangements before the banner has even been raised? Those advancing arm in arm in the march of justice should already be prepared to leave their corpses by the roadside. Would the dead not prefer the tearful offering of a single comrade to the hymns of a thousand people without heart? “Let the dead bury their dead!”''<ref>Matthew 8:22; cf. Luke 9:60.</ref> The fundamental ideology of our Revitalized Buddhist movement must be the resolve to embody the Buddhist spirit in actual life—a resolve that will make even our funerals bleed tears.

'''B:''' I understand. Then will you go on to explain the relationship between reform of the economic system and the Revitalized Buddhist movement?

=== Revitalized Buddhism and Class Struggle ===
'''A:''' We’ve talked for quite a long time today, so let’s leave this subject until next time. In the meantime, from January through March of this year I published my views in Youth on the attitude Buddhists should take toward…

'''[p. 279]'''

…capitalism. I’ll eventually publish those articles as a pamphlet, so study them when it comes out.<ref>Seno’o refers to his essay series “Capitalism and the Stance of Buddhists” (Shihonshugi ni taisuru Bukkyōto no taido 資本主義に対する仏教徒の態度), serialized in Wakōdo 若人 from January through March 1931 and subsequently published as Shihonshugi to Bukkyō 資本主義と仏教 (Capitalism and Buddhism; Tokyo: Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei Shuppanbu, 1931).</ref> In the end, Buddhist priests too are parasites of capitalism and, generally speaking, cannot avoid becoming its servants. The shortest road to religious revolution therefore lies in transforming capitalism, the underlying condition that sustains them. In any case, doesn’t this new movement acquire value only when it advances into the concrete problems of actual life?

'''B:''' Let me ask you one thing. In the end, then, you recognize “joining the proletarian movement”—that is, class struggle?

'''A:''' Yes.

'''B:''' Earlier you said that Buddhism is “emptiness” and that it occupies “no standpoint.” But if you endorse class struggle and side with the proletarian movement, doesn’t that contradict the Buddhist spirit?

'''A:''' It is precisely because Buddhism is “emptiness” and occupies “no standpoint” that, when circumstances require it, participation in the proletarian movement can be justified. To look at the class struggle actually taking place before our eyes and simply disregard it amounts to nothing more than indifference to the conditions of our own lives. The question is which side it is right to support. That alone is the issue.

'''B:''' But proletarian activists are often inclined to resort to violence. Can that too be called just?

'''A:''' Before speaking of violence by the proletarian movement, don’t you recognize the overwhelming presence of the military, the police, and all the other instruments of power controlled by those who rule? It is precisely on the basis of this recognition of reality that proletarian activists are compelled to resort to violence in order to realize their ideal society.

'''B:''' You speak of “those who control the instruments of power,” but these are the nation’s military and police. Surely they do not belong to any one particular class.

'''A:''' That is true in name only. Look at the facts: which class actually controls the military and the police? You have to open your eyes to reality. Today, the justice and morality spoken of by the ruling class are entirely one-sided—a morality of the strong. Otherwise, how could they enjoy such lives of splendor while ignoring the masses living at the very bottom?

'''B:''' Still, their present position is one they have attained by prevailing in competition. Surely being the victor does not necessarily make one unjust.

'''A:''' If that is not unjust, then why is it considered unjust—and impermissible—for the proletariat today to seek victory through unions and solidarity?

'''B:''' Isn’t that because it would disrupt the existing social order?

'''[p. 280]'''

'''A:''' For whose benefit is the present social order arranged? Look at the facts. Today, justice and morality are all colored by class. They are a class-based justice and order, and by no means genuine justice. Nevertheless, the educators either unconsciously—or sometimes consciously, and quite brazenly—serve as mouthpieces for the ruling class. If it is just for the present ruling class to use its power to suppress the proletarian movement, then it must equally be just for proletarian activists to seize power and turn it back against them. If religious people are to condemn violence as unjust, then from which class should they first demand its abandonment? And if, under certain circumstances, violence itself can be regarded as just, then which movement contains within it more of the true essence of justice? The impossible neutral standpoint that is neither bourgeois nor proletarian belongs now to the realm of ghosts. True justice must be sought in securing the welfare of the masses. So, what do you think? I believe that the Revitalized Buddhist movement can ultimately find its true social ground only among the proletarian class.

'''B:''' I think I understand now. Justice is an ideology that becomes concretely felt through opposition. Looking back over history, the true character of justice has been recognized most clearly in struggles against the powerful on behalf of the weak of their time. In fact, I myself have been inwardly dissatisfied with calling myself “neutral.” I have always tried to formulate a conception of justice by working from the concrete calculations of actual life rather than from abstraction. On that point, I should read your pamphlet carefully and think it over.

'''A:''' Until now, almost all Buddhists have, more or less without exception, adhered to a conceptual and conservative faith in “gratitude.” As a result, they have been blind to the problems of actual social life, have conducted no research whatsoever into socialism, and have been driven from the outset into a blindly reactionary movement. This is a grave anachronism. The original ideal of Buddhism was, on the contrary, itself socialist. On this point, too, I am genuinely glad that the narcotic effect of the opium has begun to wear off and that the force of actual life has begun to move.

'''B:''' I understand quite well. Let’s discuss this question again after I’ve read your pamphlet. (Shōwa 6 [1931], “Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism,” April inaugural issue)

'''[p. 281]'''

=== The Economy Is the Foundation of Life ===
'''B:''' You promised me last month that you would explain the relationship between the Revitalized Buddhist movement and the transformation of the economic system.

'''A:''' Yes. Since launching this new movement, I have become painfully aware that the reason nearly all the comrades who initially joined me but later withdrew did so was the third item in our program: “opposition to capitalism.” This has made me realize all the more clearly that economic problems are the very foundation of human life, and that our thoughts and actions are therefore inevitably conditioned by them. Generally speaking, an edification movement that ignores economic problems is nothing more than a conceptual game. Indeed, I have become even more firmly convinced that any edification movement that does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to advancing the transformation of the present capitalist economic system is nothing less than an opiate-like form of wrongdoing. And surely there is no longer any need to explain that capitalism is a mechanism of selfishness and self-interest that runs counter to the Buddhist spirit.

'''B:''' From the enthusiastic response of the audience at the April 5 inaugural commemorative lecture meeting of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, I too could clearly sense how thoroughly society has become disillusioned with capitalism and with the established Buddhist institutions.

But what about organizations such as the Hope Society and the Cultivation Society, which have recently been conducting very active edification movements? Don’t you think they possess some contemporary value?<ref>Kibōsha 希望社 (“Hope Society”), founded by Gotō Seikō 後藤静香 (1884–1969) in 1918, and Shūyōdan 修養団 (“Self-Cultivation Association”), founded by Hasunuma Monzō 蓮沼門三 (1882–1980) in 1906, were prominent organizations in Japan’s modern moral-edification (kyōka 教化) and self-cultivation (shūyō 修養) movements. Both emphasized personal discipline, service, and social harmony. Seno’o rejects such movements as inadequate responses to structural economic problems, arguing that their emphasis on individual moral cultivation ultimately leaves capitalist relations intact.</ref>

'''A:''' They are both organizations for officially sanctioned edification, and in the end the result is the same. Precisely because they are novel edification movements, they may temporarily attract young men and women and, for that very reason, function all the more effectively as an opiate. Recently, however, I hear that even within the Cultivation Society an anti-capitalist consciousness has gradually begun to emerge. And didn’t the Hope Society recently fall several months behind in paying its employees’ salaries, leading to an employees’ strike and even a lawsuit? As the saying goes, “A hundred days of preaching are undone by a single fart.”<ref>A traditional Japanese proverb: Hyakunichi no seppō, he hitotsu 百日の説法、屁一つ (literally, “A hundred days of preaching, one fart”), meaning that prolonged preaching or painstaking effort can be undone by a single act that renders it ridiculous or ineffective. Seno’o invokes the deliberately coarse expression to suggest that moral edification is rendered futile when the social conditions produced by capitalism remain unchanged.</ref> There is also that amusing saying, “Faith, too, comes from an excess of ''toku''.” Here ''toku'' means “profit.” That one saying alone explains rather well the relationship between economic problems and established edification organizations.<ref>“Faith, too, comes from an excess of toku” plays on the proverb shinjin mo toku no amari 信心も徳の余り, meaning that religious devotion becomes possible only when one has sufficient material ease. Seno’o pointedly interprets toku here in the material sense of profit or economic gain, reinforcing his argument that religious and moral life cannot be separated from economic conditions.</ref>

'''[p. 282]'''

=== The Anachronism of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''B:''' You did quite a bit of arguing at the conference of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation on April 2 and 3. Was it about what you were just discussing?

'''A:''' It wasn’t only that, but I said everything that needed to be said. The obvious question was whether, in determining its attitude toward capitalism, which runs counter to the Buddhist spirit, the Federation would return to the Buddha—but they could not reach a decision. Worse still, although Buddhist youth from throughout Japan had joined together in a federation with the intention of advancing into a new society, they were still debating whether guiding principles were even necessary. It was like firing a gun in the dark; there was no real question to discuss.

'''B:''' Doesn’t the Federation’s second stated objective say, “We aim to awaken to the Buddhist spirit and promote its revitalization”?

'''A:''' However impressive such abstract phrases may sound, unless something new actually follows from them, things will simply continue as before. Even if they spend several hundred yen to establish another grand federation, what meaning can it possibly have unless they articulate concrete guiding principles appropriate to the demands of the new age? As I was saying, so long as the various sects each possess bodies of teaching that are historically incompatible with one another, the more faithfully each adheres to the doctrines of its own sect, the less what sect A regards as the Buddhist spirit will correspond to what sects B and C regard as the Buddhist spirit. Take the Nichiren sect: if it loudly proclaims the Buddhist spirit embodied in its Four Dicta, how can it possibly form a united front with the Nenbutsu and other sects? And if the Pure Land sect clings to the “Five Miscellaneous Practices,” wouldn’t the result be the same?<ref>The Five Miscellaneous Practices (gozōgyō 五雑行), derived from Shandao’s Pure Land classification, designate practices directed toward buddhas and teachings other than Amitābha and the Pure Land as “miscellaneous,” in contrast to the five “right practices” (goshōgyō 五正行). Seno’o juxtaposes this Pure Land exclusivism with Nichiren’s Four Dicta (see n. 30) to expose the unresolved doctrinal contradictions underlying claims of Buddhist unity.</ref> If they say cooperation is nevertheless possible, then that is shameless—unless, of course, they have already sublated their sectarian doctrines in accordance with the times. In any case, if the Federation is to become something more than a kind of religious social club and actually inaugurate a Buddhist movement appropriate to the new age, it must set forth a guiding principle of faith capable of unifying the Federation as a whole and, on that basis, a guiding principle for solving social problems. Otherwise, it is useless.

'''B:''' Surely people chosen to represent their respective regions must have thought about something as basic as that.

'''A:''' Exactly. Marx said that “humanity always sets itself only such problems as it is able to solve.”<ref>Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface (1859): “Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve.”</ref> Since these people have joined the Federation in order to join hands with one another, there must be some common point on which they ''can'' join hands—some problem capable of solution. That is why I proposed that we…

'''[p. 283]'''

…identify this concrete point and launch a new movement.

=== Two Major Proposals to the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''A:''' Needless to say, I advocated the two fundamental principles of our Revitalized Buddhism. They took the following form:

(1)'' We recognize that the divisions among the established Buddhist institutions run counter to the Buddhist way of harmony; returning to the Buddha, we resolve to promote Buddhism anew in a manner appropriate to the age.''

(2)'' We recognize that the suffering of present society arises primarily from its contradictory social organization, and we resolve to reform that organization and build an ideal society grounded in the Buddhist spirit.''<ref>Compare these two proposals with the three founding principles subsequently proclaimed by the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism at its inaugural meeting on April 5, 1931: opposition to established Buddhist institutions, the construction of a new Buddhist movement suited to the present age, and opposition to capitalism.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t these proposals rather abstract?

'''A:''' I think they are sufficient as fundamental principles realistically possible under the present circumstances of the Buddhist Federation.

'''B:''' I hear there was considerable opposition.

'''A:''' There was. But the truth was self-evident. Whatever anyone might say, the only possible point of unity for such a federation was “returning to the Buddha.” The spirit of the proposal was therefore generally accepted. But time was short, and the matter was referred to the platform-drafting committee, so the proceedings came to an end. As the newspapers harshly criticized them the next day, however, a federation like this might almost have been better left unformed. They did not even have the courage to decide upon the obvious first proposal. As for the second, in practice it must have seemed about as remote as the Pure Land ten billion lands to the west.

=== Shin Buddhism’s Self-Reckoning ===
'''B:''' I understand that most of the delegates in attendance were Shin Buddhists. But if you say “Return to the Buddha,” doesn’t that amount to a declaration of bankruptcy for the Amida teaching of absolute Other Power?

'''A:''' Strictly speaking, I suppose it does. Recently, I saw an explanation by Dr. Takakusu published in the Yomiuri Shimbun under the title “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism.” Even there, Amida faith and the like have been completely disposed of. It seems to me that any seeker who reads one as one, correctly and without distortion, could have no possible objection to Shin Buddhism also “returning to the Buddha.” In the section on “atheism” in Dr. Takakusu’s “Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism,” he writes:

Human destiny is not governed by God; it is entirely self-governed. Through the principle that one reaps the consequences of one’s own actions, each person is continually opening up their own destiny. There is therefore no need to await God’s judgment: it is entirely a matter of self-judgment. Good causes and good effects do not arise through God’s judgment, but rather through natural law. Thus Śākyamuni stands firmly upon his own human personality, develops that personality upward, and attains complete buddhahood. Amida Nyorai and Dainichi Nyorai, too, are ideals manifested from Śākyamuni’s own ideal…

'''[p. 284]'''

… they are, after all, human beings brought to completion. Therefore, the Buddha has not the slightest trace of the meaning of a creator god, a sovereign god, or a judicial god. Rather, the Buddha himself attains the ultimate state of self-awakening and, from compassion for other unenlightened beings, begins the activity of awakening others so as to bring them to the same ultimate state of self-awakening.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945), a prominent scholar of Buddhism and Sanskrit, developed a modern systematic interpretation of Buddhist doctrine that included an explicitly “atheistic” (mushinshugi 無神主義) principle. Seno’o here quotes Takakusu’s “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no konpon gi 仏教の根本義), published in the morning edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun, March 22, 1931. See also Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref>

Accordingly, self-awakening, awakening others, and the perfection of awakened practice are the Buddha’s fundamental concern. As you know, Dr. Takakusu is a universally acknowledged authority on Shin Buddhism. Therefore, shouldn’t we simply dispense with an Amida Nyorai of Other-Power salvation, stand firmly upon our own human personality, and direct that personality upward toward the liberated Buddha? The destiny of the doctor himself lies in opening up his own self; in other words, it is a matter of an Amida Nyorai who saves himself through the development of his own self. Therefore, casting aside naïve reliance on Amida Buddha and Other Power, should not all Buddhists stand upon their own personhood and strive to develop and perfect it, uniting around the liberated Buddha, seeking the light of life in reverence for this ideal personality, and devoting themselves to responsible effort? Would this not be a Buddhist movement that modern people could find convincing?

'''B:''' I think that is exactly right. The conception of Other-Power Buddhism is quite similar to the Christian conception of a sovereign and judging God. Such an explanation can hardly satisfy the religion of tomorrow. If all this is so clear, why can’t they raise a platform and launch a new Buddhist movement?

=== The Resolve to Bear the Cross ===
'''A:''' From this point on, however, the issue becomes one of religious resolve. There is always a distance between explanation and practice. Between them stand inherited conventions, personal ties and feelings, and, above all, the many difficult problems accumulated through economic relationships and the circumstances of actual life. It is easy enough to speak of decisive action, but making the leap itself is by no means simple. Such a leap can only come from the earnest seeking spirit of a revolutionary who is driven by an irresistible inner necessity and is prepared even to bear the cross. This is especially true of our second principle. Without such determination, it would be impossible to revolutionize the tradition of religion in service to established power and launch a new Buddhist movement for the sake of the masses.

=== Sinclair’s View of Religion ===
'''B:''' At the Revitalized Buddhist founding commemorative lecture on the fifth, there were an awful lot of police present,…

'''[p. 285]'''

…keeping a very conspicuous watch. Was that because of Revitalized Buddhism’s third principle—the slogan “Down with Capitalism”?

'''A:''' Exactly. When I was summoned to the police station over the notification for the meeting, that was what they told me. They were not particularly concerned about the destruction of the established Buddhist institutions. What concerned them was the anti-capitalist movement. If the content of our Revitalized Buddhist movement consisted merely in destroying the established religious institutions and unifying Buddhism, that would amount to little more than destroying a number of robots and manufacturing one enormous robot in their place. The real problem is that, unless the Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a movement against capitalism—the modern devil that is mercilessly turning human beings into robots through the religious institutions—it cannot truly be called a religious movement that engages actual life. That is what I believe.

'''B:''' I can understand what you’re saying, but surely religion and economic movements are, by their very nature, separate fields?

'''A:''' That is a reasonable point, at least at first. But I believe that true religion should not divide things into two, economics on one side and spirit on the other; it should demand the idealization of life as a whole. Genuine love between a man and a woman cannot be satisfied with Platonic love; only where flesh and spirit are united can love attain fulfillment.

On this point, Upton Sinclair writes in his well-known book Is Religion Worth Believing?<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968) was an American socialist writer and political activist. The passages quoted here are from his The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation (1918), a socialist critique of organized religion as an ally of economic exploitation. Seno’o encountered the work in Japanese as Shūkyō wa shinzuru ni taru ka 宗教は信ずるに足るか (Is Religion Worth Believing?; trans. Sakai Toshihiko et al., Tokyo: Kōbunsha, 1920). The English here translates the Japanese passages quoted by Seno’o rather than substituting Sinclair’s original English wording.</ref>

Religion, in the true sense, is the most fundamental of spiritual impulses: an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and foster life. In this sense, every thinking human being must be religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal and the true nature of humanity itself. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. Indeed, I wish to make clear that religion, understood in this sense, is something that simply cannot be attacked.

But the word ‘religion’ has also been given another meaning, and as a result we have been deprived of the pleasure of using this word in that straightforward sense. For most people, the word ‘religion’ does not mean ‘the soul’s desire to grow’ or ‘the pursuit of righteousness as though hungering and thirsting for it.’ Instead, it means the historical forms in which that desire has appeared, and…

'''[p. 286]'''

…the doctrines, ‘revelations,’ creeds, and rituals it has acquired; a system under which the moral impulses of the people, the love of children, and the aspirations of youth are exploited and turned into a source of privilege and commercial profit for the clergy. ‘Religion’ in this sense is the natural ally of parasitic income and of every form of oppression and exploitation.

Can we not clearly understand from this the difference between true “religion” and distorted, so-called “religion”? ''Thus the actual path followed by the true religious person, who “hungers and thirsts after righteousness,” naturally diverges from the ideological dream-world in which the half-paralyzed pseudo-religionist dances, taking fixed doctrines and revelations, creeds and rituals to be religion.'' Sinclair’s next words express almost exactly my own present conviction:

I am certainly no shallow materialist. I am not so superficial as to think that human beings can be satisfied by meaningless rationalism. I know that the symbols of the old religions arose from the human heart. They arose because they corresponded to certain desires of the human heart. And I also know that, together with those desires, the symbols of a new religion suited to the needs of the present age can be discovered. If I am trying here to tear down an old, dilapidated building, it is not out of a blind impulse to destroy, but because I am an architect who wishes to build in its place a new and sturdier structure.

=== The True Character of Temple Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then today’s Nichiren sect, Nenbutsu sect, Shingon sect, and so forth, with their ruling hierarchies claiming divine authority and their fixed doctrines, “revelations,” creeds, and rituals, are what might be called “religion in the ordinary sense.”

'''A:''' They are indeed typical examples. Look at Mount Minobu, the eastern and western Honganji temples, or Narita’s Fudō temple. Where in any of them do we find a “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” or the “most fundamental spiritual impulse,” the vital force of life, being nurtured and fostered? What kind of contact do these sacred places have with young people, in whom spiritual impulses are at their strongest? Among the pilgrims to these sacred places, most are old people with no future, people making selfish petitions, or perhaps bourgeois and petit-bourgeois youth. What kind of promise do they make to the young people of tomorrow?

And speaking of that,…

'''[p. 287]'''

…Tsukiji Honganji, I hear, is planning to construct an enormous reinforced-concrete temple hall with a building budget of more than two million yen. The reason for doing so is truly remarkable. Since the Great Earthquake destroyed its main hall, most large funerals have been going instead to Zōjōji in Shiba. The new building, it is rumored, is therefore a scheme to win those customers back.<ref>Tsukiji Honganji 築地本願寺, the major Honganji-ha temple in Tokyo, lost its main hall in the fires following the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923. Its replacement, designed by Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954), was constructed in reinforced concrete between 1931 and 1934 in a distinctive Indian-inspired style, at a cost of more than two million yen. Seno’o refers critically to reports that the expensive reconstruction was driven partly by competition with Zōjōji 増上寺, the prominent Jōdo-shū temple in Shiba, for lucrative funerals. He presents the episode as an example of Buddhist institutions pursuing wealth and institutional prestige rather than the welfare of the masses.</ref> What kind of grotesque commercial competition between funeral corporations is this?

Given Buddhism under the leadership of temples like these, there is hardly any need to explain what the lives of ordinary Buddhists look like today. It amounts to little more than mouthing phrases such as “From Impermanence to Devotion,” accompanied by a smiling face, as though economic life were an entirely separate matter. People may shed grateful tears at the thought that “the founder spent ninety years clothed in paper,”<ref>“The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” alludes to a celebrated haiku by Ōtani Kubutsu 大谷句仏 (Ōtani Kōen, 1875–1943), the twenty-third head of Higashi Honganji: “How humbling! The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” (勿体なや祖師は紙衣の九十年). The “founder” is Shinran (1173–1263), while “paper clothing” (kamiko 紙衣) evokes the austerity traditionally associated with his life. Seno’o invokes the verse ironically to contrast Shinran’s celebrated simplicity with the wealth and institutional practices of contemporary Shin Buddhism.</ref> and may be deeply moved as they recall his exile at Tsukahara; but how is any of that spirit actually woven into the everyday lives of believers? Look again at the recent practice of the ruling class, as one means of ideological guidance, of having elementary-school teachers install ''kamidana'' in their classrooms in order to instill the ideology of reverence for the gods and veneration of the ancestors. These are precisely the fossilized religious rites Sinclair was describing. What a strange situation we have today: at a time when there are said to be as many as a thousand villages where teachers’ salaries go unpaid, the gods and buddhas whose very life is equality and love are shut up inside such little boxes, while the ruling class orders teachers to bow before them in the name of ideological guidance.<ref>Seno’o refers to the increasing use of State Shintō rites in public education during the early Shōwa period, when practices such as the installation of kamidana 神棚 and shrine worship were promoted as expressions of civic morality and reverence for the emperor rather than as “religion.” He juxtaposes this ideological mobilization of elementary-school teachers with their low salaries and precarious economic position, exposing what he sees as the contradiction between state-sponsored moral edification and the material conditions of those charged with carrying it out.</ref> The ruling class is bad enough—but surely the teachers who have no choice but to reply, “Yes, indeed,” and obey deserve our sympathy as well. Think about it. Why should governors and department heads receive monthly salaries of four or five hundred yen, while elementary-school teachers receive only sixty or seventy? And isn’t the amount of time they actually spend working in precisely the opposite proportion?

Earlier I mentioned Dr. Takakusu’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism.” Among its four outward-facing principles are non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no hachidai kōryō 仏教の八大綱領) distinguished four inward-facing principles from four outward-facing social principles, the latter comprising non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality. See Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref> He says that Buddhism’s distinctive characteristic lies in carrying each of these principles through to its fullest possible extent. But that is merely a story about the past. Where do we see these principles being practiced today? Where are Buddhists even calling for their practice? Indeed, what could be more upside-down and confused than the fact that Buddhism now attacks socialism—which seeks to put those very principles into practice—as though it were the devil itself? We must once again recover the Buddha’s life of equality.

=== The Transformation of the Economic System is Essential ===
'''B:''' Then, from what you have said, is the concrete problem advocated by the Revitalized Buddhist movement ultimately the need for “a new religion integrated with the needs of the present age”?

'''A:''' Exactly. As I said before, generally speaking, economic relationships regulate our thought and action. Under the present profit-oriented…

'''[p. 288]'''

…capitalist economic system, antisocial egoism is naturally mass-produced. That is why I regard the transformation of this mechanism as a fundamental problem.

'''B:''' I asked you this before, but isn’t the proper function of religion nevertheless a spiritual one?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that. But the moment religion fixes itself exclusively in that role, it acquires the first qualification of a religion in the service of established power, and then becomes capable of reactionary preaching. If you could guarantee, for people in general, that they could perform hard physical labor even when hungry and remain mentally clear even when deprived of sleep, then I would accept your argument.

'''B:''' But many accomplished people have managed to transcend adverse circumstances. Doesn’t that show that spiritual power can rise above environment? And haven’t extraordinary powers of mind sometimes developed precisely under difficult conditions?

'''A:''' That is precisely the stock-in-trade of establishment preachers. Of course, there is the saying, “Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool.” <ref>“Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool” (shintō mekkyaku sureba hi mo mata suzushi 心頭滅却すれば火もまた涼し) is a traditional expression for transcending physical suffering through mental composure, famously associated in Japan with the Zen monk Kaisen Jōki 快川紹喜 (d. 1582), who is said to have uttered it as he faced death by fire at Erinji.</ref> But, as I have repeatedly said in this conversation, I am speaking generally. Ordinary people tend to lack constancy of mind when they lack a secure livelihood. You can argue as you do now because you have no anxiety over food and clothing. But imagine yourself being hounded by the need to obtain today’s bread: a religion of spiritual bliss would inevitably become a secondary concern.

''Human beings, after all, exist within nature. Just as pine branches exposed to the sea wind are shaped in much the same way, we too are generally subject to the influence of our environment. It is therefore impossible simply to ignore those influences and speak only of ideals. Is this not precisely why the Confucian tradition could say:''

'''[p. 289]'''

''“When the granaries are full, people know propriety and decorum”?''<ref>A well-known maxim from the Guanzi 管子, “Mumin” 牧民: 倉廩実則知礼節 (“When the granaries are full, [the people] know ritual propriety”). Traditionally associated with Guan Zhong 管仲 (d. 645 BCE), it expresses the idea that material security is a prerequisite for moral and social order. Seno’o invokes the maxim here to support his increasingly materialist insistence that religious or ethical transformation cannot be separated from the economic conditions of everyday life.</ref>'' Unless the movement to establish a true Buddha-land takes this objective reality of human nature as its point of departure, it will remain an eternal dream.''

=== An Example of Economic Conditions Determining Action ===
'''A:''' On the eve of the formation of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, one incident gave me decisive confirmation on this issue: the withdrawal of the Kōfu branch.<ref>The Kōfu branch (Kōfu shibu 甲府支部) in Yamanashi Prefecture was one of the strongest regional bases of Seno’o’s earlier Nichirenist movement. It withdrew immediately before the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism on April 5, 1931, following disagreement over the new movement’s explicit opposition to capitalism. As Seno’o explains here, many Kōfu members were shopkeepers and salaried workers whose livelihoods made such a commitment particularly difficult. He treats the episode as concrete evidence of the extent to which material conditions shape religious conviction and action.</ref>

'''B:''' That was actually something of a surprise to me as well. After all, that branch had been the one into which you had put the greatest effort ever since you first launched the Nichirenist movement, and it was also the most influential branch. What was the reason for its withdrawal?

'''A:''' Five comrades had even promised to come up to Tokyo for the founding ceremony on the fifth. But the anti-capitalist declaration contained in our third principle, published in the inaugural issue of Buddhist Banner delivered on the third, proved fatal.<ref>“Buddhist Banner” (Bukki 佛旗) is Seno’o’s abbreviated designation for Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni (新興仏教の旗の下に, Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism), the original title of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism’s journal.</ref> Since the branch included quite a few members of the petit-bourgeois class and salaried employees, the basic reason was that opposition to capitalism threatened their own livelihoods and made it difficult for them to carry on. That, roughly speaking, was the reason.

'''B:''' But surely none of them were actually supporters of capitalism. And among the younger members, I heard there were some quite energetic people who had even told you that you ought to join a proletarian political party immediately.

'''A:''' When reform remains at the level of ideas and words, one can say almost anything. But when it comes time, as the saying goes, to “put the bell on the cat,” things no longer proceed according to one’s professed convictions. That, too, is ordinary human nature.

'''B:''' But for a religious organization that had worked hand in hand with you for ten years, wasn’t that an extraordinarily faithless response?

'''A:''' If blame is to be assigned, then my own lack of virtue and lack of ability deserve blame first. I cannot bring myself simply to condemn the attitude of the branch with the word “faithlessness,” because I still remember the genuine goodwill the comrades there had shown us. I also believe that among them were comrades who opposed withdrawal, or who thought the decision should at least be postponed. Nevertheless, the fact that the entire branch ultimately decided to withdraw revealed both human weakness in the face of the problem of bread and the workings of a group psychology that transcends the individual.

If this movement were really to deprive comrades of their jobs and cut off their means of obtaining bread—and I do not think that must necessarily happen—then, for someone with a wife, children, parents, or siblings, it would generally be unreasonable to expect him simply to advance in a straight line according to a single-minded conception of justice. If, despite such circumstances, the comrades who withdrew had merely disguised their own weakness and invented other reasons for leaving, then they would indeed deserve blame. But that was not what happened.

'''[p. 290]'''

'''A:''' In reality, even while cursing the tyranny of capitalism, they dropped out because they were forced to consider the immediate problems of making a living. “You can’t trade your belly for your back,” as the saying goes. ''Here we can see just how powerfully economic problems tend to govern human action, and how the ruling class, through its tyrannical repression, threatens the lives of the vulnerable masses. This, I think, demonstrates all the more clearly the significance of our having placed the transformation of the capitalist economic system in our third principle''.

=== The Historical Task Borne by Revitalized Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then if you had simply left out the third principle, you would not have had to part from close comrades?

'''A:''' Probably so. But suppose that we affirmed capitalism—or criticized it only in words, while in practice carrying on just as before, happily singing hymns to the Buddha and loudly proclaiming socialism while indulging in an intellectual game. How much of the blood and sweat of the proletarian masses would have to be sacrificed to sustain us? Think, for example, of the countless comrades who labor thousands of feet underground, where the light of day never reaches, receiving scarcely enough to cover the bare cost of living. When are they to be liberated and allowed to live lives worthy of human beings? And then look at the luxurious lives of the handful of bourgeoisie. Is this really a social condition that Buddhists—who ought to carry the principles of great compassion and equality through to their fullest extent—can continue to overlook forever?

'''B:''' I understand how you feel. But Buddhism also has ways of looking at things such as “flowers are red, willows are green,” “differentiation is precisely equality,” and “karmic cause and recompense.” Isn’t one distinctive feature of Buddhism precisely its ability to endure painful realities through perspectives such as these?

'''A:''' Such interpretations are precisely the hundred-percent opiate sermons on which establishment religious figures have traditionally feasted. The historical task borne by Revitalized Buddhism must instead be to re-examine these distorted teachings, properly proclaim the Buddhist spirit, and make it a guiding principle for securing the welfare of the masses.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” May issue)

== Part Three ==

=== Is Poverty the Result of Previous-Life Karma? ===
'''B:''' Then how exactly have doctrines such as “karmic cause and recompense” been distorted so as to perform the function of religion in the service of established power?

'''[p. 291]'''

'''A:''' Let’s begin with “karmic cause and recompense.” As I said earlier, Buddhism is neither fatalism, creationism, nor a doctrine of chance. Of course Buddhism teaches the law of cause and effect, so differences between rich and poor certainly have causes. The distortion lies in placing the cause entirely on one side and thereby imposing resignation and submission. Take the proletarian masses who remain poor no matter how hard they work. How have priests traditionally explained the cause of their poverty? “It is karma from a previous existence. It is your own karma and your own recompense. It is neither the capitalist’s fault nor society’s responsibility. Therefore, instead of blaming capitalists or society, you should simply work even harder.” That is how they have solemnly explained it.

But anyone with even a little knowledge of the capitalist system can already see through such an explanation; there is hardly any need to belabor the point. Last year’s so-called “bumper-crop hell” is an excellent example. The weather was favorable and the farmers labored until the sweat poured from them, yet that unprecedented bumper crop actually became a cause of increased hardship for farming households. Can that fact really be disposed of through a doctrine of causation from a previous life? Or look at bank interest rates: small borrowers are charged more, while large borrowers receive more favorable rates, pushing the small borrower into an increasingly disadvantageous position. Or consider the grossly unequal distribution of profits generated through the cooperation of labor and capital, and the suppression by governmental authority of those who protest. If economic inequality is produced by such unfair social causes, can all of it really be dismissed as the poor person’s karmic consequence from a former existence?

=== Poverty Is Also a Matter of Collective Responsibility ===
'''A:''' Buddhist reasoning does not permit such one-sidedness. In this case Buddhism clearly asserts social “joint responsibility” (rentai sekinin, 連帯責任); it does not assign responsibility to one side alone. This is what Buddhism means by “collective karma, collectively experienced” (gūgō shokan 共業所感).<ref>Gūgō shokan 共業所感 refers to the collective experience of conditions arising from “shared karma” (gūgō 共業), in contrast to karmic consequences attributed solely to an individual’s actions. Seno’o invokes the concept here to reinterpret karma socially: poverty and economic inequality are not simply the individual karmic responsibility of the poor but conditions collectively produced and therefore entailing collective responsibility.</ref> ''If responsibility is joint, then capitalists too must bear part of the responsibility for the impoverished lives of the proletarian masses. More broadly, it is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Once we discover that defects in the capitalist economic system are among the causes of poverty, shouldn’t reform of that system become the first question confronting us as a matter of joint responsibility?''

'''B:''' But if that is so, how should we understand such ideas as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” (jigō jitoku, 自業自得) and “cause and effect through the three existences” (sanze inga, 三世因果)? Are you saying there is absolutely no individual responsibility…

'''[p. 292]'''

…at all?

'''A:''' I am not saying that individual responsibility does not exist. The question is whether responsibility is confined to an individual’s private life or whether the transformation of society is regarded as fundamental. We cannot determine which is fundamental without correctly understanding the relationship between the individual and society.

Now, in “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” an individual self is posited, and the actions it performs through the cycle of rebirth are described as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” or “cause and effect through the three existences.” But so long as no-self is a fundamental principle of Buddhism, this way of thinking must naturally be re-examined.

For if we assert an individualistic doctrine of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” Buddhism’s fundamental principle collapses; while if we assert no-self, “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” cannot stand in that form. In this connection, a scholar named Rhys Davids is said to have explained that “the view current at the time”—the individualistic theory of karmic causation through the three existences—“was added to the teachings of original Buddhism without being logically integrated into them.”<ref>T. W. Rhys Davids (1843–1922), a pioneering British scholar of Pāli Buddhism who emphasized the tension between the Buddhist denial of an enduring self and the doctrine of karmic continuity across successive lives, describing the latter not as transmigration of a soul but as the “transmigration of character.” Seno’o draws upon this historical-critical interpretation to argue that an individualistic doctrine of karmic recompense was not fully consistent with Buddhism’s fundamental teaching of no-self.</ref> I suspect that is indeed the case.

=== The True Liberation of Humanity and Religion ===
The idea of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” was a transitional conception belonging to an age in which individuality was exaggerated at the expense of sociality. Buddhism’s fundamental principle, however, remains no-self, together with “the conjunction of many conditions; no single cause produces anything” (shuen wagō, ichiin hishō, 衆縁和合・一因非生).<ref>Shuen wagō 衆縁和合 (“the conjunction of manifold conditions”) expresses the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through the convergence of multiple causes and conditions rather than through an isolated cause. The principle is developed extensively in Madhyamaka literature, including Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Chūron 中論; T 30, no. 1564) and the Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T 25, no. 1509). Seno’o invokes it against an individualistic interpretation of jigō jitoku 自業自得 (“one’s own karma, one’s own recompense”), arguing that poverty must be understood in relation to social and economic conditions rather than attributed solely to an individual’s past karma. He thereby develops no-self (muga 無我) and dependent arising into principles of collective responsibility and structural social reform.</ref> Consequently, an individualistic theory of jigō jitoku cannot stand. If “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is properly interpreted, the “self” in that expression is not an isolated individual ego but a social self—a greater self—formed through the conjunction of causes and conditions. The causes of poverty must therefore be explained socially as well. Accordingly, the means of eliminating those causes should also be sought through positive and concrete social methods. And although society as a whole bears joint responsibility, so long as there remains a distinction between ruler and ruled, it is only reasonable that a greater share of responsibility be sought from the ruling class. To treat poverty simply as the proletarian’s “own karma and own recompense,” making individuals resign themselves, submit, sweat away at their labor, and be exploited for the gratification of the ruling class—could there be a more grotesque inversion of right and wrong on the part of priests? ''Therefore, ''jigō jitoku'' must be reconsidered through the Buddhist teaching of no-self. We must be liberated from the distinction between “self” and “other,” and through the true spirit of no-self seek a thoroughgoing, concrete social movement directed toward resolving the problem as a whole. Especially under a modern capitalist system organized as thoroughly as ours, surely it is here that the true liberation of humanity is to be found…''

'''[p. 293]'''

…and this is what it means to be a Buddha: a human being who attains such an awakening and then strives vigorously to realize it in society. The Buddha was precisely the exemplary embodiment of such a human personality.

'''B:''' I see. Explained that way, the statement I once heard attributed to the abbot of Zōjōji—that “the fundamental solution to the problem of labor and capital is to make workers understand the law of karmic causation”—really is, quite literally, an opiate sermon.

'''A:''' Exactly. And even if we interpret jigō jitoku in the traditional, individualistic way, such preaching amounts to nothing more than the self-indictment of utterly heartless pseudo-religious figures. For if the poverty suffered by workers is the consequence of causes from a previous life, then surely the difficulties capitalists experience when confronted by strikes of the proletarian masses must likewise be consequences of causes from a previous life. And if the same law of cause and effect applies in both cases, then rather than using it to make proletarians who presently lack material necessities submit and endure, how much more in keeping with the Buddha’s path of saving the weak would it be to use that blessed law of cause and effect to persuade the bourgeoisie, who possess more than enough, to satisfy the demands of the proletarian masses? Even from a practical standpoint, surely there is a far greater possibility of solving the problem by persuading those with abundant material goods simply to give some of them up than by trying to persuade masses who presently lack even bread. And yet in reality precisely the opposite occurs. Isn’t that astonishing?

'''B:''' Exactly. Isn’t this what Lenin meant when he said:

Religion teaches those who toil and suffer throughout their lives to be submissive and patient here on earth, consoling them with the hope of reward in heaven. But to those who live by the labor of others, it teaches charity while they are on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them tickets to heavenly bliss at a moderate price. <ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (1905), originally published in Novaya Zhizn, no. 28 (December 3, 1905); see Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, pp. 83–87. Seno’o’s wording reflects the Japanese translation available to him rather than corresponding exactly to later English translations.</ref>

But there is one thing I still wonder about. If responsibility is located socially in this way, won’t individual effort become weaker?

'''A:''' People accustomed to the kind of individualistic social life we have today may easily think so. But in reality, the more thoroughly a consciousness of belonging to a community with shared interests takes hold, the more strongly individual effort is intensified. Anyone who has committed himself wholeheartedly to a genuine communal life knows this from experience.

''Every pioneer worthy of respect has been someone who saw the whole of society within himself and understood himself in relation to social life. Such people could not help but engage in social action. ''The Buddha’s rejection of the individual ego and private possession, and his teaching of our indebtedness to society, arose from precisely this…

'''[p. 294]'''

…reason. And far from being misguided, were not the efforts of Marx and Lenin—who maintained that “the human essence is the totality of social relations”—magnificent?<ref>Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis VI (1845): “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Seno’o invokes the formulation to reinforce his reinterpretation of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self in explicitly social terms.</ref> Individual self-interest is, of course, also part of ordinary human nature, and in that sense “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is undoubtedly a transitional mode of thought rooted in that aspect of human nature. ''But the truth of no-self points eternally toward humanity’s highest liberation and toward a life of common production and common flourishing.''

=== The Distorted Doctrine of “Differentiation Is Precisely Equality” ===
'''A:''' Next comes the distorted doctrine of “differentiation is precisely equality.” Here too, as you said earlier with the expression “flowers are red, willows are green,” priests have devised clever explanations designed to make people accept irrational and unjust social inequalities exactly as they are.<ref>“Differentiation is precisely equality” (shabetsu soku byōdō 差別即平等) is a conventional Buddhist formulation, particularly associated with Tiantai and Huayan (J. Kegon) thought, expressing the nondual relation between the equality of phenomena and their particular differences. Rather than a quotation from a single classical text, the formula summarizes such doctrines as Tiantai’s perfect interpenetration of the Three Truths and Huayan’s interpenetration of identity and difference. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of this principle that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. “Willows are green, flowers are red” (yanagi wa midori, hana wa kurenai 柳緑花紅), a phrase common in Zen discourse, similarly evokes things as they are in their particularity. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of such formulas that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. For him, inequalities produced by social and economic institutions cannot be equated with natural differences such as the colors of flowers and leaves.</ref>

'''B:''' But as you yourself have often said, if a flowerpot requiring seven gō of water receives seven gō, and one requiring three gō receives three, neither has too much nor too little.<ref>Gō 合 is a traditional Japanese unit of volume equal to one-tenth of a shō 升, or approximately 180 milliliters. Seno’o uses the proportion of seven gō to three gō to illustrate a conception of equity—distribution according to differing needs—rather than rigid numerical equality.</ref> Isn’t that “differentiation is precisely equality”—a natural differentiation rather than an unjust one?

'''A:''' As far as that explanation goes, it is perfectly correct. Five gō is insufficient for someone who needs seven, while five is too much for someone who needs three. The one who needs seven should receive seven, and the one who needs three should receive three. But are the differences in present society really arranged in that way? A poor family of seven may be crammed into a three-tatami-mat tenement, suffering because they do not even have enough rice for today’s meal. Meanwhile, another couple may live spaciously in an enormous mansion, possessing more wealth than they could ever use and idling away their time in amusements.

A poor old man may be jostled about in third class on a train, while a wealthy young man sits grandly in second class. An ordinary laborer may work throughout the day for a daily wage of barely two yen, while someone else puts in an appearance at the company for four or five hours and pockets several hundred yen. A bright, physically capable child may be unable to proceed to higher education simply because there is no money, while elsewhere even a frail child of little ability can find some way through the examination ordeal. Present society is certainly not differentiated according to need in the way you described—seven gō to the person who needs seven and three to the person who needs three.

=== How Is True Equality to Be Realized? ===
'''B:''' But although these inequalities may at first look like nothing more than the selfishness of the wealthy, haven’t the wealthy made the effort necessary to become wealthy? Couldn’t those differences therefore be regarded as legitimate distinctions corresponding to differences in effort?

'''[p. 295]'''

'''A:''' If human society were no different from the competitive life of plants and animals—the strong devouring the weak in the struggle for survival—then I would have no objection to such differences. But insofar as human beings are beings possessed of personality, the differences within human society must themselves be ordered in a manner worthy of human personality. Otherwise, they cannot properly be called the differentiations of human society. Take the example we just used. If a two-person household receives six gō of rice, then a seven-person household should receive two shō and one gō. If a train has second- and third-class accommodation, then perhaps the elderly and children should ride second class, while young people ride third. If someone working two hour receives four yen, then someone working six hours should receive twelve. There would still be differences, but they would not simply be differences produced as the outcome of free competition. That, I think, is what “differentiation is precisely equality” ought to mean in human life. Moreover, as I said earlier, if poverty is not merely a matter of jigō jitoku but a matter of social joint responsibility, then wealth too must be regarded not simply as an individual’s own karmic reward but as something social. A person’s wealth therefore ought not to be used freely and arbitrarily for that person alone. Should not the genuine “differentiation that is precisely equality” of human society consist instead in differences rationally and purposively ordered under social regulation?

Yet on the one hand people loudly proclaim mutual aid and harmony between labor and capital, while on the other, religious figures in the service of established power preach that the differences produced by heartless, ruthless free competition are somehow the absolute truth of “differentiation is precisely equality.” What kind of gospel is that? Just think about it. The many spend their entire lives breaking their bodies in dark mine shafts extracting gold and silver, while the few freely appropriate that gold and silver and spend their lives in luxury. If we simply say that this too is the result of free competition, there is nothing more to discuss. But to take mastery of life and transform instinct into rational, purposive action—to make the world into a consciously ordered product—this is humanity’s task. If that is so, surely it is utterly irrational simply to contemplate these inequalities as they are and call them “differentiation is precisely equality.” Human society is not merely a natural phenomenon. ''It is a society endowed with reason and creative power. Therefore, insofar as this is possible, should not the phrase “differentiation is precisely equality” mean consciously using reason to order differences and thereby create the greatest practicable degree of equality?''

'''[p. 296]'''

=== Free Competition and Cooperative Harmony ===
'''B:''' But competitiveness is also part of human nature. Wouldn’t such an ideal society ultimately be nothing more than a fantasy? And if we impose a strong order upon society, might the result not instead be the mass production of idlers?

'''A:''' That is a concern one commonly hears. But just as human beings possess a capacity for competition, they also clearly possess a capacity for harmony. Indeed, it is precisely this capacity for harmony—this sociality—that is characteristic of human beings. Unfortunately, we have not yet attained a form of organized life in which it can be sufficiently cultivated and developed.

Consider the early stages of human evolution. Human beings did not possess the sharp and powerful weapons found naturally in other animals—fangs, claws, and the like. In the natural struggle for survival, therefore, they were at an extreme disadvantage. ''Why, despite this, were they able to become masters of the earth? Was it not because they possessed reason and creative power, and because they lived lives of cooperation and solidarity? If that is so, individual free competition cannot be the primary principle of human society; the primary principle must instead be the sociality of cooperation and harmony. Only within such a conscious society can individual freedom itself be guaranteed and established. This rational mode of existence, I believe, is both the distinctive characteristic and the destiny of humanity. ''

We can understand this quite well simply by considering the course of an individual human life.

From infancy through childhood we may be innocent, but we are virtually self-interest embodied as instinct. At no other stage do we wield the instinct of self-interest so unrestrainedly. Yet as the sphere of life expands from the family to school, and from school to society, self-control increases, we become more social, and as we enter old age we grow increasingly mature. Looking at the facts, I believe that the history of human society will probably develop in much the same way: with the development of reason, it will advance toward an ideal society. Unfortunately, however, present society is still entangled in the net of a capitalist economic system woven by instinctive free competition. It may therefore seem that if economic competition were abolished, life itself would lose its purpose. ''But competition need not be confined to economics. On the contrary, scientific…''

'''[p. 297]'''

''…artistic, moral, and other forms of competition will surely bring about an age of true competition worthy of humanity. ''At present, however, all the diverse capacities of human beings have been driven down the single path of economic competition and, grotesquely, have themselves been turned into commodities. We have become so accustomed to this that we have even constructed the conceptual formula “human life = economic life.” Consequently, even if people’s livelihoods were guaranteed, we imagine that without economic free competition they would lose all capacity for activity—like a morphine addict deprived of morphine. But I don’t believe that. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely when we are liberated from economic competition that the true stage of human life will finally open before us. Take manual labor, for example. If it were socially planned and distributed equally, workers and farmers who have traditionally suffered from overwork would of course be relieved of that burden. At the same time, appropriate work could be assigned to those members of society who had previously passed their days in idleness, allowing both groups to enjoy healthy lives in body and mind.

Yet today, while ordinary people have no rice for tomorrow and go hungry, the government has some four million koku of surplus rice piled up in warehouses and does not know what to do with it. In such a merciless and uncoordinated capitalist society, those who work must labor night and day simply to survive. Labor itself therefore comes generally to be hated. But appropriate labor ought, on the contrary, to be a source of joy. ''If appropriate work were available to everyone within a planned society, no one would simply want to be idle. People would come to spend a certain number of hours working less as a social duty than as an enjoyable right.''

Look, for example, at the lives of the people of Ittōen. They obtain only enough food for the day, yet are content with that and work happily throughout the day. Isn’t this evidence that human beings can live contentedly and work without necessarily accumulating private property?

=== The Role of Ittōen at the Present Stage ===
'''B:''' But is that sort of austere life really the ideal form of human life?

'''A:''' Of course I don’t think it is. I doubt that Tenkō-san thinks so either. Buddhism has the expression “ordinary people attached to appearances” (shusō no bonbu). There are those who are inclined to take the outward form of such a life of coarse clothing and simple food as though that itself constituted the ideal life of a sage. I don’t accept that.

''A truly human life…''

'''[p. 298]'''

''…I think, demands not only spiritual development but also a material life that is rich, wholesome, and beautiful. ''There is nothing unjust about seeking this. When such a life cannot be enjoyed by everyone, restraint born of compassion for others has meaning. But coarse clothing and simple food have no absolute value in themselves. The history of human development proves this. ''Humanity’s task is not to return to primitive life by cutting itself off from civilization, but rather to advance toward an ever higher form of cultural life.''

'''B:''' Then wouldn’t the ideal be to realize Ittōen’s cooperative life without private property throughout society, but in a materially more advanced cultural form?

'''A:''' Ideally, yes. But Ittōen is, after all, an anomalous form of utopian socialism born under the oppressive conditions of capitalist society. It has significance as a training ground in which intellectually and spiritually troubled people can experience the spirit of non-possession. Yet, viewed objectively in relation to present social conditions, one cannot expect it to function as a practical movement for social reconstruction. On the contrary, I think it has unconsciously come to play something like an opiate-like role.

=== The Proletarian Movement and the Realization of an Ideal Society ===
'''B:''' Then how do you envision the practical movement for realizing such an ideal society?

'''A:''' As I said before, I see no path to reconstruction other than through the political power of the emerging proletarian class, provided that it develops properly.

'''B:''' Legally or illegally?

'''A:''' In principle, I would like it to proceed legally. But I do not believe that what is illegal is necessarily unjust. A commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains it this way:

Whether monastic or lay, those who would protect the Dharma should take account of the original intention, setting aside the particular act while preserving the principle, and thereby rightly propagate the Great Teaching. Thus, in “protecting and upholding the True Dharma,” one must not be constrained by minor observances. … In former times, when conditions were peaceful and the Dharma flourished, one should have upheld the precepts. Now, in a dangerous age when the Dharma is obscured, one should take up the staff. … Choose and reject according to circumstances; one must not adhere exclusively to a single course.<ref>Seno’o cites Guanding 灌頂 (561–632), Dabanniepan jing shu (大般涅槃經疏; J. Daihatsu Nehangyō Sho, “Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra”; T 1767), concerning the protection of the True Dharma (shōbō goji 正法護持). The underlying Nirvāṇa Sutra famously permits lay defenders of the Dharma to bear weapons in dangerous circumstances while prohibiting them from taking life. Seno’o uses the commentary to argue that Buddhist ethical action must respond to historical circumstances rather than adhere inflexibly to outward forms, extending this principle here to the possible use of force in pursuit of social transformation.</ref>

''In short, one must not cling to forms.'' ''If the motive is right, then depending on circumstances one may even have to resolve matters through force.'' There is also the saying, “Kill one in order to let ten thousand live.” Thus illegality is not necessarily evil. Whether an act is to be approved should be determined by examining its fundamental motive and the circumstances of the particular case. Japanese history itself provides examples. The reforms of the Meiji Restoration are an obvious case.

'''[p. 299]'''

But naturally,'' what I hope for is a transformation that is legal from the outset and involves as little sacrifice as possible. For that to happen, people throughout society must recognize as quickly as possible the evils of capitalist society and the historical necessity of the emergence of the new class, until this becomes common knowledge. By giving the proletarian movement as'' ''much sympathy and support as possible, we can minimize the unavoidable sacrifices accompanying social transformation.''

=== The Anti-Religion Movement and Our Position ===
'''B:''' What exactly is this anti-religion movement that has recently begun as one wing of the proletarian movement?

'''A:''' In fact, just last night I participated in a joint public meeting at the Central Buddhist Hall with Takatsu Seidō of the anti-religion movement, Honjō Kasō, Kon Tōkō, a certain Mr. Miwa, secretary-general of the Buddhist Youth Federation, Shibata Ichinō of the Nichiren school, and others.<ref>This public meeting brought together representatives of the anti-religion movement and several currents of Buddhist reform. Participants included Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a socialist activist and politician active in the contemporary anti-religion movement; Kon Tōkō 今東光 (1898–1977), novelist and Tendai monk; Honjō Kasō 本莊可宗 (1891–1987); Mibu Shōjun 壬生照順 (1908–1987), Tendai monk, secretary-general of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation and soon-to-be member of Seno’o’s Youth League; and Nichiren monk Shibata Ichinō 柴田一能 (1873–1951). Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), a playwright and prominent figure in the proletarian cultural movement, served as chairman of the Japan Anti-Religious League (Nihon Han-Shūkyō Dōmei 日本反宗教同盟). According to Seno’o’s account of an article by Akita in the Yomiuri Shimbun, disagreement arose over the movement’s attitude toward the “Social Democrats”: more radical members favored their exclusion, while Takatsu opposed this position and withdrew.</ref> According to Takatsu’s explanation, the basic argument of the anti-religion movement, from his socialist standpoint, is this: “Justice is that which guarantees the welfare of the masses. Anything that obstructs the welfare of the masses must therefore be attacked. Religion is the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the masses because it serves as the watchdog of capitalism. Religion must therefore be attacked.”

'''B:''' Is Takatsu’s position different from that of Akita Ujaku and the League for Anti-Religious Struggle?

'''A:''' According to something Akita wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the issue was the value to be placed on making use of the Social Democrats. The more radical members of the League wanted to exclude them, while Takatsu disagreed and withdrew. But if, as Takatsu explained last night, his anti-religion movement takes justice as its starting point, then theoretically it contains something that cannot be reconciled with pure Marxism. As a practical movement, however, the two are alike insofar as they attack religion as an opiate.

'''B:''' Then what attitude do they take toward your Revitalized Buddhist movement? You too reject capitalism and attack the established religious institutions. Do they attack you as well?

'''A:''' Even though we agree on those points, the anti-religion movement arose from a Marxism that denies religion itself. So naturally they cannot exempt Revitalized Buddhism from their attack.

Indeed, precisely because we are “Red Buddhists,” they may regard us as all the more troublesome.

'''[p. 300]'''

For our part, although we likewise reject capitalism and the established religious institutions, so long as our understanding differs from that of Marxism, we cannot simply throw ourselves wholesale into Marxism. ''But this is no different from the fact that, even though they belong to the same anti-religion movement, differences between Akita and Takatsu have unfortunately produced a split between them. ''The fundamental issue, therefore, must be a critique of Marxism itself—particularly its conception of religion.

In his Feuerbach, Engels writes: “If religion can exist without God, then alchemy can exist without the philosopher’s stone.”

And: “Nothing exists outside nature and humanity. The higher beings created by our religious fantasies are nothing other than the fantastic reflection of our own essence.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), especially sections II–III. Engels there discusses Feuerbach’s critique of theism, according to which the supernatural beings of religion are projections or “fantastic reflections” of human beings themselves, while criticizing Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve a non-theistic “religion”: “if religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.” The work circulated in prewar Japan as Foierubahha ron (フォイエルバッハ論). Seno’o uses Engels’s argument to distinguish the Marxist critique of theistic religion from Buddhism, which he argues requires no creator, ruling, or judging God.</ref>

With this, the spell was broken. The Marxist conception of religion represented in this passage is, after all, a response to the Christian creator God. If the essence of religion consisted in believing in the actual existence of such a God, then we too would deny religion along with Marx. Why? Because Buddhism did not arise by acknowledging anything like a “creator God, ruling God, or judging God.” ''Moreover, since Buddhism has undeniably existed as a religion, religion as such cannot be something that must simply be rejected. Established religious institutions that exploit the masses, of course, may be rejected—and indeed ought to be rejected. I doubt that anyone desires their rejection more strongly than we do. Precisely for that reason, we respect the ideal of the anti-religion movement insofar as it is motivated by concern for the masses.''

But suppose that, as expressed in the aspiration “I desire only to become a Buddha,” we understand religiosity as the whole-person demand that ceaselessly seeks the ideal of the complete human being—the Buddha. Then the various sectarian forms found in established religions are simply forms in which this religiosity has been conceived at different stages of cultural development. Those established religious institutions must naturally undergo the appropriate historical reckoning demanded by their age. ''But a movement that denies religiosity itself reveals, on the contrary, an inadequate understanding of human life. What we should demand is a religion appropriate to the age. In this sense, should not the anti-religion movement itself be properly sublated? Needless to say, if religion is to be rejected wholesale because it obstructs the welfare of the masses, that judgment can properly apply only to established religious institutions.''

'''[p. 301]'''

''The essence of religion itself emphatically does not run counter to the welfare of the masses. ''The Buddha and Christ are obvious examples. Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves provides another striking one. Is not religiosity itself the source of the great ideal of mutual love among the masses and of the passionate energy required to put that ideal into practice?

'''B:''' I understand much better now. On May 23, the League for Anti-Religious Struggle is holding its inaugural lecture meeting at the Jichikan in Ueno, and apparently your movement will be criticized there too. After I’ve heard what they have to say, I’d like to ask your opinion again.

'''A:''' I’d like to hear it myself, but unfortunately I have to attend the Kanazawa branch meeting on the twenty-third, so I can’t go. Listen carefully for me. ''If by any chance there is even the slightest error in my convictions, I will never hesitate to stop this movement. ''Nichiren said:'' ''“Even if I am defeated in argument, if my mind does not change, may the gods take my life.” But he also said: “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person, I will not use it.”'' ''It is in this spirit that I want to press forward single-mindedly with the Revitalized Buddhist movement.'' ''Blind faith is no good.

=== Rational Religion and Reverence for Śākyamuni Buddha ===
'''B:''' But isn’t precisely that attitude the genuinely religious attitude? Rational religion! Isn’t the very motive force behind humanity’s limitless capacity for renewal precisely this rational religiosity?

'''A:''' ''When we desire this kind of rational passion, we are necessarily drawn in reverence toward humanity’s highest exemplar, Śākyamuni Buddha. And when we revere Śākyamuni Buddha, this rational passion that we cannot cease desiring naturally burns still more intensely.'' Thus reason calmly subjects problems to criticism, while passion drives us directly toward the realization of the ideal, even at the risk of death. The scripture says: “Single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives.” And elsewhere: “Because their hearts yearn for him, he then appears and preaches the Dharma for them.”<ref>Seno’o brings together two statements by Nichiren with two passages from the Lotus Sutra. “Even if I am defeated in argument...” derives from Nichiren’s Hōō-shō 法王抄, 1267 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 438), while “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person...” is from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄, 1272 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 572). The scriptural passages—“single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives”) and “because their hearts yearn for him ... he then appears and preaches the Dharma”)—are from chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, “The Life Span of the Thus Come One” (Nyorai Juryō-hon 如来寿量品第十六; T 9, no. 262, 43c). Seno’o juxtaposes Nichiren’s insistence on rational scrutiny with the Lotus Sutra’s language of passionate devotion to articulate his ideal of a “rational religion” (gōriteki shūkyō 合理的宗教) combining critical inquiry with commitment to realizing the Buddhist ideal.</ref> These too must surely be confessions of precisely this kind of religious experience. In any event, this is how our Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a religious movement that unifies the whole of life within reverence for the person of Śākyamuni Buddha.

'''B:''' I think I now more or less understand what you mean by your “conversion to Revitalized Buddhism.”

'''A:''' Then let’s bring this conversation to a close for now and promise to talk again another time.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” June issue)

<references />

SG31HSU-T

2026-08-29T19:04:29Z

James:

{{Under Construction}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno'o Girō, “A Critique of the Anti-Religious
Movement”}}
'''Original Japanese:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1931).
「反宗教運動批判」 [A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement].
『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in
稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.
'''English translation:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (2026).
“A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement.” Trans. [[user:James|James
Mark Shields]]. ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Translated from the text
reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975),
302–315.



<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

= A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement =



== I ==



{{opage|302}}


A critique of the anti-religious movement should proceed from two
directions. On the one hand, we must consider its practical movement of
negation directed against the existing religious organizations
themselves; on the other, its theoretical attempt to negate religion
itself.


Let us begin by considering the attack on existing religious
organizations. As far as the attack on existing religious organizations
is concerned, we have no objection whatsoever. Indeed, virtually every
religious person who takes religion at all seriously, differences of
degree notwithstanding, would probably have to express agreement on this
point. For the existing religious organizations, one and all, are
residual forms that have lost the original vitality of religion, and
there is more than sufficient reason to recognize that attacking them
can itself provide the impetus for the proper development of religion.
The present form of the existing religious organizations is perfectly
captured by Lenin’s famous critique. He writes:


“Religion is one form of spiritual oppression that everywhere weighs
heavily upon the masses of the people, oppressed by perpetual labor for
others, by hardship and isolation. The impotence of the exploited
classes in their struggle against the exploiters inevitably gives rise
to belief in a better life hereafter, just as the impotence of primitive
people in their struggle against nature gives rise to gods, devils,
miracles, and the like. Religion teaches those who labor and suffer
throughout their lives submission and patience on earth, consoling them
with the hope of a heavenly reward. But to those who live from the labor
of others, religion offers an easy justification for their entire
existence as exploiters, sells them tickets to heavenly bliss at a
reasonable price, and thereby teaches them happiness on earth. Religion
is opium for the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual intoxicant in
which the slaves of capital drown their human…



{{opage|303}}


…dignity and even their most minimal desire for a human
existence.”<ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (''Sotsializm i
religiya''), originally published in ''Novaya Zhizn'', no. 28 (December
3, 1905). Seno’o quotes from Sano Manabu 佐野学 (1892–1953), trans.,
''Shūkyō ni tsuite'' 宗教について [On Religion] (Tokyo: Kibōkaku,
1931).</ref>


The familiar charge of “opium” is hardly new anymore, but what a
penetrating critique it is! The immediate target of these remarks was
presumably Christianity, but needless to say, our own established
Buddhist organizations cannot be regarded as exceptions. We need hardly
turn now to Takatsu Seidō’s “Those Who Indulge in Exploitation,” or to
Nishida Shigeji’s “The Class Character of Honganji” in ''Under the
Banner of the Anti-Religious Struggle'', and so forth. Whether Shingon,
Nichiren, Zen, or any of the others, the larger and more prosperous
their present temple organizations, the more enormous their opiate and
exploitative character. It is an undeniable fact before our very eyes
that they correspond almost exactly to Lenin’s harsh critique. Insofar
as this is the case, there can be no reason whatsoever to oppose the
anti-religious movement’s attack upon the existing religious
organizations.<ref>Seno’o wrote amid an increasingly prominent Marxist
anti-religious movement in Japan. Following heated 1930 debates over
“Marxism and Religion” in the Buddhist newspaper ''Chūgai Nippō''
中外日報, the ''Hanshūkyō Tōsō Dōmei Junbikai'' 反宗教闘争同盟準備会
[Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee] was established
in April 1931, sponsoring public rallies and publishing the journal
''Hanshūkyō Tōsō'' 反宗教闘争 [Anti-Religious Struggle] from June. Its
critique combined Marxist theories of religion as ideology and “opium”
with attacks on temples and religious institutions as agents of economic
exploitation and class domination. Seno’o’s argument—written in the same
year that he founded the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism—should
thus be read as an intervention in this immediate controversy rather
than simply as an abstract response to Marxist theories of
religion.</ref>


But is there really a necessary relationship between the present
condition of the existing religious organizations and religion itself?
For example, is Buddhist ideology necessarily an ideology that must
result in the sort of ugly condition exhibited by the existing religions
today? If so, then the anti-religious movement should be accepted
completely. But is that really the case?


No!! The true essence of each religion is precisely what ought
completely to negate and purify the utterly ugly forms of life
represented by the existing religious organizations. Under no
circumstances should it permit them.


The higher religions are described as ethical religions precisely
because, whether Buddhism or Christianity, they possess a considerable
ethical dimension. So long as that function has not been distorted, the
present condition of the established religious organizations must be
regarded as an evil that simply cannot be accepted. It follows that
attacks upon such residual religious organizations ought already to have
been initiated by serious and progressive religious people themselves,
without waiting for the anti-religious activists to work themselves into
a frenzy.


Thus, belated though it may be, when we Revitalized Buddhists recently
declared in the second plank of our movement:


“We recognize all existing religious organizations as residual forms
that have desecrated the Buddhist spirit; we reject them and seek the
propagation of Buddhism appropriate to the new age,”


this declaration arose from precisely such an understanding.



== II ==


At this point, the anti-religious activists will immediately retort—…



{{opage|304}}


…“All this fussing over things like ‘essence’ and ‘true nature’ is
bourgeois formal logic. Where is there any essence apart from the
history unfolding before our eyes?” But on this point, too, they need
only reflect upon themselves to recognize their error immediately. Would
they themselves permit all the various proletarian movements currently
in vogue—the Social Democrats, the Masses Party, the Communists, and so
forth—to be regarded as genuine Marxist movements and criticized as
such? And as for the anti-religious movement itself, which represents
the true mainstream of Marxism: Takatsu’s “Japan Anti-Religious League,”
or Akita and his colleagues’ “Anti-Religious Struggle
League”?<ref>Seno’o refers to competing currents within Japan’s
anti-religious movement. Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a former
Jōdo Shinshū priest and communist activist, was a leading advocate of
organized anti-religious struggle and later helped lead the ''Nihon
Hanshūkyō Dōmei'' 日本反宗教同盟 [Japan Anti-Religion League]. Akita
Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), playwright and socialist, was associated
with the Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee
established in April 1931.</ref>


Surely any critical assessment of these movements must seek its criteria
beyond their immediately existing forms, in the essential teachings of
Marx and Engels, or perhaps Lenin. Once this is recognized, the same
kind of consideration must be permitted when examining the relationship
between the essence of Buddhism or Christianity and the existing
religious organizations. To negate the greatness of Marxism on the basis
of the turbid current swirling with the petty hacks springing up
everywhere, excitable “Marx-boys,” and Marxist intellectuals who make
their living churning out manuscripts would have to be called a serious
misdiagnosis. And precisely for this reason, to negate religion itself
on the basis of the existing religious organizations must likewise be a
misdiagnosis.


Consider Christianity. Where in the life of Christ was there anything
resembling the bourgeois way of life found in the churches today? Was he
not a pioneer who sought to liberate the oppressed Jewish people from
Roman tyranny?<ref>Seno’o interprets Jesus in contemporary
social-liberationist terms, emphasizing his association with the poor
and oppressed and presenting primitive Christianity as a movement
opposed to political and economic domination.</ref> All those with whom
he associated were propertyless; they were certainly not the wealthy and
privileged. Of course, much in his ideology would have to be critically
reassessed from a contemporary standpoint. But Christianity itself is
not, from the outset, an ideology for the oppression of workers and
peasants. Surely the movement for neighborly love and liberation
expressed in “Love God and love your neighbor” was a precursor to the
movement for the liberation of the propertyless. And coming much later,
Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves in the name of God
must likewise be regarded as living proof that Christianity is not
necessarily opium or poisonous liquor.


Now let us turn our eyes to Buddhism. It is an all-too-familiar fact
that the life of our Buddha, who left the royal family and began a
mendicant life on the streets, was an exemplary life of great equality
without so much as a trace of exploitation. The doctrine of non-self
preached in the streets, and consequently such things as his movement to
break down the class divisions of the four castes<ref>The “four castes”
refers to the traditional fourfold ''varṇa'' scheme of Brahmins
(priests), Kṣatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaiśyas (agriculturalists
and merchants), and Śūdras (servants and laborers). Buddhist texts
repeatedly reject birth as the determinant of spiritual worth,
subordinating inherited status to conduct and spiritual
attainment.</ref>—even if these were not pursued actively and
politically—how could any of this possibly be identified with the
immensely complicated hierarchical organization of temples today, or
with the capitalist—



{{opage|305}}


—temple Buddhism of the present day?


Consider the vision of dependent origination and emptiness that he
consistently taught for forty-five years. This is “the true unity of the
material and the spiritual—not a conceived or fabricated unity, but an
actually existing unity”—a principle of non-self grounded in a pure
experience comparable to Feuerbach’s “sensibility.”<ref>Ludwig Feuerbach
(1804–1872), whose critique of Christian theology strongly influenced
the young Marx, emphasized ''Sinnlichkeit'' (“sensuousness” or
“sensibility”) as the concrete, embodied basis of human existence, in
opposition to abstract idealism. Seno’o compares Feuerbach’s concept
with the Buddhist principles of dependent origination, emptiness, and
non-self.</ref> How could one possibly discover in this any necessity
for affirming the sort of idealistic, opiate-like Buddhism we see today?
Buddhism must be reexamined; anything less would be a lie.


Look, further, at the life of Nichiren. How he fought throughout his
life against the ruling Hōjō clan of his day!<ref>Nichiren 日蓮
(1222–1282) repeatedly confronted the political authorities of the
Kamakura shogunate and suffered persecution, exile, and an attempted
execution. Seno’o contrasts this image of Nichiren as religious
dissident with modern nationalist “Nichirenism” (''Nichirenshugi''
日蓮主義). The contrast is particularly pointed given Seno’o’s own
earlier involvement in the Nichirenist movement.</ref> He certainly did
not “easily justify their entire existence” as exploiters and “sell them
tickets to heavenly bliss at a reasonable price”; nor did he teach
“submission and patience on earth.” His religious movement of struggle
against the rulers—a movement virtually without parallel in world
history—was utterly unlike either the nationalistic Nichirenism of the
present day or the ridiculous, clamorous Lotus-style Nichiren Buddhism
of today. And, closer to our own time, we can see the same thing in the
anti-British independence movement of the religious leader
Gandhi.<ref>Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) had by 1931 become
internationally identified with the Indian independence movement and
nonviolent resistance to British colonial rule. Seno’o invokes him
alongside Jesus and Nichiren as an example of religiously motivated
resistance to political domination.</ref> Religion has certainly not
always been something that makes the people fall asleep in the “dark
chamber of peace of mind.”


So long as we possess, in addition to these, numerous concrete examples
carried out in the name of religion that were progressive, active, and
even revolutionary, I see nothing unreasonable in maintaining that
existing religious organizations and religion itself—whether Buddhism or
Christianity—can, and must, be considered separately.


Thus, while affirming the anti-religious movement’s attack upon existing
religious organizations, we must now proceed to a critique of the theory
by which the anti-religious movement negates religion itself.



== III ==



{{opage|306}}


How do the Marxists of the anti-religious movement define religion? In
the inaugural issue of their journal ''Anti-Religious Struggle'', they
write:


“Belief in the existence of a supernatural world is what is called
religion. This is the most fundamental characteristic of religion.”


To elaborate: religion, according to this definition, consists in
believing in the nonexistent “illusion” of a supernatural heaven such as
Christianity teaches and in the superhuman God who inhabits that world.
In his work on Feuerbach, Engels writes:


“If religion could exist without God, then alchemy could also…



{{opage|307}}


…exist without the philosopher’s stone.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Ludwig
Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' (1886). Engels
uses the comparison with alchemy to criticize Feuerbach’s attempt to
preserve “religion” after abandoning its traditional God. Seno’o
reverses the argument by presenting Buddhism as an actual historical
example of religion without a creator God.</ref>


We must not overlook the fact that the “God” in question is the
fundamental object of Marxist theories of religion. And since the
philosophical foundation of such religion is naturally idealism, it goes
without saying that Marxism, which stands in direct opposition to
idealism, cannot affirm the existence of such a supernatural God.


How, then, did such religion—that is, belief in God—arise? Lenin says,
“Fear created the gods.” Gorter calls it the work of “incomprehensible
forces.”<ref>Lenin’s formulation that “fear created the gods” derives
from his materialist account of religion as arising from human
powerlessness before natural and social forces. Herman Gorter
(1864–1927), a Dutch poet and Marxist theorist, similarly explained
religion in terms of humanity’s subjection to forces it could neither
understand nor control.</ref> That is to say, primitive human beings,
still ignorant and unenlightened, confronted natural phenomena that bore
down upon their lives as “incomprehensible,” irresistible forces, and
from their fear of these phenomena came to imagine them as the workings
of gods. Thus arose primitive animism, which developed into clan
religion and ethnic religion, and finally into Christianity as a world
religion. Buddhism, too, is said to be one of these world religions.


On animism, Plekhanov writes:


“It is the savage’s attempt to explain natural phenomena. However
impoverished this attempt may be, under the conditions of primitive life
it was unavoidable.”


As for the origins of ethnic religion, Bogdanov writes:


“The tribal elder, as the guardian of accumulated experience in
production, organizes and administers, issues commands, draws up plans
for labor, and represents the active and creative principle; the others,
meanwhile, obey, receive commands, submit to plans handed down from
above, and act according to the will of others. These relations of
production became the model for human beings’ own
understanding.”<ref>Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918) and Alexander Bogdanov
(1873–1928) were major Russian Marxist theorists who developed
materialist accounts of religion. Seno’o cites Plekhanov on the
emergence of animism from human inability to comprehend natural
phenomena, and Bogdanov on the projection of hierarchical relations of
production onto supernatural authority.</ref>


Thus Engels, in ''Anti-Dühring'', writes:


“All religion is nothing more than the fantastic reflection in human
minds of those external forces that dominate their everyday existence—a
reflection in which earthly forces assume the form of supernatural ones.
In the earliest period of history, it was first of all the forces of
nature that were reflected in this way; and in the course of further
development, they underwent the most varied and manifold
personifications among different peoples. . . . But it was not long
before, alongside the forces of nature, social forces also began to
operate—forces that confronted human beings…”



{{opage|308}}


“…and which, at first, likewise appeared inexplicable, dominating human
beings with the same apparent natural necessity as nature itself. In
this way, the fantastic figures that initially reflected only the
mysterious and incomprehensible forces of nature acquired social
attributes and became representatives of historical
forces.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'' (1877–78), Part III,
chap. 5. Engels defines religion here as the “fantastic reflection” of
the external forces governing human life, initially natural and
subsequently social.</ref>


Engels explains it in these terms. Lenin, in a letter to Gorky,
criticizes God as follows:


“‘God’ is (historically and in actual life), above all, a complex of
ideas generated by the brutish oppression of human beings both by
external nature and by class oppression—ideas that reinforce this
oppression and lull the class struggle to sleep.”<ref>V. I. Lenin,
letter to Maxim Gorky, November 1913. Lenin was responding to the
Russian socialist “God-building” movement, which sought to reinterpret
religious language and the idea of God in humanistic and socialist
terms.</ref>


In other words, religion is, as Marx says in his ''Critique of Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right'', “an amalgam” (復合体) of all those ideas that
seek to deceive human beings.<ref>Karl Marx, introduction to ''A
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844),
the same text containing his characterization of religion as the “opium
of the people.” Marx begins his critique from the premise that religion
is a human product rather than an independently existing supernatural
reality.</ref>


“The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: human beings make
religion; religion does not make human beings. Religion is indeed the
self-consciousness and self-feeling of the human being who has either
not yet won himself or has already lost himself again.”


Thus, God is something produced by human beings themselves. Therefore,
once human beings have scientifically investigated and completely
clarified those natural phenomena that confronted them as
“incomprehensible forces,” thereby eliminating the causes of “fear,” and
once, within the relations of social production, they have been
liberated from their enslaved position and become free human beings who
no longer need to pray for salvation—that is, once human beings have
completely regained themselves—religion must necessarily disappear.
Engels explains this directly in the following words:


“When society has taken possession of all the means of production and
employs them according to plan, thereby freeing both itself and all its
members from the bondage in which they are now held by the means of
production that they themselves have produced, but which confront them
as an overwhelming external force; when human beings therefore not only
propose but also dispose—only then will the last external force still
reflected in religion disappear, and with it religious reflection itself
will disappear as well, for the simple reason that there will then be
nothing left to reflect.”<ref>Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'', Part III, chap.
5; see note 12.</ref>



{{opage|309}}


That is what he says. The Marxist theory of the extinction of religion
may be summarized roughly as follows.


“Religious suffering is at once an expression of real suffering and a
protest against present suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature . . . the opium of the people.”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844).
Immediately before calling religion the “opium of the people,” Marx
describes religious suffering as both “the expression of real suffering”
and “a protest against real suffering.” Seno’o emphasizes this latter
dimension against a purely negative interpretation of Marx’s critique of
religion.</ref>


Thus Marx. To put a stop to religion as the illusory happiness of the
people is to demand their real happiness. The problem of religion,
therefore, is to demonstrate the necessity of the negation of religion.
At this point, let us conclude our presentation of anti-religious theory
by summarizing the foregoing arguments in the words of Akizawa, a
fighter in the anti-religious movement.


“So long as human beings do not become masters of themselves, their
actual lives will continue to be dominated by external forces—at an
undeveloped stage of productive power, by the forces of nature, and at a
developed stage, by social forces—and religion will continue to
exist.”<ref>Akizawa Shūji 秋沢修二 (1909–1987) was an activist in the
contemporary anti-religious movement. Seno’o calls him “a fighter in the
anti-religious movement” (''hanshū undō no ichi tōshi''
反宗運動の一闘士) and uses his formulation here to summarize the
movement’s argument that religion will persist until humanity gains
conscious mastery over natural and social forces.</ref>


“Only in socialist society does the human being come to act with himself
at the center; only through proletarian revolution is it possible . . .
for all religion to disappear completely in the society of the future.”



== IV ==


Now, if we are to criticize fundamentally the Marxist theory of the
negation of religion outlined above, the question is whether religion
must necessarily make a supernatural “God” an indispensable condition.
Why, for example, must Buddhism necessarily posit a Christian-style
supernatural “God”? Buddhism does not necessarily posit such a religion.
Indeed, within Buddhism there even exists a “Buddhist atheism” that
takes the standpoint of atheism. Buddhists may try to avoid the sharp
edge of Marxist religious criticism by saying that Buddhism teaches that
“there are innumerable supernatural beliefs,” but although relatively
few contemporary temple Buddhists maintain theistic belief, Buddhism, if
it is to claim the fundamentally atheistic standpoint proper to it, must
reflect seriously upon the fact that its present forms of belief have in
many cases been distorted.


If one investigates this matter carefully, it becomes clear that the
original doctrine of Buddhism is plainly atheistic.


The Buddha denied the Brahmanical gods of creation—Brahmā, the creator
of heaven and earth—and taught the doctrine of the twelve links of
dependent origination, the law of cause and effect. At the time of his
entering nirvāṇa, he left the instruction, “Be a lamp unto yourselves
and rely upon yourselves; take the Dharma as your lamp and rely upon the
Dharma; rely upon no other.”<ref>An allusion to the Buddha’s final
instructions in the ''Mahāparinibbāna Sutta'' (''Dīgha Nikāya'' 16):
''attadīpā … attasaraṇā … dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā'', conventionally
rendered “be lamps [or islands] unto yourselves, your own refuge; with
the Dharma as your lamp [or island] and refuge.” Seno’o follows the East
Asian Buddhist tradition in understanding ''dīpa'' as “lamp.”</ref> In
this way, Buddhism is precisely a religion that demonstrates atheism at
a higher level. While affirming Marx’s proposition that “the highest
being for man is man,”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844): “The criticism of
religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man.”
Marx immediately connects this principle with the imperative to
overthrow social relations in which human beings are degraded, enslaved,
or abandoned.</ref> we can go further and say that the Buddha is
precisely the highest human being whom humanity can ideally imagine: he
saw the ideal perfection of the human being in the Buddha’s attainment
of nirvāṇa. In short, Buddhism is fundamentally an atheistic religion in
which no supernatural “God” exists.


Recently, in the “Reader’s Forum” column, the problem was raised by Dr.
Takakusu, an advocate of Buddhist atheism; and in issue no. 7 of
''Gendai Bukkyō'', Katō Seishin also discussed the question under the
title “On Buddhist Atheism.”<ref>Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎
(1866–1945), one of Japan’s leading Buddhist scholars, had recently
defended the non-theistic character of Buddhism in the ''Yomiuri
Shimbun'' 読売新聞. Katō Seishin 加藤精神 (1872–1956), a prominent
Shingon scholar-priest, similarly argued in “Bukkyō no mushinron to
mureikonsetsu” 仏教の無神論と無霊魂説 [Buddhism’s Atheism and Theory of
Non-Soul], published in ''Gendai Bukkyō'' 現代仏教, that Buddhism was
fundamentally atheistic and denied an enduring soul.</ref>


“To summarize: Buddhism is thoroughly and consistently atheistic; it is
an atheistic doctrine. Nevertheless, among Buddhist scholars there are
often those who maintain that ‘Mahāyāna Buddhism is a theistic
doctrine,’ but this is a misunderstanding of Buddhism.”


So it is said.


Dr. Kimura Taiken, too, writes in his ''From True Emptiness to Wondrous
Being'':<ref>Kimura Taiken 木村泰賢 (1881–1930), a leading scholar of
Indian Buddhism at Tokyo Imperial University, published ''Shinkū yori
Myōu e'' 真空より妙有へ [From True Emptiness to Wondrous Being] in 1929.
Kimura argues here that Buddhism remains fully religious despite lacking
the personal creator God presupposed by many Western definitions of
religion.</ref>


“The Buddha relies upon nothing whatsoever; he became Buddha through
himself alone. Moreover, what is called the relationship between ‘God
and human beings’ is—unless God is understood simply as Dharma or
principle—ultimately untenable. . . . Buddhism, then, is at last truly
Buddhism when it is treated as one of the world’s three great religions
and, moreover, when people have attained peace of mind and established
their lives through it. The fact that it is a religion is beyond doubt.
Theoretically, the reason that we must discuss whether Buddhism is or is
not a religion lies in our taking personality to be the principal
element of religion and then seeking, in addition, other religious
requirements.”



{{opage|310}}


“The essence of the religious spirit lies where the demand for freedom
and the demand for liberation intertwine; insofar as these demands can
be satisfied, even without God it can still be religion.”


Thus he argues. In this way, Buddhism certainly stands upon atheism, and
it does not stop at the Buddhist understanding of the Buddha, but
continues even to the Zen school and the various other sects.
Accordingly, so long as the anti-religious movement treats “God as the
fundamental characteristic of religion” and, because of a deficient
understanding of religion, takes such premises of religious negation and
applies them indiscriminately to existing Buddhist organizations—or even
to Christianity and other theistic forms of religion—it must be regarded
as an improper movement, however “scientific” it may claim to be.


Thus the fundamental characteristic of religion should be sought
elsewhere than in “God.”



== V ==


What, then, is the characteristic of religion?


The word “religion” is often used synonymously with the word “faith,”
but does this word “faith” most adequately explain the essential nature
of religion? That is to say, religion is a life of believing. The object
of belief may, depending upon the case, be “God,” truth, or may change
into all manner of other things; but before the object believed in, one
casts aside everything unconditionally and thereby feels the power of
complete surrender, peace of mind, and satisfaction. Feuerbach said that
“the root of religion is the feeling of dependence.” Schleiermacher
called it “the feeling of absolute dependence.”<ref>Friedrich
Schleiermacher (1768–1834) famously defined religion in terms of a
“feeling of absolute dependence.” Feuerbach, while rejecting
Schleiermacher’s theology, likewise treated the human feeling of
dependence—particularly dependence upon nature—as a fundamental ground
of religion.</ref> And Ritschl said that “God is not a necessity of
religion.”<ref>Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), a major German Protestant
theologian, rejected speculative metaphysics in favor of understanding
religion through practical and value judgments. Seno’o invokes him as
another modern authority for defining religion without making a
metaphysical conception of God its indispensable foundation.</ref>


In Buddhism, too, although the sects may differ over whether or not they
possess a God, in the end “God” may be absent, but religion can
nevertheless be established. Yet without the attitude of faith, religion
is impossible. Therefore, we must recognize that the Christian denial of
“God” does not amount to the denial of religion. Human beings are
sentient beings who, through one means or another, seek to resolve the
contradictions of life; and the negation of religion is at the same time
a negation of the human being. To put it in Sinclair’s words:<ref>Upton
Sinclair (1878–1968), ''The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic
Interpretation'' (1917). Although Sinclair’s book is a socialist
critique of institutional religion as an ally of privilege and
exploitation, he distinguishes this from religion “in its true sense,”
understood as a fundamental spiritual impulse and an “impassioned love
of life.” Seno’o draws upon precisely this distinction between
institutional religion and religion itself.</ref>


“Religion, in its true meaning, is the most fundamental spiritual
impulse, an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life,
and a desire to nurture and assist life. In this sense, every human
being who thinks is necessarily religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is
the eternal power of self-renewal—



{{opage|311}}


—indeed, the very essence of humankind. In this sense, I have not the
slightest intention of attacking religion. No, I wish rather to make
clear that religion, in this sense, is by no means something that ought
to be attacked.”


Is not the absolute life of the Marxist of the present day itself
something that comes very close to this? They advocate Marxism while
denying the religion of “God.” Yet is their attitude really so entirely
different from the attitude of faith found in religion? This is no mere
sophistry. Why, for example, is the Nichiren school’s uncompromising
adherence to the ''daimoku''<ref>The ''daimoku'' 題目, ''Namu Myōhō
Renge Kyō'' 南無妙法蓮華経 (“Devotion to the Wonderful Dharma of the
Lotus Sutra”), is the central devotional invocation of Nichiren
Buddhism.</ref>, or the Christian’s faith in God—each of them chanting
its own object of faith—necessarily uncritical or blind faith, while the
Marxist’s practical movement, grounded in the pure principle of human
society that he believes in, is somehow a grasp of truth? Of course,
ideologically speaking, the latter may possess an advantage in terms of
truth. But just as countless religious sects and ideologies have been
discarded as the times have changed, can anyone deny that a religion
that ought to be discarded may someday arise even within Marxism?



== VI ==


What, then, is Christian ideology?


Its theological worldview and conception of life already extend beyond
the Renaissance. Next, Feuerbach’s statement that “the secret of
theology is anthropology”<ref>Feuerbach’s ''The Essence of
Christianity'' (1841) famously reverses theology into anthropology: the
qualities attributed to God are projections of human capacities and
aspirations. The formula “the secret of theology is anthropology”
encapsulates this argument.</ref> opened the way for modern humanism,
while the figure of “God” receded far beyond the horizon. Even within
Buddhism, so-called other-power Buddhism has recently given rise to a
succession of troubling questions, and many have raised objections to
it; let us connect these developments with a critique of the principal
points of Marxism.


There is, however, one point that requires explanation here. The
emergence of the imagined “God” is not, as Marxism sees it, derived
solely from nature or relations of production; it is also a product of
human nature itself. Consider the statement recently made…



{{opage|312}}


…in court by Sano Manabu: “I wish to express my condolences for the late
Watanabe Masanosuke and the others.”<ref>Sano Manabu, a leading
theoretician of the Japanese Communist Party, made this statement during
his trial following his arrest in 1929. Seno’o had already drawn upon
Sano’s 1931 translation of Lenin’s writings on religion (see note
1).</ref> What, after all, does this statement—coming from a leading
figure of the anti-religious movement—tell us? Even if his explanation
of this “mourning” was that he was “merely praising [Watanabe’s]
achievements,” does not the very consciousness expressed toward the
individual personality of the deceased provide evidence that human
beings possess an animistic impulse independent of such things as
relations of production? We should therefore recognize that the idea of
God cannot necessarily be regarded as something opposed in every respect
to the “true happiness” sought by human beings.


Now, to say yet again that the fundamental philosophy underlying the
Marxist view of society and human life is the materialist conception of
history would be superfluous. Historical materialism distinguishes
itself from a mechanical materialism that recognizes no spiritual values
whatsoever. Engels writes:


“The development of political, legal, philosophical, religious,
literary, artistic, and other such things rests upon economic
development. Yet all of these react upon one another and also upon the
economic basis. It is not the case that the economic situation is the
sole active cause and that everything else is merely a passive result.
Rather, there is reciprocal interaction upon the basis of economic
necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.”<ref>Friedrich
Engels, letter to W. Borgius, January 25, 1894. Long misidentified in
editions of Marx and Engels as a letter to Heinz Starkenburg, the letter
emphasizes that political, legal, philosophical, religious, and artistic
developments, while ultimately conditioned by economic development, also
“react upon one another and also upon the economic base.”</ref>


If we read further in this same passage, Engels says, “In the final
analysis . . . economic necessity ultimately asserts itself”; this means
that economic relations do not stand on the same level as the other
phenomena with which they interact, and this is Engels’s own…



{{opage|313}}


…view. Hence the wheel of development unfolds ceaselessly. And because
contradiction is the cause of this development, some conceptual
operation must be introduced here. They would surely argue that “the
consciousness of freedom is an inevitable necessity of social
revolution”<ref>An allusion to the dialectical conception of freedom
associated with Hegel and Engels, according to which freedom consists
not in independence from necessity but in understanding necessity and
consciously acting upon it.</ref>; but if freedom is not something that
can become a reality, then there is no need to make sacrifices for
revolution. Why? Because every reality is necessary.


Yet the desire for freedom that human beings essentially seek can be
resolved only through the transformation of the relations of production
in which actual human beings, pregnant with contradictions and situated
within society, find themselves. In other words, ideology cannot
interpret the world in all its variety; what is needed is to change the
world.<ref>An allusion to Marx’s eleventh ''Thesis on Feuerbach''
(1845): “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various
ways; the point, however, is to change it.”</ref> But if a formal
“change” is of no use unless human beings can truly enjoy “freedom”
within it, then “change” for the sake of “change” must become a “change”
for human beings. It cannot be the case that commodities are produced
merely for the sake of capital.


Originally, historical materialism must recognize the reciprocal
interaction between society’s economic substructure and its spiritual
superstructure when it views society as a process of development. At a
certain stage, the economic substructure must clearly receive some sort
of reciprocal influence from the preceding spiritual superstructure.
Therefore, their relationship must be understood through the Buddhist
conception of dependent origination: an inseparable, organic
interrelation in which neither can be explained as the subject
independently of the other.<ref>''Engi'' 縁起 (Skt.
''pratītyasamutpāda''), “dependent origination,” is the Buddhist
principle that phenomena arise through causes and conditions and possess
no independent, self-sufficient existence. Seno’o applies this principle
here to the reciprocal relation between material and spiritual
phenomena.</ref> Yet Marxism’s dialectical materialist conception,
however much practical effectiveness it may demonstrate, ultimately
flows in the opposite direction from idealism and into a
material-centered understanding of human society; it cannot, therefore,
be regarded as a genuinely developmental principle of unity.



== VII ==


Thus humanity, having liberated itself from the fetters of idealism,
must once again demand a correct ideology for the liberation of society
and the liberation of the self from the fetters of materialism. If
science is truly to see the human…



{{opage|314}}


…being as it truly is, then the true meaning of dialectics must lie in
what is called “synthetic understanding,” as in
Fingeruto<ref>''Fingeruto'' フィンゲルト appears to refer to the Soviet
philosopher Aleksandr A. Vingert (also transliterated Fingeroto), whose
writings on dialectical materialism emphasized a “synthetic”
understanding that overcame the opposition between idealism and
mechanistic materialism.</ref> and others; and the materialist
conception of history must once again be overcome.


Buddhism must not remain forever a sleeping lion. Now is the time for
Buddhism to smash the ivory tower. It must raise high the principles of
emptiness and dependent origination, establish the truth of
selflessness, and advance directly toward the realization of a true
society of liberty and the abolition of privilege.


To summarize: although the anti-religious movement is itself a movement
founded upon a self-contradictory theory, if it is nevertheless to
produce results in practice, then for the established religious
organizations it is the most effective antidote to their extreme
degeneration and inertia. On the theoretical plane, Christianity has
promoted a fantastical “God” in opposition to Buddhism; but Buddhism has
no need to proclaim the atheism or doctrine of the nonexistence of the
soul advocated by Katō Seishin and others as something extraordinary in
Japan. From the standpoint of Buddhism, these are nothing more than a
commonplace sort of denial of intrinsic existence that has already
reached even the most remote rural households. Through this, the
Buddhist perspectives of emptiness and dependent origination will be
recognized anew, and should proudly assert themselves as the sole true
materialist dialectic.<ref>Seno’o makes an unusually explicit
appropriation of Marxist terminology here. ''kūkan'' 空観, the Buddhist
“perspective of emptiness,” denies independent or intrinsic existence,
while ''engikan'' 縁起観, the “perspective of dependent origination,”
understands phenomena as arising relationally through causes and
conditions. Seno’o identifies these Buddhist principles with the true
“materialist dialectic” (''yuibutsu benshōhō'' 唯物弁証法).</ref>


Accordingly, if the anti-religious movement—under the name of
“anti-religion”—has as its fundamental objective the organization of the
unorganized masses, particularly the peasantry, into the proletarian
movement, then the issue is another matter; but if the result of this is
to bring about the destruction of religion, then the movement’s very
object of purification will disappear. Even if it possesses the
authority of the Soviet government, the power of religion has yet to be
extinguished.<ref>The Soviet government pursued increasingly aggressive
anti-religious policies during the 1920s and 1930s, including
restrictions on religious institutions, confiscation of property,
anti-religious propaganda, and campaigns organized through the League of
Militant Atheists.</ref>


Indeed, given our present circumstances, rather than merely attacking
existing Buddhist organizations, should we not instead call upon the
inherent mass character of religion<ref>The term ''taishūsei'' 大衆性,
here translated “mass character,” draws on the contemporary socialist
vocabulary of the ''taishū'' 大衆, the popular masses. Seno’o thus
attributes to religion an inherent capacity to address and mobilize the
masses.</ref> and thereby provide the powerful proletarian movement
arising from religion itself with room to develop? Would not this be far
more effective in the present situation?


The heroic actions of official Marxism—pushing forward the “revolution”
demanded by the masses—may be objectionable enough. But if it forgets
its proper standpoint toward the anti-religious movement and lightly
attempts an indiscriminate campaign of exclusion, then what will happen?



{{opage|315}}


Even if its standpoint is one of opposition, should it not be possible
for there to exist organizations that, while steadily working toward the
realization of an ideal society, stand in opposition precisely because
they are such organizations?


Those who seek to poison religion—to poison Buddhism—are none other than
religious believers themselves. Buddhists should withdraw and first
reflect upon their own lives in light of the Buddha’s ideal. Then,
decisively setting out anew, they should report themselves to the
anti-religious movement and advance. Is this not the one and only path
by which it can be overcome?


— August 6, 7, and 18, 1931.



== Notes ==


<references />


[[category:Senoo Giro]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

SG31HSU

2026-08-29T19:01:36Z

James:

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈反宗教運動批判〉}}

[[Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1931). 〈反宗教運動批判〉 [[SG31HSU-T|“A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement”]]. 『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.

{{tpage|302}}

'''{{size|150%|反宗教運動批判}}'''

一

反宗教運動に対する批判は、二つの方面から之を考察してゆくべきであらう。即ち、其の一面は現在の既成宗教団そのものに対する彼等の実践的否定運動と、今一つは宗教そのものを否定せんとする理論的方面との二つに対してである。

先づ既成宗教団排撃の方面から批判して行く。既成宗教団排撃については、吾人は何等の異議をさし挟むものではない。恐らく、少しく真面目な宗教者のだれもが、程度の相違こそあれ、其の点、同感の意を表せざるを得ないであらうほど左様に、既成宗教団は、どれもこれもが、宗教本来の生命を喪失した残骸的存在であって、之の排撃こそ正しき宗教発展の動機をもたらすものであることが十二分に知られるからである。既成宗教団の現形態は、有名なレーニンの批評に尽きる。彼は云ふ、

「宗教は、他人のための永久的労働によって困苦と孤独とによって抑圧されてゐる人民大衆を至る所で重圧してゐる精神的の圧迫の一種である。搾取者に対する闘争に於ける被搾取階級の無力が不可避的に来世におけるより善き生活への信仰を呼びおこす。これは、丁度、自然との闘争における野蛮人の無力が諸神、悪魔、奇蹟其他のものを呼びおこすのと同じである。宗教は、一生涯、働いて苦しみ抜く人間に対しては、地上における屈従と忍耐を教へ、天国の報ひの希望を以て慰める。だが宗教は、他人の労働によって生活する人間に対しては、搾取者たる彼等の全存在を安々と是認し、天国の祝福の入場切符を相当の値段で売渡し、かうして彼等を地上での幸福を教へてゐる。宗教は民衆のための阿片である。宗教は資本の奴隷がその人為的……

{{tpage|303}}

……容貌や、最少限の人為的生存慾を溺死させてしまふ一種の精神的毒酒である」

と。最早珍らしくもない「阿片」だが、しかし、何と穿った批評ではないか。この評言の対象は主としてキリスト教であらうが、もとより、吾が既成佛教団もその例外ではありえない。今更高津正道氏の「搾取に耽る人々」や「反宗教闘争の旗の下に」の中の、西田繁氏の「本願寺の階級性」等々を読むまでもなく、真言宗も日蓮宗も禅宗等々も、現在その寺院組織が広大で繁昌してをればをるほど、その阿片性や搾取性は莫大であって、全くレーニンの、酷評そっくりであることは否めぬ眼前の事実である。かかる限りに於ては、反宗教運動の既成宗教団排撃に関して何等の反対の理由もありえぬことであらう。

しかしながら、既成教団のかかる現状と宗教そのものと果して必然的関係を有するものであらうか。たとへば、佛教イデオロギーは必ず現既成宗教のごとき醜悪なる状態を結果すべきイデオロギーであるだらうか？　若し、さうであるならば反宗教運動は完全に肯定されるべきであるが、果してさうであらうか？

否!!　それぞれの宗教のもつ真の本領は、反って現既成宗教団のごとき醜悪極まる生活形態を完全に否定し浄化すべき筈のものでこそあれ、断じて、之等を許容すべきものではない。

それは、高等なる宗教は倫理的宗教だと呼ばれることによっても知られるやうに、佛教にせよキリスト教にせよ、その属性に多分の倫理性を具有してをるかぎり、そして、その機能が歪曲されない限りに於て、既成宗団の現状のごときは到底認容されざる罪悪的存在でなければならぬ。従って、かかる残骸的宗団の排撃のごときは、反宗教運動者の躍起をまつまでもなく、真剣な進歩的宗教者の手によってすでに提起されてをらねばならぬ筈のものではなかったらうか。例へば、遅れながらも、今度吾等新興佛教徒がその運動の第二綱領に

「我等は、全既成宗団は佛教精神を冒瀆したる残骸的存在なりと認め、之れを排撃して佛教の新時代的闡揚を期す」

と掲げたのも、実にかかる認識からに外ならない。

二

と云へば、反宗教運動者達は言下に反駁するであら……

{{tpage|304}}

う、「さうした本領とか本質とかこね廻すのがブルヂョアー的形式論理だ、眼前に展開しつつある歴史以外にどこに本質があるか」と。だが、その点、彼等も省みて直ちに自己の非を悟らねばならぬであらうことは、現在流行せる幾多の無産運動――社民、大衆、共産等々、あらゆる無産運動を目して真正なるマルキシズム運動だとして批評することを彼等はそのまま許容するであらうか。また反宗教運動についても高津氏の「日本反宗教連盟」と秋田氏らの「反宗教闘争同盟」といづれが真のマルキシズムの本流なのか？　それらの批判清算は当然眼前の存在形態以上にその基準を、マルクス・エンゲルスや或はレーニンの教学に本質的に求めねばならぬであらうことを思はば、佛教或はキリスト教の本質と既成教団との関係に於ても同様の考察が許されねばならないであらう。簇出するダラ幹や、はしゃいだマルクスボーイや、原稿稼ぎのマルクス・インテリーなどの渦く濁流を以て偉大なるマルキシズムを否定することは誤診の大なるものと云はねばなるまい。だからこそ、現既成宗教団を以て、宗教そのものを否定してかかることも亦誤診であらねばならないのだ。

試みに思へ、キリストの生活のいづこに現教会に見るが如きブルジョアー的生活があったらうか。彼こそ当時ローマの虐政より被圧迫民族ユダヤを救出せんとした先覚者ではなかったのか。彼の友としたものはすべてが無産者であって断じて富貴者ではなかった。もとより、そのイデオロギーは現代的に清算されねばならぬものが多々あるであらう。けれどもキリスト教そのものは、いきなり労農者圧迫のイデオロギーではない。神を愛し隣人を愛せよの隣愛解放運動のごときばキット無産者解放運動の魁であるであらう。ずっと下って、リンカーンの神の名による奴隷解放運動のごときも、キリスト教が必ずしも阿片や毒酒ではない活証文と見ねばならぬ。

眼を転じて吾が佛教について見よう。王族をのがれて街頭に乞食生活をはじめられたわが佛陀の生活が、搾取のサの字もない大平等の典型的生活であったことはあまりにも能く知られた事実である。街頭に説かれる無我主義、従って、かの四姓の階級打破運動など、たとへ、それが積極的・政治的に行はれなかったとしても、どうして現在のごとき複雑極まる階級的寺院組織や、資本主義……

{{tpage|305}}

的現寺院佛教と同視することができようか？　四十五年一貫して説かれた縁起観・空観から――それは「物質的なものと精神的なものとの真の統一体――考へられた創造された統一体ではなく――現存する統一体」即ちフォイエルバッハの「感性」にも等しき純粋体験の無我主義からどうして現在のごとき観念的、阿片的佛教が肯定される必然性が見出せるか？　佛教は再吟味されねばウソだ。下って日蓮聖人の生活を見よ、時の支配者北条氏といかに一生を戦ひつづけられたか。決して「彼等の全存在を安々と是認し、天国の祝福の入場切符を相当の値段で売渡し」たり、或は「地上における屈従忍耐を」教へられもしなかった。実に世界歴史中比類のない対支配者とのその闘争的宗教運動は、現在のごとき国家主義的日蓮主義や、馬鹿げきったドメドマ法華式日蓮宗とは似もつかぬ宗教運動であったのだ。更にこれを近くは宗教者ガンヂーの反英独立運動について見ても亦さうであるやうに、宗教は常に民衆をして「安心立命の暗室」に眠りこませるものでは断じてなかった。吾人はこの外、宗教の名によって示された、具体的であり、進歩的であり、積極的であり、革命的でもある幾多の事実をもってをる限り既成宗教団そのものと宗教そのものとは――佛教にせよキリスト教にせよ――考察を別個にしうるものであり、せねばならぬものであると主張するに何の不合理もないと考へる。

かくして、吾人は反宗教運動の既成宗教団排撃を肯定しつつ、進んで反宗教運動のもつ宗教否定の理論の批判にうつらねばならぬ。

三

反宗教運動者マルクス主義者は宗教をどう規定してをるか？　彼等はその機関誌「反宗教闘争」の創刊号に、

「超自然的な世界の存在の信仰が宗教と名づけられるわけだ。これが宗教の最も基本的な特徴である」

といってをる。言葉を足して説明すれば、キリスト教のいふ超自然的な天国や、その世界の超人間的なゴッドに対する、ありもせぬ「幻想」を信仰するのが宗教だといふのである。エンゲルスが、フォイエルバッハ論中に、

「宗教が神なしに存在し得るものとすれば、錬金術も……

{{tpage|306}}

賢者の石なしに存立し得よう」といった、問題の「神」はマルクス主義宗教論の根本的対象であることを忘れてはならない。そしてその基礎哲学は勿論唯心論であるから、唯心論の正反対である唯物論に立脚するマルクス主義が、かうした超自然的な神の実在を肯定できないのは言ふまでもないことである。

では、かかる宗教は――神の信仰は一体どうして発生したか？　レーニンは言ふ「恐怖が神を創造した」と。ゴルテルは「不可解の力」だと。いづれにせよ、無知蒙昧であった太古の人間が、その生活に襲ひかかる「不可解」にして不可抗的な自然現象に対して懐く恐怖の観念が、それらの現象を神の仕業と思うたことから始まる、といふのだ。かくして、原始的万有神――アニミズムが発生し、進んで、氏族や民族宗教となり、遂に一世界宗教としてのキリスト教の神は、このやうにして生じたのである。佛教もまた、これと同様の一種の世界宗教である」といふのである。アニミズムに就いては、ブレハノフは、

「自然現象を説明せんとする野蛮人の試みである。この試みがいかに貧弱であっても、これは原始人の生活条件にあっては不可避なものである」

といってをる。民族宗教の起源に就いては、ボグダーノフは

「種族の長老は生産に於ける集積された経験の守護者として組織し、管理し、命令し、労働計画を立て活動的創造的原理を表象するが、一方その他のものは聴従し、命令を甘受し、上から示された計画に服し、他人の意志に従って行動するのである。この生産関係は万有の考察、就中、人間自身を考察する模型となった」

といってをる。だから、エンゲルスはその「反デューリング論」に、

「一切の宗教は人間の日常生活を支配する外部的な力が人間の頭脳に幻想的に反映せるものに過ぎない。さうしてその反映に於ては、地上の力が天上の力といふ姿をとる。歴史の初期に於ては先づ第一に自然の力がかかる反映をなし、それが諸民族の間に一層発展して極めて種々なる人格を生んだのである。……しかし間もなく、その自然力と並んで社会上の力が作用し始める。この社会力もやはり人間にとっては外部的のものであり、しかも始めはやはり説明すべからざるものとして人間に対立し、且つ自然そのものと二見同じ自然必然性を以て人間を支配するのである。これによって始めは唯神秘不可思議なる自然力のみを反映せる幻想の姿が社会的属性を獲得し歴史的力の代表者となってくるのである」

と説明してをる。レーニンはゴルキーへの書簡の中に神について、こんなに批評してをる。

{{tpage|307}}

「神とは（歴史的にもまた実際的にも）何よりも先づ、人間の魯鈍な被圧迫性と外界の自然と階級抑圧とを通じて生み出された諸々の観念――この被圧迫性を強固にし階級闘争をごまかし去らうとする所の諸々の観念――の複合体なのだ」

と。つまり宗教は、マルクスが「ヘーゲル法律哲学批判」の中に、

「反宗教的批判の基礎は、即ち人間が宗教を作るのであって、宗教が人間を作るのではないことになる。而して、確かに宗教は人間が自分自身まだかちえてゐないか、或は既に得て再び失ひ果てた場合の自己意識と自己感情とである」

といふ如く、神は人間自身の産物であるが故に、人間自身が、発達した科学によって其の「不可解な力」であった自然現象を完全に究明して「恐怖」の原因を除き、そして、社会的生産関係に於ては奴隷的立場から解放されて自由人となり、そこに何等の哀願的救済を要せぬ生活者となった場合、即ち人間が自分自身を完全にかち得た場合は宗教は必然的に消滅する性質のものである、と彼等は説くのである。之に関し直接エンゲルスの言葉を引用して見ると、

「社会が財産を獲得し、全ての生産手段を計画的に行使し、以て社会自体並びにすべての社会成員を、隷属――現在に於ては彼等は彼等自身の生産した、しかし彼等に巨大な外部的力となって対立する所の生産手段によって此の隷属の中におかれてゐる――から解放した場合、かくて人間が単に考ふるのみならず、指導をも行ふに至った場合に於て始めて、今日なほ宗教のなかに反映したるところの、最後の外部的力が消滅し、これと共に宗教的反映自体も消滅するのである。それは蓋し反映すべき何物もなくなったといふ単純な理由からである。」

{{tpage|308}}

と説いてをる。マルクス主義のいふ宗教消滅の原理論はザットこんな要領である。かくてマルクスは、

「宗教的苦難は一つには現実的艱難の表現であると共に、又一つには現在的艱難に対する抗弁である。宗教は抑圧せられた生きものの嘆息であり、……民衆の阿片である」

だから

「民衆の幻想的幸福としての宗教を止揚することは彼等の真実の幸福を要求することである」

等の真実の幸福を要求することである」として、宗教否定の必然性を示してをる。問題の反宗教運動理論はかかる理論をそのまま踏襲したものであるが、ここで上記の理論を反宗運動の一闘士、秋田氏の文句を以て摘要して反宗理論の紹介は終ることにしよう。

「人間が自分自身の主人とならないかぎり、人間が外部的な力によって――生産力の未発達な段階に於ては自然力、生産力の発達した段階に於ては社会力によって――その現実的生活を支配されてゐるかぎり、宗教は存続する」

「人間が自分自らを中心に動くやうになるのは、社会主義社会に於てのみ、プロレタリヤ革命によってのみ可能である。……未来の社会にあっては、あらゆる宗教が完全に消滅する」

四

さて、以上見てきたマルクス主義の宗教否定論の批判にあたって、先づ基本的に批判すべきは、彼等がいふごとく宗教は、超人間的な「神」を必須条件とせねばならぬものであるか、どうかといふ問題である。なぜなれば、佛教の如くキリスト教的超自然的「神」を必須条件としない宗教も厳存してをるからである。と云へば彼等は「反宗教闘争」の中にもいふごとく「佛教は無神論の立場に立つなどといって、佛教徒はマルクス主義者の宗教否定の論鋒を避けようとするが、佛教の教理を一瞥して見よ、そこには超自然的の信仰が無数にある」と、再び反駁するであらう。成程、現在の寺院佛教は有神的信仰を持って居るものが少くないが、従って、寺院佛教者が、佛教を本来の無神論的立場だと主張するには、現在の信仰形式にかなり多くの揚棄すべきものがあることを反省せねばならないが、しかし彼等が佛教を再検して詳……

{{tpage|309}}

細に研究すれば、佛教本来の教理は明らかに無神論であることを知るであらう。

佛陀は当時の婆羅門教――天地創造の神、大梵の信仰――を否定して、四諦、十二因縁のごとき因果の理、縁起の法を説かれた。その入滅に当っては「自らを燈明として他に依る勿れ、法を燈明として他に依る勿れ」と遺教されたといふ如きは一層にその無神論を証明する経文であって、佛教こそ実に、マルクスの言った「宗教の批判は人間に対する最高の実在は人間であるといふ教義を以て終る」の文句を肯定しつつ、進んで、吾人に言はしめれば、「人間の理想する最高の人間こそ佛陀であって、宗教は佛陀の渇仰に於て理想的完成を見る」と添加したいが、とまれ、佛教には何等の超自然的「神」の実在など認めぬ本来無神論教である。

之れに就ては先頃、「読売」の宗教欄に於て問題となった高楠博士の佛教無神主義の主張もあり、また最近「現代佛教」の七月号で、加藤精神氏は「佛教の無神論、無霊魂に就いて」の論題下に、

「要約すれば、佛教は徹頭徹尾無霊魂説であり、無神論である。然るに、佛教学者中、往々『大乗佛教は有神論なり』と主張する者あるは、佛教に対する彼等の誤診である」

といってをられる。また木村泰賢博士は、その著「真空より妙有へ」の中に、

「佛陀は何物にも依憑するなく、自ら佛陀となったといふ以上、ここに『神と人との関係』なるものは――その神を法又は涅槃と解せざる限り――到底成立の余地なしといはねばならぬ。……然らば佛教は遂に宗教でないかといふに、難かしき理窟は暫く措いて、実際上、佛教は世界の三大宗教の一として取扱はれて、且つ人々は之によりて安心立命を得てゐる以上、何といっても宗教であることの事実には疑がない。理論上、佛教に対して宗教か否かを論ぜねばならぬのは、所詮、余りに人格神を宗教の主要素と見、他に別に宗教的要求に関して必要な要素を見逃した結果である」

「宗教心の本質は自由の要求と解脱の要求とが、からみ合ふ所にある限り、この要求に満足を与へられば神なくともそれで宗教たりうる」

と説いてをられる。かくの如く佛教は確かに無神論に立つ宗教で、それは単なる教空や佛陀の了解に止まらずし……

{{tpage|310}}

て、たとへば、禅宗のごとき宗派さへも存続してをる限り、反宗教運動は「神は宗教の基本的特徴」だといふ彼等の宗教否定の前提を、宗教に対する認識不足として撤回して出直すか、或はキリスト教及び有神的形式をもつ既成佛教団といふ限界に於ての運動とせずしては、彼等が科学的といふだけそれだけ宗教一般として不当な運動と見ねばなるまい。

かくして、宗教の基本的特徴は「神」にでなく他に之を求めるべきであらう。

五

然らば、宗教の特徴は何か？

「宗教」といふ言葉は、しばしば「信仰」といふ言葉と同義語に使用されてをるが、この「信仰」の語こそは宗教の本質そのものを最も適切に説明してくれるものではあるまいか。即ち宗教とは信ずる生活のことである。信ずる対象は場合によって「神」であり真理であり、其外色々に変化してよいもかく信じきった対象の前に無条件に一切をささげ、それによって自然的にも社会的にも個人的にも、すべての矛盾が統一されて、いはば「安心立命」して、満足を感じ力を感ずる全一なる絶対的生活のことである。フォイエルバッハは「宗教の根源は依属感である」といった。シュライエルマッヘルは「絶対的なる信頼の感情である」といって「神は宗教の必須物ではない」とした。またリッチェルは「宗教を以て、現に活きて働く経験だ」と見た。

佛教に於ては神をもたぬ宗派がいくらでもあることは言ふまでもないことで、結局「神」はなくても宗教は成立してをるが、信仰の態度なくては宗教は不可能であって、従って、キリスト教的「神」の否定は、いきなり宗教の否定ではありえないことを知らねばならぬ。人間が感性的であり、何等かの方法によって、生活の矛盾を統一せんとする生活者であるかぎり、宗教の否定は人間らしき人間の否定だともいへるであらう。シンクレアーの言葉をかりていへば、

「宗教は真の意味に於ては、霊的衝動の最も根本的なものであり、熱烈な生命愛であり、生命の貴さを感ずることであり、生命の愛養助成の慾望である。その意味では思想する凡ての人間は宗教的でなければならない。その意味では『宗教』は永遠の自己更生力であ……

{{tpage|311}}

り、吾人々類のまことの本性である。その意味では、私は宗教を攻撃しようなど毛頭思ってゐない。否、私は宗教は、その意味に於ては、決して攻撃などしうるものではないといふことを明かしたい」

かうした絶対生活は、当のマルクス主義者の生活態度そのものが最も手近く物語るものではないか。彼等は「神」の宗教を否定してマルクス主義宗教を提唱してゐるといはれまいか。彼等の態度は、昔、日蓮聖人が法華経を提げて余他の一切の宗教を排撃しぬかれた信仰的態度と全く同様ではないか。といへば彼等は、これは真理の把持であって宗教信仰ではないと反駁するであらうが、それは独断である。なぜならば、日蓮宗が題目の、真宗が念佛の、キリスト教が神の、それぞれの信仰を提唱するのも決して無批判的盲信ではない。それぞれその信仰に人生社会の純一原理を見ての実践運動であるかぎり、それが何が故に真理把持――勿論そのイデオロギーの真理性には優劣があらう。過去に於ても幾多の宗派が次第に揚棄されてきたやうに、時代不相応のイデオロギーをもつ宗教はドンドン清算されるべきではあるが――の態度でないと拒否できようか。いづれも統一原理をかかげた真理把持の絶対生活ではないか。従って宗教問題は宗教そのものの否定でなく、その内容としてのイデオロギーが問題として批判されるべきであらう。

六

然らばキリスト教的イデオロギーは？

神学のもつ世界観、人生観は、すでにルネッサンスに依って峠を越えてをる。次いで、フォイエルバッハの「神学の秘密は人間学である」といふ一句で近代の人間主義的平野は展望されて「神」の姿は遥か峠の彼方に没してをるし、佛教間にあっても、所謂他力的彼岸主義は、その清算期が刻々近づきつつあるは、この頃八釜しく問題にされる異安心問題等が雄弁に物言ってをるから、之に関して多くを贅しないで問題をマルクス主義の要点批判へと運ばう。

ただ一言ここで説明を要するは幻想的「神」の発生がマルクス主義が見たごとく自然や生産関係からのみでなく、人間の本性的産物でもあることである。それはこんど佐野学氏が法廷に於て、「故渡辺政之輔氏其他に、追悼の意を表す」と述べたこの声――反宗運動の巨頭の発……

{{tpage|312}}

したるこの声はそもそも何を物語るか？　「追悼」の弁解は「功績を頌したに過ぎぬ」ものであっても、亡者の個的人格に対して表明されたその意識こそ生産関係等とは独立して人間にアニミズム的要求の存する証左ではあるまいか。かくして神の観念は必ずしも人間の要求する「真実の幸福」と対照的のものとのみは言へないことを知るべきであらう。

さて、マルクス主義の社会観人生観の根本哲学は唯物史観であることは今更言ふまでもない。唯物史観は精神価値を認容しない機械的唯物論と弁別してをる。エンゲルスは、

「政治的、法律的、哲学的、宗教的、文学的、芸術的等々のものの発展は、経済的発展に基礎を置いてをる。併しながら此等のものはすべて相互に反応し、且つ経済的基礎にも反応する。それは、経済的状態が唯一の能動的な原因であって、他のすべてのものは受動的な結果に過ぎぬといふのでは決してない。否寧ろそれは究極に於て常に遂行せられる経済的必然性の基礎の上に立てる相互作用である」

と委曲をつくしてをるが、此の文章の中でも、気を止めて読めば「究極に於て……経済的必然性の基礎の上に立てる」といふ文句は経済関係は対立する余他の事象と相互作用とはいふものの決して同位ではないことを示し、之をエンゲルスの他の文章、

「歴史に於ける究極の決定的要素は現実生活の生産及び再生産である」

といふ文章と照応すれば、色々に中間的相互作用は説くものの、結局物質による精神の規定を説くのが唯物史観で、もっとツキつめれば、唯物論哲学の上に立つ以外のものではない。

さて、かうした唯物史観は、果して正しき世界観であり人生の統一原理として真に人間に自由をもたらしうるものであらうか。

彼等は唯物史観に則って革命されたる社会主義社会に於ては「自分自身が主人」となって完全なる自由が享楽され従って宗教は消滅するといふが、それは、彼等の理論からは結果せぬ幻想ではあるまいか。なぜなれば、エンゲルスは「世界は出来上った事物の複合体と解すべきでなく、過程の複合体と解すべき」だと考へ、そして発展は世界の内部的矛盾によって行はれるといふ世界……

{{tpage|313}}

観である故に、発展の車輪が停止せぬかぎり新しき矛盾は不断に展開する。そして矛盾は言ふまでもなく苦悩の原因であるが故に、そこに何等かの観念的作用を加へぬかぎり、自由の意識は社会革命の必然としては完全に反映し保留されないからである。といへば彼等は「自由とは意識された必然性だ」と弁証しきたるであらうが、それならば、自由はいかなる現実――たとへば革命されざる現社会にあっても意識される観念であって、殊更、社会革命の犠牲を払ふ必要もないことである。なぜなら、如何なる現実もすべて必然的であるからである。かくして、常に矛盾を孕む自然と社会に置かれた現実的生活者人間の本能的に求むる自由欲は決して単なる物質的生産関係の改造に依ってのみ解決され得るものでないことを悟らねばならぬ。

もとより、イデオロギーは「世界をいろいろに解釈するばかりでは駄目だ、世界を変更することが眼目」でなければならぬが、それが形式的「変更」には役立っても内容的に社会人が真に「自由」を享楽しえぬとすれば、それは「変更」のための「変更」で人間のための「変更」とはならぬ。資本のみから商品が生産されぬやうに、経済的闘争のみからは真の自由――菩提文化は将来されず、かくて社会には依然として精神的要求は存続する必然性を失はぬであらう。

元来、唯物史観は社会を発展的過程と見て、経済的下部構造と精神的上部構造との交互作用を認めるかぎりは、一期の経済的下部構造は明らかに前期の精神的上部構造からも何等かの逆影響を受けた下部構造であるべき故に、その関係は佛教に説く縁起観で、上下に分離していづれを主体とも説明できない相互関係で、一脈一体の有機体でなければならぬ。然るに、マルクス主義が弁証法といひながら物質本位に社会人生を把握することは、観念論とは遥かに実際的効果を示しても結局、唯心論と正反対に唯物論的形而上学に流れて、人生社会のありのままの把握とならず、従って正しき発展的統一原理ではありえないと思ふ。

七

かくて、唯心的桎梏から自己を解放した人類は、再び、唯物論的虜囚から社会及び自己解放の正しきイデオロギーを要求せねばウソである。科学があまりに人……

{{tpage|314}}

生を見ることであるならば、弁証法の真の意味がフィンゲルト等のいふが如く「綜合的見解」といふことであるならば、再び唯物史観も止揚されねばならぬ。

佛教はいづまでも眠った獅子であってはならぬ。今こそ佛教は象牙の塔を破壊すべきである。人生永劫の真理である空観、縁起の理法をひっさげて物・心二論を揚棄し、無我主義を確立して、特権否定、自由平等の真社会実現へと直進すべきであらう。

之を要するに、反宗教運動はそれ自体矛盾した論理の上に立った運動であるけれども、この運動のもたらす功績を考へれば実践面に於ては全既成宗教団にとっては、極度の堕落性阿片性に対する最も効果的な解毒剤である。

理論面に於ては、キリスト教に対して幻想的「神」の止揚剤であらうが、佛教に対しては、加藤精神氏のいはれることく「マルクスやエンゲルスの無神論、無霊魂説を我国に宣伝して珍らしがってゐるのは、恰も遼東の豕を率ひて河北に到るの類であって」何等、本質的否定運動ではありえない。むしろ、之によって佛教の空観、縁起観はハッキリ再認識されて、彼等が唯物弁証法と誇りながら、いまだ物・心二元の対立的意識を脱化しない時、反って唯物史観の徹底――言ふべくんば実践史観への発展となるべきではあるまいか。

従って、反宗運動は、名を「反宗」にかって其の根本目的を未組織大衆――わけて農村の――をプロ運動へ組織づけにおいてをるならば問題は別だが、さしづめ当面の結果としては宗教撲滅はおろか、反って其の浄化強化の反対現象をもたらすことになるであらう。宗教の根強さはソビエット政府の権威をもってしても未だあの始末だ。況んや我が現状を顧みるとき、反宗運動の態度としては、既成ブル教団排撃こそよけれ、むしろ宗教のもつ本来の大衆性に呼びかけて、宗教をして自らの内部闘争によるプロ運動への有力なる綜合的寄与をなす余地と機会とを与へることこそ、現状にふさはしきより効果的大衆運動ではあるまいか。かの公式的マルクス主義の自瀆的英雄主義的行動の如きは、大衆の求むる「変革」を反ってより前方へ押しやる嫌ひがないではあるまいか。

もしそれ、反宗運動に対して正当なる立場を忘れて軽率なる排撃運動を試みるがごときは、余程慎まねばならぬことだ。何となればたとへ立場は反対であっても現……

{{tpage|315}}

在、理想社会実現へと死力をつくしつつある生ける団体こそ、反って彼等であるからである。宗教を、佛教を毒するものは、宗教者自身でこそあれ、断じて反宗教運動ではない。

佛徒は退いて、先づ自己の生活をば佛陀の理想に照応して反省せねばウソだ。而して断然出発を新にすることこそ反宗教運動に報ひ、進んで之を止揚する唯一の道程ではあるまいか。

――六、七、一八――

（昭和六年「新興佛教の旗の下に」八月号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31HSU

2026-08-29T18:56:07Z

James: Created page with "{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__ {{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈反宗教運動批判〉}} Seno'o Girō (妹尾義郎) (1931). 〈反宗教運動批判〉 “A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement”. 『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315. {{tpage|302}} '''{{size|150%|反宗教運動批判}}''' 一反宗教運動に対する批判は、..."

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈反宗教運動批判〉}}

[[Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1931). 〈反宗教運動批判〉 [[SG31HSU-T|“A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement”]]. 『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.

{{tpage|302}}

'''{{size|150%|反宗教運動批判}}'''
一
反宗教運動に対する批判は、二つの方面から之を考察してゆくべきであらう。即ち、其の一面は現在の既成宗教団そのものに対する彼等の実践的否定運動と、今一つは宗教そのものを否定せんとする理論的方面との二つに対してである。
先づ既成宗教団排撃の方面から批判して行く。既成宗教団排撃については、吾人は何等の異議をさし挟むものではない。恐らく、少しく真面目な宗教者のだれもが、程度の相違こそあれ、其の点、同感の意を表せざるを得ないであらうほど左様に、既成宗教団は、どれもこれもが、宗教本来の生命を喪失した残骸的存在であって、之の排撃こそ正しき宗教発展の動機をもたらすものであることが十二分に知られるからである。既成宗教団の現形態は、有名なレーニンの批評に尽きる。彼は云ふ、
「宗教は、他人のための永久的労働によって困苦と孤独とによって抑圧されてゐる人民大衆を至る所で重圧してゐる精神的の圧迫の一種である。搾取者に対する闘争に於ける被搾取階級の無力が不可避的に来世におけるより善き生活への信仰を呼びおこす。これは、丁度、自然との闘争における野蛮人の無力が諸神、悪魔、奇蹟其他のものを呼びおこすのと同じである。宗教は、一生涯、働いて苦しみ抜く人間に対しては、地上における屈従と忍耐を教へ、天国の報ひの希望を以て慰める。だが宗教は、他人の労働によって生活する人間に対しては、搾取者たる彼等の全存在を安々と是認し、天国の祝福の入場切符を相当の値段で売渡し、かうして彼等を地上での幸福を教へてゐる。宗教は民衆のための阿片である。宗教は資本の奴隷がその人為的……
{{tpage|303}}
……容貌や、最少限の人為的生存慾を溺死させてしまふ一種の精神的毒酒である」
と。最早珍らしくもない「阿片」だが、しかし、何と穿った批評ではないか。この評言の対象は主としてキリスト教であらうが、もとより、吾が既成佛教団もその例外ではありえない。今更高津正道氏の「搾取に耽る人々」や「反宗教闘争の旗の下に」の中の、西田繁氏の「本願寺の階級性」等々を読むまでもなく、真言宗も日蓮宗も禅宗等々も、現在その寺院組織が広大で繁昌してをればをるほど、その阿片性や搾取性は莫大であって、全くレーニンの、酷評そっくりであることは否めぬ眼前の事実である。かかる限りに於ては、反宗教運動の既成宗教団排撃に関して何等の反対の理由もありえぬことであらう。
しかしながら、既成教団のかかる現状と宗教そのものと果して必然的関係を有するものであらうか。たとへば、佛教イデオロギーは必ず現既成宗教のごとき醜悪なる状態を結果すべきイデオロギーであるだらうか？　若し、さうであるならば反宗教運動は完全に肯定されるべきであるが、果してさうであらうか？
否!!　それぞれの宗教のもつ真の本領は、反って現既成宗教団のごとき醜悪極まる生活形態を完全に否定し浄化すべき筈のものでこそあれ、断じて、之等を許容すべきものではない。
それは、高等なる宗教は倫理的宗教だと呼ばれることによっても知られるやうに、佛教にせよキリスト教にせよ、その属性に多分の倫理性を具有してをるかぎり、そして、その機能が歪曲されない限りに於て、既成宗団の現状のごときは到底認容されざる罪悪的存在でなければならぬ。従って、かかる残骸的宗団の排撃のごときは、反宗教運動者の躍起をまつまでもなく、真剣な進歩的宗教者の手によってすでに提起されてをらねばならぬ筈のものではなかったらうか。例へば、遅れながらも、今度吾等新興佛教徒がその運動の第二綱領に
「我等は、全既成宗団は佛教精神を冒瀆したる残骸的存在なりと認め、之れを排撃して佛教の新時代的闡揚を期す」
と掲げたのも、実にかかる認識からに外ならない。
二
と云へば、反宗教運動者達は言下に反駁するであら……
{{tpage|304}}
う、「さうした本領とか本質とかこね廻すのがブルヂョアー的形式論理だ、眼前に展開しつつある歴史以外にどこに本質があるか」と。だが、その点、彼等も省みて直ちに自己の非を悟らねばならぬであらうことは、現在流行せる幾多の無産運動――社民、大衆、共産等々、あらゆる無産運動を目して真正なるマルキシズム運動だとして批評することを彼等はそのまま許容するであらうか。また反宗教運動についても高津氏の「日本反宗教連盟」と秋田氏らの「反宗教闘争同盟」といづれが真のマルキシズムの本流なのか？　それらの批判清算は当然眼前の存在形態以上にその基準を、マルクス・エンゲルスや或はレーニンの教学に本質的に求めねばならぬであらうことを思はば、佛教或はキリスト教の本質と既成教団との関係に於ても同様の考察が許されねばならないであらう。簇出するダラ幹や、はしゃいだマルクスボーイや、原稿稼ぎのマルクス・インテリーなどの渦く濁流を以て偉大なるマルキシズムを否定することは誤診の大なるものと云はねばなるまい。だからこそ、現既成宗教団を以て、宗教そのものを否定してかかることも亦誤診であらねばならないのだ。
試みに思へ、キリストの生活のいづこに現教会に見るが如きブルジョアー的生活があったらうか。彼こそ当時ローマの虐政より被圧迫民族ユダヤを救出せんとした先覚者ではなかったのか。彼の友としたものはすべてが無産者であって断じて富貴者ではなかった。もとより、そのイデオロギーは現代的に清算されねばならぬものが多々あるであらう。けれどもキリスト教そのものは、いきなり労農者圧迫のイデオロギーではない。神を愛し隣人を愛せよの隣愛解放運動のごときばキット無産者解放運動の魁であるであらう。ずっと下って、リンカーンの神の名による奴隷解放運動のごときも、キリスト教が必ずしも阿片や毒酒ではない活証文と見ねばならぬ。
眼を転じて吾が佛教について見よう。王族をのがれて街頭に乞食生活をはじめられたわが佛陀の生活が、搾取のサの字もない大平等の典型的生活であったことはあまりにも能く知られた事実である。街頭に説かれる無我主義、従って、かの四姓の階級打破運動など、たとへ、それが積極的・政治的に行はれなかったとしても、どうして現在のごとき複雑極まる階級的寺院組織や、資本主義……
{{tpage|305}}
的現寺院佛教と同視することができようか？　四十五年一貫して説かれた縁起観・空観から――それは「物質的なものと精神的なものとの真の統一体――考へられた創造された統一体ではなく――現存する統一体」即ちフォイエルバッハの「感性」にも等しき純粋体験の無我主義からどうして現在のごとき観念的、阿片的佛教が肯定される必然性が見出せるか？　佛教は再吟味されねばウソだ。下って日蓮聖人の生活を見よ、時の支配者北条氏といかに一生を戦ひつづけられたか。決して「彼等の全存在を安々と是認し、天国の祝福の入場切符を相当の値段で売渡し」たり、或は「地上における屈従忍耐を」教へられもしなかった。実に世界歴史中比類のない対支配者とのその闘争的宗教運動は、現在のごとき国家主義的日蓮主義や、馬鹿げきったドメドマ法華式日蓮宗とは似もつかぬ宗教運動であったのだ。更にこれを近くは宗教者ガンヂーの反英独立運動について見ても亦さうであるやうに、宗教は常に民衆をして「安心立命の暗室」に眠りこませるものでは断じてなかった。吾人はこの外、宗教の名によって示された、具体的であり、進歩的であり、積極的であり、革命的でもある幾多の事実をもってをる限り既成宗教団そのものと宗教そのものとは――佛教にせよキリスト教にせよ――考察を別個にしうるものであり、せねばならぬものであると主張するに何の不合理もないと考へる。
かくして、吾人は反宗教運動の既成宗教団排撃を肯定しつつ、進んで反宗教運動のもつ宗教否定の理論の批判にうつらねばならぬ。
三
反宗教運動者マルクス主義者は宗教をどう規定してをるか？　彼等はその機関誌「反宗教闘争」の創刊号に、
「超自然的な世界の存在の信仰が宗教と名づけられるわけだ。これが宗教の最も基本的な特徴である」
といってをる。言葉を足して説明すれば、キリスト教のいふ超自然的な天国や、その世界の超人間的なゴッドに対する、ありもせぬ「幻想」を信仰するのが宗教だといふのである。エンゲルスが、フォイエルバッハ論中に、
「宗教が神なしに存在し得るものとすれば、錬金術も……
{{tpage|306}}
賢者の石なしに存立し得よう」といった、問題の「神」はマルクス主義宗教論の根本的対象であることを忘れてはならない。そしてその基礎哲学は勿論唯心論であるから、唯心論の正反対である唯物論に立脚するマルクス主義が、かうした超自然的な神の実在を肯定できないのは言ふまでもないことである。
では、かかる宗教は――神の信仰は一体どうして発生したか？　レーニンは言ふ「恐怖が神を創造した」と。ゴルテルは「不可解の力」だと。いづれにせよ、無知蒙昧であった太古の人間が、その生活に襲ひかかる「不可解」にして不可抗的な自然現象に対して懐く恐怖の観念が、それらの現象を神の仕業と思うたことから始まる、といふのだ。かくして、原始的万有神――アニミズムが発生し、進んで、氏族や民族宗教となり、遂に一世界宗教としてのキリスト教の神は、このやうにして生じたのである。佛教もまた、これと同様の一種の世界宗教である」といふのである。アニミズムに就いては、ブレハノフは、
「自然現象を説明せんとする野蛮人の試みである。この試みがいかに貧弱であっても、これは原始人の生活条件にあっては不可避なものである」
といってをる。民族宗教の起源に就いては、ボグダーノフは
「種族の長老は生産に於ける集積された経験の守護者として組織し、管理し、命令し、労働計画を立て活動的創造的原理を表象するが、一方その他のものは聴従し、命令を甘受し、上から示された計画に服し、他人の意志に従って行動するのである。この生産関係は万有の考察、就中、人間自身を考察する模型となった」
といってをる。だから、エンゲルスはその「反デューリング論」に、
「一切の宗教は人間の日常生活を支配する外部的な力が人間の頭脳に幻想的に反映せるものに過ぎない。さうしてその反映に於ては、地上の力が天上の力といふ姿をとる。歴史の初期に於ては先づ第一に自然の力がかかる反映をなし、それが諸民族の間に一層発展して極めて種々なる人格を生んだのである。……しかし間もなく、その自然力と並んで社会上の力が作用し始める。この社会力もやはり人間にとっては外部的のものであり、しかも始めはやはり説明すべからざるものとして人間に対立し、且つ自然そのものと二見同じ自然必然性を以て人間を支配するのである。これによって始めは唯神秘不可思議なる自然力のみを反映せる幻想の姿が社会的属性を獲得し歴史的力の代表者となってくるのである」
と説明してをる。レーニンはゴルキーへの書簡の中に神について、こんなに批評してをる。
{{tpage|307}}
「神とは（歴史的にもまた実際的にも）何よりも先づ、人間の魯鈍な被圧迫性と外界の自然と階級抑圧とを通じて生み出された諸々の観念――この被圧迫性を強固にし階級闘争をごまかし去らうとする所の諸々の観念――の複合体なのだ」
と。つまり宗教は、マルクスが「ヘーゲル法律哲学批判」の中に、
「反宗教的批判の基礎は、即ち人間が宗教を作るのであって、宗教が人間を作るのではないことになる。而して、確かに宗教は人間が自分自身まだかちえてゐないか、或は既に得て再び失ひ果てた場合の自己意識と自己感情とである」
といふ如く、神は人間自身の産物であるが故に、人間自身が、発達した科学によって其の「不可解な力」であった自然現象を完全に究明して「恐怖」の原因を除き、そして、社会的生産関係に於ては奴隷的立場から解放されて自由人となり、そこに何等の哀願的救済を要せぬ生活者となった場合、即ち人間が自分自身を完全にかち得た場合は宗教は必然的に消滅する性質のものである、と彼等は説くのである。之に関し直接エンゲルスの言葉を引用して見ると、
「社会が財産を獲得し、全ての生産手段を計画的に行使し、以て社会自体並びにすべての社会成員を、隷属――現在に於ては彼等は彼等自身の生産した、しかし彼等に巨大な外部的力となって対立する所の生産手段によって此の隷属の中におかれてゐる――から解放した場合、かくて人間が単に考ふるのみならず、指導をも行ふに至った場合に於て始めて、今日なほ宗教のなかに反映したるところの、最後の外部的力が消滅し、これと共に宗教的反映自体も消滅するのである。それは蓋し反映すべき何物もなくなったといふ単純な理由からである。」
{{tpage|308}}
と説いてをる。マルクス主義のいふ宗教消滅の原理論はザットこんな要領である。かくてマルクスは、
「宗教的苦難は一つには現実的艱難の表現であると共に、又一つには現在的艱難に対する抗弁である。宗教は抑圧せられた生きものの嘆息であり、……民衆の阿片である」
だから
「民衆の幻想的幸福としての宗教を止揚することは彼等の真実の幸福を要求することである」
等の真実の幸福を要求することである」として、宗教否定の必然性を示してをる。問題の反宗教運動理論はかかる理論をそのまま踏襲したものであるが、ここで上記の理論を反宗運動の一闘士、秋田氏の文句を以て摘要して反宗理論の紹介は終ることにしよう。
「人間が自分自身の主人とならないかぎり、人間が外部的な力によって――生産力の未発達な段階に於ては自然力、生産力の発達した段階に於ては社会力によって――その現実的生活を支配されてゐるかぎり、宗教は存続する」
「人間が自分自らを中心に動くやうになるのは、社会主義社会に於てのみ、プロレタリヤ革命によってのみ可能である。……未来の社会にあっては、あらゆる宗教が完全に消滅する」
四
さて、以上見てきたマルクス主義の宗教否定論の批判にあたって、先づ基本的に批判すべきは、彼等がいふごとく宗教は、超人間的な「神」を必須条件とせねばならぬものであるか、どうかといふ問題である。なぜなれば、佛教の如くキリスト教的超自然的「神」を必須条件としない宗教も厳存してをるからである。と云へば彼等は「反宗教闘争」の中にもいふごとく「佛教は無神論の立場に立つなどといって、佛教徒はマルクス主義者の宗教否定の論鋒を避けようとするが、佛教の教理を一瞥して見よ、そこには超自然的の信仰が無数にある」と、再び反駁するであらう。成程、現在の寺院佛教は有神的信仰を持って居るものが少くないが、従って、寺院佛教者が、佛教を本来の無神論的立場だと主張するには、現在の信仰形式にかなり多くの揚棄すべきものがあることを反省せねばならないが、しかし彼等が佛教を再検して詳……
{{tpage|309}}
細に研究すれば、佛教本来の教理は明らかに無神論であることを知るであらう。
佛陀は当時の婆羅門教――天地創造の神、大梵の信仰――を否定して、四諦、十二因縁のごとき因果の理、縁起の法を説かれた。その入滅に当っては「自らを燈明として他に依る勿れ、法を燈明として他に依る勿れ」と遺教されたといふ如きは一層にその無神論を証明する経文であって、佛教こそ実に、マルクスの言った「宗教の批判は人間に対する最高の実在は人間であるといふ教義を以て終る」の文句を肯定しつつ、進んで、吾人に言はしめれば、「人間の理想する最高の人間こそ佛陀であって、宗教は佛陀の渇仰に於て理想的完成を見る」と添加したいが、とまれ、佛教には何等の超自然的「神」の実在など認めぬ本来無神論教である。
之れに就ては先頃、「読売」の宗教欄に於て問題となった高楠博士の佛教無神主義の主張もあり、また最近「現代佛教」の七月号で、加藤精神氏は「佛教の無神論、無霊魂に就いて」の論題下に、
「要約すれば、佛教は徹頭徹尾無霊魂説であり、無神論である。然るに、佛教学者中、往々『大乗佛教は有神論なり』と主張する者あるは、佛教に対する彼等の誤診である」
といってをられる。また木村泰賢博士は、その著「真空より妙有へ」の中に、
「佛陀は何物にも依憑するなく、自ら佛陀となったといふ以上、ここに『神と人との関係』なるものは――その神を法又は涅槃と解せざる限り――到底成立の余地なしといはねばならぬ。……然らば佛教は遂に宗教でないかといふに、難かしき理窟は暫く措いて、実際上、佛教は世界の三大宗教の一として取扱はれて、且つ人々は之によりて安心立命を得てゐる以上、何といっても宗教であることの事実には疑がない。理論上、佛教に対して宗教か否かを論ぜねばならぬのは、所詮、余りに人格神を宗教の主要素と見、他に別に宗教的要求に関して必要な要素を見逃した結果である」
「宗教心の本質は自由の要求と解脱の要求とが、からみ合ふ所にある限り、この要求に満足を与へられば神なくともそれで宗教たりうる」
と説いてをられる。かくの如く佛教は確かに無神論に立つ宗教で、それは単なる教空や佛陀の了解に止まらずし……
{{tpage|310}}
て、たとへば、禅宗のごとき宗派さへも存続してをる限り、反宗教運動は「神は宗教の基本的特徴」だといふ彼等の宗教否定の前提を、宗教に対する認識不足として撤回して出直すか、或はキリスト教及び有神的形式をもつ既成佛教団といふ限界に於ての運動とせずしては、彼等が科学的といふだけそれだけ宗教一般として不当な運動と見ねばなるまい。
かくして、宗教の基本的特徴は「神」にでなく他に之を求めるべきであらう。
五
然らば、宗教の特徴は何か？
「宗教」といふ言葉は、しばしば「信仰」といふ言葉と同義語に使用されてをるが、この「信仰」の語こそは宗教の本質そのものを最も適切に説明してくれるものではあるまいか。即ち宗教とは信ずる生活のことである。信ずる対象は場合によって「神」であり真理であり、其外色々に変化してよいもかく信じきった対象の前に無条件に一切をささげ、それによって自然的にも社会的にも個人的にも、すべての矛盾が統一されて、いはば「安心立命」して、満足を感じ力を感ずる全一なる絶対的生活のことである。フォイエルバッハは「宗教の根源は依属感である」といった。シュライエルマッヘルは「絶対的なる信頼の感情である」といって「神は宗教の必須物ではない」とした。またリッチェルは「宗教を以て、現に活きて働く経験だ」と見た。
佛教に於ては神をもたぬ宗派がいくらでもあることは言ふまでもないことで、結局「神」はなくても宗教は成立してをるが、信仰の態度なくては宗教は不可能であって、従って、キリスト教的「神」の否定は、いきなり宗教の否定ではありえないことを知らねばならぬ。人間が感性的であり、何等かの方法によって、生活の矛盾を統一せんとする生活者であるかぎり、宗教の否定は人間らしき人間の否定だともいへるであらう。シンクレアーの言葉をかりていへば、
「宗教は真の意味に於ては、霊的衝動の最も根本的なものであり、熱烈な生命愛であり、生命の貴さを感ずることであり、生命の愛養助成の慾望である。その意味では思想する凡ての人間は宗教的でなければならない。その意味では『宗教』は永遠の自己更生力であ……
{{tpage|311}}
り、吾人々類のまことの本性である。その意味では、私は宗教を攻撃しようなど毛頭思ってゐない。否、私は宗教は、その意味に於ては、決して攻撃などしうるものではないといふことを明かしたい」
かうした絶対生活は、当のマルクス主義者の生活態度そのものが最も手近く物語るものではないか。彼等は「神」の宗教を否定してマルクス主義宗教を提唱してゐるといはれまいか。彼等の態度は、昔、日蓮聖人が法華経を提げて余他の一切の宗教を排撃しぬかれた信仰的態度と全く同様ではないか。といへば彼等は、これは真理の把持であって宗教信仰ではないと反駁するであらうが、それは独断である。なぜならば、日蓮宗が題目の、真宗が念佛の、キリスト教が神の、それぞれの信仰を提唱するのも決して無批判的盲信ではない。それぞれその信仰に人生社会の純一原理を見ての実践運動であるかぎり、それが何が故に真理把持――勿論そのイデオロギーの真理性には優劣があらう。過去に於ても幾多の宗派が次第に揚棄されてきたやうに、時代不相応のイデオロギーをもつ宗教はドンドン清算されるべきではあるが――の態度でないと拒否できようか。いづれも統一原理をかかげた真理把持の絶対生活ではないか。従って宗教問題は宗教そのものの否定でなく、その内容としてのイデオロギーが問題として批判されるべきであらう。
六
然らばキリスト教的イデオロギーは？
神学のもつ世界観、人生観は、すでにルネッサンスに依って峠を越えてをる。次いで、フォイエルバッハの「神学の秘密は人間学である」といふ一句で近代の人間主義的平野は展望されて「神」の姿は遥か峠の彼方に没してをるし、佛教間にあっても、所謂他力的彼岸主義は、その清算期が刻々近づきつつあるは、この頃八釜しく問題にされる異安心問題等が雄弁に物言ってをるから、之に関して多くを贅しないで問題をマルクス主義の要点批判へと運ばう。
ただ一言ここで説明を要するは幻想的「神」の発生がマルクス主義が見たごとく自然や生産関係からのみでなく、人間の本性的産物でもあることである。それはこんど佐野学氏が法廷に於て、「故渡辺政之輔氏其他に、追悼の意を表す」と述べたこの声――反宗運動の巨頭の発……
{{tpage|312}}
したるこの声はそもそも何を物語るか？　「追悼」の弁解は「功績を頌したに過ぎぬ」ものであっても、亡者の個的人格に対して表明されたその意識こそ生産関係等とは独立して人間にアニミズム的要求の存する証左ではあるまいか。かくして神の観念は必ずしも人間の要求する「真実の幸福」と対照的のものとのみは言へないことを知るべきであらう。
さて、マルクス主義の社会観人生観の根本哲学は唯物史観であることは今更言ふまでもない。唯物史観は精神価値を認容しない機械的唯物論と弁別してをる。エンゲルスは、
「政治的、法律的、哲学的、宗教的、文学的、芸術的等々のものの発展は、経済的発展に基礎を置いてをる。併しながら此等のものはすべて相互に反応し、且つ経済的基礎にも反応する。それは、経済的状態が唯一の能動的な原因であって、他のすべてのものは受動的な結果に過ぎぬといふのでは決してない。否寧ろそれは究極に於て常に遂行せられる経済的必然性の基礎の上に立てる相互作用である」
と委曲をつくしてをるが、此の文章の中でも、気を止めて読めば「究極に於て……経済的必然性の基礎の上に立てる」といふ文句は経済関係は対立する余他の事象と相互作用とはいふものの決して同位ではないことを示し、之をエンゲルスの他の文章、
「歴史に於ける究極の決定的要素は現実生活の生産及び再生産である」
といふ文章と照応すれば、色々に中間的相互作用は説くものの、結局物質による精神の規定を説くのが唯物史観で、もっとツキつめれば、唯物論哲学の上に立つ以外のものではない。
さて、かうした唯物史観は、果して正しき世界観であり人生の統一原理として真に人間に自由をもたらしうるものであらうか。
彼等は唯物史観に則って革命されたる社会主義社会に於ては「自分自身が主人」となって完全なる自由が享楽され従って宗教は消滅するといふが、それは、彼等の理論からは結果せぬ幻想ではあるまいか。なぜなれば、エンゲルスは「世界は出来上った事物の複合体と解すべきでなく、過程の複合体と解すべき」だと考へ、そして発展は世界の内部的矛盾によって行はれるといふ世界……
{{tpage|313}}
観である故に、発展の車輪が停止せぬかぎり新しき矛盾は不断に展開する。そして矛盾は言ふまでもなく苦悩の原因であるが故に、そこに何等かの観念的作用を加へぬかぎり、自由の意識は社会革命の必然としては完全に反映し保留されないからである。といへば彼等は「自由とは意識された必然性だ」と弁証しきたるであらうが、それならば、自由はいかなる現実――たとへば革命されざる現社会にあっても意識される観念であって、殊更、社会革命の犠牲を払ふ必要もないことである。なぜなら、如何なる現実もすべて必然的であるからである。かくして、常に矛盾を孕む自然と社会に置かれた現実的生活者人間の本能的に求むる自由欲は決して単なる物質的生産関係の改造に依ってのみ解決され得るものでないことを悟らねばならぬ。
もとより、イデオロギーは「世界をいろいろに解釈するばかりでは駄目だ、世界を変更することが眼目」でなければならぬが、それが形式的「変更」には役立っても内容的に社会人が真に「自由」を享楽しえぬとすれば、それは「変更」のための「変更」で人間のための「変更」とはならぬ。資本のみから商品が生産されぬやうに、経済的闘争のみからは真の自由――菩提文化は将来されず、かくて社会には依然として精神的要求は存続する必然性を失はぬであらう。
元来、唯物史観は社会を発展的過程と見て、経済的下部構造と精神的上部構造との交互作用を認めるかぎりは、一期の経済的下部構造は明らかに前期の精神的上部構造からも何等かの逆影響を受けた下部構造であるべき故に、その関係は佛教に説く縁起観で、上下に分離していづれを主体とも説明できない相互関係で、一脈一体の有機体でなければならぬ。然るに、マルクス主義が弁証法といひながら物質本位に社会人生を把握することは、観念論とは遥かに実際的効果を示しても結局、唯心論と正反対に唯物論的形而上学に流れて、人生社会のありのままの把握とならず、従って正しき発展的統一原理ではありえないと思ふ。
七
かくて、唯心的桎梏から自己を解放した人類は、再び、唯物論的虜囚から社会及び自己解放の正しきイデオロギーを要求せねばウソである。科学があまりに人……
{{tpage|314}}
生を見ることであるならば、弁証法の真の意味がフィンゲルト等のいふが如く「綜合的見解」といふことであるならば、再び唯物史観も止揚されねばならぬ。
佛教はいづまでも眠った獅子であってはならぬ。今こそ佛教は象牙の塔を破壊すべきである。人生永劫の真理である空観、縁起の理法をひっさげて物・心二論を揚棄し、無我主義を確立して、特権否定、自由平等の真社会実現へと直進すべきであらう。
之を要するに、反宗教運動はそれ自体矛盾した論理の上に立った運動であるけれども、この運動のもたらす功績を考へれば実践面に於ては全既成宗教団にとっては、極度の堕落性阿片性に対する最も効果的な解毒剤である。
理論面に於ては、キリスト教に対して幻想的「神」の止揚剤であらうが、佛教に対しては、加藤精神氏のいはれることく「マルクスやエンゲルスの無神論、無霊魂説を我国に宣伝して珍らしがってゐるのは、恰も遼東の豕を率ひて河北に到るの類であって」何等、本質的否定運動ではありえない。むしろ、之によって佛教の空観、縁起観はハッキリ再認識されて、彼等が唯物弁証法と誇りながら、いまだ物・心二元の対立的意識を脱化しない時、反って唯物史観の徹底――言ふべくんば実践史観への発展となるべきではあるまいか。
従って、反宗運動は、名を「反宗」にかって其の根本目的を未組織大衆――わけて農村の――をプロ運動へ組織づけにおいてをるならば問題は別だが、さしづめ当面の結果としては宗教撲滅はおろか、反って其の浄化強化の反対現象をもたらすことになるであらう。宗教の根強さはソビエット政府の権威をもってしても未だあの始末だ。況んや我が現状を顧みるとき、反宗運動の態度としては、既成ブル教団排撃こそよけれ、むしろ宗教のもつ本来の大衆性に呼びかけて、宗教をして自らの内部闘争によるプロ運動への有力なる綜合的寄与をなす余地と機会とを与へることこそ、現状にふさはしきより効果的大衆運動ではあるまいか。かの公式的マルクス主義の自瀆的英雄主義的行動の如きは、大衆の求むる「変革」を反ってより前方へ押しやる嫌ひがないではあるまいか。
もしそれ、反宗運動に対して正当なる立場を忘れて軽率なる排撃運動を試みるがごときは、余程慎まねばならぬことだ。何となればたとへ立場は反対であっても現……
{{tpage|315}}
在、理想社会実現へと死力をつくしつつある生ける団体こそ、反って彼等であるからである。宗教を、佛教を毒するものは、宗教者自身でこそあれ、断じて反宗教運動ではない。
佛徒は退いて、先づ自己の生活をば佛陀の理想に照応して反省せねばウソだ。而して断然出発を新にすることこそ反宗教運動に報ひ、進んで之を止揚する唯一の道程ではあるまいか。
――六、七、一八――
（昭和六年「新興佛教の旗の下に」八月号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31HSU-T

2026-08-29T18:48:00Z

James:

{{Under Construction}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno'o Girō, “A Critique of the Anti-Religious
Movement”}}
'''Original Japanese:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1931).
「反宗教運動批判」 [A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement].
『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in
稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.
'''English translation:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (2026).
“A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement.” Trans. [[user:James|James
Mark Shields]]. ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Translated from the text
reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975),
302–315.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

= A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement =

== I ==

{{opage|302}}

A critique of the anti-religious movement should proceed from two
directions. On the one hand, we must consider its practical movement of
negation directed against the existing religious organizations
themselves; on the other, its theoretical attempt to negate religion
itself.

Let us begin by considering the attack on existing religious
organizations. As far as the attack on existing religious organizations
is concerned, we have no objection whatsoever. Indeed, virtually every
religious person who takes religion at all seriously, differences of
degree notwithstanding, would probably have to express agreement on this
point. For the existing religious organizations, one and all, are
residual forms that have lost the original vitality of religion, and
there is more than sufficient reason to recognize that attacking them
can itself provide the impetus for the proper development of religion.
The present form of the existing religious organizations is perfectly
captured by Lenin’s famous critique. He writes:

“Religion is one form of spiritual oppression that everywhere weighs
heavily upon the masses of the people, oppressed by perpetual labor for
others, by hardship and isolation. The impotence of the exploited
classes in their struggle against the exploiters inevitably gives rise
to belief in a better life hereafter, just as the impotence of primitive
people in their struggle against nature gives rise to gods, devils,
miracles, and the like. Religion teaches those who labor and suffer
throughout their lives submission and patience on earth, consoling them
with the hope of a heavenly reward. But to those who live from the labor
of others, religion offers an easy justification for their entire
existence as exploiters, sells them tickets to heavenly bliss at a
reasonable price, and thereby teaches them happiness on earth. Religion
is opium for the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual intoxicant in
which the slaves of capital drown their human…

{{opage|303}}

…dignity and even their most minimal desire for a human
existence.”<ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (''Sotsializm i
religiya''), originally published in ''Novaya Zhizn'', no. 28 (December
3, 1905). Seno’o quotes from Sano Manabu 佐野学 (1892–1953), trans.,
''Shūkyō ni tsuite'' 宗教について [On Religion] (Tokyo: Kibōkaku,
1931).</ref>

The familiar charge of “opium” is hardly new anymore, but what a
penetrating critique it is! The immediate target of these remarks was
presumably Christianity, but needless to say, our own established
Buddhist organizations cannot be regarded as exceptions. We need hardly
turn now to Takatsu Seidō’s “Those Who Indulge in Exploitation,” or to
Nishida Shigeji’s “The Class Character of Honganji” in ''Under the
Banner of the Anti-Religious Struggle'', and so forth. Whether Shingon,
Nichiren, Zen, or any of the others, the larger and more prosperous
their present temple organizations, the more enormous their opiate and
exploitative character. It is an undeniable fact before our very eyes
that they correspond almost exactly to Lenin’s harsh critique. Insofar
as this is the case, there can be no reason whatsoever to oppose the
anti-religious movement’s attack upon the existing religious
organizations.<ref>Seno’o wrote amid an increasingly prominent Marxist
anti-religious movement in Japan. Following heated 1930 debates over
“Marxism and Religion” in the Buddhist newspaper ''Chūgai Nippō''
中外日報, the ''Hanshūkyō Tōsō Dōmei Junbikai'' 反宗教闘争同盟準備会
[Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee] was established
in April 1931, sponsoring public rallies and publishing the journal
''Hanshūkyō Tōsō'' 反宗教闘争 [Anti-Religious Struggle] from June. Its
critique combined Marxist theories of religion as ideology and “opium”
with attacks on temples and religious institutions as agents of economic
exploitation and class domination. Seno’o’s argument—written in the same
year that he founded the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism—should
thus be read as an intervention in this immediate controversy rather
than simply as an abstract response to Marxist theories of
religion.</ref>

But is there really a necessary relationship between the present
condition of the existing religious organizations and religion itself?
For example, is Buddhist ideology necessarily an ideology that must
result in the sort of ugly condition exhibited by the existing religions
today? If so, then the anti-religious movement should be accepted
completely. But is that really the case?

No!! The true essence of each religion is precisely what ought
completely to negate and purify the utterly ugly forms of life
represented by the existing religious organizations. Under no
circumstances should it permit them.

The higher religions are described as ethical religions precisely
because, whether Buddhism or Christianity, they possess a considerable
ethical dimension. So long as that function has not been distorted, the
present condition of the established religious organizations must be
regarded as an evil that simply cannot be accepted. It follows that
attacks upon such residual religious organizations ought already to have
been initiated by serious and progressive religious people themselves,
without waiting for the anti-religious activists to work themselves into
a frenzy.

Thus, belated though it may be, when we Revitalized Buddhists recently
declared in the second plank of our movement:

“We recognize all existing religious organizations as residual forms
that have desecrated the Buddhist spirit; we reject them and seek the
propagation of Buddhism appropriate to the new age,”

this declaration arose from precisely such an understanding.

== II ==

At this point, the anti-religious activists will immediately retort—…

{{opage|304}}

…“All this fussing over things like ‘essence’ and ‘true nature’ is
bourgeois formal logic. Where is there any essence apart from the
history unfolding before our eyes?” But on this point, too, they need
only reflect upon themselves to recognize their error immediately. Would
they themselves permit all the various proletarian movements currently
in vogue—the Social Democrats, the Masses Party, the Communists, and so
forth—to be regarded as genuine Marxist movements and criticized as
such? And as for the anti-religious movement itself, which represents
the true mainstream of Marxism: Takatsu’s “Japan Anti-Religious League,”
or Akita and his colleagues’ “Anti-Religious Struggle
League”?<ref>Seno’o refers to competing currents within Japan’s
anti-religious movement. Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a former
Jōdo Shinshū priest and communist activist, was a leading advocate of
organized anti-religious struggle and later helped lead the ''Nihon
Hanshūkyō Dōmei'' 日本反宗教同盟 [Japan Anti-Religion League]. Akita
Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), playwright and socialist, was associated
with the Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee
established in April 1931.</ref>

Surely any critical assessment of these movements must seek its criteria
beyond their immediately existing forms, in the essential teachings of
Marx and Engels, or perhaps Lenin. Once this is recognized, the same
kind of consideration must be permitted when examining the relationship
between the essence of Buddhism or Christianity and the existing
religious organizations. To negate the greatness of Marxism on the basis
of the turbid current swirling with the petty hacks springing up
everywhere, excitable “Marx-boys,” and Marxist intellectuals who make
their living churning out manuscripts would have to be called a serious
misdiagnosis. And precisely for this reason, to negate religion itself
on the basis of the existing religious organizations must likewise be a
misdiagnosis.

Consider Christianity. Where in the life of Christ was there anything
resembling the bourgeois way of life found in the churches today? Was he
not a pioneer who sought to liberate the oppressed Jewish people from
Roman tyranny?<ref>Seno’o interprets Jesus in contemporary
social-liberationist terms, emphasizing his association with the poor
and oppressed and presenting primitive Christianity as a movement
opposed to political and economic domination.</ref> All those with whom
he associated were propertyless; they were certainly not the wealthy and
privileged. Of course, much in his ideology would have to be critically
reassessed from a contemporary standpoint. But Christianity itself is
not, from the outset, an ideology for the oppression of workers and
peasants. Surely the movement for neighborly love and liberation
expressed in “Love God and love your neighbor” was a precursor to the
movement for the liberation of the propertyless. And coming much later,
Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves in the name of God
must likewise be regarded as living proof that Christianity is not
necessarily opium or poisonous liquor.

Now let us turn our eyes to Buddhism. It is an all-too-familiar fact
that the life of our Buddha, who left the royal family and began a
mendicant life on the streets, was an exemplary life of great equality
without so much as a trace of exploitation. The doctrine of non-self
preached in the streets, and consequently such things as his movement to
break down the class divisions of the four castes<ref>The “four castes”
refers to the traditional fourfold ''varṇa'' scheme of Brahmins
(priests), Kṣatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaiśyas (agriculturalists
and merchants), and Śūdras (servants and laborers). Buddhist texts
repeatedly reject birth as the determinant of spiritual worth,
subordinating inherited status to conduct and spiritual
attainment.</ref>—even if these were not pursued actively and
politically—how could any of this possibly be identified with the
immensely complicated hierarchical organization of temples today, or
with the capitalist—

{{opage|305}}

—temple Buddhism of the present day?

Consider the vision of dependent origination and emptiness that he
consistently taught for forty-five years. This is “the true unity of the
material and the spiritual—not a conceived or fabricated unity, but an
actually existing unity”—a principle of non-self grounded in a pure
experience comparable to Feuerbach’s “sensibility.”<ref>Ludwig Feuerbach
(1804–1872), whose critique of Christian theology strongly influenced
the young Marx, emphasized ''Sinnlichkeit'' (“sensuousness” or
“sensibility”) as the concrete, embodied basis of human existence, in
opposition to abstract idealism. Seno’o compares Feuerbach’s concept
with the Buddhist principles of dependent origination, emptiness, and
non-self.</ref> How could one possibly discover in this any necessity
for affirming the sort of idealistic, opiate-like Buddhism we see today?
Buddhism must be reexamined; anything less would be a lie.

Look, further, at the life of Nichiren. How he fought throughout his
life against the ruling Hōjō clan of his day!<ref>Nichiren 日蓮
(1222–1282) repeatedly confronted the political authorities of the
Kamakura shogunate and suffered persecution, exile, and an attempted
execution. Seno’o contrasts this image of Nichiren as religious
dissident with modern nationalist “Nichirenism” (''Nichirenshugi''
日蓮主義). The contrast is particularly pointed given Seno’o’s own
earlier involvement in the Nichirenist movement.</ref> He certainly did
not “easily justify their entire existence” as exploiters and “sell them
tickets to heavenly bliss at a reasonable price”; nor did he teach
“submission and patience on earth.” His religious movement of struggle
against the rulers—a movement virtually without parallel in world
history—was utterly unlike either the nationalistic Nichirenism of the
present day or the ridiculous, clamorous Lotus-style Nichiren Buddhism
of today. And, closer to our own time, we can see the same thing in the
anti-British independence movement of the religious leader
Gandhi.<ref>Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) had by 1931 become
internationally identified with the Indian independence movement and
nonviolent resistance to British colonial rule. Seno’o invokes him
alongside Jesus and Nichiren as an example of religiously motivated
resistance to political domination.</ref> Religion has certainly not
always been something that makes the people fall asleep in the “dark
chamber of peace of mind.”

So long as we possess, in addition to these, numerous concrete examples
carried out in the name of religion that were progressive, active, and
even revolutionary, I see nothing unreasonable in maintaining that
existing religious organizations and religion itself—whether Buddhism or
Christianity—can, and must, be considered separately.

Thus, while affirming the anti-religious movement’s attack upon existing
religious organizations, we must now proceed to a critique of the theory
by which the anti-religious movement negates religion itself.

== III ==

{{opage|306}}

How do the Marxists of the anti-religious movement define religion? In
the inaugural issue of their journal ''Anti-Religious Struggle'', they
write:

“Belief in the existence of a supernatural world is what is called
religion. This is the most fundamental characteristic of religion.”

To elaborate: religion, according to this definition, consists in
believing in the nonexistent “illusion” of a supernatural heaven such as
Christianity teaches and in the superhuman God who inhabits that world.
In his work on Feuerbach, Engels writes:

“If religion could exist without God, then alchemy could also…

{{opage|307}}

…exist without the philosopher’s stone.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Ludwig
Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' (1886). Engels
uses the comparison with alchemy to criticize Feuerbach’s attempt to
preserve “religion” after abandoning its traditional God. Seno’o
reverses the argument by presenting Buddhism as an actual historical
example of religion without a creator God.</ref>

We must not overlook the fact that the “God” in question is the
fundamental object of Marxist theories of religion. And since the
philosophical foundation of such religion is naturally idealism, it goes
without saying that Marxism, which stands in direct opposition to
idealism, cannot affirm the existence of such a supernatural God.

How, then, did such religion—that is, belief in God—arise? Lenin says,
“Fear created the gods.” Gorter calls it the work of “incomprehensible
forces.”<ref>Lenin’s formulation that “fear created the gods” derives
from his materialist account of religion as arising from human
powerlessness before natural and social forces. Herman Gorter
(1864–1927), a Dutch poet and Marxist theorist, similarly explained
religion in terms of humanity’s subjection to forces it could neither
understand nor control.</ref> That is to say, primitive human beings,
still ignorant and unenlightened, confronted natural phenomena that bore
down upon their lives as “incomprehensible,” irresistible forces, and
from their fear of these phenomena came to imagine them as the workings
of gods. Thus arose primitive animism, which developed into clan
religion and ethnic religion, and finally into Christianity as a world
religion. Buddhism, too, is said to be one of these world religions.

On animism, Plekhanov writes:

“It is the savage’s attempt to explain natural phenomena. However
impoverished this attempt may be, under the conditions of primitive life
it was unavoidable.”

As for the origins of ethnic religion, Bogdanov writes:

“The tribal elder, as the guardian of accumulated experience in
production, organizes and administers, issues commands, draws up plans
for labor, and represents the active and creative principle; the others,
meanwhile, obey, receive commands, submit to plans handed down from
above, and act according to the will of others. These relations of
production became the model for human beings’ own
understanding.”<ref>Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918) and Alexander Bogdanov
(1873–1928) were major Russian Marxist theorists who developed
materialist accounts of religion. Seno’o cites Plekhanov on the
emergence of animism from human inability to comprehend natural
phenomena, and Bogdanov on the projection of hierarchical relations of
production onto supernatural authority.</ref>

Thus Engels, in ''Anti-Dühring'', writes:

“All religion is nothing more than the fantastic reflection in human
minds of those external forces that dominate their everyday existence—a
reflection in which earthly forces assume the form of supernatural ones.
In the earliest period of history, it was first of all the forces of
nature that were reflected in this way; and in the course of further
development, they underwent the most varied and manifold
personifications among different peoples. . . . But it was not long
before, alongside the forces of nature, social forces also began to
operate—forces that confronted human beings…”

{{opage|308}}

“…and which, at first, likewise appeared inexplicable, dominating human
beings with the same apparent natural necessity as nature itself. In
this way, the fantastic figures that initially reflected only the
mysterious and incomprehensible forces of nature acquired social
attributes and became representatives of historical
forces.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'' (1877–78), Part III,
chap. 5. Engels defines religion here as the “fantastic reflection” of
the external forces governing human life, initially natural and
subsequently social.</ref>

Engels explains it in these terms. Lenin, in a letter to Gorky,
criticizes God as follows:

“‘God’ is (historically and in actual life), above all, a complex of
ideas generated by the brutish oppression of human beings both by
external nature and by class oppression—ideas that reinforce this
oppression and lull the class struggle to sleep.”<ref>V. I. Lenin,
letter to Maxim Gorky, November 1913. Lenin was responding to the
Russian socialist “God-building” movement, which sought to reinterpret
religious language and the idea of God in humanistic and socialist
terms.</ref>

In other words, religion is, as Marx says in his ''Critique of Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right'', “an amalgam” (復合体) of all those ideas that
seek to deceive human beings.<ref>Karl Marx, introduction to ''A
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844),
the same text containing his characterization of religion as the “opium
of the people.” Marx begins his critique from the premise that religion
is a human product rather than an independently existing supernatural
reality.</ref>

“The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: human beings make
religion; religion does not make human beings. Religion is indeed the
self-consciousness and self-feeling of the human being who has either
not yet won himself or has already lost himself again.”

Thus, God is something produced by human beings themselves. Therefore,
once human beings have scientifically investigated and completely
clarified those natural phenomena that confronted them as
“incomprehensible forces,” thereby eliminating the causes of “fear,” and
once, within the relations of social production, they have been
liberated from their enslaved position and become free human beings who
no longer need to pray for salvation—that is, once human beings have
completely regained themselves—religion must necessarily disappear.
Engels explains this directly in the following words:

“When society has taken possession of all the means of production and
employs them according to plan, thereby freeing both itself and all its
members from the bondage in which they are now held by the means of
production that they themselves have produced, but which confront them
as an overwhelming external force; when human beings therefore not only
propose but also dispose—only then will the last external force still
reflected in religion disappear, and with it religious reflection itself
will disappear as well, for the simple reason that there will then be
nothing left to reflect.”<ref>Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'', Part III, chap.
5; see note 12.</ref>

{{opage|309}}

That is what he says. The Marxist theory of the extinction of religion
may be summarized roughly as follows.

“Religious suffering is at once an expression of real suffering and a
protest against present suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature . . . the opium of the people.”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844).
Immediately before calling religion the “opium of the people,” Marx
describes religious suffering as both “the expression of real suffering”
and “a protest against real suffering.” Seno’o emphasizes this latter
dimension against a purely negative interpretation of Marx’s critique of
religion.</ref>

Thus Marx. To put a stop to religion as the illusory happiness of the
people is to demand their real happiness. The problem of religion,
therefore, is to demonstrate the necessity of the negation of religion.
At this point, let us conclude our presentation of anti-religious theory
by summarizing the foregoing arguments in the words of Akizawa, a
fighter in the anti-religious movement.

“So long as human beings do not become masters of themselves, their
actual lives will continue to be dominated by external forces—at an
undeveloped stage of productive power, by the forces of nature, and at a
developed stage, by social forces—and religion will continue to
exist.”<ref>Akizawa Shūji 秋沢修二 (1909–1987) was an activist in the
contemporary anti-religious movement. Seno’o calls him “a fighter in the
anti-religious movement” (''hanshū undō no ichi tōshi''
反宗運動の一闘士) and uses his formulation here to summarize the
movement’s argument that religion will persist until humanity gains
conscious mastery over natural and social forces.</ref>

“Only in socialist society does the human being come to act with himself
at the center; only through proletarian revolution is it possible . . .
for all religion to disappear completely in the society of the future.”

== IV ==

Now, if we are to criticize fundamentally the Marxist theory of the
negation of religion outlined above, the question is whether religion
must necessarily make a supernatural “God” an indispensable condition.
Why, for example, must Buddhism necessarily posit a Christian-style
supernatural “God”? Buddhism does not necessarily posit such a religion.
Indeed, within Buddhism there even exists a “Buddhist atheism” that
takes the standpoint of atheism. Buddhists may try to avoid the sharp
edge of Marxist religious criticism by saying that Buddhism teaches that
“there are innumerable supernatural beliefs,” but although relatively
few contemporary temple Buddhists maintain theistic belief, Buddhism, if
it is to claim the fundamentally atheistic standpoint proper to it, must
reflect seriously upon the fact that its present forms of belief have in
many cases been distorted.

If one investigates this matter carefully, it becomes clear that the
original doctrine of Buddhism is plainly atheistic.

The Buddha denied the Brahmanical gods of creation—Brahmā, the creator
of heaven and earth—and taught the doctrine of the twelve links of
dependent origination, the law of cause and effect. At the time of his
entering nirvāṇa, he left the instruction, “Be a lamp unto yourselves
and rely upon yourselves; take the Dharma as your lamp and rely upon the
Dharma; rely upon no other.”<ref>An allusion to the Buddha’s final
instructions in the ''Mahāparinibbāna Sutta'' (''Dīgha Nikāya'' 16):
''attadīpā … attasaraṇā … dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā'', conventionally
rendered “be lamps [or islands] unto yourselves, your own refuge; with
the Dharma as your lamp [or island] and refuge.” Seno’o follows the East
Asian Buddhist tradition in understanding ''dīpa'' as “lamp.”</ref> In
this way, Buddhism is precisely a religion that demonstrates atheism at
a higher level. While affirming Marx’s proposition that “the highest
being for man is man,”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844): “The criticism of
religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man.”
Marx immediately connects this principle with the imperative to
overthrow social relations in which human beings are degraded, enslaved,
or abandoned.</ref> we can go further and say that the Buddha is
precisely the highest human being whom humanity can ideally imagine: he
saw the ideal perfection of the human being in the Buddha’s attainment
of nirvāṇa. In short, Buddhism is fundamentally an atheistic religion in
which no supernatural “God” exists.

Recently, in the “Reader’s Forum” column, the problem was raised by Dr.
Takakusu, an advocate of Buddhist atheism; and in issue no. 7 of
''Gendai Bukkyō'', Katō Seishin also discussed the question under the
title “On Buddhist Atheism.”<ref>Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎
(1866–1945), one of Japan’s leading Buddhist scholars, had recently
defended the non-theistic character of Buddhism in the ''Yomiuri
Shimbun'' 読売新聞. Katō Seishin 加藤精神 (1872–1956), a prominent
Shingon scholar-priest, similarly argued in “Bukkyō no mushinron to
mureikonsetsu” 仏教の無神論と無霊魂説 [Buddhism’s Atheism and Theory of
Non-Soul], published in ''Gendai Bukkyō'' 現代仏教, that Buddhism was
fundamentally atheistic and denied an enduring soul.</ref>

“To summarize: Buddhism is thoroughly and consistently atheistic; it is
an atheistic doctrine. Nevertheless, among Buddhist scholars there are
often those who maintain that ‘Mahāyāna Buddhism is a theistic
doctrine,’ but this is a misunderstanding of Buddhism.”

So it is said.

Dr. Kimura Taiken, too, writes in his ''From True Emptiness to Wondrous
Being'':<ref>Kimura Taiken 木村泰賢 (1881–1930), a leading scholar of
Indian Buddhism at Tokyo Imperial University, published ''Shinkū yori
Myōu e'' 真空より妙有へ [From True Emptiness to Wondrous Being] in 1929.
Kimura argues here that Buddhism remains fully religious despite lacking
the personal creator God presupposed by many Western definitions of
religion.</ref>

“The Buddha relies upon nothing whatsoever; he became Buddha through
himself alone. Moreover, what is called the relationship between ‘God
and human beings’ is—unless God is understood simply as Dharma or
principle—ultimately untenable. . . . Buddhism, then, is at last truly
Buddhism when it is treated as one of the world’s three great religions
and, moreover, when people have attained peace of mind and established
their lives through it. The fact that it is a religion is beyond doubt.
Theoretically, the reason that we must discuss whether Buddhism is or is
not a religion lies in our taking personality to be the principal
element of religion and then seeking, in addition, other religious
requirements.”

{{opage|310}}

“The essence of the religious spirit lies where the demand for freedom
and the demand for liberation intertwine; insofar as these demands can
be satisfied, even without God it can still be religion.”

Thus he argues. In this way, Buddhism certainly stands upon atheism, and
it does not stop at the Buddhist understanding of the Buddha, but
continues even to the Zen school and the various other sects.
Accordingly, so long as the anti-religious movement treats “God as the
fundamental characteristic of religion” and, because of a deficient
understanding of religion, takes such premises of religious negation and
applies them indiscriminately to existing Buddhist organizations—or even
to Christianity and other theistic forms of religion—it must be regarded
as an improper movement, however “scientific” it may claim to be.

Thus the fundamental characteristic of religion should be sought
elsewhere than in “God.”

== V ==

What, then, is the characteristic of religion?

The word “religion” is often used synonymously with the word “faith,”
but does this word “faith” most adequately explain the essential nature
of religion? That is to say, religion is a life of believing. The object
of belief may, depending upon the case, be “God,” truth, or may change
into all manner of other things; but before the object believed in, one
casts aside everything unconditionally and thereby feels the power of
complete surrender, peace of mind, and satisfaction. Feuerbach said that
“the root of religion is the feeling of dependence.” Schleiermacher
called it “the feeling of absolute dependence.”<ref>Friedrich
Schleiermacher (1768–1834) famously defined religion in terms of a
“feeling of absolute dependence.” Feuerbach, while rejecting
Schleiermacher’s theology, likewise treated the human feeling of
dependence—particularly dependence upon nature—as a fundamental ground
of religion.</ref> And Ritschl said that “God is not a necessity of
religion.”<ref>Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), a major German Protestant
theologian, rejected speculative metaphysics in favor of understanding
religion through practical and value judgments. Seno’o invokes him as
another modern authority for defining religion without making a
metaphysical conception of God its indispensable foundation.</ref>

In Buddhism, too, although the sects may differ over whether or not they
possess a God, in the end “God” may be absent, but religion can
nevertheless be established. Yet without the attitude of faith, religion
is impossible. Therefore, we must recognize that the Christian denial of
“God” does not amount to the denial of religion. Human beings are
sentient beings who, through one means or another, seek to resolve the
contradictions of life; and the negation of religion is at the same time
a negation of the human being. To put it in Sinclair’s words:<ref>Upton
Sinclair (1878–1968), ''The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic
Interpretation'' (1917). Although Sinclair’s book is a socialist
critique of institutional religion as an ally of privilege and
exploitation, he distinguishes this from religion “in its true sense,”
understood as a fundamental spiritual impulse and an “impassioned love
of life.” Seno’o draws upon precisely this distinction between
institutional religion and religion itself.</ref>

“Religion, in its true meaning, is the most fundamental spiritual
impulse, an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life,
and a desire to nurture and assist life. In this sense, every human
being who thinks is necessarily religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is
the eternal power of self-renewal—

{{opage|311}}

—indeed, the very essence of humankind. In this sense, I have not the
slightest intention of attacking religion. No, I wish rather to make
clear that religion, in this sense, is by no means something that ought
to be attacked.”

Is not the absolute life of the Marxist of the present day itself
something that comes very close to this? They advocate Marxism while
denying the religion of “God.” Yet is their attitude really so entirely
different from the attitude of faith found in religion? This is no mere
sophistry. Why, for example, is the Nichiren school’s uncompromising
adherence to the ''daimoku''<ref>The ''daimoku'' 題目, ''Namu Myōhō
Renge Kyō'' 南無妙法蓮華経 (“Devotion to the Wonderful Dharma of the
Lotus Sutra”), is the central devotional invocation of Nichiren
Buddhism.</ref>, or the Christian’s faith in God—each of them chanting
its own object of faith—necessarily uncritical or blind faith, while the
Marxist’s practical movement, grounded in the pure principle of human
society that he believes in, is somehow a grasp of truth? Of course,
ideologically speaking, the latter may possess an advantage in terms of
truth. But just as countless religious sects and ideologies have been
discarded as the times have changed, can anyone deny that a religion
that ought to be discarded may someday arise even within Marxism?

== VI ==

What, then, is Christian ideology?

Its theological worldview and conception of life already extend beyond
the Renaissance. Next, Feuerbach’s statement that “the secret of
theology is anthropology”<ref>Feuerbach’s ''The Essence of
Christianity'' (1841) famously reverses theology into anthropology: the
qualities attributed to God are projections of human capacities and
aspirations. The formula “the secret of theology is anthropology”
encapsulates this argument.</ref> opened the way for modern humanism,
while the figure of “God” receded far beyond the horizon. Even within
Buddhism, so-called other-power Buddhism has recently given rise to a
succession of troubling questions, and many have raised objections to
it; let us connect these developments with a critique of the principal
points of Marxism.

There is, however, one point that requires explanation here. The
emergence of the imagined “God” is not, as Marxism sees it, derived
solely from nature or relations of production; it is also a product of
human nature itself. Consider the statement recently made…

{{opage|312}}

…in court by Sano Manabu: “I wish to express my condolences for the late
Watanabe Masanosuke and the others.”<ref>Sano Manabu, a leading
theoretician of the Japanese Communist Party, made this statement during
his trial following his arrest in 1929. Seno’o had already drawn upon
Sano’s 1931 translation of Lenin’s writings on religion (see note
1).</ref> What, after all, does this statement—coming from a leading
figure of the anti-religious movement—tell us? Even if his explanation
of this “mourning” was that he was “merely praising [Watanabe’s]
achievements,” does not the very consciousness expressed toward the
individual personality of the deceased provide evidence that human
beings possess an animistic impulse independent of such things as
relations of production? We should therefore recognize that the idea of
God cannot necessarily be regarded as something opposed in every respect
to the “true happiness” sought by human beings.

Now, to say yet again that the fundamental philosophy underlying the
Marxist view of society and human life is the materialist conception of
history would be superfluous. Historical materialism distinguishes
itself from a mechanical materialism that recognizes no spiritual values
whatsoever. Engels writes:

“The development of political, legal, philosophical, religious,
literary, artistic, and other such things rests upon economic
development. Yet all of these react upon one another and also upon the
economic basis. It is not the case that the economic situation is the
sole active cause and that everything else is merely a passive result.
Rather, there is reciprocal interaction upon the basis of economic
necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.”<ref>Friedrich
Engels, letter to W. Borgius, January 25, 1894. Long misidentified in
editions of Marx and Engels as a letter to Heinz Starkenburg, the letter
emphasizes that political, legal, philosophical, religious, and artistic
developments, while ultimately conditioned by economic development, also
“react upon one another and also upon the economic base.”</ref>

If we read further in this same passage, Engels says, “In the final
analysis . . . economic necessity ultimately asserts itself”; this means
that economic relations do not stand on the same level as the other
phenomena with which they interact, and this is Engels’s own…

{{opage|313}}

…view. Hence the wheel of development unfolds ceaselessly. And because
contradiction is the cause of this development, some conceptual
operation must be introduced here. They would surely argue that “the
consciousness of freedom is an inevitable necessity of social
revolution”<ref>An allusion to the dialectical conception of freedom
associated with Hegel and Engels, according to which freedom consists
not in independence from necessity but in understanding necessity and
consciously acting upon it.</ref>; but if freedom is not something that
can become a reality, then there is no need to make sacrifices for
revolution. Why? Because every reality is necessary.

Yet the desire for freedom that human beings essentially seek can be
resolved only through the transformation of the relations of production
in which actual human beings, pregnant with contradictions and situated
within society, find themselves. In other words, ideology cannot
interpret the world in all its variety; what is needed is to change the
world.<ref>An allusion to Marx’s eleventh ''Thesis on Feuerbach''
(1845): “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various
ways; the point, however, is to change it.”</ref> But if a formal
“change” is of no use unless human beings can truly enjoy “freedom”
within it, then “change” for the sake of “change” must become a “change”
for human beings. It cannot be the case that commodities are produced
merely for the sake of capital.

Originally, historical materialism must recognize the reciprocal
interaction between society’s economic substructure and its spiritual
superstructure when it views society as a process of development. At a
certain stage, the economic substructure must clearly receive some sort
of reciprocal influence from the preceding spiritual superstructure.
Therefore, their relationship must be understood through the Buddhist
conception of dependent origination: an inseparable, organic
interrelation in which neither can be explained as the subject
independently of the other.<ref>''Engi'' 縁起 (Skt.
''pratītyasamutpāda''), “dependent origination,” is the Buddhist
principle that phenomena arise through causes and conditions and possess
no independent, self-sufficient existence. Seno’o applies this principle
here to the reciprocal relation between material and spiritual
phenomena.</ref> Yet Marxism’s dialectical materialist conception,
however much practical effectiveness it may demonstrate, ultimately
flows in the opposite direction from idealism and into a
material-centered understanding of human society; it cannot, therefore,
be regarded as a genuinely developmental principle of unity.

== VII ==

Thus humanity, having liberated itself from the fetters of idealism,
must once again demand a correct ideology for the liberation of society
and the liberation of the self from the fetters of materialism. If
science is truly to see the human…

{{opage|314}}

…being as it truly is, then the true meaning of dialectics must lie in
what is called “synthetic understanding,” as in
Fingeruto<ref>''Fingeruto'' フィンゲルト appears to refer to the Soviet
philosopher Aleksandr A. Vingert (also transliterated Fingeroto), whose
writings on dialectical materialism emphasized a “synthetic”
understanding that overcame the opposition between idealism and
mechanistic materialism.</ref> and others; and the materialist
conception of history must once again be overcome.

Buddhism must not remain forever a sleeping lion. Now is the time for
Buddhism to smash the ivory tower. It must raise high the principles of
emptiness and dependent origination, establish the truth of
selflessness, and advance directly toward the realization of a true
society of liberty and the abolition of privilege.

To summarize: although the anti-religious movement is itself a movement
founded upon a self-contradictory theory, if it is nevertheless to
produce results in practice, then for the established religious
organizations it is the most effective antidote to their extreme
degeneration and inertia. On the theoretical plane, Christianity has
promoted a fantastical “God” in opposition to Buddhism; but Buddhism has
no need to proclaim the atheism or doctrine of the nonexistence of the
soul advocated by Katō Seishin and others as something extraordinary in
Japan. From the standpoint of Buddhism, these are nothing more than a
commonplace sort of denial of intrinsic existence that has already
reached even the most remote rural households. Through this, the
Buddhist perspectives of emptiness and dependent origination will be
recognized anew, and should proudly assert themselves as the sole true
materialist dialectic.<ref>Seno’o makes an unusually explicit
appropriation of Marxist terminology here. ''kūkan'' 空観, the Buddhist
“perspective of emptiness,” denies independent or intrinsic existence,
while ''engikan'' 縁起観, the “perspective of dependent origination,”
understands phenomena as arising relationally through causes and
conditions. Seno’o identifies these Buddhist principles with the true
“materialist dialectic” (''yuibutsu benshōhō'' 唯物弁証法).</ref>

Accordingly, if the anti-religious movement—under the name of
“anti-religion”—has as its fundamental objective the organization of the
unorganized masses, particularly the peasantry, into the proletarian
movement, then the issue is another matter; but if the result of this is
to bring about the destruction of religion, then the movement’s very
object of purification will disappear. Even if it possesses the
authority of the Soviet government, the power of religion has yet to be
extinguished.<ref>The Soviet government pursued increasingly aggressive
anti-religious policies during the 1920s and 1930s, including
restrictions on religious institutions, confiscation of property,
anti-religious propaganda, and campaigns organized through the League of
Militant Atheists.</ref>

Indeed, given our present circumstances, rather than merely attacking
existing Buddhist organizations, should we not instead call upon the
inherent mass character of religion<ref>The term ''taishūsei'' 大衆性,
here translated “mass character,” draws on the contemporary socialist
vocabulary of the ''taishū'' 大衆, the popular masses. Seno’o thus
attributes to religion an inherent capacity to address and mobilize the
masses.</ref> and thereby provide the powerful proletarian movement
arising from religion itself with room to develop? Would not this be far
more effective in the present situation?

The heroic actions of official Marxism—pushing forward the “revolution”
demanded by the masses—may be objectionable enough. But if it forgets
its proper standpoint toward the anti-religious movement and lightly
attempts an indiscriminate campaign of exclusion, then what will happen?

{{opage|315}}

Even if its standpoint is one of opposition, should it not be possible
for there to exist organizations that, while steadily working toward the
realization of an ideal society, stand in opposition precisely because
they are such organizations?

Those who seek to poison religion—to poison Buddhism—are none other than
religious believers themselves. Buddhists should withdraw and first
reflect upon their own lives in light of the Buddha’s ideal. Then,
decisively setting out anew, they should report themselves to the
anti-religious movement and advance. Is this not the one and only path
by which it can be overcome?

— August 6, 7, and 18, 1931.

== Notes ==

<references />

[[category:Senoo Giro]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

SG31HSU-T

2026-08-29T18:43:24Z

James:

{{Under Construction}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno'o Girō, “A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement”}}

'''Original Japanese:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1931). 「反宗教運動批判」 [A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement]. 『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.

'''English translation:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (2026). “A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement.” Trans. [[user:James|James Mark Shields]]. ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Translated from the text reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.


= A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement =


== I ==


=== [302] ===


A critique of the anti-religious movement should proceed from two directions. On the one hand, we must consider its practical movement of negation directed against the existing religious organizations themselves; on the other, its theoretical attempt to negate religion itself.


Let us begin by considering the attack on existing religious organizations. As far as the attack on existing religious organizations is concerned, we have no objection whatsoever. Indeed, virtually every religious person who takes religion at all seriously, differences of degree notwithstanding, would probably have to express agreement on this point. For the existing religious organizations, one and all, are residual forms that have lost the original vitality of religion, and there is more than sufficient reason to recognize that attacking them can itself provide the impetus for the proper development of religion. The present form of the existing religious organizations is perfectly captured by Lenin’s famous critique. He writes:


“Religion is one form of spiritual oppression that everywhere weighs heavily upon the masses of the people, oppressed by perpetual labor for others, by hardship and isolation. The impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters inevitably gives rise to belief in a better life hereafter, just as the impotence of primitive people in their struggle against nature gives rise to gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Religion teaches those who labor and suffer throughout their lives submission and patience on earth, consoling them with the hope of a heavenly reward. But to those who live from the labor of others, religion offers an easy justification for their entire existence as exploiters, sells them tickets to heavenly bliss at a reasonable price, and thereby teaches them happiness on earth. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual intoxicant in which the slaves of capital drown their human…


=== [303] ===


…dignity and even their most minimal desire for a human existence.”<ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (''Sotsializm i religiya''), originally published in ''Novaya Zhizn'', no. 28 (December 3, 1905). Seno’o quotes from Sano Manabu 佐野学 (1892–1953), trans., ''Shūkyō ni tsuite'' 宗教について [On Religion] (Tokyo: Kibōkaku, 1931).</ref>


The familiar charge of “opium” is hardly new anymore, but what a penetrating critique it is! The immediate target of these remarks was presumably Christianity, but needless to say, our own established Buddhist organizations cannot be regarded as exceptions. We need hardly turn now to Takatsu Seidō’s “Those Who Indulge in Exploitation,” or to Nishida Shigeji’s “The Class Character of Honganji” in ''Under the Banner of the Anti-Religious Struggle'', and so forth. Whether Shingon, Nichiren, Zen, or any of the others, the larger and more prosperous their present temple organizations, the more enormous their opiate and exploitative character. It is an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they correspond almost exactly to Lenin’s harsh critique. Insofar as this is the case, there can be no reason whatsoever to oppose the anti-religious movement’s attack upon the existing religious organizations.<ref>Seno’o wrote amid an increasingly prominent Marxist anti-religious movement in Japan. Following heated 1930 debates over “Marxism and Religion” in the Buddhist newspaper ''Chūgai Nippō'' 中外日報, the ''Hanshūkyō Tōsō Dōmei Junbikai'' 反宗教闘争同盟準備会 [Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee] was established in April 1931, sponsoring public rallies and publishing the journal ''Hanshūkyō Tōsō'' 反宗教闘争 [Anti-Religious Struggle] from June. Its critique combined Marxist theories of religion as ideology and “opium” with attacks on temples and religious institutions as agents of economic exploitation and class domination. Seno’o’s argument—written in the same year that he founded the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism—should thus be read as an intervention in this immediate controversy rather than simply as an abstract response to Marxist theories of religion.</ref>


But is there really a necessary relationship between the present condition of the existing religious organizations and religion itself? For example, is Buddhist ideology necessarily an ideology that must result in the sort of ugly condition exhibited by the existing religions today? If so, then the anti-religious movement should be accepted completely. But is that really the case?


No!! The true essence of each religion is precisely what ought completely to negate and purify the utterly ugly forms of life represented by the existing religious organizations. Under no circumstances should it permit them.


The higher religions are described as ethical religions precisely because, whether Buddhism or Christianity, they possess a considerable ethical dimension. So long as that function has not been distorted, the present condition of the established religious organizations must be regarded as an evil that simply cannot be accepted. It follows that attacks upon such residual religious organizations ought already to have been initiated by serious and progressive religious people themselves, without waiting for the anti-religious activists to work themselves into a frenzy.


Thus, belated though it may be, when we Revitalized Buddhists recently declared in the second plank of our movement:


“We recognize all existing religious organizations as residual forms that have desecrated the Buddhist spirit; we reject them and seek the propagation of Buddhism appropriate to the new age,”


this declaration arose from precisely such an understanding.


== II ==


At this point, the anti-religious activists will immediately retort—…


=== [304] ===


…“All this fussing over things like ‘essence’ and ‘true nature’ is bourgeois formal logic. Where is there any essence apart from the history unfolding before our eyes?” But on this point, too, they need only reflect upon themselves to recognize their error immediately. Would they themselves permit all the various proletarian movements currently in vogue—the Social Democrats, the Masses Party, the Communists, and so forth—to be regarded as genuine Marxist movements and criticized as such? And as for the anti-religious movement itself, which represents the true mainstream of Marxism: Takatsu’s “Japan Anti-Religious League,” or Akita and his colleagues’ “Anti-Religious Struggle League”?<ref>Seno’o refers to competing currents within Japan’s anti-religious movement. Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a former Jōdo Shinshū priest and communist activist, was a leading advocate of organized anti-religious struggle and later helped lead the ''Nihon Hanshūkyō Dōmei'' 日本反宗教同盟 [Japan Anti-Religion League]. Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), playwright and socialist, was associated with the Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee established in April 1931.</ref>


Surely any critical assessment of these movements must seek its criteria beyond their immediately existing forms, in the essential teachings of Marx and Engels, or perhaps Lenin. Once this is recognized, the same kind of consideration must be permitted when examining the relationship between the essence of Buddhism or Christianity and the existing religious organizations. To negate the greatness of Marxism on the basis of the turbid current swirling with the petty hacks springing up everywhere, excitable “Marx-boys,” and Marxist intellectuals who make their living churning out manuscripts would have to be called a serious misdiagnosis. And precisely for this reason, to negate religion itself on the basis of the existing religious organizations must likewise be a misdiagnosis.


Consider Christianity. Where in the life of Christ was there anything resembling the bourgeois way of life found in the churches today? Was he not a pioneer who sought to liberate the oppressed Jewish people from Roman tyranny?<ref>Seno’o interprets Jesus in contemporary social-liberationist terms, emphasizing his association with the poor and oppressed and presenting primitive Christianity as a movement opposed to political and economic domination.</ref> All those with whom he associated were propertyless; they were certainly not the wealthy and privileged. Of course, much in his ideology would have to be critically reassessed from a contemporary standpoint. But Christianity itself is not, from the outset, an ideology for the oppression of workers and peasants. Surely the movement for neighborly love and liberation expressed in “Love God and love your neighbor” was a precursor to the movement for the liberation of the propertyless. And coming much later, Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves in the name of God must likewise be regarded as living proof that Christianity is not necessarily opium or poisonous liquor.


Now let us turn our eyes to Buddhism. It is an all-too-familiar fact that the life of our Buddha, who left the royal family and began a mendicant life on the streets, was an exemplary life of great equality without so much as a trace of exploitation. The doctrine of non-self preached in the streets, and consequently such things as his movement to break down the class divisions of the four castes<ref>The “four castes” refers to the traditional fourfold ''varṇa'' scheme of Brahmins (priests), Kṣatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaiśyas (agriculturalists and merchants), and Śūdras (servants and laborers). Buddhist texts repeatedly reject birth as the determinant of spiritual worth, subordinating inherited status to conduct and spiritual attainment.</ref>—even if these were not pursued actively and politically—how could any of this possibly be identified with the immensely complicated hierarchical organization of temples today, or with the capitalist—


=== [305] ===


—temple Buddhism of the present day?


Consider the vision of dependent origination and emptiness that he consistently taught for forty-five years. This is “the true unity of the material and the spiritual—not a conceived or fabricated unity, but an actually existing unity”—a principle of non-self grounded in a pure experience comparable to Feuerbach’s “sensibility.”<ref>Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), whose critique of Christian theology strongly influenced the young Marx, emphasized ''Sinnlichkeit'' (“sensuousness” or “sensibility”) as the concrete, embodied basis of human existence, in opposition to abstract idealism. Seno’o compares Feuerbach’s concept with the Buddhist principles of dependent origination, emptiness, and non-self.</ref> How could one possibly discover in this any necessity for affirming the sort of idealistic, opiate-like Buddhism we see today? Buddhism must be reexamined; anything less would be a lie.


Look, further, at the life of Nichiren. How he fought throughout his life against the ruling Hōjō clan of his day!<ref>Nichiren 日蓮 (1222–1282) repeatedly confronted the political authorities of the Kamakura shogunate and suffered persecution, exile, and an attempted execution. Seno’o contrasts this image of Nichiren as religious dissident with modern nationalist “Nichirenism” (''Nichirenshugi'' 日蓮主義). The contrast is particularly pointed given Seno’o’s own earlier involvement in the Nichirenist movement.</ref> He certainly did not “easily justify their entire existence” as exploiters and “sell them tickets to heavenly bliss at a reasonable price”; nor did he teach “submission and patience on earth.” His religious movement of struggle against the rulers—a movement virtually without parallel in world history—was utterly unlike either the nationalistic Nichirenism of the present day or the ridiculous, clamorous Lotus-style Nichiren Buddhism of today. And, closer to our own time, we can see the same thing in the anti-British independence movement of the religious leader Gandhi.<ref>Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) had by 1931 become internationally identified with the Indian independence movement and nonviolent resistance to British colonial rule. Seno’o invokes him alongside Jesus and Nichiren as an example of religiously motivated resistance to political domination.</ref> Religion has certainly not always been something that makes the people fall asleep in the “dark chamber of peace of mind.”


So long as we possess, in addition to these, numerous concrete examples carried out in the name of religion that were progressive, active, and even revolutionary, I see nothing unreasonable in maintaining that existing religious organizations and religion itself—whether Buddhism or Christianity—can, and must, be considered separately.


Thus, while affirming the anti-religious movement’s attack upon existing religious organizations, we must now proceed to a critique of the theory by which the anti-religious movement negates religion itself.


== III ==


=== [306] ===


How do the Marxists of the anti-religious movement define religion? In the inaugural issue of their journal ''Anti-Religious Struggle'', they write:


“Belief in the existence of a supernatural world is what is called religion. This is the most fundamental characteristic of religion.”


To elaborate: religion, according to this definition, consists in believing in the nonexistent “illusion” of a supernatural heaven such as Christianity teaches and in the superhuman God who inhabits that world. In his work on Feuerbach, Engels writes:


“If religion could exist without God, then alchemy could also…


=== [307] ===


…exist without the philosopher’s stone.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' (1886). Engels uses the comparison with alchemy to criticize Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve “religion” after abandoning its traditional God. Seno’o reverses the argument by presenting Buddhism as an actual historical example of religion without a creator God.</ref>


We must not overlook the fact that the “God” in question is the fundamental object of Marxist theories of religion. And since the philosophical foundation of such religion is naturally idealism, it goes without saying that Marxism, which stands in direct opposition to idealism, cannot affirm the existence of such a supernatural God.


How, then, did such religion—that is, belief in God—arise? Lenin says, “Fear created the gods.” Gorter calls it the work of “incomprehensible forces.”<ref>Lenin’s formulation that “fear created the gods” derives from his materialist account of religion as arising from human powerlessness before natural and social forces. Herman Gorter (1864–1927), a Dutch poet and Marxist theorist, similarly explained religion in terms of humanity’s subjection to forces it could neither understand nor control.</ref> That is to say, primitive human beings, still ignorant and unenlightened, confronted natural phenomena that bore down upon their lives as “incomprehensible,” irresistible forces, and from their fear of these phenomena came to imagine them as the workings of gods. Thus arose primitive animism, which developed into clan religion and ethnic religion, and finally into Christianity as a world religion. Buddhism, too, is said to be one of these world religions.


On animism, Plekhanov writes:


“It is the savage’s attempt to explain natural phenomena. However impoverished this attempt may be, under the conditions of primitive life it was unavoidable.”


As for the origins of ethnic religion, Bogdanov writes:


“The tribal elder, as the guardian of accumulated experience in production, organizes and administers, issues commands, draws up plans for labor, and represents the active and creative principle; the others, meanwhile, obey, receive commands, submit to plans handed down from above, and act according to the will of others. These relations of production became the model for human beings’ own understanding.”<ref>Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918) and Alexander Bogdanov (1873–1928) were major Russian Marxist theorists who developed materialist accounts of religion. Seno’o cites Plekhanov on the emergence of animism from human inability to comprehend natural phenomena, and Bogdanov on the projection of hierarchical relations of production onto supernatural authority.</ref>


Thus Engels, in ''Anti-Dühring'', writes:


“All religion is nothing more than the fantastic reflection in human minds of those external forces that dominate their everyday existence—a reflection in which earthly forces assume the form of supernatural ones. In the earliest period of history, it was first of all the forces of nature that were reflected in this way; and in the course of further development, they underwent the most varied and manifold personifications among different peoples. . . . But it was not long before, alongside the forces of nature, social forces also began to operate—forces that confronted human beings…”


=== [308] ===


“…and which, at first, likewise appeared inexplicable, dominating human beings with the same apparent natural necessity as nature itself. In this way, the fantastic figures that initially reflected only the mysterious and incomprehensible forces of nature acquired social attributes and became representatives of historical forces.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'' (1877–78), Part III, chap. 5. Engels defines religion here as the “fantastic reflection” of the external forces governing human life, initially natural and subsequently social.</ref>


Engels explains it in these terms. Lenin, in a letter to Gorky, criticizes God as follows:


“‘God’ is (historically and in actual life), above all, a complex of ideas generated by the brutish oppression of human beings both by external nature and by class oppression—ideas that reinforce this oppression and lull the class struggle to sleep.”<ref>V. I. Lenin, letter to Maxim Gorky, November 1913. Lenin was responding to the Russian socialist “God-building” movement, which sought to reinterpret religious language and the idea of God in humanistic and socialist terms.</ref>


In other words, religion is, as Marx says in his ''Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'', “an amalgam” (復合体) of all those ideas that seek to deceive human beings.<ref>Karl Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844), the same text containing his characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Marx begins his critique from the premise that religion is a human product rather than an independently existing supernatural reality.</ref>


“The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: human beings make religion; religion does not make human beings. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-feeling of the human being who has either not yet won himself or has already lost himself again.”


Thus, God is something produced by human beings themselves. Therefore, once human beings have scientifically investigated and completely clarified those natural phenomena that confronted them as “incomprehensible forces,” thereby eliminating the causes of “fear,” and once, within the relations of social production, they have been liberated from their enslaved position and become free human beings who no longer need to pray for salvation—that is, once human beings have completely regained themselves—religion must necessarily disappear. Engels explains this directly in the following words:


“When society has taken possession of all the means of production and employs them according to plan, thereby freeing both itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by the means of production that they themselves have produced, but which confront them as an overwhelming external force; when human beings therefore not only propose but also dispose—only then will the last external force still reflected in religion disappear, and with it religious reflection itself will disappear as well, for the simple reason that there will then be nothing left to reflect.”<ref>Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'', Part III, chap. 5; see note 12.</ref>


=== [309] ===


That is what he says. The Marxist theory of the extinction of religion may be summarized roughly as follows.


“Religious suffering is at once an expression of real suffering and a protest against present suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature . . . the opium of the people.”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844). Immediately before calling religion the “opium of the people,” Marx describes religious suffering as both “the expression of real suffering” and “a protest against real suffering.” Seno’o emphasizes this latter dimension against a purely negative interpretation of Marx’s critique of religion.</ref>


Thus Marx. To put a stop to religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The problem of religion, therefore, is to demonstrate the necessity of the negation of religion. At this point, let us conclude our presentation of anti-religious theory by summarizing the foregoing arguments in the words of Akizawa, a fighter in the anti-religious movement.


“So long as human beings do not become masters of themselves, their actual lives will continue to be dominated by external forces—at an undeveloped stage of productive power, by the forces of nature, and at a developed stage, by social forces—and religion will continue to exist.”<ref>Akizawa Shūji 秋沢修二 (1909–1987) was an activist in the contemporary anti-religious movement. Seno’o calls him “a fighter in the anti-religious movement” (''hanshū undō no ichi tōshi'' 反宗運動の一闘士) and uses his formulation here to summarize the movement’s argument that religion will persist until humanity gains conscious mastery over natural and social forces.</ref>


“Only in socialist society does the human being come to act with himself at the center; only through proletarian revolution is it possible . . . for all religion to disappear completely in the society of the future.”


== IV ==


Now, if we are to criticize fundamentally the Marxist theory of the negation of religion outlined above, the question is whether religion must necessarily make a supernatural “God” an indispensable condition. Why, for example, must Buddhism necessarily posit a Christian-style supernatural “God”? Buddhism does not necessarily posit such a religion. Indeed, within Buddhism there even exists a “Buddhist atheism” that takes the standpoint of atheism. Buddhists may try to avoid the sharp edge of Marxist religious criticism by saying that Buddhism teaches that “there are innumerable supernatural beliefs,” but although relatively few contemporary temple Buddhists maintain theistic belief, Buddhism, if it is to claim the fundamentally atheistic standpoint proper to it, must reflect seriously upon the fact that its present forms of belief have in many cases been distorted.


If one investigates this matter carefully, it becomes clear that the original doctrine of Buddhism is plainly atheistic.


The Buddha denied the Brahmanical gods of creation—Brahmā, the creator of heaven and earth—and taught the doctrine of the twelve links of dependent origination, the law of cause and effect. At the time of his entering nirvāṇa, he left the instruction, “Be a lamp unto yourselves and rely upon yourselves; take the Dharma as your lamp and rely upon the Dharma; rely upon no other.”<ref>An allusion to the Buddha’s final instructions in the ''Mahāparinibbāna Sutta'' (''Dīgha Nikāya'' 16): ''attadīpā … attasaraṇā … dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā'', conventionally rendered “be lamps [or islands] unto yourselves, your own refuge; with the Dharma as your lamp [or island] and refuge.” Seno’o follows the East Asian Buddhist tradition in understanding ''dīpa'' as “lamp.”</ref> In this way, Buddhism is precisely a religion that demonstrates atheism at a higher level. While affirming Marx’s proposition that “the highest being for man is man,”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844): “The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man.” Marx immediately connects this principle with the imperative to overthrow social relations in which human beings are degraded, enslaved, or abandoned.</ref> we can go further and say that the Buddha is precisely the highest human being whom humanity can ideally imagine: he saw the ideal perfection of the human being in the Buddha’s attainment of nirvāṇa. In short, Buddhism is fundamentally an atheistic religion in which no supernatural “God” exists.


Recently, in the “Reader’s Forum” column, the problem was raised by Dr. Takakusu, an advocate of Buddhist atheism; and in issue no. 7 of ''Gendai Bukkyō'', Katō Seishin also discussed the question under the title “On Buddhist Atheism.”<ref>Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 (1866–1945), one of Japan’s leading Buddhist scholars, had recently defended the non-theistic character of Buddhism in the ''Yomiuri Shimbun'' 読売新聞. Katō Seishin 加藤精神 (1872–1956), a prominent Shingon scholar-priest, similarly argued in “Bukkyō no mushinron to mureikonsetsu” 仏教の無神論と無霊魂説 [Buddhism’s Atheism and Theory of Non-Soul], published in ''Gendai Bukkyō'' 現代仏教, that Buddhism was fundamentally atheistic and denied an enduring soul.</ref>


“To summarize: Buddhism is thoroughly and consistently atheistic; it is an atheistic doctrine. Nevertheless, among Buddhist scholars there are often those who maintain that ‘Mahāyāna Buddhism is a theistic doctrine,’ but this is a misunderstanding of Buddhism.”


So it is said.


Dr. Kimura Taiken, too, writes in his ''From True Emptiness to Wondrous Being'':<ref>Kimura Taiken 木村泰賢 (1881–1930), a leading scholar of Indian Buddhism at Tokyo Imperial University, published ''Shinkū yori Myōu e'' 真空より妙有へ [From True Emptiness to Wondrous Being] in 1929. Kimura argues here that Buddhism remains fully religious despite lacking the personal creator God presupposed by many Western definitions of religion.</ref>


“The Buddha relies upon nothing whatsoever; he became Buddha through himself alone. Moreover, what is called the relationship between ‘God and human beings’ is—unless God is understood simply as Dharma or principle—ultimately untenable. . . . Buddhism, then, is at last truly Buddhism when it is treated as one of the world’s three great religions and, moreover, when people have attained peace of mind and established their lives through it. The fact that it is a religion is beyond doubt. Theoretically, the reason that we must discuss whether Buddhism is or is not a religion lies in our taking personality to be the principal element of religion and then seeking, in addition, other religious requirements.”


=== [310] ===


“The essence of the religious spirit lies where the demand for freedom and the demand for liberation intertwine; insofar as these demands can be satisfied, even without God it can still be religion.”


Thus he argues. In this way, Buddhism certainly stands upon atheism, and it does not stop at the Buddhist understanding of the Buddha, but continues even to the Zen school and the various other sects. Accordingly, so long as the anti-religious movement treats “God as the fundamental characteristic of religion” and, because of a deficient understanding of religion, takes such premises of religious negation and applies them indiscriminately to existing Buddhist organizations—or even to Christianity and other theistic forms of religion—it must be regarded as an improper movement, however “scientific” it may claim to be.


Thus the fundamental characteristic of religion should be sought elsewhere than in “God.”


== V ==


What, then, is the characteristic of religion?


The word “religion” is often used synonymously with the word “faith,” but does this word “faith” most adequately explain the essential nature of religion? That is to say, religion is a life of believing. The object of belief may, depending upon the case, be “God,” truth, or may change into all manner of other things; but before the object believed in, one casts aside everything unconditionally and thereby feels the power of complete surrender, peace of mind, and satisfaction. Feuerbach said that “the root of religion is the feeling of dependence.” Schleiermacher called it “the feeling of absolute dependence.”<ref>Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) famously defined religion in terms of a “feeling of absolute dependence.” Feuerbach, while rejecting Schleiermacher’s theology, likewise treated the human feeling of dependence—particularly dependence upon nature—as a fundamental ground of religion.</ref> And Ritschl said that “God is not a necessity of religion.”<ref>Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), a major German Protestant theologian, rejected speculative metaphysics in favor of understanding religion through practical and value judgments. Seno’o invokes him as another modern authority for defining religion without making a metaphysical conception of God its indispensable foundation.</ref>


In Buddhism, too, although the sects may differ over whether or not they possess a God, in the end “God” may be absent, but religion can nevertheless be established. Yet without the attitude of faith, religion is impossible. Therefore, we must recognize that the Christian denial of “God” does not amount to the denial of religion. Human beings are sentient beings who, through one means or another, seek to resolve the contradictions of life; and the negation of religion is at the same time a negation of the human being. To put it in Sinclair’s words:<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968), ''The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation'' (1917). Although Sinclair’s book is a socialist critique of institutional religion as an ally of privilege and exploitation, he distinguishes this from religion “in its true sense,” understood as a fundamental spiritual impulse and an “impassioned love of life.” Seno’o draws upon precisely this distinction between institutional religion and religion itself.</ref>


“Religion, in its true meaning, is the most fundamental spiritual impulse, an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and assist life. In this sense, every human being who thinks is necessarily religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal—


=== [311] ===


—indeed, the very essence of humankind. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. No, I wish rather to make clear that religion, in this sense, is by no means something that ought to be attacked.”


Is not the absolute life of the Marxist of the present day itself something that comes very close to this? They advocate Marxism while denying the religion of “God.” Yet is their attitude really so entirely different from the attitude of faith found in religion? This is no mere sophistry. Why, for example, is the Nichiren school’s uncompromising adherence to the ''daimoku''<ref>The ''daimoku'' 題目, ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' 南無妙法蓮華経 (“Devotion to the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra”), is the central devotional invocation of Nichiren Buddhism.</ref>, or the Christian’s faith in God—each of them chanting its own object of faith—necessarily uncritical or blind faith, while the Marxist’s practical movement, grounded in the pure principle of human society that he believes in, is somehow a grasp of truth? Of course, ideologically speaking, the latter may possess an advantage in terms of truth. But just as countless religious sects and ideologies have been discarded as the times have changed, can anyone deny that a religion that ought to be discarded may someday arise even within Marxism?


== VI ==


What, then, is Christian ideology?


Its theological worldview and conception of life already extend beyond the Renaissance. Next, Feuerbach’s statement that “the secret of theology is anthropology”<ref>Feuerbach’s ''The Essence of Christianity'' (1841) famously reverses theology into anthropology: the qualities attributed to God are projections of human capacities and aspirations. The formula “the secret of theology is anthropology” encapsulates this argument.</ref> opened the way for modern humanism, while the figure of “God” receded far beyond the horizon. Even within Buddhism, so-called other-power Buddhism has recently given rise to a succession of troubling questions, and many have raised objections to it; let us connect these developments with a critique of the principal points of Marxism.


There is, however, one point that requires explanation here. The emergence of the imagined “God” is not, as Marxism sees it, derived solely from nature or relations of production; it is also a product of human nature itself. Consider the statement recently made…


=== [312] ===


…in court by Sano Manabu: “I wish to express my condolences for the late Watanabe Masanosuke and the others.”<ref>Sano Manabu, a leading theoretician of the Japanese Communist Party, made this statement during his trial following his arrest in 1929. Seno’o had already drawn upon Sano’s 1931 translation of Lenin’s writings on religion (see note 1).</ref> What, after all, does this statement—coming from a leading figure of the anti-religious movement—tell us? Even if his explanation of this “mourning” was that he was “merely praising [Watanabe’s] achievements,” does not the very consciousness expressed toward the individual personality of the deceased provide evidence that human beings possess an animistic impulse independent of such things as relations of production? We should therefore recognize that the idea of God cannot necessarily be regarded as something opposed in every respect to the “true happiness” sought by human beings.


Now, to say yet again that the fundamental philosophy underlying the Marxist view of society and human life is the materialist conception of history would be superfluous. Historical materialism distinguishes itself from a mechanical materialism that recognizes no spiritual values whatsoever. Engels writes:


“The development of political, legal, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, and other such things rests upon economic development. Yet all of these react upon one another and also upon the economic basis. It is not the case that the economic situation is the sole active cause and that everything else is merely a passive result. Rather, there is reciprocal interaction upon the basis of economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, letter to W. Borgius, January 25, 1894. Long misidentified in editions of Marx and Engels as a letter to Heinz Starkenburg, the letter emphasizes that political, legal, philosophical, religious, and artistic developments, while ultimately conditioned by economic development, also “react upon one another and also upon the economic base.”</ref>


If we read further in this same passage, Engels says, “In the final analysis . . . economic necessity ultimately asserts itself”; this means that economic relations do not stand on the same level as the other phenomena with which they interact, and this is Engels’s own…


=== [313] ===


…view. Hence the wheel of development unfolds ceaselessly. And because contradiction is the cause of this development, some conceptual operation must be introduced here. They would surely argue that “the consciousness of freedom is an inevitable necessity of social revolution”<ref>An allusion to the dialectical conception of freedom associated with Hegel and Engels, according to which freedom consists not in independence from necessity but in understanding necessity and consciously acting upon it.</ref>; but if freedom is not something that can become a reality, then there is no need to make sacrifices for revolution. Why? Because every reality is necessary.


Yet the desire for freedom that human beings essentially seek can be resolved only through the transformation of the relations of production in which actual human beings, pregnant with contradictions and situated within society, find themselves. In other words, ideology cannot interpret the world in all its variety; what is needed is to change the world.<ref>An allusion to Marx’s eleventh ''Thesis on Feuerbach'' (1845): “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”</ref> But if a formal “change” is of no use unless human beings can truly enjoy “freedom” within it, then “change” for the sake of “change” must become a “change” for human beings. It cannot be the case that commodities are produced merely for the sake of capital.


Originally, historical materialism must recognize the reciprocal interaction between society’s economic substructure and its spiritual superstructure when it views society as a process of development. At a certain stage, the economic substructure must clearly receive some sort of reciprocal influence from the preceding spiritual superstructure. Therefore, their relationship must be understood through the Buddhist conception of dependent origination: an inseparable, organic interrelation in which neither can be explained as the subject independently of the other.<ref>''Engi'' 縁起 (Skt. ''pratītyasamutpāda''), “dependent origination,” is the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through causes and conditions and possess no independent, self-sufficient existence. Seno’o applies this principle here to the reciprocal relation between material and spiritual phenomena.</ref> Yet Marxism’s dialectical materialist conception, however much practical effectiveness it may demonstrate, ultimately flows in the opposite direction from idealism and into a material-centered understanding of human society; it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a genuinely developmental principle of unity.


== VII ==


Thus humanity, having liberated itself from the fetters of idealism, must once again demand a correct ideology for the liberation of society and the liberation of the self from the fetters of materialism. If science is truly to see the human…


=== [314] ===


…being as it truly is, then the true meaning of dialectics must lie in what is called “synthetic understanding,” as in Fingeruto<ref>''Fingeruto'' フィンゲルト appears to refer to the Soviet philosopher Aleksandr A. Vingert (also transliterated Fingeroto), whose writings on dialectical materialism emphasized a “synthetic” understanding that overcame the opposition between idealism and mechanistic materialism.</ref> and others; and the materialist conception of history must once again be overcome.


Buddhism must not remain forever a sleeping lion. Now is the time for Buddhism to smash the ivory tower. It must raise high the principles of emptiness and dependent origination, establish the truth of selflessness, and advance directly toward the realization of a true society of liberty and the abolition of privilege.


To summarize: although the anti-religious movement is itself a movement founded upon a self-contradictory theory, if it is nevertheless to produce results in practice, then for the established religious organizations it is the most effective antidote to their extreme degeneration and inertia. On the theoretical plane, Christianity has promoted a fantastical “God” in opposition to Buddhism; but Buddhism has no need to proclaim the atheism or doctrine of the nonexistence of the soul advocated by Katō Seishin and others as something extraordinary in Japan. From the standpoint of Buddhism, these are nothing more than a commonplace sort of denial of intrinsic existence that has already reached even the most remote rural households. Through this, the Buddhist perspectives of emptiness and dependent origination will be recognized anew, and should proudly assert themselves as the sole true materialist dialectic.<ref>Seno’o makes an unusually explicit appropriation of Marxist terminology here. ''kūkan'' 空観, the Buddhist “perspective of emptiness,” denies independent or intrinsic existence, while ''engikan'' 縁起観, the “perspective of dependent origination,” understands phenomena as arising relationally through causes and conditions. Seno’o identifies these Buddhist principles with the true “materialist dialectic” (''yuibutsu benshōhō'' 唯物弁証法).</ref>


Accordingly, if the anti-religious movement—under the name of “anti-religion”—has as its fundamental objective the organization of the unorganized masses, particularly the peasantry, into the proletarian movement, then the issue is another matter; but if the result of this is to bring about the destruction of religion, then the movement’s very object of purification will disappear. Even if it possesses the authority of the Soviet government, the power of religion has yet to be extinguished.<ref>The Soviet government pursued increasingly aggressive anti-religious policies during the 1920s and 1930s, including restrictions on religious institutions, confiscation of property, anti-religious propaganda, and campaigns organized through the League of Militant Atheists.</ref>


Indeed, given our present circumstances, rather than merely attacking existing Buddhist organizations, should we not instead call upon the inherent mass character of religion<ref>The term ''taishūsei'' 大衆性, here translated “mass character,” draws on the contemporary socialist vocabulary of the ''taishū'' 大衆, the popular masses. Seno’o thus attributes to religion an inherent capacity to address and mobilize the masses.</ref> and thereby provide the powerful proletarian movement arising from religion itself with room to develop? Would not this be far more effective in the present situation?


The heroic actions of official Marxism—pushing forward the “revolution” demanded by the masses—may be objectionable enough. But if it forgets its proper standpoint toward the anti-religious movement and lightly attempts an indiscriminate campaign of exclusion, then what will happen?


=== [315] ===


Even if its standpoint is one of opposition, should it not be possible for there to exist organizations that, while steadily working toward the realization of an ideal society, stand in opposition precisely because they are such organizations?


Those who seek to poison religion—to poison Buddhism—are none other than religious believers themselves. Buddhists should withdraw and first reflect upon their own lives in light of the Buddha’s ideal. Then, decisively setting out anew, they should report themselves to the anti-religious movement and advance. Is this not the one and only path by which it can be overcome?


— August 6, 7, and 18, 1931.


== Notes ==


<references />


[[category:Senoo Giro]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

SG31HSH-T

2026-08-29T18:42:50Z

James: James moved page SG31HSH-T to SG31HSU-T

#REDIRECT [[SG31HSU-T]]

SG31HSU-T

2026-08-29T18:42:50Z

James: James moved page SG31HSH-T to SG31HSU-T

{{Under Construction}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno'o Girō, “A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement”}}

'''Original Japanese:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1931). 「反宗教運動批判」 [A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement]. 『新興佛教の旗の下に』, August 1931. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.

'''English translation:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (2026). “A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement.” Trans. [[user:James|James Mark Shields]]. ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Translated from the text reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 302–315.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

= A Critique of the Anti-Religious Movement =


== I ==
==== Page 302 ====



A critique of the anti-religious movement should proceed from two directions. On the one hand, we must consider its practical movement of negation directed against the existing religious organizations themselves; on the other, its theoretical attempt to negate religion itself.


Let us begin by considering the attack on existing religious organizations. As far as the attack on existing religious organizations is concerned, we have no objection whatsoever. Indeed, virtually every religious person who takes religion at all seriously, differences of degree notwithstanding, would probably have to express agreement on this point. For the existing religious organizations, one and all, are residual forms that have lost the original vitality of religion, and there is more than sufficient reason to recognize that attacking them can itself provide the impetus for the proper development of religion. The present form of the existing religious organizations is perfectly captured by Lenin’s famous critique. He writes:


“Religion is one form of spiritual oppression that everywhere weighs heavily upon the masses of the people, oppressed by perpetual labor for others, by hardship and isolation. The impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters inevitably gives rise to belief in a better life hereafter, just as the impotence of primitive people in their struggle against nature gives rise to gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Religion teaches those who labor and suffer throughout their lives submission and patience on earth, consoling them with the hope of a heavenly reward. But to those who live from the labor of others, religion offers an easy justification for their entire existence as exploiters, sells them tickets to heavenly bliss at a reasonable price, and thereby teaches them happiness on earth. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual intoxicant in which the slaves of capital drown their human…


==== Page 303 ====


…dignity and even their most minimal desire for a human existence.”<ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (''Sotsializm i religiya''), originally published in ''Novaya Zhizn'', no. 28 (December 3, 1905). Seno’o quotes from Sano Manabu 佐野学 (1892–1953), trans., ''Shūkyō ni tsuite'' 宗教について [On Religion] (Tokyo: Kibōkaku, 1931).</ref>


The familiar charge of “opium” is hardly new anymore, but what a penetrating critique it is! The immediate target of these remarks was presumably Christianity, but needless to say, our own established Buddhist organizations cannot be regarded as exceptions. We need hardly turn now to Takatsu Seidō’s “Those Who Indulge in Exploitation,” or to Nishida Shigeji’s “The Class Character of Honganji” in ''Under the Banner of the Anti-Religious Struggle'', and so forth. Whether Shingon, Nichiren, Zen, or any of the others, the larger and more prosperous their present temple organizations, the more enormous their opiate and exploitative character. It is an undeniable fact before our very eyes that they correspond almost exactly to Lenin’s harsh critique. Insofar as this is the case, there can be no reason whatsoever to oppose the anti-religious movement’s attack upon the existing religious organizations.<ref>Seno’o wrote amid an increasingly prominent Marxist anti-religious movement in Japan. Following heated 1930 debates over “Marxism and Religion” in the Buddhist newspaper ''Chūgai Nippō'' 中外日報, the ''Hanshūkyō Tōsō Dōmei Junbikai'' 反宗教闘争同盟準備会 [Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee] was established in April 1931, sponsoring public rallies and publishing the journal ''Hanshūkyō Tōsō'' 反宗教闘争 [Anti-Religious Struggle] from June. Its critique combined Marxist theories of religion as ideology and “opium” with attacks on temples and religious institutions as agents of economic exploitation and class domination. Seno’o’s argument—written in the same year that he founded the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism—should thus be read as an intervention in this immediate controversy rather than simply as an abstract response to Marxist theories of religion.</ref>


But is there really a necessary relationship between the present condition of the existing religious organizations and religion itself? For example, is Buddhist ideology necessarily an ideology that must result in the sort of ugly condition exhibited by the existing religions today? If so, then the anti-religious movement should be accepted completely. But is that really the case?


No!! The true essence of each religion is precisely what ought completely to negate and purify the utterly ugly forms of life represented by the existing religious organizations. Under no circumstances should it permit them.


The higher religions are described as ethical religions precisely because, whether Buddhism or Christianity, they possess a considerable ethical dimension. So long as that function has not been distorted, the present condition of the established religious organizations must be regarded as an evil that simply cannot be accepted. It follows that attacks upon such residual religious organizations ought already to have been initiated by serious and progressive religious people themselves, without waiting for the anti-religious activists to work themselves into a frenzy.


Thus, belated though it may be, when we Revitalized Buddhists recently declared in the second plank of our movement:


“We recognize all existing religious organizations as residual forms that have desecrated the Buddhist spirit; we reject them and seek the propagation of Buddhism appropriate to the new age,”


this declaration arose from precisely such an understanding.


== II ==


At this point, the anti-religious activists will immediately retort:…


==== Page 304 ====


…“All this fussing over things like ‘essence’ and ‘true nature’ is bourgeois formal logic. Where is there any essence apart from the history unfolding before our eyes?” But on this point, too, they need only reflect upon themselves to recognize their error immediately. Would they themselves permit all the various proletarian movements currently in vogue—the Social Democrats, the Masses Party, the Communists, and so forth—to be regarded as genuine Marxist movements and criticized as such? And as for the anti-religious movement itself, which represents the true mainstream of Marxism: Takatsu’s “Japan Anti-Religious League,” or Akita and his colleagues’ “Anti-Religious Struggle League”?<ref>Seno’o refers to competing currents within Japan’s anti-religious movement. Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a former Jōdo Shinshū priest and communist activist, was a leading advocate of organized anti-religious struggle and later helped lead the ''Nihon Hanshūkyō Dōmei'' 日本反宗教同盟 [Japan Anti-Religion League]. Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), playwright and socialist, was associated with the Anti-Religious Struggle League Preparatory Committee established in April 1931.</ref>


Surely any critical assessment of these movements must seek its criteria beyond their immediately existing forms, in the essential teachings of Marx and Engels, or perhaps Lenin. Once this is recognized, the same kind of consideration must be permitted when examining the relationship between the essence of Buddhism or Christianity and the existing religious organizations. To negate the greatness of Marxism on the basis of the turbid current swirling with the petty hacks springing up everywhere, excitable “Marx-boys,” and Marxist intellectuals who make their living churning out manuscripts would have to be called a serious misdiagnosis. And precisely for this reason, to negate religion itself on the basis of the existing religious organizations must likewise be a misdiagnosis.


Consider Christianity. Where in the life of Christ was there anything resembling the bourgeois way of life found in the churches today? Was he not a pioneer who sought to liberate the oppressed Jewish people from Roman tyranny?<ref>Seno’o interprets Jesus in contemporary social-liberationist terms, emphasizing his association with the poor and oppressed and presenting primitive Christianity as a movement opposed to political and economic domination.</ref> All those with whom he associated were propertyless; they were certainly not the wealthy and privileged. Of course, much in his ideology would have to be critically reassessed from a contemporary standpoint. But Christianity itself is not, from the outset, an ideology for the oppression of workers and peasants. Surely the movement for neighborly love and liberation expressed in “Love God and love your neighbor” was a precursor to the movement for the liberation of the propertyless. And coming much later, Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves in the name of God must likewise be regarded as living proof that Christianity is not necessarily opium or poisonous liquor.


Now let us turn our eyes to Buddhism. It is an all-too-familiar fact that the life of our Buddha, who left the royal family and began a mendicant life on the streets, was an exemplary life of great equality without so much as a trace of exploitation. The doctrine of non-self preached in the streets, and consequently such things as his movement to break down the class divisions of the four castes<ref>The “four castes” refers to the traditional fourfold ''varṇa'' scheme of Brahmins (priests), Kṣatriyas (rulers and warriors), Vaiśyas (agriculturalists and merchants), and Śūdras (servants and laborers). Buddhist texts repeatedly reject birth as the determinant of spiritual worth, subordinating inherited status to conduct and spiritual attainment.</ref>—even if these were not pursued actively and politically—how could any of this possibly be identified with the immensely complicated hierarchical organization of temples today, or with the capitalist—…


==== Page 305 ====


…temple Buddhism of the present day?


Consider the vision of dependent origination and emptiness that he consistently taught for forty-five years. This is “the true unity of the material and the spiritual—not a conceived or fabricated unity, but an actually existing unity”—a principle of non-self grounded in a pure experience comparable to Feuerbach’s “sensibility.”<ref>Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), whose critique of Christian theology strongly influenced the young Marx, emphasized ''Sinnlichkeit'' (“sensuousness” or “sensibility”) as the concrete, embodied basis of human existence, in opposition to abstract idealism. Seno’o compares Feuerbach’s concept with the Buddhist principles of dependent origination, emptiness, and non-self.</ref> How could one possibly discover in this any necessity for affirming the sort of idealistic, opiate-like Buddhism we see today? Buddhism must be reexamined; anything less would be a lie.


Look, further, at the life of Nichiren. How he fought throughout his life against the ruling Hōjō clan of his day!<ref>Nichiren 日蓮 (1222–1282) repeatedly confronted the political authorities of the Kamakura shogunate and suffered persecution, exile, and an attempted execution. Seno’o contrasts this image of Nichiren as religious dissident with modern nationalist “Nichirenism” (''Nichirenshugi'' 日蓮主義). The contrast is particularly pointed given Seno’o’s own earlier involvement in the Nichirenist movement.</ref> He certainly did not “easily justify their entire existence” as exploiters and “sell them tickets to heavenly bliss at a reasonable price”; nor did he teach “submission and patience on earth.” His religious movement of struggle against the rulers—a movement virtually without parallel in world history—was utterly unlike either the nationalistic Nichirenism of the present day or the ridiculous, clamorous Lotus-style Nichiren Buddhism of today. And, closer to our own time, we can see the same thing in the anti-British independence movement of the religious leader Gandhi.<ref>Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) had by 1931 become internationally identified with the Indian independence movement and nonviolent resistance to British colonial rule. Seno’o invokes him alongside Jesus and Nichiren as an example of religiously motivated resistance to political domination.</ref> Religion has certainly not always been something that makes the people fall asleep in the “dark chamber of peace of mind.”


So long as we possess, in addition to these, numerous concrete examples carried out in the name of religion that were progressive, active, and even revolutionary, I see nothing unreasonable in maintaining that existing religious organizations and religion itself—whether Buddhism or Christianity—can, and must, be considered separately.


Thus, while affirming the anti-religious movement’s attack upon existing religious organizations, we must now proceed to a critique of the theory by which the anti-religious movement negates religion itself.


==== Page 306 ====
== III ==




How do the Marxists of the anti-religious movement define religion? In the inaugural issue of their journal ''Anti-Religious Struggle'', they write:


“Belief in the existence of a supernatural world is what is called religion. This is the most fundamental characteristic of religion.”


To elaborate: religion, according to this definition, consists in believing in the nonexistent “illusion” of a supernatural heaven such as Christianity teaches and in the superhuman God who inhabits that world. In his work on Feuerbach, Engels writes:


“If religion could exist without God, then alchemy could also…


==== Page 307 ====


…exist without the philosopher’s stone.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' (1886). Engels uses the comparison with alchemy to criticize Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve “religion” after abandoning its traditional God. Seno’o reverses the argument by presenting Buddhism as an actual historical example of religion without a creator God.</ref>


We must not overlook the fact that the “God” in question is the fundamental object of Marxist theories of religion. And since the philosophical foundation of such religion is naturally idealism, it goes without saying that Marxism, which stands in direct opposition to idealism, cannot affirm the existence of such a supernatural God.


How, then, did such religion—that is, belief in God—arise? Lenin says, “Fear created the gods.” Gorter calls it the work of “incomprehensible forces.”<ref>Lenin’s formulation that “fear created the gods” derives from his materialist account of religion as arising from human powerlessness before natural and social forces. Herman Gorter (1864–1927), a Dutch poet and Marxist theorist, similarly explained religion in terms of humanity’s subjection to forces it could neither understand nor control.</ref> That is to say, primitive human beings, still ignorant and unenlightened, confronted natural phenomena that bore down upon their lives as “incomprehensible,” irresistible forces, and from their fear of these phenomena came to imagine them as the workings of gods. Thus arose primitive animism, which developed into clan religion and ethnic religion, and finally into Christianity as a world religion. Buddhism, too, is said to be one of these world religions.


On animism, Plekhanov writes:


“It is the savage’s attempt to explain natural phenomena. However impoverished this attempt may be, under the conditions of primitive life it was unavoidable.”


As for the origins of ethnic religion, Bogdanov writes:


“The tribal elder, as the guardian of accumulated experience in production, organizes and administers, issues commands, draws up plans for labor, and represents the active and creative principle; the others, meanwhile, obey, receive commands, submit to plans handed down from above, and act according to the will of others. These relations of production became the model for human beings’ own understanding.”<ref>Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918) and Alexander Bogdanov (1873–1928) were major Russian Marxist theorists who developed materialist accounts of religion. Seno’o cites Plekhanov on the emergence of animism from human inability to comprehend natural phenomena, and Bogdanov on the projection of hierarchical relations of production onto supernatural authority.</ref>


Thus Engels, in ''Anti-Dühring'', writes:


“All religion is nothing more than the fantastic reflection in human minds of those external forces that dominate their everyday existence—a reflection in which earthly forces assume the form of supernatural ones. In the earliest period of history, it was first of all the forces of nature that were reflected in this way; and in the course of further development, they underwent the most varied and manifold personifications among different peoples. . . . But it was not long before, alongside the forces of nature, social forces also began to operate—forces that confronted human beings…”


==== Page 308 ====


“…and which, at first, likewise appeared inexplicable, dominating human beings with the same apparent natural necessity as nature itself. In this way, the fantastic figures that initially reflected only the mysterious and incomprehensible forces of nature acquired social attributes and became representatives of historical forces.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'' (1877–78), Part III, chap. 5. Engels defines religion here as the “fantastic reflection” of the external forces governing human life, initially natural and subsequently social.</ref>


Engels explains it in these terms. Lenin, in a letter to Gorky, criticizes God as follows:


“‘God’ is (historically and in actual life), above all, a complex of ideas generated by the brutish oppression of human beings both by external nature and by class oppression—ideas that reinforce this oppression and lull the class struggle to sleep.”<ref>V. I. Lenin, letter to Maxim Gorky, November 1913. Lenin was responding to the Russian socialist “God-building” movement, which sought to reinterpret religious language and the idea of God in humanistic and socialist terms.</ref>


In other words, religion is, as Marx says in his ''Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'', “an amalgam” (復合体) of all those ideas that seek to deceive human beings.<ref>Karl Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844), the same text containing his characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Marx begins his critique from the premise that religion is a human product rather than an independently existing supernatural reality.</ref>


“The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: human beings make religion; religion does not make human beings. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-feeling of the human being who has either not yet won himself or has already lost himself again.”


Thus, God is something produced by human beings themselves. Therefore, once human beings have scientifically investigated and completely clarified those natural phenomena that confronted them as “incomprehensible forces,” thereby eliminating the causes of “fear,” and once, within the relations of social production, they have been liberated from their enslaved position and become free human beings who no longer need to pray for salvation—that is, once human beings have completely regained themselves—religion must necessarily disappear. Engels explains this directly in the following words:


“When society has taken possession of all the means of production and employs them according to plan, thereby freeing both itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by the means of production that they themselves have produced, but which confront them as an overwhelming external force; when human beings therefore not only propose but also dispose—only then will the last external force still reflected in religion disappear, and with it religious reflection itself will disappear as well, for the simple reason that there will then be nothing left to reflect.”<ref>Engels, ''Anti-Dühring'', Part III, chap. 5; see note 12.</ref>


==== Page 309 ====


That is what he says. The Marxist theory of the extinction of religion may be summarized roughly as follows.


“Religious suffering is at once an expression of real suffering and a protest against present suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature . . . the opium of the people.”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844). Immediately before calling religion the “opium of the people,” Marx describes religious suffering as both “the expression of real suffering” and “a protest against real suffering.” Seno’o emphasizes this latter dimension against a purely negative interpretation of Marx’s critique of religion.</ref>


Thus Marx. To put a stop to religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The problem of religion, therefore, is to demonstrate the necessity of the negation of religion. At this point, let us conclude our presentation of anti-religious theory by summarizing the foregoing arguments in the words of Akizawa, a fighter in the anti-religious movement.


“So long as human beings do not become masters of themselves, their actual lives will continue to be dominated by external forces—at an undeveloped stage of productive power, by the forces of nature, and at a developed stage, by social forces—and religion will continue to exist.”<ref>Akizawa Shūji 秋沢修二 (1909–1987) was an activist in the contemporary anti-religious movement. Seno’o calls him “a fighter in the anti-religious movement” (''hanshū undō no ichi tōshi'' 反宗運動の一闘士) and uses his formulation here to summarize the movement’s argument that religion will persist until humanity gains conscious mastery over natural and social forces.</ref>


“Only in socialist society does the human being come to act with himself at the center; only through proletarian revolution is it possible . . . for all religion to disappear completely in the society of the future.”



== IV ==


Now, if we are to criticize fundamentally the Marxist theory of the negation of religion outlined above, the question is whether religion must necessarily make a supernatural “God” an indispensable condition. Why, for example, must Buddhism necessarily posit a Christian-style supernatural “God”? Buddhism does not necessarily posit such a religion. Indeed, within Buddhism there even exists a “Buddhist atheism” that takes the standpoint of atheism. Buddhists may try to avoid the sharp edge of Marxist religious criticism by saying that Buddhism teaches that “there are innumerable supernatural beliefs,” but although relatively few contemporary temple Buddhists maintain theistic belief, Buddhism, if it is to claim the fundamentally atheistic standpoint proper to it, must reflect seriously upon the fact that its present forms of belief have in many cases been distorted.


If one investigates this matter carefully, it becomes clear that the original doctrine of Buddhism is plainly atheistic.


The Buddha denied the Brahmanical gods of creation—Brahmā, the creator of heaven and earth—and taught the doctrine of the twelve links of dependent origination, the law of cause and effect. At the time of his entering nirvāṇa, he left the instruction, “Be a lamp unto yourselves and rely upon yourselves; take the Dharma as your lamp and rely upon the Dharma; rely upon no other.”<ref>An allusion to the Buddha’s final instructions in the ''Mahāparinibbāna Sutta'' (''Dīgha Nikāya'' 16): ''attadīpā … attasaraṇā … dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā'', conventionally rendered “be lamps [or islands] unto yourselves, your own refuge; with the Dharma as your lamp [or island] and refuge.” Seno’o follows the East Asian Buddhist tradition in understanding ''dīpa'' as “lamp.”</ref> In this way, Buddhism is precisely a religion that demonstrates atheism at a higher level. While affirming Marx’s proposition that “the highest being for man is man,”<ref>Marx, introduction to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right'' (1844): “The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man.” Marx immediately connects this principle with the imperative to overthrow social relations in which human beings are degraded, enslaved, or abandoned.</ref> we can go further and say that the Buddha is precisely the highest human being whom humanity can ideally imagine: he saw the ideal perfection of the human being in the Buddha’s attainment of nirvāṇa. In short, Buddhism is fundamentally an atheistic religion in which no supernatural “God” exists.


Recently, in the “Reader’s Forum” column, the problem was raised by Dr. Takakusu, an advocate of Buddhist atheism; and in issue no. 7 of ''Gendai Bukkyō'', Katō Seishin also discussed the question under the title “On Buddhist Atheism.”<ref>Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 (1866–1945), one of Japan’s leading Buddhist scholars, had recently defended the non-theistic character of Buddhism in the ''Yomiuri Shimbun'' 読売新聞. Katō Seishin 加藤精神 (1872–1956), a prominent Shingon scholar-priest, similarly argued in “Bukkyō no mushinron to mureikonsetsu” 仏教の無神論と無霊魂説 [Buddhism’s Atheism and Theory of Non-Soul], published in ''Gendai Bukkyō'' 現代仏教, that Buddhism was fundamentally atheistic and denied an enduring soul.</ref>


“To summarize: Buddhism is thoroughly and consistently atheistic; it is an atheistic doctrine. Nevertheless, among Buddhist scholars there are often those who maintain that ‘Mahāyāna Buddhism is a theistic doctrine,’ but this is a misunderstanding of Buddhism.”


So it is said.


Dr. Kimura Taiken, too, writes in his ''From True Emptiness to Wondrous Being'':<ref>Kimura Taiken 木村泰賢 (1881–1930), a leading scholar of Indian Buddhism at Tokyo Imperial University, published ''Shinkū yori Myōu e'' 真空より妙有へ [From True Emptiness to Wondrous Being] in 1929. Kimura argues here that Buddhism remains fully religious despite lacking the personal creator God presupposed by many Western definitions of religion.</ref>


“The Buddha relies upon nothing whatsoever; he became Buddha through himself alone. Moreover, what is called the relationship between ‘God and human beings’ is—unless God is understood simply as Dharma or principle—ultimately untenable. . . . Buddhism, then, is at last truly Buddhism when it is treated as one of the world’s three great religions and, moreover, when people have attained peace of mind and established their lives through it. The fact that it is a religion is beyond doubt. Theoretically, the reason that we must discuss whether Buddhism is or is not a religion lies in our taking personality to be the principal element of religion and then seeking, in addition, other religious requirements.”


==== Page 310 ====


“The essence of the religious spirit lies where the demand for freedom and the demand for liberation intertwine; insofar as these demands can be satisfied, even without God it can still be religion.”


Thus he argues. In this way, Buddhism certainly stands upon atheism, and it does not stop at the Buddhist understanding of the Buddha, but continues even to the Zen school and the various other sects. Accordingly, so long as the anti-religious movement treats “God as the fundamental characteristic of religion” and, because of a deficient understanding of religion, takes such premises of religious negation and applies them indiscriminately to existing Buddhist organizations—or even to Christianity and other theistic forms of religion—it must be regarded as an improper movement, however “scientific” it may claim to be.


Thus the fundamental characteristic of religion should be sought elsewhere than in “God.”


== V ==


What, then, is the characteristic of religion?


The word “religion” is often used synonymously with the word “faith,” but does this word “faith” most adequately explain the essential nature of religion? That is to say, religion is a life of believing. The object of belief may, depending upon the case, be “God,” truth, or may change into all manner of other things; but before the object believed in, one casts aside everything unconditionally and thereby feels the power of complete surrender, peace of mind, and satisfaction. Feuerbach said that “the root of religion is the feeling of dependence.” Schleiermacher called it “the feeling of absolute dependence.”<ref>Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) famously defined religion in terms of a “feeling of absolute dependence.” Feuerbach, while rejecting Schleiermacher’s theology, likewise treated the human feeling of dependence—particularly dependence upon nature—as a fundamental ground of religion.</ref> And Ritschl said that “God is not a necessity of religion.”<ref>Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), a major German Protestant theologian, rejected speculative metaphysics in favor of understanding religion through practical and value judgments. Seno’o invokes him as another modern authority for defining religion without making a metaphysical conception of God its indispensable foundation.</ref>


In Buddhism, too, although the sects may differ over whether or not they possess a God, in the end “God” may be absent, but religion can nevertheless be established. Yet without the attitude of faith, religion is impossible. Therefore, we must recognize that the Christian denial of “God” does not amount to the denial of religion. Human beings are sentient beings who, through one means or another, seek to resolve the contradictions of life; and the negation of religion is at the same time a negation of the human being. To put it in Sinclair’s words:<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968), ''The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation'' (1917). Although Sinclair’s book is a socialist critique of institutional religion as an ally of privilege and exploitation, he distinguishes this from religion “in its true sense,” understood as a fundamental spiritual impulse and an “impassioned love of life.” Seno’o draws upon precisely this distinction between institutional religion and religion itself.</ref>


“Religion, in its true meaning, is the most fundamental spiritual impulse, an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and assist life. In this sense, every human being who thinks is necessarily religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal…


==== Page 311 ====


…—indeed, the very essence of humankind. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. No, I wish rather to make clear that religion, in this sense, is by no means something that ought to be attacked.”


Is not the absolute life of the Marxist of the present day itself something that comes very close to this? They advocate Marxism while denying the religion of “God.” Yet is their attitude really so entirely different from the attitude of faith found in religion? This is no mere sophistry. Why, for example, is the Nichiren school’s uncompromising adherence to the ''daimoku''<ref>The ''daimoku'' 題目, ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' 南無妙法蓮華経 (“Devotion to the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Sutra”), is the central devotional invocation of Nichiren Buddhism.</ref>, or the Christian’s faith in God—each of them chanting its own object of faith—necessarily uncritical or blind faith, while the Marxist’s practical movement, grounded in the pure principle of human society that he believes in, is somehow a grasp of truth? Of course, ideologically speaking, the latter may possess an advantage in terms of truth. But just as countless religious sects and ideologies have been discarded as the times have changed, can anyone deny that a religion that ought to be discarded may someday arise even within Marxism?


== VI ==


What, then, is Christian ideology?


Its theological worldview and conception of life already extend beyond the Renaissance. Next, Feuerbach’s statement that “the secret of theology is anthropology”<ref>Feuerbach’s ''The Essence of Christianity'' (1841) famously reverses theology into anthropology: the qualities attributed to God are projections of human capacities and aspirations. The formula “the secret of theology is anthropology” encapsulates this argument.</ref> opened the way for modern humanism, while the figure of “God” receded far beyond the horizon. Even within Buddhism, so-called other-power Buddhism has recently given rise to a succession of troubling questions, and many have raised objections to it; let us connect these developments with a critique of the principal points of Marxism.


There is, however, one point that requires explanation here. The emergence of the imagined “God” is not, as Marxism sees it, derived solely from nature or relations of production; it is also a product of human nature itself. Consider the statement recently made…


==== Page 312 ====


…in court by Sano Manabu: “I wish to express my condolences for the late Watanabe Masanosuke and the others.”<ref>Sano Manabu, a leading theoretician of the Japanese Communist Party, made this statement during his trial following his arrest in 1929. Seno’o had already drawn upon Sano’s 1931 translation of Lenin’s writings on religion (see note 1).</ref> What, after all, does this statement—coming from a leading figure of the anti-religious movement—tell us? Even if his explanation of this “mourning” was that he was “merely praising [Watanabe’s] achievements,” does not the very consciousness expressed toward the individual personality of the deceased provide evidence that human beings possess an animistic impulse independent of such things as relations of production? We should therefore recognize that the idea of God cannot necessarily be regarded as something opposed in every respect to the “true happiness” sought by human beings.


Now, to say yet again that the fundamental philosophy underlying the Marxist view of society and human life is the materialist conception of history would be superfluous. Historical materialism distinguishes itself from a mechanical materialism that recognizes no spiritual values whatsoever. Engels writes:


“The development of political, legal, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, and other such things rests upon economic development. Yet all of these react upon one another and also upon the economic basis. It is not the case that the economic situation is the sole active cause and that everything else is merely a passive result. Rather, there is reciprocal interaction upon the basis of economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, letter to W. Borgius, January 25, 1894. Long misidentified in editions of Marx and Engels as a letter to Heinz Starkenburg, the letter emphasizes that political, legal, philosophical, religious, and artistic developments, while ultimately conditioned by economic development, also “react upon one another and also upon the economic base.”</ref>


If we read further in this same passage, Engels says, “In the final analysis . . . economic necessity ultimately asserts itself”; this means that economic relations do not stand on the same level as the other phenomena with which they interact, and this is Engels’s own…


==== Page 313 ====


…view. Hence the wheel of development unfolds ceaselessly. And because contradiction is the cause of this development, some conceptual operation must be introduced here. They would surely argue that “the consciousness of freedom is an inevitable necessity of social revolution”<ref>An allusion to the dialectical conception of freedom associated with Hegel and Engels, according to which freedom consists not in independence from necessity but in understanding necessity and consciously acting upon it.</ref>; but if freedom is not something that can become a reality, then there is no need to make sacrifices for revolution. Why? Because every reality is necessary.


Yet the desire for freedom that human beings essentially seek can be resolved only through the transformation of the relations of production in which actual human beings, pregnant with contradictions and situated within society, find themselves. In other words, ideology cannot interpret the world in all its variety; what is needed is to change the world.<ref>An allusion to Marx’s eleventh ''Thesis on Feuerbach'' (1845): “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”</ref> But if a formal “change” is of no use unless human beings can truly enjoy “freedom” within it, then “change” for the sake of “change” must become a “change” for human beings. It cannot be the case that commodities are produced merely for the sake of capital.


Originally, historical materialism must recognize the reciprocal interaction between society’s economic substructure and its spiritual superstructure when it views society as a process of development. At a certain stage, the economic substructure must clearly receive some sort of reciprocal influence from the preceding spiritual superstructure. Therefore, their relationship must be understood through the Buddhist conception of dependent origination: an inseparable, organic interrelation in which neither can be explained as the subject independently of the other.<ref>''Engi'' 縁起 (Skt. ''pratītyasamutpāda''), “dependent origination,” is the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through causes and conditions and possess no independent, self-sufficient existence. Seno’o applies this principle here to the reciprocal relation between material and spiritual phenomena.</ref> Yet Marxism’s dialectical materialist conception, however much practical effectiveness it may demonstrate, ultimately flows in the opposite direction from idealism and into a material-centered understanding of human society; it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a genuinely developmental principle of unity.


== VII ==


Thus humanity, having liberated itself from the fetters of idealism, must once again demand a correct ideology for the liberation of society and the liberation of the self from the fetters of materialism. If science is truly to see the human…


==== Page 314 ====


…being as it truly is, then the true meaning of dialectics must lie in what is called “synthetic understanding,” as in Fingeruto<ref>''Fingeruto'' フィンゲルト appears to refer to the Soviet philosopher Aleksandr A. Vingert (also transliterated Fingeroto), whose writings on dialectical materialism emphasized a “synthetic” understanding that overcame the opposition between idealism and mechanistic materialism.</ref> and others; and the materialist conception of history must once again be overcome.


Buddhism must not remain forever a sleeping lion. Now is the time for Buddhism to smash the ivory tower. It must raise high the principles of emptiness and dependent origination, establish the truth of selflessness, and advance directly toward the realization of a true society of liberty and the abolition of privilege.


To summarize: although the anti-religious movement is itself a movement founded upon a self-contradictory theory, if it is nevertheless to produce results in practice, then for the established religious organizations it is the most effective antidote to their extreme degeneration and inertia. On the theoretical plane, Christianity has promoted a fantastical “God” in opposition to Buddhism; but Buddhism has no need to proclaim the atheism or doctrine of the nonexistence of the soul advocated by Katō Seishin and others as something extraordinary in Japan. From the standpoint of Buddhism, these are nothing more than a commonplace sort of denial of intrinsic existence that has already reached even the most remote rural households. Through this, the Buddhist perspectives of emptiness and dependent origination will be recognized anew, and should proudly assert themselves as the sole true materialist dialectic.<ref>Seno’o makes an unusually explicit appropriation of Marxist terminology here. ''kūkan'' 空観, the Buddhist “perspective of emptiness,” denies independent or intrinsic existence, while ''engikan'' 縁起観, the “perspective of dependent origination,” understands phenomena as arising relationally through causes and conditions. Seno’o identifies these Buddhist principles with the true “materialist dialectic” (''yuibutsu benshōhō'' 唯物弁証法).</ref>


Accordingly, if the anti-religious movement—under the name of “anti-religion”—has as its fundamental objective the organization of the unorganized masses, particularly the peasantry, into the proletarian movement, then the issue is another matter; but if the result of this is to bring about the destruction of religion, then the movement’s very object of purification will disappear. Even if it possesses the authority of the Soviet government, the power of religion has yet to be extinguished.<ref>The Soviet government pursued increasingly aggressive anti-religious policies during the 1920s and 1930s, including restrictions on religious institutions, confiscation of property, anti-religious propaganda, and campaigns organized through the League of Militant Atheists.</ref>


Indeed, given our present circumstances, rather than merely attacking existing Buddhist organizations, should we not instead call upon the inherent mass character of religion<ref>The term ''taishūsei'' 大衆性, here translated “mass character,” draws on the contemporary socialist vocabulary of the ''taishū'' 大衆, the popular masses. Seno’o thus attributes to religion an inherent capacity to address and mobilize the masses.</ref> and thereby provide the powerful proletarian movement arising from religion itself with room to develop? Would not this be far more effective in the present situation?


The heroic actions of official Marxism—pushing forward the “revolution” demanded by the masses—may be objectionable enough. But if it forgets its proper standpoint toward the anti-religious movement and lightly attempts an indiscriminate campaign of exclusion, then what will happen?


==== Page 315 ====


Even if its standpoint is one of opposition, should it not be possible for there to exist organizations that, while steadily working toward the realization of an ideal society, stand in opposition precisely because they are such organizations?


Those who seek to poison religion—to poison Buddhism—are none other than religious believers themselves. Buddhists should withdraw and first reflect upon their own lives in light of the Buddha’s ideal. Then, decisively setting out anew, they should report themselves to the anti-religious movement and advance. Is this not the one and only path by which it can be overcome?


— August 6, 7, and 18, 1931.


== Notes ==


<references />

[[category:Senoo Giro]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-29T18:34:06Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, "Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' Protecting the Nation"}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」『若人』第9巻第6号、1928年（昭和3年）6月.
Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu” 共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む; “Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''.” ''Wakōdo'' 若人 9, no. 6 (June 1928).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、242–254頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 242–254. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>
== Translation ==
{{opage|242}}

'''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'''''

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', Chapter Eight, “Entrustment”<ref>The Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation (Ninnō gokoku hannya haramitsu-kyō 仁王護国般若波羅蜜経; T 8, nos. 245–246) is one of East Asian Buddhism’s principal “state-protecting sutras,” traditionally grouped among the “three sutras for protecting the nation” (gokoku sanbu-kyō 護国三部経). An apocryphal scripture composed in China, it became the basis in Japan for state-sponsored rites known as Ninnō-e 仁王会, performed to protect the realm from calamity and disorder. In Chapter 8, “Entrustment” (Shokuru-hon 囑累品), the Buddha warns that rulers, ministers, and religious leaders who violate the Dharma themselves create the conditions for the destruction of Buddhism and the state. Seno’o turns this traditional state-protecting scripture against the state itself, locating responsibility for national disorder in political authority and the social conditions it sustains.</ref> ===

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

Relying upon your own power and authority, you suppress the fourfold assembly and do not permit them to cultivate merit. Evil monks arise who accept the practice of separate invitations; together with learned monks, they become of one mind, cultivate close relations with one another, hold religious feasts, and seek merit. This is the way of non-Buddhists and has nothing whatsoever to do with my teaching.

The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

O Great King, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, kings, ministers, and the disciples of the fourfold assembly will each commit unlawful acts, arbitrarily interfering with Buddhism and committing numerous offenses. These accord neither with the Dharma nor with the Vinaya.

O Great King, after my extinction, the disciples of the fourfold assembly, all kings, princes, and officials—those charged with protecting and preserving the Three Treasures—will themselves destroy them. It will be like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh: the destruction will not come from outsiders.

Those who destroy my Dharma will incur grave offenses. The True Dharma will decline, and the people will cease to act rightly. Evils will gradually multiply and their lives will daily grow shorter. There will no longer be filial children; the six relations will fall into discord; devas and dragons will offer no protection; evil spirits and evil dragons will come daily to inflict harm; calamities and strange portents will follow one upon another, bringing disasters in every direction. They will fall into hell or be reborn as animals or hungry ghosts. Even should they attain human birth, they will be poor and lowly and their faculties incomplete. Just as a shadow follows a form, as an echo responds to a voice, or as writing remains visible after the lamp by which someone writes at night has gone out, so too are the karmic consequences of destroying the Dharma. Evil monks, seeking fame and profit, preach before the king things that are not my Dharma, speaking themselves of transgressions and thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of the Dharma. The king, unable to distinguish what is true, believes and favors their words and arbitrarily establishes laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts. Know that when this happens, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

{{opage|243}}

Confronted with the Communist Party Incident,<ref>The “Communist Party Incident” refers to the March 15 Incident of 1928 (San-ichigo Jiken 三・一五事件), a nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,600 suspected members and supporters of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, including labor organizers and student activists, were arrested under the Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法). Seno’o redirects attention from communist “conspiracy” to the social and economic conditions that made radicalism increasingly compelling.</ref> people immediately became indignant: “This is treason aimed at destroying our flawless national polity!<ref>The phrase “flawless national polity” translates kin’ō muketsu (金甌無缺 / 金甌無欠), literally “an unblemished golden vessel.” In modern Japan, the metaphor signified the integrity and inviolability of the imperial state (kokutai 国体), particularly its supposedly unbroken imperial lineage. Seno’o initially invokes the expression ironically, challenging those who denounced communism as a threat to an inherently perfect polity. Later, however, he reappropriates the metaphor: the kokutai can remain genuinely “flawless,” he argues, only insofar as imperial rule retains the capacity for self-criticism and institutional reform.</ref> It is a seditious conspiracy!” Yet they went no further than denunciation and repression. They did not reflect upon why such a tremendous calamity had arisen in a supposedly flawless nation. They gave no serious thought to the essential nature of this supposedly “flawless” polity, nor to the actual conditions of the people’s lives, which had strayed so very far from it. And consequently they failed to recognize the underlying disease that required radical treatment. For such foolish citizens, this golden admonition of the Buddha may perhaps be nothing more than “a ''nenbutsu'' in a horse’s ear.”<ref>The phrase “a nenbutsu in a horse’s ear” translates the Japanese proverb uma no mimi ni nenbutsu 馬の耳に念仏, meaning to offer wisdom or admonition to an unreceptive audience—roughly equivalent to “casting pearls before swine.” The nenbutsu refers here to the invocation of the Buddha’s name, conventionally Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏.</ref> Even so, I am convinced that this warning from our Sutra for Humane Kings is indeed a needle thrust into the crown of the modern state. I have therefore ventured to set it down here explicitly, in the hope that it might provide thoughtful readers with occasion for repeated and profound reflection.

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'', “Entrustment” ===

<blockquote>
‘Humane King’ means that, because he bestows benevolence and spreads virtue, he is called ‘humane’; and because he acts with purity and freedom, he is called ‘king.’ ‘Protecting the nation’ means that, by following the Dharma of the Humane King and adhering to the Way, he protects the realm, so that the people live in happiness and the nation is secure.

</blockquote>

So it is explained. “Entrustment” means that one is commanded, in accordance with this principle, both to govern oneself and to propagate the teaching so that other kings may govern in the same way.

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

</blockquote>

The Buddha’s judgment is concise and precisely to the point. In a single sentence he pronounces that all responsibility for the causes of a nation’s destruction lies with you. One might truly say that this one sentence settles the entire matter.

When we think about it, this is surely how things must be. Whatever the country, responsibility for the problems of a nation naturally comes to rest with the sovereign who governs and rules it. Only then can one truly possess, in both name and reality, the qualifications of a king. Indeed, world history clearly tells us that this is where cries of “Long live the king!” converge—and this is also where the flames of revolution are directed. The causes of a nation’s destruction, therefore, should not be sought among the people. Still less should they be sought abroad. When the Buddha admonishes the king that “they are all of your own making,” we must acknowledge that his judgment strikes squarely at the truth.

If this judgment is indeed correct, then the causes of our nation’s destruction are emphatically not to be found in a small group of Communist Party members, nor in the Russian Third International that is said to direct them, nor yet in Marxism itself. Rather, they must be sought…

{{opage|244}}

…in the defective conditions of the nation itself—conditions that make such incursions possible and allow such movements to arise. It is therefore by no means unreasonable to seek responsibility as well in those sovereign authorities who rule the nation and possess the power freely to reform those conditions.

Yet according to our Constitution, Article<ref>Seno’o makes a pointed constitutional maneuver by pairing the warnings of the Sutra for Humane Kings with the Meiji Constitution (1889). Because the sutra places responsibility for national destruction upon the ruler, its application to modern Japan raised the sensitive question of imperial responsibility. Seno’o invokes Article 3—“The Emperor is sacred and inviolable”—alongside Article 55, which stipulated that Ministers of State advise the Emperor and bear responsibility for that advice. He thus redirects the sutra’s admonition from the inviolable imperial person to the Ministers of State, turning a traditional scripture of state protection into a critique of contemporary government while formally preserving imperial inviolability.</ref> Three states that “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable,” while Article Fifty-Five declares that “The Ministers of State shall advise the Emperor and be responsible for their advice.” It goes without saying, therefore, that in our country those who must bear the responsibility indicated by the Buddha’s admonition are the Ministers of State.

Consider someone plagued by mosquitoes. Everyone understands that the fundamental solution—and the wisest way to settle the problem most quickly—is to dredge the muddy ditches where they breed or to construct a proper sewer system. However long one shouts that the mosquitoes are at fault for laying their eggs, or however often one smokes them out with mosquito coils, mosquitoes will continue to appear in swarms so long as the ditches and sewers are not improved. In places in Osaka and Tokyo where proper sewer systems have been constructed, however, the sound and sight of mosquitoes have simply disappeared, without anyone having to say a word, and residents can sleep peacefully. Even should mosquitoes happen to arrive from elsewhere, it is of course impossible for them to survive for long. Proper sewer construction is thus a more fundamental necessity than dealing with the mosquitoes that lay the eggs; it is the underlying problem that must be properly addressed.

But to say that completing the sewer system is the fundamental issue does not mean that sewers are more important than human beings. A sewer system is simply a facility that can be transformed by human will. A person who understands how things work, when troubled by mosquitoes, will therefore promptly design and complete the necessary sewer system. In precisely the same way, if the institutions and structures of society contain defects that give rise to problems, then a person who understands the logic of things will first set about correcting those defects.

What, then, are these defects that must be reformed? And do they in fact exist?

For anyone with even a little social concern, this question ought by now to be a matter of common sense. Indeed, there is something almost trite about spelling it out in such a roundabout fashion. But, just to make the point, let me quote here the remarks reportedly made by Prosecutor-General Koyama concerning the recent Communist Party Incident:

<blockquote>
With Takatsu Seidō, Sakai Toshihiko, and now the present case, this is the third Communist Party Incident.<ref>Seno’o cites Koyama Matsukichi 小山松吉 (1869–1948), then Prosecutor-General (kenji sōchō 検事総長), who characterized the March 15 Incident as the “third Communist Party incident.” Koyama refers to earlier cases involving Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974) and Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), before conceding that the continued attraction of communism might indicate “some defect in the organization of society itself,” and that even a perfected Peace Preservation Law could not eradicate the movement unless those defects were corrected. Seno’o seizes upon this admission from the state’s own chief prosecutor as evidence that repression cannot eliminate radicalism without addressing its social causes.</ref> The first involved sixteen people, the next twenty-eight, and this time…

{{opage|245}}

… approximately five hundred [are expected]. What does this gradual increase in numbers tell us? Among those arrested on this occasion are many extremely serious-minded individuals. Ultimately, if ideas of this kind continue to spread, there must be something there with which they sympathize. Might there not be some defect in the organization of society itself? No matter how thoroughly the Peace Preservation Law<ref>The Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法), enacted in 1925, criminalized participation in organizations seeking either to alter the imperial polity (kokutai 国体) or abolish the system of private property, providing the principal legal basis for suppressing the Japanese Communist Party and other radical organizations. Following the March 15 Incident, the Tanaka Giichi government strengthened the law by emergency imperial ordinance in 1928, introducing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for certain offenses.</ref> is perfected, unless those defects are corrected, there can be no hope of rooting the problem out. I believe that correcting them is more important than blaming those who have been arrested. In any case, this represents a kind of crisis, and these social conditions demand the consideration of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time.

</blockquote>

So he is reported to have said. When we look at the people who joined the Party, the fact that many of them were sincere young people, possessed of considerable education and sound in both mind and body, surely deserves our attention. These were not the sort of pathological acts of desperation once casually mocked as the work of sickly misfits who cursed society, nor can they simply be dismissed as the pranks of youths infatuated with the West.

A pure soul is always moved by what possesses truth; the blood of the righteous always surges in defense of the weak.

Precisely for this reason, when we consider the fact that, despite such severe repression, the number of sympathizers continues to increase, there must indeed be, as the Prosecutor-General says, “something there.” Unless this “something” is investigated and reformed—or, if their understanding of this “something” is mistaken, unless they are provided with clear explanation and guidance—merely regarding them as dangerous and rebellious would be, again in the Prosecutor-General’s words, as foolish as “shooing flies away from one’s rice.” Would this not leave one open to the accusation that such an attitude is precisely what the Buddha condemned when he spoke of “evil monks accepting separate invitations, learned monks joining together with them in one mind, cultivating close relations with one another, holding religious feasts, and seeking merit”—that, beneath the empty slogan of “cultivating national thought,” officials and establishment religious figures are merely joining forces and devoting themselves to their own preservation? Even without citing the Prosecutor-General, there are more than enough defects demanding reform.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

There is no need to point out that Marxism identifies the cause of popular poverty in the capitalist economic system. It is equally well known that capitalism necessarily produces an ever-widening class divide between rich and poor; and that once this divide reaches a certain point, just as compressed steam…

{{opage|246}}

…explodes a boiler when it passes a certain limit, the present economic system will ultimately be shattered by revolution at the hands of the oppressed Fourth Estate.<ref>The term “Fourth Estate” (daiyon kaikyū 第四階級) was widely used in early twentieth-century Japanese socialist discourse to designate the proletariat or working class, following the European convention of identifying the bourgeoisie as the “Third Estate.” Seno’o’s image of compressed steam bursting a boiler presents revolution not primarily as ideological conspiracy or moral aberration, but as the predictable consequence of intolerable social conditions.</ref> Marxism claims to have demonstrated this both scientifically and historically.

If we turn back to our own Buddhism, however, we find that the Buddha likewise explicitly identifies the moment at which a nation faces destruction as the moment when its people suffer from disease, poverty, and hardship. The judgment of the Buddha, who saw deeply into human nature, appears to have been correct. Certainly, throughout history famine has gone hand in hand with straw-mat banners and bamboo spears.

What deserves serious consideration here is this: Marxism, which rejects religion from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history, and Buddhism, which stands upon a personalist conception of history—one that sublates both the materialist and idealist conceptions of history—are of course not simply compatible with one another.<ref>Seno’o’s “personalist conception of history” (jinkaku shikan 人格史観) marks an early attempt to formulate a distinctively Buddhist alternative to both Marxist historical materialism and idealism. He describes this position as one that “sublates” (shiyō 止揚) the materialist and idealist conceptions of history, employing the Japanese philosophical rendering of the Hegelian Aufhebung: an overcoming that simultaneously preserves elements of what it transcends. Seno’o accepts the Marxist insistence on the historical force of material suffering while refusing to reduce human and social transformation to material conditions alone. His jinkaku shikan thus signals an emerging effort to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with a structural analysis of social conditions without simply adopting Marxist materialism.</ref> Their understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty therefore differs. And yet, remarkably, they arrive at a common judgment: the point at which popular suffering reaches an impasse constitutes the pivotal motive force in the rise and fall of states and societies.

Accordingly, whether one approaches the matter from a moral standpoint or follows scientific analysis, concrete measures to relieve the suffering of the people must in either case be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.

What, then, is the cause of the people’s impoverishment?

As I have already said, according to the Marxists, it lies in the capitalist economic system. Under capitalism, they argue:

<blockquote>
Advances in the techniques of production do not benefit everyone; they increase the profits of the capitalist. For the laboring masses, on the contrary, they bring unemployment and ruin. Capitalists do not employ workers from some humanitarian desire to feed the hungry. They hire workers in order to extract profit from them. It is this desire for profit that drives them to build factories, employ workers, and ceaselessly sniff out those places where still higher rates of profit can be obtained—markets in which their commodities can be sold at higher prices. And while workers suffer the unfreedom of being unable to live unless they sell their labor-power, capitalists possess the freedom to dismiss them, the freedom to expose workers to starvation. A new system of slavery, reproduced within civilized society!<ref>This passage summarizes central themes of Marxist political economy, including production for profit, technological unemployment, and the unequal relation between wage labor and capital. Seno’o does not identify his source; its rhetorical language suggests that he may be drawing upon a contemporary Japanese popularization of Marxist economics rather than quoting Marx directly. He presents the passage as the Marxist explanation of popular impoverishment before turning to capitalism from the “moral standpoint of Buddhism.”</ref>

</blockquote>

Their diagnosis is, in this respect, remarkably penetrating.

What, then, if we examine, from the moral standpoint of Buddhism, the economic principles of Adam Smith upon which the capitalism so condemned by…

{{opage|247}}

…Marxism was founded?

<blockquote>
Human beings constantly require the assistance of others. Yet such assistance is not obtained through the benevolence of others. We can expect others to assist us only by appealing to their self-interest and showing them that what we desire is also to their own advantage. Our food and drink are provided not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, but because they regard their own interests. We appeal not to their charity, but solely to their self-interest. We need say nothing to them of our own necessities, for they will do what is required for the sake of their own advantage. —<ref>Seno’o here quotes or closely paraphrases Adam Smith’s famous discussion of self-interest in Book I, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (1776), including the example of the butcher, brewer, and baker. He treats Smith as a representative theorist of the economic principles underlying modern capitalism, contrasting economic self-interest and free competition with Buddhist ethics.</ref>

</blockquote>

Such an economic system, founded upon egoism and laissez-faire, is precisely the essence of contemporary capitalism. Yet it scarcely needs saying that such egoism and laissez-faire run directly counter to the fundamental spirit of Buddhism.

The Buddha says in the ''Lotus Sutra'', “The root of all suffering is greed,” and “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish.”<ref>Seno’o quotes two passages from Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra (Myōhō renge-kyō 妙法蓮華経; T'' ''9, no. 262): “The origin of all suffering is greed” (諸苦所因貪欲為本) appears in Chapter 3, “Simile and Parable” (Hiyu-hon 譬喩品), while “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish” (三悪道増長阿修羅亦充満) appears in Chapter 2, “Expedient Means” (Hōben-hon 方便品). Seno’o gives the traditional Buddhist critique of attachment to “I” (ga 我) and “mine” (gasho 我所) an explicitly socioeconomic interpretation: “I” becomes individualism, while “mine” becomes unrestricted private property. Capitalist egoism and competition thus become institutional expressions of the attachments Buddhism seeks to overcome. Seno’o contrasts these with “common ownership and repayment of indebtedness” (kyōyū hōon 共有報恩).</ref> What could these be if not warnings against the evils brought about by self-interest and unrestricted competition? “I” and “mine”—that is, individualism and unrestricted private property—are impediments to the practice of the Buddhist path. Common ownership and the reciprocal indebtedness, in thought and practice alike, constitute instead the fundamental spirit of our Buddhism. And when socialists say, “If production were carried out not for the profit of capitalists but for the happiness of all, an entirely different form of society would now appear,” surely precisely such a society must also be the ideal the Buddha held for social life.

On this point, the aforementioned ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' says: “Evil monks, because they seek fame and profit, do not follow my Dharma”; and again: “The True Dharma declines and grows weak, the people cease to act rightly, evils gradually increase, and their lives daily grow shorter.” Here the harmful consequences of egoism are exposed at their root. Look directly at the facts. Capitalist civilization has advanced with the strides of a giant. The production of wealth has increased to an astonishing degree. And yet the promised “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has proved a dream.<ref>“The greatest happiness of the greatest number” (saidai tasū no saidai kōfuku 最大多数の最大幸福) invokes the utilitarian principle associated especially with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Seno’o uses the maxim as a standard against which to judge capitalist modernity: despite enormous increases in productive capacity and wealth, he argues, general welfare has remained unrealized and the majority have grown relatively poorer.</ref> The monopoly of the means of production, combined with the monopoly of financial institutions and further reinforced by the unchecked freedom of syndicates, trusts, and the like, has enabled a small number of capitalists to grow ever more extravagantly wealthy. The great majority of the people, by contrast, despite engaging in the blood-soaked labor of production, receive as little as ever…

{{opage|248}}

…and become relatively poorer and increasingly miserable, until, pitifully, entire families are condemned to groan forever beneath the iron chains of wage labor.

Is this single point not precisely where the concern of communists and socialists lies? Extremism should be rejected. But why should this cry for reform itself be unjust? Consider it. Depending upon market prices, cotton that has already been produced may simply be burned, even while our fellow human beings shiver from the cold. Mountains of sugar remain stored in capitalist warehouses, even while fellow human beings go hungry without so much as a lump of brown sugar. And look further: while the capitalist and landlord classes are said to enjoy enormous profits amounting to some 3.55 billion yen annually, how precariously the laborers, tenant farmers, and masses of society struggle merely to live! Who, possessing even a single tear of compassion and looking squarely at the reality of our fellow human beings—who, though they labor until their sweat is mingled with blood, still find themselves pressed for tomorrow’s bread—could fail, at least in this respect, to rise up and demand that the iron chains of capitalism, the wage system, first be broken, and that the masses be granted immediate freedom and well-being?

Of course, human beings do not live by bread alone. Nor do we disregard that faith by which, amid hunger and cold, Nichiren could declare, “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all.” We do not forget that the liberation of human beings, who seek the infinite while dwelling within the finite, can never ultimately be fulfilled by bread alone. And yet, when we confront the reality that human beings cannot live without bread either, what could embody the divine spirit that “man does not live by bread alone” more concretely than first guaranteeing bread for our less fortunate fellow human beings, ensuring its equitable distribution, and enabling them to share in abundant material resources? What could be more expressive of the highest human morality of compassionate concern for others? Nichiren said:

<blockquote>
White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.

</blockquote>

Bread is indeed life. It is precisely within the problem of bread that the Buddha’s compassion must be realized. All the more so in an age such as ours, an age of acute hardship. Nichiren also said:

<blockquote>
Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation.<ref>This passage combines the biblical dictum “Man does not live by bread alone” with three passages from the writings of Nichiren (1222–1282). “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all” comes from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄 (The Opening of the Eyes, 1272; Goshō, p. 223), where spiritual possession of the Lotus Sutra is contrasted with worldly wealth. “White rice is not merely white rice; it is life itself” derives from the Hakumai ippyō gosho 白米一俵御書 (On a Bushel of White Rice, 1280; Goshō, p. 1597), a letter thanking a follower for a gift of food. Finally, “Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation” cites the Senji-shō 撰時抄 (On the Selection of the Time, 1275; Goshō, p. 258), in which Nichiren stresses discerning the historical moment and acting accordingly. Seno’o brings these passages together to distinguish his position from reductive materialism without allowing spiritual aspiration to become an excuse for indifference to material suffering. Nichiren’s identification of rice with life thus becomes a scriptural basis for bringing Buddhist compassion into material and economic life.</ref>

</blockquote>

The Dharma is ''myō''—wondrous, responsive, something to be put into living application. Only when an impartial and universal compassion is brought to bear as a light upon the solution of the central problems of actual life can religion and morality remain enduring values for humanity. Otherwise, in the end, they are no different from…

{{opage|249}}

…opiates that numb our sense of reality.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

That “something” is now all too clear. The people are impoverished, and their '''groans''' of anguish can already be heard beneath the carriages. It is precisely these '''groans''' that become the terrifying force latent within human nature, erupting with the declaration that “necessity knows no law.”<ref>The phrase “necessity knows no law” (hitsuyō wa hōritsu o shirazu 必要は法律を知らず) echoes the Western maxim necessitas non habet legem, according to which extreme necessity may override ordinary legal constraint. Seno’o connects the maxim to the “groans” (umeki うめき) of an impoverished population: when basic needs become sufficiently urgent, popular suffering may burst through the restraints imposed by law.</ref>

Look at the geometrical, explosive progression: sixteen, twenty-eight, five hundred. And listen to the voices of the children of this young age—the many who take an interest and feel sympathy—resounding deep within the earth. Truly, this is a problem demanding the attention of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time. We hardly needed Prosecutor-General Koyama to tell us so.

The masses are not necessarily a foolish multitude. They experience things before they understand them intellectually. That is why their knowledge is grounded in actuality. Their intuition is comparatively accurate. Thus the pioneers of an age have always found the people on their side, just as the people in turn support those pioneers. It is a mistake to imagine that the masses merely follow others blindly. In the very ordinariness of their everyday lives, how often they grasp the subtleties of human feeling, intuit the rights and wrongs of things, and act accordingly! How much of the pure-heartedness that loves the homeland and courageously defends justice still remains preserved in their very bodies! The people do not readily jump aboard the bandwagon of propaganda and cavort through an empty world of abstractions. They act through contact with the realities of life. Consequently, if the state were governed impartially in the spirit of the Humane King, and the lives of ordinary households were truly secure, why would people willingly throw themselves into movements in which their lives were at stake? They love their wives; their children are dear to them.

Thus, if there actually existed a concrete politics based upon our Imperial Way—“The wealth of the people is Our wealth”—then however widely Marxism might be propagated and however vigorously the Communist Party might act, the state of the Humane King would remain eternally unmoved.<ref>The dictum “The wealth of the people is Our wealth” (tami no tomeru wa chin no tomeru nari 民の富めるは朕の富めるなり) derives from the traditional account of Emperor Nintoku recorded in the Nihon shoki (720). According to the legend, Nintoku, observing that no smoke rose from his subjects’ cooking fires, suspended taxation for three years; when prosperity returned, he declared their prosperity to be his own. Seno’o turns this ideal of benevolent imperial rule into a standard for criticizing contemporary government: if the “Imperial Way” (kōdō 皇道) genuinely identifies the sovereign’s welfare with that of the people, government must secure the material well-being of ordinary households. His increasingly radical critique of capitalism thus remains, at this stage, articulated within an idealized conception of imperial sovereignty.</ref> For such a Humane King embodies the spirit common to the people themselves. He is the source of their well-being. Moreover, the principle of such humane kingship can embrace and assimilate all things, continually making them into a clear mirror for the improvement of government. Arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts: know that when this occurs, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

<blockquote>
O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

Looking back upon the fault described here, I recall hearing that, at the time of the Kōtoku Shūsui Incident in Meiji 43 [1910], our great Meiji Emperor repented before the deities of heaven and earth with these words:

{{opage|250}}

<blockquote>
If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body.<ref>The “Kōtoku Shūsui Incident” refers to the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku Jiken 大逆事件) of 1910–11, in which twenty-six socialists and anarchists were convicted of plotting against the Meiji Emperor; Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水, 1871–1911) and eleven others were executed. Seno’o associates the incident with a gyosei (御製, imperial poem) by the Meiji Emperor: “Tsumi araba ware o togameyo Amatsu-kami / tami wa waga mi no umishi ko nareba” (“If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body”). The poem was actually composed in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, but was later popularly associated with the High Treason Incident as an expression of imperial self-reproach. Seno’o turns this idealized memory against the government of 1928: rather than simply condemning political dissent, responsible rulers should examine the conditions that produced it.</ref>

</blockquote>

I was so deeply moved and awestruck that I scarcely knew how to respond. Indeed, considered with reverence, it is precisely such self-reflection that makes our sovereign a sovereign in the truest sense; that bears witness to a relationship which, though in principle one of ruler and subject, is in feeling that of parent and child; and that consequently demonstrates the possibility of reforming defective institutions and social structures. It is therefore also the one true safety valve against revolution. And it is here, I believe, that we can recognize the genuine value of our national polity as an unbroken imperial line through all ages, an unblemished golden vessel.

And yet, how are the Ministers of State, who ought to embody this spirit and bear the grave responsibility of assisting the Emperor, actually wielding the reins of government today? It was precisely this question, raised by the Communist Party Incident, that prompted me to read the ''Sutra for Humane Kings.''

Can it truly be said that they do not rely upon their own power and authority, that they do not suppress the fourfold assembly, but instead follow reason, uphold justice, and properly attend to the welfare of the nation and its people?

Surely a cry of “No!”, bursting forth from righteous indignation, comes crashing toward us with a force exceeding even the raging waves of the ocean. The memories of universal manhood suffrage and of the Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet remain fresh in the minds of the people—indeed, they should remain permanent sources of righteous indignation.<ref>Seno’o alludes to Japan’s first general election under universal manhood suffrage, held in February 1928, and the subsequent Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet. The election greatly expanded the electorate and brought representatives of the newly organized proletarian parties into the Diet, but was also marked by police interference, restrictions on left-wing campaigning, and allegations of electoral abuses under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi. Significantly, Seno’o describes the outraged public as the “fourfold assembly” (shishū 四衆), the traditional Buddhist term for the complete community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, thereby recasting popular political indignation as a form of Buddhist moral judgment.</ref>

Interference, intervention, repression, detention, the rampant activity of violent gangs and official acquiescence in it, mysterious-document scandals, adjournment followed by further adjournment, the buying of Diet members, and so forth: was it not they who abused virtually every form of power available to them, leaving behind an unparalleled spectacle of ugliness in the history of our constitutional government? And when we are told that all this was done merely to keep their party cabinet in power, does that not exceed all bounds? Can such criticism really be called unjust?

Where reason cannot make itself heard and speech is sealed off, we must expect direct action inevitably to be provoked. Fraud is fraud, even if it involves only a single sen; a bribe is a bribe, even if it amounts to only one yen. Yet in a world where the petty thefts of the lower classes are punished mercilessly and severely, we hear rumors of men who use tens of thousands of yen to purchase the consciences of Diet members and, more broadly, to deceive and outrage the voters of the entire nation. And these very same men proclaim, on the other hand, that they will “sacrifice themselves for the nation in its hour of crisis” and issue solemn-sounding directives about “cultivating national thought and contributing to the promotion of the national spirit.”

What part of your own conduct, I ask, gives you the authority to substantiate such pronouncements?

Is not the absurdity of this rather…

{{opage|251}}

…like that of a libertine who continues frequenting prostitutes while solemnly insisting that he is doing everything in his power, with the utmost sincerity, to cure the venereal disease he has contracted?

The Emperor must be the embodiment of the Imperial Way—of perfect impartiality and complete sincerity, of justice itself. He must be an emperor who guarantees the genuine welfare of all the people. He cannot be someone whose existence is exploited for the advancement or decline of the partisan interests and power of a single party or faction.

And yet the conduct of the Ministers of State charged with the grave responsibility of assisting him has now become so lawless and so utterly lacking in self-reflection. Is this not precisely what the sutra means by such things as certain legislative bills—“arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts,” “creating the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and themselves suffering the consequences”? Long ago, confronted by the abuses of his own age, Nichiren declared to the regent Hōjō Tokiyori:

<blockquote>
The entire world has turned its back upon what is right, and all people have returned to evil. Therefore benevolent deities abandon the nation and depart, while sages leave their places and do not return. Demons and devils enter in their stead; disasters arise and calamities occur. We cannot remain silent; we cannot but be afraid.

</blockquote>

And he thundered:

<blockquote>
You must quickly reform the small measure of faith in your heart and return at once to the single good teaching of the True Vehicle. Then the threefold world will all become the Buddha-land—how could a Buddha-land ever decline? The lands of the ten directions will all become treasure lands—how could a treasure land ever be destroyed? If the nation does not decline and the land is not destroyed, then the body will be secure and the mind serene.<ref>Both passages cite Nichiren’s most famous political treatise, the Risshō ankoku ron 立正安国論 (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, 1260; Goshō, pp. 17, 31), submitted to the former regent Hōjō Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227–1263) amid famine, epidemics, and other calamities. Seno’o constructs a deliberate parallel between Nichiren’s thirteenth-century remonstration and his own critique of the government in 1928. Nichiren’s promise that the land might become a “treasure realm” (hōdo 宝土) thereby acquires a contemporary social meaning: “peace in the land” (ankoku 安国) requires transformation of the conditions responsible for popular suffering.</ref>

</blockquote>

And yet today there is not a single religious figure who will rise and speak in this way against the abuses of the age. On the contrary, they willingly submit to being ordered about by those in power; obediently pursue fame and profit, transient as floating clouds; and together devote themselves to opium-like sermons, concerned with little more than devising ways of pacifying the people. What a disgraceful spectacle! Is this not precisely what is meant by the saying that those entrusted with protecting the Three Treasures destroy them themselves, “like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh”?

When we consider that those who ought to serve as teachers of the nation have already sunk to such a state, where, then, should young people who understand the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to the age and aspire to devote themselves to their homeland in its hour of danger seek their path?

Yet when we look more deeply at the ignorance and evils of such an age, we must ask: who among us is truly qualified to pass authoritative judgment upon them and subject them to an uncompromising ''shakubuku''?<ref>Shakubuku 折伏 (literally “to break and subdue”) is a traditional Buddhist method of confronting and refuting erroneous views, commonly contrasted with shōju 摂受 (“to embrace and accept”), a more accommodating approach to propagation. In Nichiren Buddhism, shakubuku acquired particular importance as a forceful means of defending the correct Dharma and remonstrating with religious and political authority. Seno’o redirects the practice inward as well as outward: before subjecting others to shakubuku, young Buddhists must confront their own egoism and complicity in the social order they condemn. Shakubuku thus becomes simultaneously a practice of self-criticism and social criticism.</ref> Can we not discover within ourselves, too, some measure of the capitalist and establishment-party roots and manifestations of these same evils? Would not nearly everyone, once placed in a position of power, suddenly—or perhaps gradually—end by revealing the ugly base metal beneath the surface and changing sides? Has the righteousness professed while out of power really remained…

{{opage|252}}

…the same once one entered government? Or were we merely like an apparently honest cat that keeps its claws and fangs hidden only so long as the meat remains caught on a hook beyond its reach? Before we judge and subject others to ''shakubuku'', we must first judge and attack ourselves.

In the final analysis, the ugliness of society is not the fault of present-day capitalists and statesmen alone. It is nothing other than the interconnected and collective product of the materialistic and egoistic tendencies and ways of life of us all. Where could there possibly be a judge who stands absolutely outside it? Social life entails collective responsibility.

The admonition, “O Great King, the causes and conditions for the destruction of the nation are all of your own making,” is, in the final analysis, an admonition directed to each and every one of us as well.

Accordingly, the first step in transforming this ugly state of affairs must necessarily be directed toward our own inner lives. Before attacking other people, society, or the authorities, we must first subject to shakubuku our own materialistic and egoistic lives, which have strayed from and forgotten the spirit of the Buddha.

But although our reflection must begin in this way, genuine awakening cannot be permitted to stop at the level of the individual and the inward. True repentance and true transformation must, on the basis of this reflection and way of life, unfold once again toward the organic whole of social phenomena. Only by seeking the realization of both organic self-reflection and social transformation can we finally penetrate to the true self. Is it not precisely here that we discover the concrete and essential life of true repentance and self-transformation grounded in collective responsibility? For society is our own society. To struggle against defects in society is itself to extinguish our own karmic offenses. Criticism and shakubuku directed toward the governing authorities must therefore never amount merely to antagonistic hatred or to demagogic agitation designed to court popularity. Rather, I believe they can and must be affirmed and advocated as the necessary consequence of a yearning for truth and a concern for society.

Of course, to those who have not thought the matter through this far, such criticism and attack will clearly appear to be an attack upon and rebellion against themselves. Reaction, hatred, exclusion, and repression will inevitably follow. But for the genuine seeker of the Way, what can such counterattacks be if not the actual proof of one’s own repentance? The more deeply and broadly one reflects upon and recognizes one’s own karmic offenses and one’s previously unawakened way of life, the more such criticism and persecution can be understood as the natural karmic recompense for those offenses. Repentance thereby receives ever greater confirmation, and it is precisely here that a life of seeking the Way at the risk of one’s life begins to shine. Criticism and repression will arise in proportion to one’s unwavering effort and perseverance. Yet for the genuine seeker of the Way, they become ever more…

{{opage|253}}

…occasions for reflection, not causes for fear; a path of Dharma-joy, not a path of suffering.

They are trials. Stone turns to ash; gold remains true gold. Those who fall away will fall away; those who advance can only continue advancing. Listen to the cry of our Nichiren Shōnin:

<blockquote>
When Nichiren turned the bright mirror of the ''Lotus Sutra'' upon himself, he found it entirely free of cloudiness. There can be no doubt that the offense of slandering the Dharma exists within my own person from the past. If I do not extinguish this offense in this present life, how shall I escape the sufferings of hell in the future? I considered how I might gather together the grave offenses accumulated over countless ages, extinguish them all within this single lifetime, and thereby escape great suffering in the future. In this present age, people who slander the Dharma fill every province of the country. Moreover, the ruler of the nation himself has already become the foremost among those who slander it. If I do not extinguish these grave offenses at such a time, when should I ever expect to do so? If Nichiren, insignificant though his person may be, were to cover the nation of Japan with his voice and denounce them, the countless members of the fourfold assembly who follow false teachings would all revile him at once with countless mouths. At that time, the ruler of the nation, taking the side of the monks who slander the Dharma, would likewise revile Nichiren. He might have his head cut off, or subject him to exile or execution. If such things were to happen time and again, the grave offenses accumulated over innumerable ''kalpas'' could be extinguished within this single lifetime. I devised this great strategy, and things have unfolded without the slightest deviation from it. Having come to such a state, surely my aspiration will be fulfilled. — “On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma” (''Hōbō metsuzai-shō'')

</blockquote>

And listen again:

<blockquote>
Now, because Nichiren vigorously attacks the slander of the Dharma throughout the nation, these great persecutions have arisen. Surely the grave offenses of the past have been summoned forth in this lifetime through my defense of the Dharma. Iron remains black so long as it does not encounter fire; when joined with fire, it becomes red. When a swift current is struck with a piece of wood, waves rise like mountains; when one lays a hand upon a sleeping lion, it roars mightily.<ref>Seno’o draws these passages from two writings composed during Nichiren’s exile on Sado Island (1271–1274). The first, the Hōbō metsuzai-shō 謗法滅罪抄 (On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma, 1273; Goshō, pp. 1121–22), interprets Nichiren’s persecution and exile as an opportunity to expiate past karmic offenses and fulfill his religious mission. The second, the Sado gosho 佐渡御書 (Letter from Sado, 1272; Goshō, p. 958), uses the images of iron exposed to fire, swift water struck by a log, and a sleeping lion awakened by touch to suggest that fierce opposition is the natural response elicited by forceful propagation of the Dharma. Seno’o transforms the Sado exile into a model of perseverance for young Buddhists confronting political opposition in 1928.</ref>

</blockquote>

Religion is not opium. What permitted the followers of Lenin to indulge so freely in their mockery of religion as opium? Was it not that religion stopped at merely conceptual, inward repentance and reflection, failing to advocate and carry out a critique extending into the very contents and forms of actual social life—and a movement for their transformation?

Religion is not opium. The religion of the holy Nichiren is emphatically not opium-like.

Religion, for us, is life. Society forms the content of the self. The self is society. Politics, economics, education, military affairs, the arts, and everything else—all of these are also our religion. They are the contents of social life that must be criticized and transformed in accordance with the spirit of the Buddha.<ref>The characterization of religion as the “opium of the people” is most famously associated with Karl Marx, who used the expression in his 1844 introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vladimir Lenin subsequently made the critique of religion an important element of Marxist political thought, notably in “Socialism and Religion” (1905). By referring to the “followers of Lenin,” Seno’o confronts the Marxist charge that religion reconciles the oppressed to existing social conditions. Rather than rejecting the accusation, he concedes that religion becomes “opium” when repentance remains merely inward (shintaiteki zange 心態的懺悔) and leaves political, economic, and social structures untouched. Because “society forms the content of the self,” genuine religious transformation must extend to social institutions. Seno’o thus turns the Marxist critique of religion into a Buddhist critique of religion that fails to transform social life.</ref> For precisely this reason, to aspire to and enter into the work of social transformation is genuine self-knowledge and genuine repentance; at the same time, it is a life of gratitude and the repayment of indebtedness. Ultimately, it is the conclusion and completion of the life of faith.

Indeed, is it not only when we see matters in this way that we can recognize the essential difference between a movement for transformation arising from religion and the movements for social transformation of so-called socialism and communism,…

{{opage|254}}

…which take the materialist conception of history as their point of departure?

Thus truth breathes within reality, and religion becomes one with life. “Above all, having been born in this land, how could I fail to concern myself with my country?” “White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.” Social institutions are not merely social institutions: they are religion.

The principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality (''ji no ichinen sanzen'') taught by the holy Nichiren can take the place of Tiantai’s three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle (''ri no ichinen sanzen'').<ref>The doctrine of “Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment” (ichinen sanzen 一念三千), systematized by the Chinese Tiantai master Zhiyi (智顗, 538–597), holds that each moment of mind encompasses the totality of possible states of existence. Seno’o invokes the Nichirenist distinction between “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle” (ri no ichinen sanzen 理の一念三千), associated with Tiantai contemplative teaching, and “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality” (ji no ichinen sanzen 事の一念三千), associated with Nichiren’s teaching and practice in the age of the Final Dharma. Seno’o gives this doctrinal distinction a distinctly social interpretation: Buddhist truth must become actual in political, economic, and social life. Ji no ichinen sanzen thus becomes a warrant for Buddhist praxis—the concrete transformation of both self and society.</ref> That is to say, it is the actualization of the Buddhist spirit.

In truth, theories can be constructed however one likes; arguments can be made in any number of ways. Ah, but you living young people, possessed of a profound concern for human life, for society, for your fellow human beings, and for the present and future of your homeland—

where, then, will you choose to direct your path?

(Shōwa 3 [1928], ''Wakōdo'' [''Youth''], vol. 9, no. 6)

== Notes ==

<references />

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

妹尾義郎、〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉

2026-08-29T18:31:20Z

James: James moved page 妹尾義郎、〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉 to SG28KJC

#REDIRECT [[SG28KJC]]

SG28KJC

2026-08-29T18:31:20Z

James: James moved page 妹尾義郎、〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉 to SG28KJC

{{Textual Verification}}
<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉}}

[[Seno’o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1928). 〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉 [[SG28KJC-T|“Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''”]]. 《若人》 9.6. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編《妹尾義郎宗教論集》 (東京：大蔵出版, 1975), 242–254.

{{tpage|242}}

'''{{size|150%|共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む}}'''

仁王経嘱累品第八

大王よ、破国の因縁は皆汝自ら作る。
己が威力を恃み、四部の衆を制して修福を聴かず、諸の悪比丘あって別請の法を受け、知識の比丘共に一心となり、互に相親善し、斎会して福を求む、是れ外道の法にして都べて我が教に非ず。
百姓疾疫し無量の苦難あり、当に知るべし、爾の時に国土破滅せん。
大王よ、法末世の時、国王、大臣、四部の弟子各々非法を作し、横ざまに佛教に与し諸の過咎を作る。法に非ず律に非ざるなり。

大王よ、我が滅度の後、四部の弟子、一切の国王、王子、百官、乃ち是れ三宝の護持に任ずる者、而かも自ら破壊す、師子身中の虫自ら師子の肉を食ふが如し、外道に非ずや。

我が法を壊る者は大過咎を得ん、正法衰薄して民に正行無し、諸悪漸く増して其の寿日に減じ、復孝子なし、六親不和にして天龍祐けず、悪鬼悪龍日に来って侵害し災怪相継ぎ禍を為すこと縦横なり、当に地獄、畜生、餓鬼に堕つべし、若し人と為ることを得るも貧窮下賤にして諸根具せず、影の形に随ふが如く響の声に応ずるが如く、人の夜書するに火滅して字存するが如し、法を毀る果報も亦復是の如し。悪比丘名利を求むるが為に我が法に非ず、国王の前に於て自ら過患を説き破法の縁を作る、其の王別へずして此の語を信愛し、横ざまに制法を立てて佛戒に依らず当に知るべし、爾の時に法滅せんこと久しからず。

大王よ、未来世の中に、国王、大臣、四部の弟子、自ら破法破国の因縁を作り、身自ら之を受く、佛法の咎に非ざるなり。

{{tpage|243}}

共産党事件を目にして、言下に、金甌無欠の国体を破壊せんとする反逆だ、不逞の陰謀だと亢憤してただ、排撃弾圧するのみにとどまって、何が故に金甌無欠の国家にかかる一大不祥事が発生するに至ったかを省みず、言ふところの金甌無欠なる本質と、それに遠ざかれること甚しき国民生活の実情とを深思せず、従って、切開し根治すべき主要なる患部に気付かざる、おろかな国民にとっては、佛陀のこの金戒も、或は馬の耳に念佛であるかもしらぬが、それにしても、わが仁王経は現代の国家にとって、たしかに頂門の一針に値することだけは間違ひないと信ずるから、敢て特書して、識者の三省九思に資して見たいと思ふ。

仁王護国経嘱累品

『「仁王」とは恩を施し徳を布くが故に「仁」と名づけ、純化自在なるが故に王と名づく、「護国」とは仁王法に由り道に率ふて国界を守護するが故に、人民適楽し国土安穏なるをいふ』

と解釈され、「嘱累」とは、かかる道理に従って、自らも政治し他の国王にも政治すべく伝道せよと命ぜられたものである。

大王よ、破国の因縁は皆汝自ら作る。

佛陀の断案は要を得て簡潔だ。破国の因縁を一言にして皆汝の責任なりと論告されるのだ。全く一句万了といふべきである。

考へれば、物の道理はまさしくさうであらねばならぬと思ふ。その何国たるを問はず、いやしくも一国の問題は、すべて之を統治し支配する主権者に責任が帰結されることはあたりまへのことで、かくあってこそ、名実ともに備はる国王の資格があるわけであらう。事実、万歳の声の集まるのもここであり、革命の烽火の指すのもここであることは世界の歴史が明らかに物語ってをる。従って、破国の因縁は之を人民に求むべきではない。況や国外に求むべきではない。「皆汝自ら作る」と戒告されたのは、何としても、正鵠を得たる論断だといはねばならぬ。

もし、この論断にして真なりとせば、わが破国の因縁は、断じて一部共産党でもなければ、彼等を司令してるといふ露西亜の第三インターナショナルでもなければ、またマルキシズムでもないわけであって、実にそれらの

{{tpage|244}}

依って乗じうる、また依って発生しうる、欠陥を有する国情そのものに求めなければならぬ。従ってまた、国家を支配してその国情を自由に改革しうる主権者に之を求むべきことは決して不当の論理ではないと信じられる。

しかし、わが憲法によれば、その第三条に「天皇は神聖にして侵すべからず」とあり、第五十五条には「国務大臣は天皇を輔弼し其の責に任ず」とあるからには、わが国に於ては、佛陀の戒告にあたるべき責任者は、当然国務大臣であるべきは言をまたぬ。

思ふに蚊の襲撃に困るものは、それが発生する泥溝ざらへや或は下水工事を完全にすることが根本的の施設で、また最も早く問題をかたづける一ばん賢明な遣り方であることは何人にもわかることだ。いつまで、卵を生みつける蚊がいけないのだと呶鳴って見ても、また毎度、蚊遣線香でくすべ殺して見ても、どぶや下水を改浚せぬかぎりは蚊は依然として続々と発生する分とも減るものではない。ところが、大阪でも東京でも下水工事がうまくできたところは、文字なしに、いつのまにか蚊の声や姿が消えてしまって住民は安気に睡眠がとれるやうになった如く、また、たまたま他所からやってきても、長く生存することは勿論不可能であるやうに、下水工事の必要さは、産卵する蚊の処置以上に必要にして、適当に施設すべき根本問題でなければならない。

しかし、下水工事の完成が根本問題だといったからって、下水工事が人間より大事だといふのではない。ただ下水工事は人間の意志によって改造しうる一ツの施設だから、従って、事理のわかった人間は、蚊に困る場合はこの下水工事を速かに設計し完成すべきで、それと同じく、もし社会の制度組織に問題の発生する欠陥があるとすれば、まづ其の欠陥の改善に進むべき事理のわかった人間の生活だといふのだ。

然らば、改造すべき欠陥が果してあるのか。あるとすれば、それは何か。

この問題は、今さら、こんな廻りくどく言はなくても、少しく社会的関心をもつ者にとっては、もはや常識であるはずで、から言ふさへすでに陳腐の嫌ひがあるほどだが、念のために、此度の共産党事件に関して、明言されたといふ小山検事総長の言葉を、ここに引用すれば

「高津正道、堺利彦と、それに今回とで共産党事件は三回目である。第一回は十六名、次が二十八名、今回

{{tpage|245}}

は約五百名（予想）とその人員が漸次増加して行くことは何を物語るか。今回検挙された人々の中には非常に真面目な分子が多いのである。畢竟するに、かくの如き思想の弥漫してゆくといふことはそこに彼等の共鳴する何物かがあらねばならぬ。そこに社会組織上に何等かの欠陥があるのではあるまいか。治安法をいかに完備するとも欠陥を直さなければ根絶を期するわけには行かぬ。捕はれた者を責めるよりも其の方が肝腎であると思ふ。何れにしても、これは一種の困難であつて、この社会相は世の識者並びに為政者の考慮を要することである。」

とのことだ。参加党員の顔ぶれを見るに、その多くが純真な青年であり、また相当な知識の所有者であり、身心ともに健康な連中だといふことは、たしかに注目に値する事実でなければならぬ。かつては無造作に嘲笑されたいはゆる社会を呪ふ病弱者の病的なやけ仕事でもなく、また西洋カブレの悪戯とばかり言へないのだ。

純真な魂は、常に真理性に感激し、義人の血は、常に弱者に味方して湧くものだ。

さてこそ、あの厳しい圧迫があるにも拘らず、ますます共鳴者が増加する事実を考へるとき、たしかに総長がいふが如く「そこに何物かが」なくてはならぬので、この何物かを研究し改造せずして、またもし「何物か」の解釈について、彼等の認識に誤診があるならば、之に対して明確なる理解指導を与へずして、ただ之を危険視し反逆視するのみであるならば、別にまた総長の言ふがごとく「飯の上の蠅を追ふに等しい」愚かさである。それこそ、佛陀の戒められた「諸の悪比丘あつて別請の法を受け知識の比丘共に一心になり、互に相親善し斎会して福を求むる」の態度で、たしかに不徹底なる「国民思想涵養の題目をかかげて御用宗教家と共に、互に自己擁護に腐心する魂胆だ」と非難されても仕方がないことではあるまいか。総長の言を引くまでもなく改造すべき欠陥はありすぎるほどあるのだ。

百姓疾病して無量の苦難あり、当に知るべし、爾の時に国土破滅せん。

民衆貧困の原因について、マルキシズムが資本主義経済組織を指摘してゐることは言を要せぬ。さらにこの資本主義は必然に次第に階級的に貧富の懸隔を嵩ぜしめて、その懸隔がある程度に到達すると、恰も、汽罐に圧縮

{{tpage|246}}

された蒸気が、ある一定限度に達すると突然爆音を立てて汽罐を破裂するやうに、現経済組織も圧搾された第四階級の手によって、遂に革命が行はれるにいたるものだと科学的に歴史的に立証してることも周知の事柄である。

翻って、わが佛教を顧みると、佛陀も亦、ここに国土破滅の時を、疾病窮乏に苦しむ民衆の生活難の時と明示されてをられるが、人間性を徹見してをられる佛陀の断案は正しいやうだ。たしかに、昔から飢饉に莚旗や竹槍はつきものであつたやうだ。ここに於て深く考慮すべきは、たとへ唯物史観に立って宗教を否認するマルキシズムと、人格史観（唯物史観と唯心史観とを止揚したるもの）に立てる佛教とが、もとよりそのままに相容れざるものであり、従って、窮乏の根本原因の認識について、その見解を異にするものであるとするも、而も民衆の生活苦の行き詰りをもって、国家社会興亡の支点動機と見るところに、不思議にも共通せる断案の与へられてあることである。

従って、民衆の生活苦を救済する具体的施設は、道義的欠点に立つも、科学的認識に従ふも、どっちにしても、最も留意すべき肝腎な問題だと言はねばならぬことだ。

然らば、民衆窮乏の原因は何か。

マルキストによれば、それが資本主義経済組織の故であることは前にも言った。マルキストは資本主義経済組織のもとにあっては

『生産枝術の進歩は万人を利するものではなく、資本家の利潤の増大を齎すのだ。労働大衆にはかへって失業と滅亡を与へるのだ。資本家は決して飢えたる労働者を養ふといふ人道的な立場から、労働者を養ふのではない。彼等は利潤を搾り取るために労働者を雇ふのだ。この利潤慾が、彼等をして工場を建てしめ、労働者を雇はしめ、そして不断に、より高率の利潤を得べき所――より高価に、商品を売り得る市場を嗅ぎ搜さしむるのだ。」といふのだ。而も「労働者には、労働力を売らねば生きられぬ不自由があり、資本家には馘首の自由があり、労働者を飢餓に曝しうる自由がある。この文明社会に再現した新しき奴隷制度！』

と、かなり彼等は喝破してゐるのだ。

然らば、佛教の道義的観点に立って、かくもマルキシ

{{tpage|247}}

ズムに呪はれたる、資本主義の依って成立したるアダム・スミスの経済学原理を審理して見ればどうだらう。スミスの国富論に曰く

人間は不断に他人の援助を必要とする。然し、その援助は、他人の恩恵に依つて得られるものではない。他人の利己心に訴へ自分の欲するところのものが、彼等自身の利益なることを知らしめることに於てのみ、他人に依る自己の援助は期待し得られる。我等の飲食物は、肉屋、酒屋、パン屋の恩恵にまつのでなく、彼等が彼等自身の利益を重んずるが故に調へられる。我等は彼等の慈善心に訴へるのではない。唯彼等の自利心に訴へるのである。我等は彼等に対して、すこしも我等自身の必要をかたるにおよばない。彼等が彼等自身の利益のために何事もやってくれるから。――

と。かかる利己主義と自由放任主義の上に立てられた経済組織こそまさしく今の資本主義の本態であるが、しかしながら、かかる利己主義と自由放任とが佛教の根本精神に背戻することは今更いふまでもないことである。

佛陀は、法華経に「諸苦の本は貪欲なり」といひ「三悪道増長して阿修羅も亦盛んなり」といはれた。ひつきよう、この我利と自由競争のもたらす罪悪の戒告でなくて何であらう。「我」と「我所」即ち個人主義と、無制限なる私有財産とは佛道修行の禁物であって、共有報恩の思想と実行こそ、わが佛教の根本精神であるわけであって、かの社会主義者が「生産が資本家の利潤の為に行はれるのではなく、生産が万人の幸福のために行はれるとしたら、今こそ全く異つた社会相が現はれるであらう」といふ、その社会相こそ、また佛陀の社会生活に対していだかれる理想でもあるはずである。

この点、前記、仁王経には「悪比丘、名利を求むるが故に我が法に依らず」といひ、「正法衰薄して民に正行なし、諸悪漸く増して其の寿日に減じ」といはれて利己主義の流弊を道破されてあるが、直視すれば、資本主義文明は、巨人の歩みのごとく進歩した。富の生産は驚嘆すべきほど増大した。しかしながら、予期された、「最大多数の最大幸福」は夢であった。生産機関の独占と金融機関の独占とに相俟つて、さらに制裁なきシンヂケートやトラスト等の自由によって、一部少数の資本家はますます殷富に躍るに反して、最大多数の民衆は、その血みどろの労働生産に従事するにも拘らず恵まるるものは依

{{tpage|248}}

然として薄く、相対的にますます貧困を来し不幸を増大して、あはれ一家こぞって永久に賃銀労働の鉄鎖に呻吟せねばならなくなったのだ。

まことに、共産主義者、社会主義者の関心こそこの一点にかかるものでなくて何であらう。過激はたむべきだ。しかしこの改造の叫びは何が故に不当であらうか。思へ、価格の関係によっては、寒さにふるへてゐる同胞はさらにある世に、折角生産された棉花が、ムザムザと焼却されることもあるのだ。一塊の黒砂糖にもありつけぬ飢えたる同胞がある世に、とけて流れる山のごとき砂糖が依然として資本家の倉庫にしまはれてあるのだ。さらに見よ、資本家や地主階級等が一年概算三十五億五千万円からの巨利を恵まれつつあるといふのに、労働者小作人等、社会大衆がいかに生活難に競々たることぞ。この汗につく血をもってするも、猶明日のパンに迫はるるわが同胞の現実を正視して、一片涙を有するもの、この限りに於てたれか、まづ資本主義――賃銀制度の鉄鎖を切断して、大衆当面の自由と福利とを与へんと奮起せざるものぞ。

もとよりだ、人はパンのみにして生くるものではない。われらは、飢寒の中にあって、「当世日本国に富める者日蓮第一なり」と仰せられたあの信念を無視するものではない。有限に処して無限を求むる人間の解脱は遂にパンの上にのみたされざることを忘れるものではない。しかしながら、またパンなくして生きえぬ現実を直視するとき、まづ恵まれざる同胞のために、パンの保証と、その公平なる分配とをはかることこそまた、如意の財源を同胞に分潤せしめることこそ、パンのみにして生くるものにあらざる神の精神を現実に意識し体験するものでなくて何であらう。思ひ遣りある人間至高の道義でなくて何であらう。日蓮聖人はいはれた。

白米は白米にあらずして命なり

と。パンこそ命だ。パンの問題の中にこそ、佛陀の慈悲の実現があるのだ。わけて現代のごとき生活苦の時において然りだ。日蓮聖人はまた言はれた。

佛眼をかって時機をかんがへよ、佛日を用ひて国土をてらせ

と。法とは妙だ、活用だ。一視同仁の慈愛が現実の中心問題解決の光として活用されてこそ、宗教も道義も永劫に人生の価値でありうるのだ。さもなくば畢竟、現実性

{{tpage|249}}

麻痺の阿片剤と同類だ。

百姓疾疫し無量の苦難あり、当に知るべし、爾の時国土破滅せん。

かの「何物」こそあまりにも明瞭である。民衆は窮乏して苦悶のうめきはまさに輦載のもとにきこえてをるのだ。このうめきこそ人間性にひそむ「必要は法律を知らず」と言をたてて破裂する恐しい力となるのだ。

見よ、十六名、二十八名、五百名とくるこの幾何的飛躍的伝播性を。而も聞け、いかに多くの関心をもち共鳴を感ずる若き時代の子の声の大地ふかくひびけるかを。
まことに、世の識者、為政者の考慮を要すべき今、小山検事総長をまって知るごとき問題ではないのである。

民衆は必ずしも衆愚ではない。知る以前に味ふ存在である。だから実際なのだ。彼等の直観は比較的正確だ。だから、時の先覚は常に民衆に味方され民衆はまた先覚を支持してゆくのだ。民衆を雷同するものと考へるのは間違ひだ。彼等は、その平凡な日常生活の中に、いかに反って、人情の機微にふれ、物の筋目を直観し、行動しつつあるか。祖国を愛し仁侠に勇む純真性が、いかに今も、多分に彼等の五体に保存されてをるか。民衆は容易に宣伝の尻馬に乗って空虚な観念の世界に跳梁するものではない。常に生活の実際にふれて行動するものだ。従って、もし国家が仁王の精神によって公平に統治され、民家の生活が真に安泰であるとするならば、彼等は何を好んで命がけの運動なんかするものか。妻もいとしく子供も可愛いのだ。

だから、もし「民の富めるは朕の富めるなり」なる、わが皇道に則る具体的政治が現実にあるならば、いかにマルキシズムが宣伝されようとも、共産党がどのやうに跳梁しようとも、仁王の国家は永久に微動だもするものではない。なぜなれば、かかる仁王こそ民衆共通の精神であるからだ。民衆至福の源泉であるからだ。また、かかる仁王の哲理はよく一切を包容し融化して不断に統治向上の明鑑となすからだ。

横ざまに制法を立てて佛戒に依らず、当に知るべし、爾の時に法滅せんこと久しからず。

大王よ、未来世の中に、国王、大臣、四部の弟子自ら破法破国の因縁を作り、身自ら之を受く、佛法の咎に非ざるなり。

顧みれば、わが明治大帝が、

{{tpage|250}}

罪あらばわれをとがめよ天つ神民はわが身のうみし子なれば

と、天神地祇にさんげましましたと拝聞して、感動恐懼その答ふるところを知らなかったのは、明治四十三年かの幸徳秋水事件の時であった。まこと拝すれば、かかる御内省こそ、わが主権のまことの主権におはします所以であり、義は君臣なれど情は父子なる関係を裏書きさるるものであり、従って欠陥ある制度組織改造の可能を示すものであり、従ってまた、革命に対して唯一の安全弁であり、而して、ここに万世一系、金甌無欠の国体として真の価値を認識しうることだと信じられるのだ。

しかしながら、かかる精神を体して、その補弼の重責に任ずべき国務大臣等は、現在、いかにわが政柄を執ってをるのだ。共産党事件に直面して仁王経を読まんとする徴表はここに動いたのだ。

彼等は、果して己が威力を恃まず、四部の衆を制せず、道理に従ひ正義を奉じて、よく国家大衆の福利を計りつつあると言ひうるか。

義憤より迸る「ノー」の叫びは、大洋の激浪にもまし物凄く寄せてくまいか。普選の記憶も、第五十五議会の記憶も、国民の脳裡にはまだホヤホヤだ、否、永久に義憤の種であるべきだ。

交渉、干渉、弾圧、検束、暴力団の横行、黙認、怪文書事件、停会再停会、議員買収等々、数へきたれば、およそ利用しうる威力のかぎりを乱用しつくして、醜悪の極をわが憲政史上にのこしたのは彼等ではなかった。而も、それらのすべてが、唯、我党内閣存続のためであるとはいはれるに至っては、沙汰のかぎりではないか。それは果して不当の批難だらうか。

道理がきかれず、言論が封鎖されるところに、直接行動は必然に誘発されるものと思はねばならぬ。わづかに一銭でも詐欺は詐欺だ、一円でも賄賂は賄賂だ。而も、下層の貧盗みなど、容赦もなくビシビシ厳罰されてをる世の中に、万金を以て議員の良心を買収し、広くは天下の選挙民を欺瞞し痛憤せしめる邪悪戻徳の行為をするというがごとき噂もつ身が而も、一面、「身を以て国難に殉ぜん」といひ「国民思想の涵養、精神の作興に努力貢献」なんどと、いかにも、まことしやかな教令を発するのだ。汝等の行動のどの部分を押へば、その教令を裏書きする権威があるといふのだ。その愚かさ加減は、女

{{tpage|251}}

郎買ひをつづけながら、病みついた悪病を、誠心もって努力根治せんと力むの遊野郎と五十歩百歩の言ひ草ではあるまいか。

天皇は皇道――至公至誠、正義を表象する存在であらせられねばならぬのだ。全民衆の真正なる福利を保証される天皇であらせられねばならぬのだ。一党一派の党利党勢の消長に利用すべき存在ではあらせられぬはずなのだ。

而も補弼の重責にある国務大臣の行状、今やかくのごとく無道にして無反省である。何々法律案等「横ざまに制法を立てて佛戒によらず、破法破国の因縁を作り自ら之を受く」とはここのことではないか。かつては、日蓮聖人、かくのごとき時弊に際して時の執権北条時頼に向って、

世皆正に背き人悉く悪に帰す、故に善神国を捨てて相去り、聖人所を辞して還らず、是をもって魔来り鬼来り災起り難起る。言はずんばあるべからず、恐れずんばあるべからず

と断ぜられ、

汝早く信仰の寸心を改めて速に実乗の一善に帰せよ。

然らば三界は皆佛国なり佛国其れ衰へんや、十方は悉く宝土なり宝土何ぞ壊れんや、国に衰微なく土に破壊なくんば、身はこれ安全にして心はこれ禅定ならん

と喝しられたのだ。然るに今や、一人の起って之を言ふる宗教家のあるなく、反って、その頤使に甘んじ、浮雲のごとき名利に唯々として、相率ゐて阿片のごとき説法に浮身をやつして、わづかに民衆鎮撫の対策にのみ腐心せんとするとは、そもそも何のざまだ。これまさしく「三宝護持に任ずる者、而も自ら破壊す。獅子身中の虫自ら獅子の肉を食ふが如し」そのままではないか。

考へれば国師の任にあたるべきもの、すでに、この為態だ。時宜の佛法を解して祖国の危難に殉ぜんと志す若人の覚悟果していづれにかひそめるぞ。

しかしながら、顧みればかかる時代の迷蒙罪悪に対して、何人かよく権威ある審判と懺からざる折伏とをなしうる資格を有するであらうぞ。各自の内にも亦、多少の資本主義的、既成政党的、罪根罪相を発見し得ないであらうか。万人がおよそ万人、局にあたっては一変に或は序々に終に醜き地金を露出して納りかへる底の代物ではないであらうか。野にあっての正義は果して朝に立って

{{tpage|252}}

のそれでありえたか。肉が鈎にかかって手のとどかぬ間だけの爪牙を露出せぬ正直なる猫と同類ではなかったか。われらは、他を審判し折伏する前に先づ自らを審判し攻撃せねばうそである。

畢竟、社会の醜状は独り現資本家や為政者のみの罪ではないのだ。相互の唯物的利己的性向と生活との連帯的総合的産物に外ならぬのだ。どこに絶対に局外に立ちうる審判者が許されえようぞ。社会生活は連帯責任だ。

「大王よ、破国の因縁は皆汝自らを作る」の戒告は、ひっきょう、また各自への戒告なのだ。

ここに於てか、この醜状を改造する第一歩は、当然自己の内面生活にむけねばうそだ。他人を社会を当局を攻撃する前に、まづ佛陀の精神に遠ざかれる。忘却せる各自の唯物的、利己的現存生活を折伏してかかることを忘れてはならぬのだ。

だが、先づかうは反省すべきものであるものの、更に真の自覚は、この個的観念の生活の上に止まるべきものではあってはならぬ。真の懺悔、真の改造はまさに、この反省と生活の上に立って、再び有機的な全体的、社会的事象に向って展開して、而して有機的内省と、社会改造の実現とを期成してこそ、はじめて真の自己に徹底するものと思はねばならぬ。そこにこそ、真の連帯責任的自己懺悔と自己改造の具体的本質的生活が認識されるのではないか。なぜならば、社会は自己の社会なのだ、社会的欠陥への運動はまた自己の罪障消滅なのだ。かくして、当局為政者への批判折伏は、畢竟、一片の対立的憎悪や人気的やま師的運動ではなくして、実に、真理思慕と社会的関心からの必然として肯定し唱道しうるのでなくてはならぬと信ずる。

しかしながら、かかる批判攻撃ももとより、此処まで徹して考へざる対象にとっては、あきらかに自己への攻撃反逆と思惟されるのだ。反感、憎悪、排撃、圧迫は必然に起らざるをえないのだ。だが真の求道者にとってはかかる反運動こそ、まさに自己懺悔の実証でなくて何であらう。自己の罪業を、過去の無自覚なる生活を広く深く反省し認識すればするほど、この批難迫害こそ、当然の業報と観ぜられて、懺悔心はますます実証され、ここにはじめて命がけの求道生活は輝かしくあるのではないか。批難と圧迫とは不退転の努力精進に比例して起ってこよう。だが、それらは、真の求道者にとってはいよいよ反

{{tpage|253}}

省の種であって恐怖の種ではない。法悦の道であって、苦悩の道ではないのだ。試めされるのだ。石は灰に金は真金に、落ちるものは落ちるのだ、進むものは進むばかりだ。聞け、わが日蓮聖人の叫びを、

日蓮は法華経の明鏡をもって自身に引き向へたるに都てくもりなし。過去の謗法の我身にあること疑ひなし。此の罪を今生に消さずば未来いかでか地獄の苦をば免るべき。過去遠々の重罪をばいかにしてか皆集めて今生に消滅して未来の大苦を免れんと勘へしに、当世時に当って謗法の人々国々に充満せり。其上国主既に第一の誹謗の人たり。此時、此の重罪を消さず何の時を期すべき。日蓮が小身を日本国に打ち覆ひてののしらば、無量無辺の邪法の四衆等、無量無辺の口を以て一時に誹るべし。爾の時に国主は謗法の僧等が方人として一時に誹るべし。爾の時に国主は謗法の僧等が方人として日蓮を怨み或は頸を刎ね、或は流罪死罪に行ふべし。度々かかる事出来せば無量劫の重罪一生の内に消えなんと謀てたる大術少しも違ふことなく、かかる身となれば所願も満足なるべし（同頁謗法滅罪鈔）

と。また聞け、

今、日蓮強盛に国土の謗法を責むれば、此の大難の来るは過去の重罪の今生の護法に招き出せるなるべし。鉄は火に値はざれば黒し、火と合ひぬれば赤し。木をもって急流をかけば波山のごとし、睡れる獅子に手をつくれば大に吼ゆ

と。宗教は阿片ではない。レーニンの徒をして阿片の嘲笑をほしいままにせしめたるもの、蓋し、一片の観念内的懺悔反省にとどまって、進んで実社会生活の内容形式にまで立ち入っての批判と、その改造運動とを唱道し実行せしめざりしが為ではなかったか。

宗教は阿片ではない。聖日蓮の宗教は断じて阿片的ではないのだ。
宗教は我等にとっては生活だ。社会は自己の内容なのだ。自己は即ち社会なのだ。政治、経済、教育も軍事も、芸術等々、一切はまたわれらの宗教なのだ。佛陀の精神によって、批判され改造されるべき社会生活の内容なのだ。さればこそ、社会改造に志願し進出してこそ、真実の自己認識であり、自己懺悔であり、同時にまた報恩感謝の生活であり、畢竟、信仰生活の帰結であり完成なのだ。

まことに、かく観じてこそ、宗教に出発する改造運動と、いはゆる唯物史観に出発する社会主義、共産主義の

{{tpage|254}}

改造運動とに本質的相違が認識されるのではあるまいか。

かくして、真理は現実に呼吸し、宗教は生活に一致する。「就中、生を此の土に得たり、豈我国を思はざらんや」だ。「白米は白米にあらずして命なり」だ。社会制度は社会制度にあらずして宗教なのだ。聖日蓮の事の一念三千の哲理は、天台の理の一念三千に取って代りうるのだ。即ち佛教精神の現実化なのだ。

まこと理論はどうでも立たう、理窟はどうでも言へ、ああ併しながら、人生に社会に同胞に祖国の現在と将来に深い関心をもった生きた青年よ。そも卿等の進路は奈辺に取らうとするのだ。

（昭和三年、『若人』第九巻第六号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation

2026-08-29T18:30:44Z

James: James moved page Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation to SG28KJC-T

#REDIRECT [[SG28KJC-T]]

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-29T18:30:44Z

James: James moved page Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation to SG28KJC-T

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」『若人』第9巻第6号、1928年（昭和3年）6月.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu” 共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む; “Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''.” ''Wakōdo'' 若人 9, no. 6 (June 1928).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、242–254頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 242–254. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>
== Translation ==
{{opage|242}}

'''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'''''

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', Chapter Eight, “Entrustment”<ref>The Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation (Ninnō gokoku hannya haramitsu-kyō 仁王護国般若波羅蜜経; T 8, nos. 245–246) is one of East Asian Buddhism’s principal “state-protecting sutras,” traditionally grouped among the “three sutras for protecting the nation” (gokoku sanbu-kyō 護国三部経). An apocryphal scripture composed in China, it became the basis in Japan for state-sponsored rites known as Ninnō-e 仁王会, performed to protect the realm from calamity and disorder. In Chapter 8, “Entrustment” (Shokuru-hon 囑累品), the Buddha warns that rulers, ministers, and religious leaders who violate the Dharma themselves create the conditions for the destruction of Buddhism and the state. Seno’o turns this traditional state-protecting scripture against the state itself, locating responsibility for national disorder in political authority and the social conditions it sustains.</ref> ===

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

Relying upon your own power and authority, you suppress the fourfold assembly and do not permit them to cultivate merit. Evil monks arise who accept the practice of separate invitations; together with learned monks, they become of one mind, cultivate close relations with one another, hold religious feasts, and seek merit. This is the way of non-Buddhists and has nothing whatsoever to do with my teaching.

The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

O Great King, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, kings, ministers, and the disciples of the fourfold assembly will each commit unlawful acts, arbitrarily interfering with Buddhism and committing numerous offenses. These accord neither with the Dharma nor with the Vinaya.

O Great King, after my extinction, the disciples of the fourfold assembly, all kings, princes, and officials—those charged with protecting and preserving the Three Treasures—will themselves destroy them. It will be like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh: the destruction will not come from outsiders.

Those who destroy my Dharma will incur grave offenses. The True Dharma will decline, and the people will cease to act rightly. Evils will gradually multiply and their lives will daily grow shorter. There will no longer be filial children; the six relations will fall into discord; devas and dragons will offer no protection; evil spirits and evil dragons will come daily to inflict harm; calamities and strange portents will follow one upon another, bringing disasters in every direction. They will fall into hell or be reborn as animals or hungry ghosts. Even should they attain human birth, they will be poor and lowly and their faculties incomplete. Just as a shadow follows a form, as an echo responds to a voice, or as writing remains visible after the lamp by which someone writes at night has gone out, so too are the karmic consequences of destroying the Dharma. Evil monks, seeking fame and profit, preach before the king things that are not my Dharma, speaking themselves of transgressions and thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of the Dharma. The king, unable to distinguish what is true, believes and favors their words and arbitrarily establishes laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts. Know that when this happens, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

{{opage|243}}

Confronted with the Communist Party Incident,<ref>The “Communist Party Incident” refers to the March 15 Incident of 1928 (San-ichigo Jiken 三・一五事件), a nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,600 suspected members and supporters of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, including labor organizers and student activists, were arrested under the Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法). Seno’o redirects attention from communist “conspiracy” to the social and economic conditions that made radicalism increasingly compelling.</ref> people immediately became indignant: “This is treason aimed at destroying our flawless national polity!<ref>The phrase “flawless national polity” translates kin’ō muketsu (金甌無缺 / 金甌無欠), literally “an unblemished golden vessel.” In modern Japan, the metaphor signified the integrity and inviolability of the imperial state (kokutai 国体), particularly its supposedly unbroken imperial lineage. Seno’o initially invokes the expression ironically, challenging those who denounced communism as a threat to an inherently perfect polity. Later, however, he reappropriates the metaphor: the kokutai can remain genuinely “flawless,” he argues, only insofar as imperial rule retains the capacity for self-criticism and institutional reform.</ref> It is a seditious conspiracy!” Yet they went no further than denunciation and repression. They did not reflect upon why such a tremendous calamity had arisen in a supposedly flawless nation. They gave no serious thought to the essential nature of this supposedly “flawless” polity, nor to the actual conditions of the people’s lives, which had strayed so very far from it. And consequently they failed to recognize the underlying disease that required radical treatment. For such foolish citizens, this golden admonition of the Buddha may perhaps be nothing more than “a ''nenbutsu'' in a horse’s ear.”<ref>The phrase “a nenbutsu in a horse’s ear” translates the Japanese proverb uma no mimi ni nenbutsu 馬の耳に念仏, meaning to offer wisdom or admonition to an unreceptive audience—roughly equivalent to “casting pearls before swine.” The nenbutsu refers here to the invocation of the Buddha’s name, conventionally Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏.</ref> Even so, I am convinced that this warning from our Sutra for Humane Kings is indeed a needle thrust into the crown of the modern state. I have therefore ventured to set it down here explicitly, in the hope that it might provide thoughtful readers with occasion for repeated and profound reflection.

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'', “Entrustment” ===

<blockquote>
‘Humane King’ means that, because he bestows benevolence and spreads virtue, he is called ‘humane’; and because he acts with purity and freedom, he is called ‘king.’ ‘Protecting the nation’ means that, by following the Dharma of the Humane King and adhering to the Way, he protects the realm, so that the people live in happiness and the nation is secure.

</blockquote>

So it is explained. “Entrustment” means that one is commanded, in accordance with this principle, both to govern oneself and to propagate the teaching so that other kings may govern in the same way.

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

</blockquote>

The Buddha’s judgment is concise and precisely to the point. In a single sentence he pronounces that all responsibility for the causes of a nation’s destruction lies with you. One might truly say that this one sentence settles the entire matter.

When we think about it, this is surely how things must be. Whatever the country, responsibility for the problems of a nation naturally comes to rest with the sovereign who governs and rules it. Only then can one truly possess, in both name and reality, the qualifications of a king. Indeed, world history clearly tells us that this is where cries of “Long live the king!” converge—and this is also where the flames of revolution are directed. The causes of a nation’s destruction, therefore, should not be sought among the people. Still less should they be sought abroad. When the Buddha admonishes the king that “they are all of your own making,” we must acknowledge that his judgment strikes squarely at the truth.

If this judgment is indeed correct, then the causes of our nation’s destruction are emphatically not to be found in a small group of Communist Party members, nor in the Russian Third International that is said to direct them, nor yet in Marxism itself. Rather, they must be sought…

{{opage|244}}

…in the defective conditions of the nation itself—conditions that make such incursions possible and allow such movements to arise. It is therefore by no means unreasonable to seek responsibility as well in those sovereign authorities who rule the nation and possess the power freely to reform those conditions.

Yet according to our Constitution, Article<ref>Seno’o makes a pointed constitutional maneuver by pairing the warnings of the Sutra for Humane Kings with the Meiji Constitution (1889). Because the sutra places responsibility for national destruction upon the ruler, its application to modern Japan raised the sensitive question of imperial responsibility. Seno’o invokes Article 3—“The Emperor is sacred and inviolable”—alongside Article 55, which stipulated that Ministers of State advise the Emperor and bear responsibility for that advice. He thus redirects the sutra’s admonition from the inviolable imperial person to the Ministers of State, turning a traditional scripture of state protection into a critique of contemporary government while formally preserving imperial inviolability.</ref> Three states that “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable,” while Article Fifty-Five declares that “The Ministers of State shall advise the Emperor and be responsible for their advice.” It goes without saying, therefore, that in our country those who must bear the responsibility indicated by the Buddha’s admonition are the Ministers of State.

Consider someone plagued by mosquitoes. Everyone understands that the fundamental solution—and the wisest way to settle the problem most quickly—is to dredge the muddy ditches where they breed or to construct a proper sewer system. However long one shouts that the mosquitoes are at fault for laying their eggs, or however often one smokes them out with mosquito coils, mosquitoes will continue to appear in swarms so long as the ditches and sewers are not improved. In places in Osaka and Tokyo where proper sewer systems have been constructed, however, the sound and sight of mosquitoes have simply disappeared, without anyone having to say a word, and residents can sleep peacefully. Even should mosquitoes happen to arrive from elsewhere, it is of course impossible for them to survive for long. Proper sewer construction is thus a more fundamental necessity than dealing with the mosquitoes that lay the eggs; it is the underlying problem that must be properly addressed.

But to say that completing the sewer system is the fundamental issue does not mean that sewers are more important than human beings. A sewer system is simply a facility that can be transformed by human will. A person who understands how things work, when troubled by mosquitoes, will therefore promptly design and complete the necessary sewer system. In precisely the same way, if the institutions and structures of society contain defects that give rise to problems, then a person who understands the logic of things will first set about correcting those defects.

What, then, are these defects that must be reformed? And do they in fact exist?

For anyone with even a little social concern, this question ought by now to be a matter of common sense. Indeed, there is something almost trite about spelling it out in such a roundabout fashion. But, just to make the point, let me quote here the remarks reportedly made by Prosecutor-General Koyama concerning the recent Communist Party Incident:

<blockquote>
With Takatsu Seidō, Sakai Toshihiko, and now the present case, this is the third Communist Party Incident.<ref>Seno’o cites Koyama Matsukichi 小山松吉 (1869–1948), then Prosecutor-General (kenji sōchō 検事総長), who characterized the March 15 Incident as the “third Communist Party incident.” Koyama refers to earlier cases involving Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974) and Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), before conceding that the continued attraction of communism might indicate “some defect in the organization of society itself,” and that even a perfected Peace Preservation Law could not eradicate the movement unless those defects were corrected. Seno’o seizes upon this admission from the state’s own chief prosecutor as evidence that repression cannot eliminate radicalism without addressing its social causes.</ref> The first involved sixteen people, the next twenty-eight, and this time…

{{opage|245}}

… approximately five hundred [are expected]. What does this gradual increase in numbers tell us? Among those arrested on this occasion are many extremely serious-minded individuals. Ultimately, if ideas of this kind continue to spread, there must be something there with which they sympathize. Might there not be some defect in the organization of society itself? No matter how thoroughly the Peace Preservation Law<ref>The Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法), enacted in 1925, criminalized participation in organizations seeking either to alter the imperial polity (kokutai 国体) or abolish the system of private property, providing the principal legal basis for suppressing the Japanese Communist Party and other radical organizations. Following the March 15 Incident, the Tanaka Giichi government strengthened the law by emergency imperial ordinance in 1928, introducing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for certain offenses.</ref> is perfected, unless those defects are corrected, there can be no hope of rooting the problem out. I believe that correcting them is more important than blaming those who have been arrested. In any case, this represents a kind of crisis, and these social conditions demand the consideration of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time.

</blockquote>

So he is reported to have said. When we look at the people who joined the Party, the fact that many of them were sincere young people, possessed of considerable education and sound in both mind and body, surely deserves our attention. These were not the sort of pathological acts of desperation once casually mocked as the work of sickly misfits who cursed society, nor can they simply be dismissed as the pranks of youths infatuated with the West.

A pure soul is always moved by what possesses truth; the blood of the righteous always surges in defense of the weak.

Precisely for this reason, when we consider the fact that, despite such severe repression, the number of sympathizers continues to increase, there must indeed be, as the Prosecutor-General says, “something there.” Unless this “something” is investigated and reformed—or, if their understanding of this “something” is mistaken, unless they are provided with clear explanation and guidance—merely regarding them as dangerous and rebellious would be, again in the Prosecutor-General’s words, as foolish as “shooing flies away from one’s rice.” Would this not leave one open to the accusation that such an attitude is precisely what the Buddha condemned when he spoke of “evil monks accepting separate invitations, learned monks joining together with them in one mind, cultivating close relations with one another, holding religious feasts, and seeking merit”—that, beneath the empty slogan of “cultivating national thought,” officials and establishment religious figures are merely joining forces and devoting themselves to their own preservation? Even without citing the Prosecutor-General, there are more than enough defects demanding reform.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

There is no need to point out that Marxism identifies the cause of popular poverty in the capitalist economic system. It is equally well known that capitalism necessarily produces an ever-widening class divide between rich and poor; and that once this divide reaches a certain point, just as compressed steam…

{{opage|246}}

…explodes a boiler when it passes a certain limit, the present economic system will ultimately be shattered by revolution at the hands of the oppressed Fourth Estate.<ref>The term “Fourth Estate” (daiyon kaikyū 第四階級) was widely used in early twentieth-century Japanese socialist discourse to designate the proletariat or working class, following the European convention of identifying the bourgeoisie as the “Third Estate.” Seno’o’s image of compressed steam bursting a boiler presents revolution not primarily as ideological conspiracy or moral aberration, but as the predictable consequence of intolerable social conditions.</ref> Marxism claims to have demonstrated this both scientifically and historically.

If we turn back to our own Buddhism, however, we find that the Buddha likewise explicitly identifies the moment at which a nation faces destruction as the moment when its people suffer from disease, poverty, and hardship. The judgment of the Buddha, who saw deeply into human nature, appears to have been correct. Certainly, throughout history famine has gone hand in hand with straw-mat banners and bamboo spears.

What deserves serious consideration here is this: Marxism, which rejects religion from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history, and Buddhism, which stands upon a personalist conception of history—one that sublates both the materialist and idealist conceptions of history—are of course not simply compatible with one another.<ref>Seno’o’s “personalist conception of history” (jinkaku shikan 人格史観) marks an early attempt to formulate a distinctively Buddhist alternative to both Marxist historical materialism and idealism. He describes this position as one that “sublates” (shiyō 止揚) the materialist and idealist conceptions of history, employing the Japanese philosophical rendering of the Hegelian Aufhebung: an overcoming that simultaneously preserves elements of what it transcends. Seno’o accepts the Marxist insistence on the historical force of material suffering while refusing to reduce human and social transformation to material conditions alone. His jinkaku shikan thus signals an emerging effort to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with a structural analysis of social conditions without simply adopting Marxist materialism.</ref> Their understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty therefore differs. And yet, remarkably, they arrive at a common judgment: the point at which popular suffering reaches an impasse constitutes the pivotal motive force in the rise and fall of states and societies.

Accordingly, whether one approaches the matter from a moral standpoint or follows scientific analysis, concrete measures to relieve the suffering of the people must in either case be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.

What, then, is the cause of the people’s impoverishment?

As I have already said, according to the Marxists, it lies in the capitalist economic system. Under capitalism, they argue:

<blockquote>
Advances in the techniques of production do not benefit everyone; they increase the profits of the capitalist. For the laboring masses, on the contrary, they bring unemployment and ruin. Capitalists do not employ workers from some humanitarian desire to feed the hungry. They hire workers in order to extract profit from them. It is this desire for profit that drives them to build factories, employ workers, and ceaselessly sniff out those places where still higher rates of profit can be obtained—markets in which their commodities can be sold at higher prices. And while workers suffer the unfreedom of being unable to live unless they sell their labor-power, capitalists possess the freedom to dismiss them, the freedom to expose workers to starvation. A new system of slavery, reproduced within civilized society!<ref>This passage summarizes central themes of Marxist political economy, including production for profit, technological unemployment, and the unequal relation between wage labor and capital. Seno’o does not identify his source; its rhetorical language suggests that he may be drawing upon a contemporary Japanese popularization of Marxist economics rather than quoting Marx directly. He presents the passage as the Marxist explanation of popular impoverishment before turning to capitalism from the “moral standpoint of Buddhism.”</ref>

</blockquote>

Their diagnosis is, in this respect, remarkably penetrating.

What, then, if we examine, from the moral standpoint of Buddhism, the economic principles of Adam Smith upon which the capitalism so condemned by…

{{opage|247}}

…Marxism was founded?

<blockquote>
Human beings constantly require the assistance of others. Yet such assistance is not obtained through the benevolence of others. We can expect others to assist us only by appealing to their self-interest and showing them that what we desire is also to their own advantage. Our food and drink are provided not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, but because they regard their own interests. We appeal not to their charity, but solely to their self-interest. We need say nothing to them of our own necessities, for they will do what is required for the sake of their own advantage. —<ref>Seno’o here quotes or closely paraphrases Adam Smith’s famous discussion of self-interest in Book I, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (1776), including the example of the butcher, brewer, and baker. He treats Smith as a representative theorist of the economic principles underlying modern capitalism, contrasting economic self-interest and free competition with Buddhist ethics.</ref>

</blockquote>

Such an economic system, founded upon egoism and laissez-faire, is precisely the essence of contemporary capitalism. Yet it scarcely needs saying that such egoism and laissez-faire run directly counter to the fundamental spirit of Buddhism.

The Buddha says in the ''Lotus Sutra'', “The root of all suffering is greed,” and “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish.”<ref>Seno’o quotes two passages from Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra (Myōhō renge-kyō 妙法蓮華経; T'' ''9, no. 262): “The origin of all suffering is greed” (諸苦所因貪欲為本) appears in Chapter 3, “Simile and Parable” (Hiyu-hon 譬喩品), while “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish” (三悪道増長阿修羅亦充満) appears in Chapter 2, “Expedient Means” (Hōben-hon 方便品). Seno’o gives the traditional Buddhist critique of attachment to “I” (ga 我) and “mine” (gasho 我所) an explicitly socioeconomic interpretation: “I” becomes individualism, while “mine” becomes unrestricted private property. Capitalist egoism and competition thus become institutional expressions of the attachments Buddhism seeks to overcome. Seno’o contrasts these with “common ownership and repayment of indebtedness” (kyōyū hōon 共有報恩).</ref> What could these be if not warnings against the evils brought about by self-interest and unrestricted competition? “I” and “mine”—that is, individualism and unrestricted private property—are impediments to the practice of the Buddhist path. Common ownership and the reciprocal indebtedness, in thought and practice alike, constitute instead the fundamental spirit of our Buddhism. And when socialists say, “If production were carried out not for the profit of capitalists but for the happiness of all, an entirely different form of society would now appear,” surely precisely such a society must also be the ideal the Buddha held for social life.

On this point, the aforementioned ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' says: “Evil monks, because they seek fame and profit, do not follow my Dharma”; and again: “The True Dharma declines and grows weak, the people cease to act rightly, evils gradually increase, and their lives daily grow shorter.” Here the harmful consequences of egoism are exposed at their root. Look directly at the facts. Capitalist civilization has advanced with the strides of a giant. The production of wealth has increased to an astonishing degree. And yet the promised “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has proved a dream.<ref>“The greatest happiness of the greatest number” (saidai tasū no saidai kōfuku 最大多数の最大幸福) invokes the utilitarian principle associated especially with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Seno’o uses the maxim as a standard against which to judge capitalist modernity: despite enormous increases in productive capacity and wealth, he argues, general welfare has remained unrealized and the majority have grown relatively poorer.</ref> The monopoly of the means of production, combined with the monopoly of financial institutions and further reinforced by the unchecked freedom of syndicates, trusts, and the like, has enabled a small number of capitalists to grow ever more extravagantly wealthy. The great majority of the people, by contrast, despite engaging in the blood-soaked labor of production, receive as little as ever…

{{opage|248}}

…and become relatively poorer and increasingly miserable, until, pitifully, entire families are condemned to groan forever beneath the iron chains of wage labor.

Is this single point not precisely where the concern of communists and socialists lies? Extremism should be rejected. But why should this cry for reform itself be unjust? Consider it. Depending upon market prices, cotton that has already been produced may simply be burned, even while our fellow human beings shiver from the cold. Mountains of sugar remain stored in capitalist warehouses, even while fellow human beings go hungry without so much as a lump of brown sugar. And look further: while the capitalist and landlord classes are said to enjoy enormous profits amounting to some 3.55 billion yen annually, how precariously the laborers, tenant farmers, and masses of society struggle merely to live! Who, possessing even a single tear of compassion and looking squarely at the reality of our fellow human beings—who, though they labor until their sweat is mingled with blood, still find themselves pressed for tomorrow’s bread—could fail, at least in this respect, to rise up and demand that the iron chains of capitalism, the wage system, first be broken, and that the masses be granted immediate freedom and well-being?

Of course, human beings do not live by bread alone. Nor do we disregard that faith by which, amid hunger and cold, Nichiren could declare, “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all.” We do not forget that the liberation of human beings, who seek the infinite while dwelling within the finite, can never ultimately be fulfilled by bread alone. And yet, when we confront the reality that human beings cannot live without bread either, what could embody the divine spirit that “man does not live by bread alone” more concretely than first guaranteeing bread for our less fortunate fellow human beings, ensuring its equitable distribution, and enabling them to share in abundant material resources? What could be more expressive of the highest human morality of compassionate concern for others? Nichiren said:

<blockquote>
White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.

</blockquote>

Bread is indeed life. It is precisely within the problem of bread that the Buddha’s compassion must be realized. All the more so in an age such as ours, an age of acute hardship. Nichiren also said:

<blockquote>
Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation.<ref>This passage combines the biblical dictum “Man does not live by bread alone” with three passages from the writings of Nichiren (1222–1282). “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all” comes from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄 (The Opening of the Eyes, 1272; Goshō, p. 223), where spiritual possession of the Lotus Sutra is contrasted with worldly wealth. “White rice is not merely white rice; it is life itself” derives from the Hakumai ippyō gosho 白米一俵御書 (On a Bushel of White Rice, 1280; Goshō, p. 1597), a letter thanking a follower for a gift of food. Finally, “Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation” cites the Senji-shō 撰時抄 (On the Selection of the Time, 1275; Goshō, p. 258), in which Nichiren stresses discerning the historical moment and acting accordingly. Seno’o brings these passages together to distinguish his position from reductive materialism without allowing spiritual aspiration to become an excuse for indifference to material suffering. Nichiren’s identification of rice with life thus becomes a scriptural basis for bringing Buddhist compassion into material and economic life.</ref>

</blockquote>

The Dharma is ''myō''—wondrous, responsive, something to be put into living application. Only when an impartial and universal compassion is brought to bear as a light upon the solution of the central problems of actual life can religion and morality remain enduring values for humanity. Otherwise, in the end, they are no different from…

{{opage|249}}

…opiates that numb our sense of reality.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

That “something” is now all too clear. The people are impoverished, and their '''groans''' of anguish can already be heard beneath the carriages. It is precisely these '''groans''' that become the terrifying force latent within human nature, erupting with the declaration that “necessity knows no law.”<ref>The phrase “necessity knows no law” (hitsuyō wa hōritsu o shirazu 必要は法律を知らず) echoes the Western maxim necessitas non habet legem, according to which extreme necessity may override ordinary legal constraint. Seno’o connects the maxim to the “groans” (umeki うめき) of an impoverished population: when basic needs become sufficiently urgent, popular suffering may burst through the restraints imposed by law.</ref>

Look at the geometrical, explosive progression: sixteen, twenty-eight, five hundred. And listen to the voices of the children of this young age—the many who take an interest and feel sympathy—resounding deep within the earth. Truly, this is a problem demanding the attention of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time. We hardly needed Prosecutor-General Koyama to tell us so.

The masses are not necessarily a foolish multitude. They experience things before they understand them intellectually. That is why their knowledge is grounded in actuality. Their intuition is comparatively accurate. Thus the pioneers of an age have always found the people on their side, just as the people in turn support those pioneers. It is a mistake to imagine that the masses merely follow others blindly. In the very ordinariness of their everyday lives, how often they grasp the subtleties of human feeling, intuit the rights and wrongs of things, and act accordingly! How much of the pure-heartedness that loves the homeland and courageously defends justice still remains preserved in their very bodies! The people do not readily jump aboard the bandwagon of propaganda and cavort through an empty world of abstractions. They act through contact with the realities of life. Consequently, if the state were governed impartially in the spirit of the Humane King, and the lives of ordinary households were truly secure, why would people willingly throw themselves into movements in which their lives were at stake? They love their wives; their children are dear to them.

Thus, if there actually existed a concrete politics based upon our Imperial Way—“The wealth of the people is Our wealth”—then however widely Marxism might be propagated and however vigorously the Communist Party might act, the state of the Humane King would remain eternally unmoved.<ref>The dictum “The wealth of the people is Our wealth” (tami no tomeru wa chin no tomeru nari 民の富めるは朕の富めるなり) derives from the traditional account of Emperor Nintoku recorded in the Nihon shoki (720). According to the legend, Nintoku, observing that no smoke rose from his subjects’ cooking fires, suspended taxation for three years; when prosperity returned, he declared their prosperity to be his own. Seno’o turns this ideal of benevolent imperial rule into a standard for criticizing contemporary government: if the “Imperial Way” (kōdō 皇道) genuinely identifies the sovereign’s welfare with that of the people, government must secure the material well-being of ordinary households. His increasingly radical critique of capitalism thus remains, at this stage, articulated within an idealized conception of imperial sovereignty.</ref> For such a Humane King embodies the spirit common to the people themselves. He is the source of their well-being. Moreover, the principle of such humane kingship can embrace and assimilate all things, continually making them into a clear mirror for the improvement of government. Arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts: know that when this occurs, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

<blockquote>
O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

Looking back upon the fault described here, I recall hearing that, at the time of the Kōtoku Shūsui Incident in Meiji 43 [1910], our great Meiji Emperor repented before the deities of heaven and earth with these words:

{{opage|250}}

<blockquote>
If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body.<ref>The “Kōtoku Shūsui Incident” refers to the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku Jiken 大逆事件) of 1910–11, in which twenty-six socialists and anarchists were convicted of plotting against the Meiji Emperor; Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水, 1871–1911) and eleven others were executed. Seno’o associates the incident with a gyosei (御製, imperial poem) by the Meiji Emperor: “Tsumi araba ware o togameyo Amatsu-kami / tami wa waga mi no umishi ko nareba” (“If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body”). The poem was actually composed in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, but was later popularly associated with the High Treason Incident as an expression of imperial self-reproach. Seno’o turns this idealized memory against the government of 1928: rather than simply condemning political dissent, responsible rulers should examine the conditions that produced it.</ref>

</blockquote>

I was so deeply moved and awestruck that I scarcely knew how to respond. Indeed, considered with reverence, it is precisely such self-reflection that makes our sovereign a sovereign in the truest sense; that bears witness to a relationship which, though in principle one of ruler and subject, is in feeling that of parent and child; and that consequently demonstrates the possibility of reforming defective institutions and social structures. It is therefore also the one true safety valve against revolution. And it is here, I believe, that we can recognize the genuine value of our national polity as an unbroken imperial line through all ages, an unblemished golden vessel.

And yet, how are the Ministers of State, who ought to embody this spirit and bear the grave responsibility of assisting the Emperor, actually wielding the reins of government today? It was precisely this question, raised by the Communist Party Incident, that prompted me to read the ''Sutra for Humane Kings.''

Can it truly be said that they do not rely upon their own power and authority, that they do not suppress the fourfold assembly, but instead follow reason, uphold justice, and properly attend to the welfare of the nation and its people?

Surely a cry of “No!”, bursting forth from righteous indignation, comes crashing toward us with a force exceeding even the raging waves of the ocean. The memories of universal manhood suffrage and of the Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet remain fresh in the minds of the people—indeed, they should remain permanent sources of righteous indignation.<ref>Seno’o alludes to Japan’s first general election under universal manhood suffrage, held in February 1928, and the subsequent Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet. The election greatly expanded the electorate and brought representatives of the newly organized proletarian parties into the Diet, but was also marked by police interference, restrictions on left-wing campaigning, and allegations of electoral abuses under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi. Significantly, Seno’o describes the outraged public as the “fourfold assembly” (shishū 四衆), the traditional Buddhist term for the complete community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, thereby recasting popular political indignation as a form of Buddhist moral judgment.</ref>

Interference, intervention, repression, detention, the rampant activity of violent gangs and official acquiescence in it, mysterious-document scandals, adjournment followed by further adjournment, the buying of Diet members, and so forth: was it not they who abused virtually every form of power available to them, leaving behind an unparalleled spectacle of ugliness in the history of our constitutional government? And when we are told that all this was done merely to keep their party cabinet in power, does that not exceed all bounds? Can such criticism really be called unjust?

Where reason cannot make itself heard and speech is sealed off, we must expect direct action inevitably to be provoked. Fraud is fraud, even if it involves only a single sen; a bribe is a bribe, even if it amounts to only one yen. Yet in a world where the petty thefts of the lower classes are punished mercilessly and severely, we hear rumors of men who use tens of thousands of yen to purchase the consciences of Diet members and, more broadly, to deceive and outrage the voters of the entire nation. And these very same men proclaim, on the other hand, that they will “sacrifice themselves for the nation in its hour of crisis” and issue solemn-sounding directives about “cultivating national thought and contributing to the promotion of the national spirit.”

What part of your own conduct, I ask, gives you the authority to substantiate such pronouncements?

Is not the absurdity of this rather…

{{opage|251}}

…like that of a libertine who continues frequenting prostitutes while solemnly insisting that he is doing everything in his power, with the utmost sincerity, to cure the venereal disease he has contracted?

The Emperor must be the embodiment of the Imperial Way—of perfect impartiality and complete sincerity, of justice itself. He must be an emperor who guarantees the genuine welfare of all the people. He cannot be someone whose existence is exploited for the advancement or decline of the partisan interests and power of a single party or faction.

And yet the conduct of the Ministers of State charged with the grave responsibility of assisting him has now become so lawless and so utterly lacking in self-reflection. Is this not precisely what the sutra means by such things as certain legislative bills—“arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts,” “creating the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and themselves suffering the consequences”? Long ago, confronted by the abuses of his own age, Nichiren declared to the regent Hōjō Tokiyori:

<blockquote>
The entire world has turned its back upon what is right, and all people have returned to evil. Therefore benevolent deities abandon the nation and depart, while sages leave their places and do not return. Demons and devils enter in their stead; disasters arise and calamities occur. We cannot remain silent; we cannot but be afraid.

</blockquote>

And he thundered:

<blockquote>
You must quickly reform the small measure of faith in your heart and return at once to the single good teaching of the True Vehicle. Then the threefold world will all become the Buddha-land—how could a Buddha-land ever decline? The lands of the ten directions will all become treasure lands—how could a treasure land ever be destroyed? If the nation does not decline and the land is not destroyed, then the body will be secure and the mind serene.<ref>Both passages cite Nichiren’s most famous political treatise, the Risshō ankoku ron 立正安国論 (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, 1260; Goshō, pp. 17, 31), submitted to the former regent Hōjō Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227–1263) amid famine, epidemics, and other calamities. Seno’o constructs a deliberate parallel between Nichiren’s thirteenth-century remonstration and his own critique of the government in 1928. Nichiren’s promise that the land might become a “treasure realm” (hōdo 宝土) thereby acquires a contemporary social meaning: “peace in the land” (ankoku 安国) requires transformation of the conditions responsible for popular suffering.</ref>

</blockquote>

And yet today there is not a single religious figure who will rise and speak in this way against the abuses of the age. On the contrary, they willingly submit to being ordered about by those in power; obediently pursue fame and profit, transient as floating clouds; and together devote themselves to opium-like sermons, concerned with little more than devising ways of pacifying the people. What a disgraceful spectacle! Is this not precisely what is meant by the saying that those entrusted with protecting the Three Treasures destroy them themselves, “like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh”?

When we consider that those who ought to serve as teachers of the nation have already sunk to such a state, where, then, should young people who understand the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to the age and aspire to devote themselves to their homeland in its hour of danger seek their path?

Yet when we look more deeply at the ignorance and evils of such an age, we must ask: who among us is truly qualified to pass authoritative judgment upon them and subject them to an uncompromising ''shakubuku''?<ref>Shakubuku 折伏 (literally “to break and subdue”) is a traditional Buddhist method of confronting and refuting erroneous views, commonly contrasted with shōju 摂受 (“to embrace and accept”), a more accommodating approach to propagation. In Nichiren Buddhism, shakubuku acquired particular importance as a forceful means of defending the correct Dharma and remonstrating with religious and political authority. Seno’o redirects the practice inward as well as outward: before subjecting others to shakubuku, young Buddhists must confront their own egoism and complicity in the social order they condemn. Shakubuku thus becomes simultaneously a practice of self-criticism and social criticism.</ref> Can we not discover within ourselves, too, some measure of the capitalist and establishment-party roots and manifestations of these same evils? Would not nearly everyone, once placed in a position of power, suddenly—or perhaps gradually—end by revealing the ugly base metal beneath the surface and changing sides? Has the righteousness professed while out of power really remained…

{{opage|252}}

…the same once one entered government? Or were we merely like an apparently honest cat that keeps its claws and fangs hidden only so long as the meat remains caught on a hook beyond its reach? Before we judge and subject others to ''shakubuku'', we must first judge and attack ourselves.

In the final analysis, the ugliness of society is not the fault of present-day capitalists and statesmen alone. It is nothing other than the interconnected and collective product of the materialistic and egoistic tendencies and ways of life of us all. Where could there possibly be a judge who stands absolutely outside it? Social life entails collective responsibility.

The admonition, “O Great King, the causes and conditions for the destruction of the nation are all of your own making,” is, in the final analysis, an admonition directed to each and every one of us as well.

Accordingly, the first step in transforming this ugly state of affairs must necessarily be directed toward our own inner lives. Before attacking other people, society, or the authorities, we must first subject to shakubuku our own materialistic and egoistic lives, which have strayed from and forgotten the spirit of the Buddha.

But although our reflection must begin in this way, genuine awakening cannot be permitted to stop at the level of the individual and the inward. True repentance and true transformation must, on the basis of this reflection and way of life, unfold once again toward the organic whole of social phenomena. Only by seeking the realization of both organic self-reflection and social transformation can we finally penetrate to the true self. Is it not precisely here that we discover the concrete and essential life of true repentance and self-transformation grounded in collective responsibility? For society is our own society. To struggle against defects in society is itself to extinguish our own karmic offenses. Criticism and shakubuku directed toward the governing authorities must therefore never amount merely to antagonistic hatred or to demagogic agitation designed to court popularity. Rather, I believe they can and must be affirmed and advocated as the necessary consequence of a yearning for truth and a concern for society.

Of course, to those who have not thought the matter through this far, such criticism and attack will clearly appear to be an attack upon and rebellion against themselves. Reaction, hatred, exclusion, and repression will inevitably follow. But for the genuine seeker of the Way, what can such counterattacks be if not the actual proof of one’s own repentance? The more deeply and broadly one reflects upon and recognizes one’s own karmic offenses and one’s previously unawakened way of life, the more such criticism and persecution can be understood as the natural karmic recompense for those offenses. Repentance thereby receives ever greater confirmation, and it is precisely here that a life of seeking the Way at the risk of one’s life begins to shine. Criticism and repression will arise in proportion to one’s unwavering effort and perseverance. Yet for the genuine seeker of the Way, they become ever more…

{{opage|253}}

…occasions for reflection, not causes for fear; a path of Dharma-joy, not a path of suffering.

They are trials. Stone turns to ash; gold remains true gold. Those who fall away will fall away; those who advance can only continue advancing. Listen to the cry of our Nichiren Shōnin:

<blockquote>
When Nichiren turned the bright mirror of the ''Lotus Sutra'' upon himself, he found it entirely free of cloudiness. There can be no doubt that the offense of slandering the Dharma exists within my own person from the past. If I do not extinguish this offense in this present life, how shall I escape the sufferings of hell in the future? I considered how I might gather together the grave offenses accumulated over countless ages, extinguish them all within this single lifetime, and thereby escape great suffering in the future. In this present age, people who slander the Dharma fill every province of the country. Moreover, the ruler of the nation himself has already become the foremost among those who slander it. If I do not extinguish these grave offenses at such a time, when should I ever expect to do so? If Nichiren, insignificant though his person may be, were to cover the nation of Japan with his voice and denounce them, the countless members of the fourfold assembly who follow false teachings would all revile him at once with countless mouths. At that time, the ruler of the nation, taking the side of the monks who slander the Dharma, would likewise revile Nichiren. He might have his head cut off, or subject him to exile or execution. If such things were to happen time and again, the grave offenses accumulated over innumerable ''kalpas'' could be extinguished within this single lifetime. I devised this great strategy, and things have unfolded without the slightest deviation from it. Having come to such a state, surely my aspiration will be fulfilled. — “On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma” (''Hōbō metsuzai-shō'')

</blockquote>

And listen again:

<blockquote>
Now, because Nichiren vigorously attacks the slander of the Dharma throughout the nation, these great persecutions have arisen. Surely the grave offenses of the past have been summoned forth in this lifetime through my defense of the Dharma. Iron remains black so long as it does not encounter fire; when joined with fire, it becomes red. When a swift current is struck with a piece of wood, waves rise like mountains; when one lays a hand upon a sleeping lion, it roars mightily.<ref>Seno’o draws these passages from two writings composed during Nichiren’s exile on Sado Island (1271–1274). The first, the Hōbō metsuzai-shō 謗法滅罪抄 (On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma, 1273; Goshō, pp. 1121–22), interprets Nichiren’s persecution and exile as an opportunity to expiate past karmic offenses and fulfill his religious mission. The second, the Sado gosho 佐渡御書 (Letter from Sado, 1272; Goshō, p. 958), uses the images of iron exposed to fire, swift water struck by a log, and a sleeping lion awakened by touch to suggest that fierce opposition is the natural response elicited by forceful propagation of the Dharma. Seno’o transforms the Sado exile into a model of perseverance for young Buddhists confronting political opposition in 1928.</ref>

</blockquote>

Religion is not opium. What permitted the followers of Lenin to indulge so freely in their mockery of religion as opium? Was it not that religion stopped at merely conceptual, inward repentance and reflection, failing to advocate and carry out a critique extending into the very contents and forms of actual social life—and a movement for their transformation?

Religion is not opium. The religion of the holy Nichiren is emphatically not opium-like.

Religion, for us, is life. Society forms the content of the self. The self is society. Politics, economics, education, military affairs, the arts, and everything else—all of these are also our religion. They are the contents of social life that must be criticized and transformed in accordance with the spirit of the Buddha.<ref>The characterization of religion as the “opium of the people” is most famously associated with Karl Marx, who used the expression in his 1844 introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vladimir Lenin subsequently made the critique of religion an important element of Marxist political thought, notably in “Socialism and Religion” (1905). By referring to the “followers of Lenin,” Seno’o confronts the Marxist charge that religion reconciles the oppressed to existing social conditions. Rather than rejecting the accusation, he concedes that religion becomes “opium” when repentance remains merely inward (shintaiteki zange 心態的懺悔) and leaves political, economic, and social structures untouched. Because “society forms the content of the self,” genuine religious transformation must extend to social institutions. Seno’o thus turns the Marxist critique of religion into a Buddhist critique of religion that fails to transform social life.</ref> For precisely this reason, to aspire to and enter into the work of social transformation is genuine self-knowledge and genuine repentance; at the same time, it is a life of gratitude and the repayment of indebtedness. Ultimately, it is the conclusion and completion of the life of faith.

Indeed, is it not only when we see matters in this way that we can recognize the essential difference between a movement for transformation arising from religion and the movements for social transformation of so-called socialism and communism,…

{{opage|254}}

…which take the materialist conception of history as their point of departure?

Thus truth breathes within reality, and religion becomes one with life. “Above all, having been born in this land, how could I fail to concern myself with my country?” “White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.” Social institutions are not merely social institutions: they are religion.

The principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality (''ji no ichinen sanzen'') taught by the holy Nichiren can take the place of Tiantai’s three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle (''ri no ichinen sanzen'').<ref>The doctrine of “Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment” (ichinen sanzen 一念三千), systematized by the Chinese Tiantai master Zhiyi (智顗, 538–597), holds that each moment of mind encompasses the totality of possible states of existence. Seno’o invokes the Nichirenist distinction between “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle” (ri no ichinen sanzen 理の一念三千), associated with Tiantai contemplative teaching, and “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality” (ji no ichinen sanzen 事の一念三千), associated with Nichiren’s teaching and practice in the age of the Final Dharma. Seno’o gives this doctrinal distinction a distinctly social interpretation: Buddhist truth must become actual in political, economic, and social life. Ji no ichinen sanzen thus becomes a warrant for Buddhist praxis—the concrete transformation of both self and society.</ref> That is to say, it is the actualization of the Buddhist spirit.

In truth, theories can be constructed however one likes; arguments can be made in any number of ways. Ah, but you living young people, possessed of a profound concern for human life, for society, for your fellow human beings, and for the present and future of your homeland—

where, then, will you choose to direct your path?

(Shōwa 3 [1928], ''Wakōdo'' [''Youth''], vol. 9, no. 6)

== Notes ==

<references />

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Translations from Japanese]]

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-29T18:22:08Z

James:

SG28KJC

2026-08-29T18:20:20Z

James:

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-28T20:02:32Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, "Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''"}}
{{Under Construction}}

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」『若人』第9巻第6号、1928年（昭和3年）6月.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu” 共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む; “Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''.” ''Wakōdo'' 若人 9, no. 6 (June 1928).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、242–254頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 242–254. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==
{{opage|242}}

'''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'''''

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', Chapter Eight, “Entrustment”<ref>The Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation (Ninnō gokoku hannya haramitsu-kyō 仁王護国般若波羅蜜経; T 8, nos. 245–246) is one of East Asian Buddhism’s principal “state-protecting sutras,” traditionally grouped among the “three sutras for protecting the nation” (gokoku sanbu-kyō 護国三部経). An apocryphal scripture composed in China, it became the basis in Japan for state-sponsored rites known as Ninnō-e 仁王会, performed to protect the realm from calamity and disorder. In Chapter 8, “Entrustment” (Shokuru-hon 囑累品), the Buddha warns that rulers, ministers, and religious leaders who violate the Dharma themselves create the conditions for the destruction of Buddhism and the state. Seno’o turns this traditional state-protecting scripture against the state itself, locating responsibility for national disorder in political authority and the social conditions it sustains.</ref> ===

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

Relying upon your own power and authority, you suppress the fourfold assembly and do not permit them to cultivate merit. Evil monks arise who accept the practice of separate invitations; together with learned monks, they become of one mind, cultivate close relations with one another, hold religious feasts, and seek merit. This is the way of non-Buddhists and has nothing whatsoever to do with my teaching.

The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

O Great King, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, kings, ministers, and the disciples of the fourfold assembly will each commit unlawful acts, arbitrarily interfering with Buddhism and committing numerous offenses. These accord neither with the Dharma nor with the Vinaya.

O Great King, after my extinction, the disciples of the fourfold assembly, all kings, princes, and officials—those charged with protecting and preserving the Three Treasures—will themselves destroy them. It will be like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh: the destruction will not come from outsiders.

Those who destroy my Dharma will incur grave offenses. The True Dharma will decline, and the people will cease to act rightly. Evils will gradually multiply and their lives will daily grow shorter. There will no longer be filial children; the six relations will fall into discord; devas and dragons will offer no protection; evil spirits and evil dragons will come daily to inflict harm; calamities and strange portents will follow one upon another, bringing disasters in every direction. They will fall into hell or be reborn as animals or hungry ghosts. Even should they attain human birth, they will be poor and lowly and their faculties incomplete. Just as a shadow follows a form, as an echo responds to a voice, or as writing remains visible after the lamp by which someone writes at night has gone out, so too are the karmic consequences of destroying the Dharma. Evil monks, seeking fame and profit, preach before the king things that are not my Dharma, speaking themselves of transgressions and thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of the Dharma. The king, unable to distinguish what is true, believes and favors their words and arbitrarily establishes laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts. Know that when this happens, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

{{opage|243}}

Confronted with the Communist Party Incident,<ref>The “Communist Party Incident” refers to the March 15 Incident of 1928 (San-ichigo Jiken 三・一五事件), a nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,600 suspected members and supporters of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, including labor organizers and student activists, were arrested under the Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法). Seno’o redirects attention from communist “conspiracy” to the social and economic conditions that made radicalism increasingly compelling.</ref> people immediately became indignant: “This is treason aimed at destroying our flawless national polity!<ref>The phrase “flawless national polity” translates kin’ō muketsu (金甌無缺 / 金甌無欠), literally “an unblemished golden vessel.” In modern Japan, the metaphor signified the integrity and inviolability of the imperial state (kokutai 国体), particularly its supposedly unbroken imperial lineage. Seno’o initially invokes the expression ironically, challenging those who denounced communism as a threat to an inherently perfect polity. Later, however, he reappropriates the metaphor: the kokutai can remain genuinely “flawless,” he argues, only insofar as imperial rule retains the capacity for self-criticism and institutional reform.</ref> It is a seditious conspiracy!” Yet they went no further than denunciation and repression. They did not reflect upon why such a tremendous calamity had arisen in a supposedly flawless nation. They gave no serious thought to the essential nature of this supposedly “flawless” polity, nor to the actual conditions of the people’s lives, which had strayed so very far from it. And consequently they failed to recognize the underlying disease that required radical treatment. For such foolish citizens, this golden admonition of the Buddha may perhaps be nothing more than “a ''nenbutsu'' in a horse’s ear.”<ref>The phrase “a nenbutsu in a horse’s ear” translates the Japanese proverb uma no mimi ni nenbutsu 馬の耳に念仏, meaning to offer wisdom or admonition to an unreceptive audience—roughly equivalent to “casting pearls before swine.” The nenbutsu refers here to the invocation of the Buddha’s name, conventionally Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏.</ref> Even so, I am convinced that this warning from our Sutra for Humane Kings is indeed a needle thrust into the crown of the modern state. I have therefore ventured to set it down here explicitly, in the hope that it might provide thoughtful readers with occasion for repeated and profound reflection.

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'', “Entrustment” ===

<blockquote>
‘Humane King’ means that, because he bestows benevolence and spreads virtue, he is called ‘humane’; and because he acts with purity and freedom, he is called ‘king.’ ‘Protecting the nation’ means that, by following the Dharma of the Humane King and adhering to the Way, he protects the realm, so that the people live in happiness and the nation is secure.

</blockquote>

So it is explained. “Entrustment” means that one is commanded, in accordance with this principle, both to govern oneself and to propagate the teaching so that other kings may govern in the same way.

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

</blockquote>

The Buddha’s judgment is concise and precisely to the point. In a single sentence he pronounces that all responsibility for the causes of a nation’s destruction lies with you. One might truly say that this one sentence settles the entire matter.

When we think about it, this is surely how things must be. Whatever the country, responsibility for the problems of a nation naturally comes to rest with the sovereign who governs and rules it. Only then can one truly possess, in both name and reality, the qualifications of a king. Indeed, world history clearly tells us that this is where cries of “Long live the king!” converge—and this is also where the flames of revolution are directed. The causes of a nation’s destruction, therefore, should not be sought among the people. Still less should they be sought abroad. When the Buddha admonishes the king that “they are all of your own making,” we must acknowledge that his judgment strikes squarely at the truth.

If this judgment is indeed correct, then the causes of our nation’s destruction are emphatically not to be found in a small group of Communist Party members, nor in the Russian Third International that is said to direct them, nor yet in Marxism itself. Rather, they must be sought…

{{opage|244}}

…in the defective conditions of the nation itself—conditions that make such incursions possible and allow such movements to arise. It is therefore by no means unreasonable to seek responsibility as well in those sovereign authorities who rule the nation and possess the power freely to reform those conditions.

Yet according to our Constitution, Article<ref>Seno’o makes a pointed constitutional maneuver by pairing the warnings of the Sutra for Humane Kings with the Meiji Constitution (1889). Because the sutra places responsibility for national destruction upon the ruler, its application to modern Japan raised the sensitive question of imperial responsibility. Seno’o invokes Article 3—“The Emperor is sacred and inviolable”—alongside Article 55, which stipulated that Ministers of State advise the Emperor and bear responsibility for that advice. He thus redirects the sutra’s admonition from the inviolable imperial person to the Ministers of State, turning a traditional scripture of state protection into a critique of contemporary government while formally preserving imperial inviolability.</ref> Three states that “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable,” while Article Fifty-Five declares that “The Ministers of State shall advise the Emperor and be responsible for their advice.” It goes without saying, therefore, that in our country those who must bear the responsibility indicated by the Buddha’s admonition are the Ministers of State.

Consider someone plagued by mosquitoes. Everyone understands that the fundamental solution—and the wisest way to settle the problem most quickly—is to dredge the muddy ditches where they breed or to construct a proper sewer system. However long one shouts that the mosquitoes are at fault for laying their eggs, or however often one smokes them out with mosquito coils, mosquitoes will continue to appear in swarms so long as the ditches and sewers are not improved. In places in Osaka and Tokyo where proper sewer systems have been constructed, however, the sound and sight of mosquitoes have simply disappeared, without anyone having to say a word, and residents can sleep peacefully. Even should mosquitoes happen to arrive from elsewhere, it is of course impossible for them to survive for long. Proper sewer construction is thus a more fundamental necessity than dealing with the mosquitoes that lay the eggs; it is the underlying problem that must be properly addressed.

But to say that completing the sewer system is the fundamental issue does not mean that sewers are more important than human beings. A sewer system is simply a facility that can be transformed by human will. A person who understands how things work, when troubled by mosquitoes, will therefore promptly design and complete the necessary sewer system. In precisely the same way, if the institutions and structures of society contain defects that give rise to problems, then a person who understands the logic of things will first set about correcting those defects.

What, then, are these defects that must be reformed? And do they in fact exist?

For anyone with even a little social concern, this question ought by now to be a matter of common sense. Indeed, there is something almost trite about spelling it out in such a roundabout fashion. But, just to make the point, let me quote here the remarks reportedly made by Prosecutor-General Koyama concerning the recent Communist Party Incident:

<blockquote>
With Takatsu Seidō, Sakai Toshihiko, and now the present case, this is the third Communist Party Incident.<ref>Seno’o cites Koyama Matsukichi 小山松吉 (1869–1948), then Prosecutor-General (kenji sōchō 検事総長), who characterized the March 15 Incident as the “third Communist Party incident.” Koyama refers to earlier cases involving Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974) and Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), before conceding that the continued attraction of communism might indicate “some defect in the organization of society itself,” and that even a perfected Peace Preservation Law could not eradicate the movement unless those defects were corrected. Seno’o seizes upon this admission from the state’s own chief prosecutor as evidence that repression cannot eliminate radicalism without addressing its social causes.</ref> The first involved sixteen people, the next twenty-eight, and this time…

{{opage|245}}

… approximately five hundred [are expected]. What does this gradual increase in numbers tell us? Among those arrested on this occasion are many extremely serious-minded individuals. Ultimately, if ideas of this kind continue to spread, there must be something there with which they sympathize. Might there not be some defect in the organization of society itself? No matter how thoroughly the Peace Preservation Law<ref>The Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法), enacted in 1925, criminalized participation in organizations seeking either to alter the imperial polity (kokutai 国体) or abolish the system of private property, providing the principal legal basis for suppressing the Japanese Communist Party and other radical organizations. Following the March 15 Incident, the Tanaka Giichi government strengthened the law by emergency imperial ordinance in 1928, introducing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for certain offenses.</ref> is perfected, unless those defects are corrected, there can be no hope of rooting the problem out. I believe that correcting them is more important than blaming those who have been arrested. In any case, this represents a kind of crisis, and these social conditions demand the consideration of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time.

</blockquote>

So he is reported to have said. When we look at the people who joined the Party, the fact that many of them were sincere young people, possessed of considerable education and sound in both mind and body, surely deserves our attention. These were not the sort of pathological acts of desperation once casually mocked as the work of sickly misfits who cursed society, nor can they simply be dismissed as the pranks of youths infatuated with the West.

A pure soul is always moved by what possesses truth; the blood of the righteous always surges in defense of the weak.

Precisely for this reason, when we consider the fact that, despite such severe repression, the number of sympathizers continues to increase, there must indeed be, as the Prosecutor-General says, “something there.” Unless this “something” is investigated and reformed—or, if their understanding of this “something” is mistaken, unless they are provided with clear explanation and guidance—merely regarding them as dangerous and rebellious would be, again in the Prosecutor-General’s words, as foolish as “shooing flies away from one’s rice.” Would this not leave one open to the accusation that such an attitude is precisely what the Buddha condemned when he spoke of “evil monks accepting separate invitations, learned monks joining together with them in one mind, cultivating close relations with one another, holding religious feasts, and seeking merit”—that, beneath the empty slogan of “cultivating national thought,” officials and establishment religious figures are merely joining forces and devoting themselves to their own preservation? Even without citing the Prosecutor-General, there are more than enough defects demanding reform.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

There is no need to point out that Marxism identifies the cause of popular poverty in the capitalist economic system. It is equally well known that capitalism necessarily produces an ever-widening class divide between rich and poor; and that once this divide reaches a certain point, just as compressed steam…

{{opage|246}}

…explodes a boiler when it passes a certain limit, the present economic system will ultimately be shattered by revolution at the hands of the oppressed Fourth Estate.<ref>The term “Fourth Estate” (daiyon kaikyū 第四階級) was widely used in early twentieth-century Japanese socialist discourse to designate the proletariat or working class, following the European convention of identifying the bourgeoisie as the “Third Estate.” Seno’o’s image of compressed steam bursting a boiler presents revolution not primarily as ideological conspiracy or moral aberration, but as the predictable consequence of intolerable social conditions.</ref> Marxism claims to have demonstrated this both scientifically and historically.

If we turn back to our own Buddhism, however, we find that the Buddha likewise explicitly identifies the moment at which a nation faces destruction as the moment when its people suffer from disease, poverty, and hardship. The judgment of the Buddha, who saw deeply into human nature, appears to have been correct. Certainly, throughout history famine has gone hand in hand with straw-mat banners and bamboo spears.

What deserves serious consideration here is this: Marxism, which rejects religion from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history, and Buddhism, which stands upon a personalist conception of history—one that sublates both the materialist and idealist conceptions of history—are of course not simply compatible with one another.<ref>Seno’o’s “personalist conception of history” (jinkaku shikan 人格史観) marks an early attempt to formulate a distinctively Buddhist alternative to both Marxist historical materialism and idealism. He describes this position as one that “sublates” (shiyō 止揚) the materialist and idealist conceptions of history, employing the Japanese philosophical rendering of the Hegelian Aufhebung: an overcoming that simultaneously preserves elements of what it transcends. Seno’o accepts the Marxist insistence on the historical force of material suffering while refusing to reduce human and social transformation to material conditions alone. His jinkaku shikan thus signals an emerging effort to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with a structural analysis of social conditions without simply adopting Marxist materialism.</ref> Their understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty therefore differs. And yet, remarkably, they arrive at a common judgment: the point at which popular suffering reaches an impasse constitutes the pivotal motive force in the rise and fall of states and societies.

Accordingly, whether one approaches the matter from a moral standpoint or follows scientific analysis, concrete measures to relieve the suffering of the people must in either case be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.

What, then, is the cause of the people’s impoverishment?

As I have already said, according to the Marxists, it lies in the capitalist economic system. Under capitalism, they argue:

<blockquote>
Advances in the techniques of production do not benefit everyone; they increase the profits of the capitalist. For the laboring masses, on the contrary, they bring unemployment and ruin. Capitalists do not employ workers from some humanitarian desire to feed the hungry. They hire workers in order to extract profit from them. It is this desire for profit that drives them to build factories, employ workers, and ceaselessly sniff out those places where still higher rates of profit can be obtained—markets in which their commodities can be sold at higher prices. And while workers suffer the unfreedom of being unable to live unless they sell their labor-power, capitalists possess the freedom to dismiss them, the freedom to expose workers to starvation. A new system of slavery, reproduced within civilized society!<ref>This passage summarizes central themes of Marxist political economy, including production for profit, technological unemployment, and the unequal relation between wage labor and capital. Seno’o does not identify his source; its rhetorical language suggests that he may be drawing upon a contemporary Japanese popularization of Marxist economics rather than quoting Marx directly. He presents the passage as the Marxist explanation of popular impoverishment before turning to capitalism from the “moral standpoint of Buddhism.”</ref>

</blockquote>

Their diagnosis is, in this respect, remarkably penetrating.

What, then, if we examine, from the moral standpoint of Buddhism, the economic principles of Adam Smith upon which the capitalism so condemned by…

{{opage|247}}

…Marxism was founded?

<blockquote>
Human beings constantly require the assistance of others. Yet such assistance is not obtained through the benevolence of others. We can expect others to assist us only by appealing to their self-interest and showing them that what we desire is also to their own advantage. Our food and drink are provided not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, but because they regard their own interests. We appeal not to their charity, but solely to their self-interest. We need say nothing to them of our own necessities, for they will do what is required for the sake of their own advantage. —<ref>Seno’o here quotes or closely paraphrases Adam Smith’s famous discussion of self-interest in Book I, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (1776), including the example of the butcher, brewer, and baker. He treats Smith as a representative theorist of the economic principles underlying modern capitalism, contrasting economic self-interest and free competition with Buddhist ethics.</ref>

</blockquote>

Such an economic system, founded upon egoism and laissez-faire, is precisely the essence of contemporary capitalism. Yet it scarcely needs saying that such egoism and laissez-faire run directly counter to the fundamental spirit of Buddhism.

The Buddha says in the ''Lotus Sutra'', “The root of all suffering is greed,” and “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish.”<ref>Seno’o quotes two passages from Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra (Myōhō renge-kyō 妙法蓮華経; T'' ''9, no. 262): “The origin of all suffering is greed” (諸苦所因貪欲為本) appears in Chapter 3, “Simile and Parable” (Hiyu-hon 譬喩品), while “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish” (三悪道増長阿修羅亦充満) appears in Chapter 2, “Expedient Means” (Hōben-hon 方便品). Seno’o gives the traditional Buddhist critique of attachment to “I” (ga 我) and “mine” (gasho 我所) an explicitly socioeconomic interpretation: “I” becomes individualism, while “mine” becomes unrestricted private property. Capitalist egoism and competition thus become institutional expressions of the attachments Buddhism seeks to overcome. Seno’o contrasts these with “common ownership and repayment of indebtedness” (kyōyū hōon 共有報恩).</ref> What could these be if not warnings against the evils brought about by self-interest and unrestricted competition? “I” and “mine”—that is, individualism and unrestricted private property—are impediments to the practice of the Buddhist path. Common ownership and the reciprocal indebtedness, in thought and practice alike, constitute instead the fundamental spirit of our Buddhism. And when socialists say, “If production were carried out not for the profit of capitalists but for the happiness of all, an entirely different form of society would now appear,” surely precisely such a society must also be the ideal the Buddha held for social life.

On this point, the aforementioned ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' says: “Evil monks, because they seek fame and profit, do not follow my Dharma”; and again: “The True Dharma declines and grows weak, the people cease to act rightly, evils gradually increase, and their lives daily grow shorter.” Here the harmful consequences of egoism are exposed at their root. Look directly at the facts. Capitalist civilization has advanced with the strides of a giant. The production of wealth has increased to an astonishing degree. And yet the promised “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has proved a dream.<ref>“The greatest happiness of the greatest number” (saidai tasū no saidai kōfuku 最大多数の最大幸福) invokes the utilitarian principle associated especially with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Seno’o uses the maxim as a standard against which to judge capitalist modernity: despite enormous increases in productive capacity and wealth, he argues, general welfare has remained unrealized and the majority have grown relatively poorer.</ref> The monopoly of the means of production, combined with the monopoly of financial institutions and further reinforced by the unchecked freedom of syndicates, trusts, and the like, has enabled a small number of capitalists to grow ever more extravagantly wealthy. The great majority of the people, by contrast, despite engaging in the blood-soaked labor of production, receive as little as ever…

{{opage|248}}

…and become relatively poorer and increasingly miserable, until, pitifully, entire families are condemned to groan forever beneath the iron chains of wage labor.

Is this single point not precisely where the concern of communists and socialists lies? Extremism should be rejected. But why should this cry for reform itself be unjust? Consider it. Depending upon market prices, cotton that has already been produced may simply be burned, even while our fellow human beings shiver from the cold. Mountains of sugar remain stored in capitalist warehouses, even while fellow human beings go hungry without so much as a lump of brown sugar. And look further: while the capitalist and landlord classes are said to enjoy enormous profits amounting to some 3.55 billion yen annually, how precariously the laborers, tenant farmers, and masses of society struggle merely to live! Who, possessing even a single tear of compassion and looking squarely at the reality of our fellow human beings—who, though they labor until their sweat is mingled with blood, still find themselves pressed for tomorrow’s bread—could fail, at least in this respect, to rise up and demand that the iron chains of capitalism, the wage system, first be broken, and that the masses be granted immediate freedom and well-being?

Of course, human beings do not live by bread alone. Nor do we disregard that faith by which, amid hunger and cold, Nichiren could declare, “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all.” We do not forget that the liberation of human beings, who seek the infinite while dwelling within the finite, can never ultimately be fulfilled by bread alone. And yet, when we confront the reality that human beings cannot live without bread either, what could embody the divine spirit that “man does not live by bread alone” more concretely than first guaranteeing bread for our less fortunate fellow human beings, ensuring its equitable distribution, and enabling them to share in abundant material resources? What could be more expressive of the highest human morality of compassionate concern for others? Nichiren said:

<blockquote>
White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.

</blockquote>

Bread is indeed life. It is precisely within the problem of bread that the Buddha’s compassion must be realized. All the more so in an age such as ours, an age of acute hardship. Nichiren also said:

<blockquote>
Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation.<ref>This passage combines the biblical dictum “Man does not live by bread alone” with three passages from the writings of Nichiren (1222–1282). “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all” comes from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄 (The Opening of the Eyes, 1272; Goshō, p. 223), where spiritual possession of the Lotus Sutra is contrasted with worldly wealth. “White rice is not merely white rice; it is life itself” derives from the Hakumai ippyō gosho 白米一俵御書 (On a Bushel of White Rice, 1280; Goshō, p. 1597), a letter thanking a follower for a gift of food. Finally, “Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation” cites the Senji-shō 撰時抄 (On the Selection of the Time, 1275; Goshō, p. 258), in which Nichiren stresses discerning the historical moment and acting accordingly. Seno’o brings these passages together to distinguish his position from reductive materialism without allowing spiritual aspiration to become an excuse for indifference to material suffering. Nichiren’s identification of rice with life thus becomes a scriptural basis for bringing Buddhist compassion into material and economic life.</ref>

</blockquote>

The Dharma is ''myō''—wondrous, responsive, something to be put into living application. Only when an impartial and universal compassion is brought to bear as a light upon the solution of the central problems of actual life can religion and morality remain enduring values for humanity. Otherwise, in the end, they are no different from…

{{opage|249}}

…opiates that numb our sense of reality.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

That “something” is now all too clear. The people are impoverished, and their '''groans''' of anguish can already be heard beneath the carriages. It is precisely these '''groans''' that become the terrifying force latent within human nature, erupting with the declaration that “necessity knows no law.”<ref>The phrase “necessity knows no law” (hitsuyō wa hōritsu o shirazu 必要は法律を知らず) echoes the Western maxim necessitas non habet legem, according to which extreme necessity may override ordinary legal constraint. Seno’o connects the maxim to the “groans” (umeki うめき) of an impoverished population: when basic needs become sufficiently urgent, popular suffering may burst through the restraints imposed by law.</ref>

Look at the geometrical, explosive progression: sixteen, twenty-eight, five hundred. And listen to the voices of the children of this young age—the many who take an interest and feel sympathy—resounding deep within the earth. Truly, this is a problem demanding the attention of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time. We hardly needed Prosecutor-General Koyama to tell us so.

The masses are not necessarily a foolish multitude. They experience things before they understand them intellectually. That is why their knowledge is grounded in actuality. Their intuition is comparatively accurate. Thus the pioneers of an age have always found the people on their side, just as the people in turn support those pioneers. It is a mistake to imagine that the masses merely follow others blindly. In the very ordinariness of their everyday lives, how often they grasp the subtleties of human feeling, intuit the rights and wrongs of things, and act accordingly! How much of the pure-heartedness that loves the homeland and courageously defends justice still remains preserved in their very bodies! The people do not readily jump aboard the bandwagon of propaganda and cavort through an empty world of abstractions. They act through contact with the realities of life. Consequently, if the state were governed impartially in the spirit of the Humane King, and the lives of ordinary households were truly secure, why would people willingly throw themselves into movements in which their lives were at stake? They love their wives; their children are dear to them.

Thus, if there actually existed a concrete politics based upon our Imperial Way—“The wealth of the people is Our wealth”—then however widely Marxism might be propagated and however vigorously the Communist Party might act, the state of the Humane King would remain eternally unmoved.<ref>The dictum “The wealth of the people is Our wealth” (tami no tomeru wa chin no tomeru nari 民の富めるは朕の富めるなり) derives from the traditional account of Emperor Nintoku recorded in the Nihon shoki (720). According to the legend, Nintoku, observing that no smoke rose from his subjects’ cooking fires, suspended taxation for three years; when prosperity returned, he declared their prosperity to be his own. Seno’o turns this ideal of benevolent imperial rule into a standard for criticizing contemporary government: if the “Imperial Way” (kōdō 皇道) genuinely identifies the sovereign’s welfare with that of the people, government must secure the material well-being of ordinary households. His increasingly radical critique of capitalism thus remains, at this stage, articulated within an idealized conception of imperial sovereignty.</ref> For such a Humane King embodies the spirit common to the people themselves. He is the source of their well-being. Moreover, the principle of such humane kingship can embrace and assimilate all things, continually making them into a clear mirror for the improvement of government. Arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts: know that when this occurs, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

<blockquote>
O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

Looking back upon the fault described here, I recall hearing that, at the time of the Kōtoku Shūsui Incident in Meiji 43 [1910], our great Meiji Emperor repented before the deities of heaven and earth with these words:

{{opage|250}}

<blockquote>
If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body.<ref>The “Kōtoku Shūsui Incident” refers to the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku Jiken 大逆事件) of 1910–11, in which twenty-six socialists and anarchists were convicted of plotting against the Meiji Emperor; Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水, 1871–1911) and eleven others were executed. Seno’o associates the incident with a gyosei (御製, imperial poem) by the Meiji Emperor: “Tsumi araba ware o togameyo Amatsu-kami / tami wa waga mi no umishi ko nareba” (“If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body”). The poem was actually composed in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, but was later popularly associated with the High Treason Incident as an expression of imperial self-reproach. Seno’o turns this idealized memory against the government of 1928: rather than simply condemning political dissent, responsible rulers should examine the conditions that produced it.</ref>

</blockquote>

I was so deeply moved and awestruck that I scarcely knew how to respond. Indeed, considered with reverence, it is precisely such self-reflection that makes our sovereign a sovereign in the truest sense; that bears witness to a relationship which, though in principle one of ruler and subject, is in feeling that of parent and child; and that consequently demonstrates the possibility of reforming defective institutions and social structures. It is therefore also the one true safety valve against revolution. And it is here, I believe, that we can recognize the genuine value of our national polity as an unbroken imperial line through all ages, an unblemished golden vessel.

And yet, how are the Ministers of State, who ought to embody this spirit and bear the grave responsibility of assisting the Emperor, actually wielding the reins of government today? It was precisely this question, raised by the Communist Party Incident, that prompted me to read the ''Sutra for Humane Kings.''

Can it truly be said that they do not rely upon their own power and authority, that they do not suppress the fourfold assembly, but instead follow reason, uphold justice, and properly attend to the welfare of the nation and its people?

Surely a cry of “No!”, bursting forth from righteous indignation, comes crashing toward us with a force exceeding even the raging waves of the ocean. The memories of universal manhood suffrage and of the Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet remain fresh in the minds of the people—indeed, they should remain permanent sources of righteous indignation.<ref>Seno’o alludes to Japan’s first general election under universal manhood suffrage, held in February 1928, and the subsequent Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet. The election greatly expanded the electorate and brought representatives of the newly organized proletarian parties into the Diet, but was also marked by police interference, restrictions on left-wing campaigning, and allegations of electoral abuses under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi. Significantly, Seno’o describes the outraged public as the “fourfold assembly” (shishū 四衆), the traditional Buddhist term for the complete community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, thereby recasting popular political indignation as a form of Buddhist moral judgment.</ref>

Interference, intervention, repression, detention, the rampant activity of violent gangs and official acquiescence in it, mysterious-document scandals, adjournment followed by further adjournment, the buying of Diet members, and so forth: was it not they who abused virtually every form of power available to them, leaving behind an unparalleled spectacle of ugliness in the history of our constitutional government? And when we are told that all this was done merely to keep their party cabinet in power, does that not exceed all bounds? Can such criticism really be called unjust?

Where reason cannot make itself heard and speech is sealed off, we must expect direct action inevitably to be provoked. Fraud is fraud, even if it involves only a single sen; a bribe is a bribe, even if it amounts to only one yen. Yet in a world where the petty thefts of the lower classes are punished mercilessly and severely, we hear rumors of men who use tens of thousands of yen to purchase the consciences of Diet members and, more broadly, to deceive and outrage the voters of the entire nation. And these very same men proclaim, on the other hand, that they will “sacrifice themselves for the nation in its hour of crisis” and issue solemn-sounding directives about “cultivating national thought and contributing to the promotion of the national spirit.”

What part of your own conduct, I ask, gives you the authority to substantiate such pronouncements?

Is not the absurdity of this rather…

{{opage|251}}

…like that of a libertine who continues frequenting prostitutes while solemnly insisting that he is doing everything in his power, with the utmost sincerity, to cure the venereal disease he has contracted?

The Emperor must be the embodiment of the Imperial Way—of perfect impartiality and complete sincerity, of justice itself. He must be an emperor who guarantees the genuine welfare of all the people. He cannot be someone whose existence is exploited for the advancement or decline of the partisan interests and power of a single party or faction.

And yet the conduct of the Ministers of State charged with the grave responsibility of assisting him has now become so lawless and so utterly lacking in self-reflection. Is this not precisely what the sutra means by such things as certain legislative bills—“arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts,” “creating the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and themselves suffering the consequences”? Long ago, confronted by the abuses of his own age, Nichiren declared to the regent Hōjō Tokiyori:

<blockquote>
The entire world has turned its back upon what is right, and all people have returned to evil. Therefore benevolent deities abandon the nation and depart, while sages leave their places and do not return. Demons and devils enter in their stead; disasters arise and calamities occur. We cannot remain silent; we cannot but be afraid.

</blockquote>

And he thundered:

<blockquote>
You must quickly reform the small measure of faith in your heart and return at once to the single good teaching of the True Vehicle. Then the threefold world will all become the Buddha-land—how could a Buddha-land ever decline? The lands of the ten directions will all become treasure lands—how could a treasure land ever be destroyed? If the nation does not decline and the land is not destroyed, then the body will be secure and the mind serene.<ref>Both passages cite Nichiren’s most famous political treatise, the Risshō ankoku ron 立正安国論 (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, 1260; Goshō, pp. 17, 31), submitted to the former regent Hōjō Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227–1263) amid famine, epidemics, and other calamities. Seno’o constructs a deliberate parallel between Nichiren’s thirteenth-century remonstration and his own critique of the government in 1928. Nichiren’s promise that the land might become a “treasure realm” (hōdo 宝土) thereby acquires a contemporary social meaning: “peace in the land” (ankoku 安国) requires transformation of the conditions responsible for popular suffering.</ref>

</blockquote>

And yet today there is not a single religious figure who will rise and speak in this way against the abuses of the age. On the contrary, they willingly submit to being ordered about by those in power; obediently pursue fame and profit, transient as floating clouds; and together devote themselves to opium-like sermons, concerned with little more than devising ways of pacifying the people. What a disgraceful spectacle! Is this not precisely what is meant by the saying that those entrusted with protecting the Three Treasures destroy them themselves, “like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh”?

When we consider that those who ought to serve as teachers of the nation have already sunk to such a state, where, then, should young people who understand the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to the age and aspire to devote themselves to their homeland in its hour of danger seek their path?

Yet when we look more deeply at the ignorance and evils of such an age, we must ask: who among us is truly qualified to pass authoritative judgment upon them and subject them to an uncompromising ''shakubuku''?<ref>Shakubuku 折伏 (literally “to break and subdue”) is a traditional Buddhist method of confronting and refuting erroneous views, commonly contrasted with shōju 摂受 (“to embrace and accept”), a more accommodating approach to propagation. In Nichiren Buddhism, shakubuku acquired particular importance as a forceful means of defending the correct Dharma and remonstrating with religious and political authority. Seno’o redirects the practice inward as well as outward: before subjecting others to shakubuku, young Buddhists must confront their own egoism and complicity in the social order they condemn. Shakubuku thus becomes simultaneously a practice of self-criticism and social criticism.</ref> Can we not discover within ourselves, too, some measure of the capitalist and establishment-party roots and manifestations of these same evils? Would not nearly everyone, once placed in a position of power, suddenly—or perhaps gradually—end by revealing the ugly base metal beneath the surface and changing sides? Has the righteousness professed while out of power really remained…

{{opage|252}}

…the same once one entered government? Or were we merely like an apparently honest cat that keeps its claws and fangs hidden only so long as the meat remains caught on a hook beyond its reach? Before we judge and subject others to ''shakubuku'', we must first judge and attack ourselves.

In the final analysis, the ugliness of society is not the fault of present-day capitalists and statesmen alone. It is nothing other than the interconnected and collective product of the materialistic and egoistic tendencies and ways of life of us all. Where could there possibly be a judge who stands absolutely outside it? Social life entails collective responsibility.

The admonition, “O Great King, the causes and conditions for the destruction of the nation are all of your own making,” is, in the final analysis, an admonition directed to each and every one of us as well.

Accordingly, the first step in transforming this ugly state of affairs must necessarily be directed toward our own inner lives. Before attacking other people, society, or the authorities, we must first subject to shakubuku our own materialistic and egoistic lives, which have strayed from and forgotten the spirit of the Buddha.

But although our reflection must begin in this way, genuine awakening cannot be permitted to stop at the level of the individual and the inward. True repentance and true transformation must, on the basis of this reflection and way of life, unfold once again toward the organic whole of social phenomena. Only by seeking the realization of both organic self-reflection and social transformation can we finally penetrate to the true self. Is it not precisely here that we discover the concrete and essential life of true repentance and self-transformation grounded in collective responsibility? For society is our own society. To struggle against defects in society is itself to extinguish our own karmic offenses. Criticism and shakubuku directed toward the governing authorities must therefore never amount merely to antagonistic hatred or to demagogic agitation designed to court popularity. Rather, I believe they can and must be affirmed and advocated as the necessary consequence of a yearning for truth and a concern for society.

Of course, to those who have not thought the matter through this far, such criticism and attack will clearly appear to be an attack upon and rebellion against themselves. Reaction, hatred, exclusion, and repression will inevitably follow. But for the genuine seeker of the Way, what can such counterattacks be if not the actual proof of one’s own repentance? The more deeply and broadly one reflects upon and recognizes one’s own karmic offenses and one’s previously unawakened way of life, the more such criticism and persecution can be understood as the natural karmic recompense for those offenses. Repentance thereby receives ever greater confirmation, and it is precisely here that a life of seeking the Way at the risk of one’s life begins to shine. Criticism and repression will arise in proportion to one’s unwavering effort and perseverance. Yet for the genuine seeker of the Way, they become ever more…

{{opage|253}}

…occasions for reflection, not causes for fear; a path of Dharma-joy, not a path of suffering.

They are trials. Stone turns to ash; gold remains true gold. Those who fall away will fall away; those who advance can only continue advancing. Listen to the cry of our Nichiren Shōnin:

<blockquote>
When Nichiren turned the bright mirror of the ''Lotus Sutra'' upon himself, he found it entirely free of cloudiness. There can be no doubt that the offense of slandering the Dharma exists within my own person from the past. If I do not extinguish this offense in this present life, how shall I escape the sufferings of hell in the future? I considered how I might gather together the grave offenses accumulated over countless ages, extinguish them all within this single lifetime, and thereby escape great suffering in the future. In this present age, people who slander the Dharma fill every province of the country. Moreover, the ruler of the nation himself has already become the foremost among those who slander it. If I do not extinguish these grave offenses at such a time, when should I ever expect to do so? If Nichiren, insignificant though his person may be, were to cover the nation of Japan with his voice and denounce them, the countless members of the fourfold assembly who follow false teachings would all revile him at once with countless mouths. At that time, the ruler of the nation, taking the side of the monks who slander the Dharma, would likewise revile Nichiren. He might have his head cut off, or subject him to exile or execution. If such things were to happen time and again, the grave offenses accumulated over innumerable ''kalpas'' could be extinguished within this single lifetime. I devised this great strategy, and things have unfolded without the slightest deviation from it. Having come to such a state, surely my aspiration will be fulfilled. — “On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma” (''Hōbō metsuzai-shō'')

</blockquote>

And listen again:

<blockquote>
Now, because Nichiren vigorously attacks the slander of the Dharma throughout the nation, these great persecutions have arisen. Surely the grave offenses of the past have been summoned forth in this lifetime through my defense of the Dharma. Iron remains black so long as it does not encounter fire; when joined with fire, it becomes red. When a swift current is struck with a piece of wood, waves rise like mountains; when one lays a hand upon a sleeping lion, it roars mightily.<ref>Seno’o draws these passages from two writings composed during Nichiren’s exile on Sado Island (1271–1274). The first, the Hōbō metsuzai-shō 謗法滅罪抄 (On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma, 1273; Goshō, pp. 1121–22), interprets Nichiren’s persecution and exile as an opportunity to expiate past karmic offenses and fulfill his religious mission. The second, the Sado gosho 佐渡御書 (Letter from Sado, 1272; Goshō, p. 958), uses the images of iron exposed to fire, swift water struck by a log, and a sleeping lion awakened by touch to suggest that fierce opposition is the natural response elicited by forceful propagation of the Dharma. Seno’o transforms the Sado exile into a model of perseverance for young Buddhists confronting political opposition in 1928.</ref>

</blockquote>

Religion is not opium. What permitted the followers of Lenin to indulge so freely in their mockery of religion as opium? Was it not that religion stopped at merely conceptual, inward repentance and reflection, failing to advocate and carry out a critique extending into the very contents and forms of actual social life—and a movement for their transformation?

Religion is not opium. The religion of the holy Nichiren is emphatically not opium-like.

Religion, for us, is life. Society forms the content of the self. The self is society. Politics, economics, education, military affairs, the arts, and everything else—all of these are also our religion. They are the contents of social life that must be criticized and transformed in accordance with the spirit of the Buddha.<ref>The characterization of religion as the “opium of the people” is most famously associated with Karl Marx, who used the expression in his 1844 introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vladimir Lenin subsequently made the critique of religion an important element of Marxist political thought, notably in “Socialism and Religion” (1905). By referring to the “followers of Lenin,” Seno’o confronts the Marxist charge that religion reconciles the oppressed to existing social conditions. Rather than rejecting the accusation, he concedes that religion becomes “opium” when repentance remains merely inward (shintaiteki zange 心態的懺悔) and leaves political, economic, and social structures untouched. Because “society forms the content of the self,” genuine religious transformation must extend to social institutions. Seno’o thus turns the Marxist critique of religion into a Buddhist critique of religion that fails to transform social life.</ref> For precisely this reason, to aspire to and enter into the work of social transformation is genuine self-knowledge and genuine repentance; at the same time, it is a life of gratitude and the repayment of indebtedness. Ultimately, it is the conclusion and completion of the life of faith.

Indeed, is it not only when we see matters in this way that we can recognize the essential difference between a movement for transformation arising from religion and the movements for social transformation of so-called socialism and communism,…

{{opage|254}}

…which take the materialist conception of history as their point of departure?

Thus truth breathes within reality, and religion becomes one with life. “Above all, having been born in this land, how could I fail to concern myself with my country?” “White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.” Social institutions are not merely social institutions: they are religion.

The principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality (''ji no ichinen sanzen'') taught by the holy Nichiren can take the place of Tiantai’s three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle (''ri no ichinen sanzen'').<ref>The doctrine of “Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment” (ichinen sanzen 一念三千), systematized by the Chinese Tiantai master Zhiyi (智顗, 538–597), holds that each moment of mind encompasses the totality of possible states of existence. Seno’o invokes the Nichirenist distinction between “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle” (ri no ichinen sanzen 理の一念三千), associated with Tiantai contemplative teaching, and “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality” (ji no ichinen sanzen 事の一念三千), associated with Nichiren’s teaching and practice in the age of the Final Dharma. Seno’o gives this doctrinal distinction a distinctly social interpretation: Buddhist truth must become actual in political, economic, and social life. Ji no ichinen sanzen thus becomes a warrant for Buddhist praxis—the concrete transformation of both self and society.</ref> That is to say, it is the actualization of the Buddhist spirit.

In truth, theories can be constructed however one likes; arguments can be made in any number of ways. Ah, but you living young people, possessed of a profound concern for human life, for society, for your fellow human beings, and for the present and future of your homeland—

where, then, will you choose to direct your path?

(Shōwa 3 [1928], ''Wakōdo'' [''Youth''], vol. 9, no. 6)

== Notes ==

<references />

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-28T20:01:04Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''}}
{{Under Construction}}

<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div>

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」『若人』第9巻第6号、1928年（昭和3年）6月.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu” 共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む; “Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''.” ''Wakōdo'' 若人 9, no. 6 (June 1928).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、242–254頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 242–254. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==
{{opage|242}}

'''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'''''

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', Chapter Eight, “Entrustment”<ref>The Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation (Ninnō gokoku hannya haramitsu-kyō 仁王護国般若波羅蜜経; T 8, nos. 245–246) is one of East Asian Buddhism’s principal “state-protecting sutras,” traditionally grouped among the “three sutras for protecting the nation” (gokoku sanbu-kyō 護国三部経). An apocryphal scripture composed in China, it became the basis in Japan for state-sponsored rites known as Ninnō-e 仁王会, performed to protect the realm from calamity and disorder. In Chapter 8, “Entrustment” (Shokuru-hon 囑累品), the Buddha warns that rulers, ministers, and religious leaders who violate the Dharma themselves create the conditions for the destruction of Buddhism and the state. Seno’o turns this traditional state-protecting scripture against the state itself, locating responsibility for national disorder in political authority and the social conditions it sustains.</ref> ===

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

Relying upon your own power and authority, you suppress the fourfold assembly and do not permit them to cultivate merit. Evil monks arise who accept the practice of separate invitations; together with learned monks, they become of one mind, cultivate close relations with one another, hold religious feasts, and seek merit. This is the way of non-Buddhists and has nothing whatsoever to do with my teaching.

The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

O Great King, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, kings, ministers, and the disciples of the fourfold assembly will each commit unlawful acts, arbitrarily interfering with Buddhism and committing numerous offenses. These accord neither with the Dharma nor with the Vinaya.

O Great King, after my extinction, the disciples of the fourfold assembly, all kings, princes, and officials—those charged with protecting and preserving the Three Treasures—will themselves destroy them. It will be like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh: the destruction will not come from outsiders.

Those who destroy my Dharma will incur grave offenses. The True Dharma will decline, and the people will cease to act rightly. Evils will gradually multiply and their lives will daily grow shorter. There will no longer be filial children; the six relations will fall into discord; devas and dragons will offer no protection; evil spirits and evil dragons will come daily to inflict harm; calamities and strange portents will follow one upon another, bringing disasters in every direction. They will fall into hell or be reborn as animals or hungry ghosts. Even should they attain human birth, they will be poor and lowly and their faculties incomplete. Just as a shadow follows a form, as an echo responds to a voice, or as writing remains visible after the lamp by which someone writes at night has gone out, so too are the karmic consequences of destroying the Dharma. Evil monks, seeking fame and profit, preach before the king things that are not my Dharma, speaking themselves of transgressions and thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of the Dharma. The king, unable to distinguish what is true, believes and favors their words and arbitrarily establishes laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts. Know that when this happens, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

{{opage|243}}

Confronted with the Communist Party Incident,<ref>The “Communist Party Incident” refers to the March 15 Incident of 1928 (San-ichigo Jiken 三・一五事件), a nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,600 suspected members and supporters of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, including labor organizers and student activists, were arrested under the Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法). Seno’o redirects attention from communist “conspiracy” to the social and economic conditions that made radicalism increasingly compelling.</ref> people immediately became indignant: “This is treason aimed at destroying our flawless national polity!<ref>The phrase “flawless national polity” translates kin’ō muketsu (金甌無缺 / 金甌無欠), literally “an unblemished golden vessel.” In modern Japan, the metaphor signified the integrity and inviolability of the imperial state (kokutai 国体), particularly its supposedly unbroken imperial lineage. Seno’o initially invokes the expression ironically, challenging those who denounced communism as a threat to an inherently perfect polity. Later, however, he reappropriates the metaphor: the kokutai can remain genuinely “flawless,” he argues, only insofar as imperial rule retains the capacity for self-criticism and institutional reform.</ref> It is a seditious conspiracy!” Yet they went no further than denunciation and repression. They did not reflect upon why such a tremendous calamity had arisen in a supposedly flawless nation. They gave no serious thought to the essential nature of this supposedly “flawless” polity, nor to the actual conditions of the people’s lives, which had strayed so very far from it. And consequently they failed to recognize the underlying disease that required radical treatment. For such foolish citizens, this golden admonition of the Buddha may perhaps be nothing more than “a ''nenbutsu'' in a horse’s ear.”<ref>The phrase “a nenbutsu in a horse’s ear” translates the Japanese proverb uma no mimi ni nenbutsu 馬の耳に念仏, meaning to offer wisdom or admonition to an unreceptive audience—roughly equivalent to “casting pearls before swine.” The nenbutsu refers here to the invocation of the Buddha’s name, conventionally Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏.</ref> Even so, I am convinced that this warning from our Sutra for Humane Kings is indeed a needle thrust into the crown of the modern state. I have therefore ventured to set it down here explicitly, in the hope that it might provide thoughtful readers with occasion for repeated and profound reflection.

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'', “Entrustment” ===

<blockquote>
‘Humane King’ means that, because he bestows benevolence and spreads virtue, he is called ‘humane’; and because he acts with purity and freedom, he is called ‘king.’ ‘Protecting the nation’ means that, by following the Dharma of the Humane King and adhering to the Way, he protects the realm, so that the people live in happiness and the nation is secure.

</blockquote>

So it is explained. “Entrustment” means that one is commanded, in accordance with this principle, both to govern oneself and to propagate the teaching so that other kings may govern in the same way.

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

</blockquote>

The Buddha’s judgment is concise and precisely to the point. In a single sentence he pronounces that all responsibility for the causes of a nation’s destruction lies with you. One might truly say that this one sentence settles the entire matter.

When we think about it, this is surely how things must be. Whatever the country, responsibility for the problems of a nation naturally comes to rest with the sovereign who governs and rules it. Only then can one truly possess, in both name and reality, the qualifications of a king. Indeed, world history clearly tells us that this is where cries of “Long live the king!” converge—and this is also where the flames of revolution are directed. The causes of a nation’s destruction, therefore, should not be sought among the people. Still less should they be sought abroad. When the Buddha admonishes the king that “they are all of your own making,” we must acknowledge that his judgment strikes squarely at the truth.

If this judgment is indeed correct, then the causes of our nation’s destruction are emphatically not to be found in a small group of Communist Party members, nor in the Russian Third International that is said to direct them, nor yet in Marxism itself. Rather, they must be sought…

{{opage|244}}

…in the defective conditions of the nation itself—conditions that make such incursions possible and allow such movements to arise. It is therefore by no means unreasonable to seek responsibility as well in those sovereign authorities who rule the nation and possess the power freely to reform those conditions.

Yet according to our Constitution, Article<ref>Seno’o makes a pointed constitutional maneuver by pairing the warnings of the Sutra for Humane Kings with the Meiji Constitution (1889). Because the sutra places responsibility for national destruction upon the ruler, its application to modern Japan raised the sensitive question of imperial responsibility. Seno’o invokes Article 3—“The Emperor is sacred and inviolable”—alongside Article 55, which stipulated that Ministers of State advise the Emperor and bear responsibility for that advice. He thus redirects the sutra’s admonition from the inviolable imperial person to the Ministers of State, turning a traditional scripture of state protection into a critique of contemporary government while formally preserving imperial inviolability.</ref> Three states that “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable,” while Article Fifty-Five declares that “The Ministers of State shall advise the Emperor and be responsible for their advice.” It goes without saying, therefore, that in our country those who must bear the responsibility indicated by the Buddha’s admonition are the Ministers of State.

Consider someone plagued by mosquitoes. Everyone understands that the fundamental solution—and the wisest way to settle the problem most quickly—is to dredge the muddy ditches where they breed or to construct a proper sewer system. However long one shouts that the mosquitoes are at fault for laying their eggs, or however often one smokes them out with mosquito coils, mosquitoes will continue to appear in swarms so long as the ditches and sewers are not improved. In places in Osaka and Tokyo where proper sewer systems have been constructed, however, the sound and sight of mosquitoes have simply disappeared, without anyone having to say a word, and residents can sleep peacefully. Even should mosquitoes happen to arrive from elsewhere, it is of course impossible for them to survive for long. Proper sewer construction is thus a more fundamental necessity than dealing with the mosquitoes that lay the eggs; it is the underlying problem that must be properly addressed.

But to say that completing the sewer system is the fundamental issue does not mean that sewers are more important than human beings. A sewer system is simply a facility that can be transformed by human will. A person who understands how things work, when troubled by mosquitoes, will therefore promptly design and complete the necessary sewer system. In precisely the same way, if the institutions and structures of society contain defects that give rise to problems, then a person who understands the logic of things will first set about correcting those defects.

What, then, are these defects that must be reformed? And do they in fact exist?

For anyone with even a little social concern, this question ought by now to be a matter of common sense. Indeed, there is something almost trite about spelling it out in such a roundabout fashion. But, just to make the point, let me quote here the remarks reportedly made by Prosecutor-General Koyama concerning the recent Communist Party Incident:

<blockquote>
With Takatsu Seidō, Sakai Toshihiko, and now the present case, this is the third Communist Party Incident.<ref>Seno’o cites Koyama Matsukichi 小山松吉 (1869–1948), then Prosecutor-General (kenji sōchō 検事総長), who characterized the March 15 Incident as the “third Communist Party incident.” Koyama refers to earlier cases involving Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974) and Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), before conceding that the continued attraction of communism might indicate “some defect in the organization of society itself,” and that even a perfected Peace Preservation Law could not eradicate the movement unless those defects were corrected. Seno’o seizes upon this admission from the state’s own chief prosecutor as evidence that repression cannot eliminate radicalism without addressing its social causes.</ref> The first involved sixteen people, the next twenty-eight, and this time…

{{opage|245}}

… approximately five hundred [are expected]. What does this gradual increase in numbers tell us? Among those arrested on this occasion are many extremely serious-minded individuals. Ultimately, if ideas of this kind continue to spread, there must be something there with which they sympathize. Might there not be some defect in the organization of society itself? No matter how thoroughly the Peace Preservation Law<ref>The Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法), enacted in 1925, criminalized participation in organizations seeking either to alter the imperial polity (kokutai 国体) or abolish the system of private property, providing the principal legal basis for suppressing the Japanese Communist Party and other radical organizations. Following the March 15 Incident, the Tanaka Giichi government strengthened the law by emergency imperial ordinance in 1928, introducing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for certain offenses.</ref> is perfected, unless those defects are corrected, there can be no hope of rooting the problem out. I believe that correcting them is more important than blaming those who have been arrested. In any case, this represents a kind of crisis, and these social conditions demand the consideration of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time.

</blockquote>

So he is reported to have said. When we look at the people who joined the Party, the fact that many of them were sincere young people, possessed of considerable education and sound in both mind and body, surely deserves our attention. These were not the sort of pathological acts of desperation once casually mocked as the work of sickly misfits who cursed society, nor can they simply be dismissed as the pranks of youths infatuated with the West.

A pure soul is always moved by what possesses truth; the blood of the righteous always surges in defense of the weak.

Precisely for this reason, when we consider the fact that, despite such severe repression, the number of sympathizers continues to increase, there must indeed be, as the Prosecutor-General says, “something there.” Unless this “something” is investigated and reformed—or, if their understanding of this “something” is mistaken, unless they are provided with clear explanation and guidance—merely regarding them as dangerous and rebellious would be, again in the Prosecutor-General’s words, as foolish as “shooing flies away from one’s rice.” Would this not leave one open to the accusation that such an attitude is precisely what the Buddha condemned when he spoke of “evil monks accepting separate invitations, learned monks joining together with them in one mind, cultivating close relations with one another, holding religious feasts, and seeking merit”—that, beneath the empty slogan of “cultivating national thought,” officials and establishment religious figures are merely joining forces and devoting themselves to their own preservation? Even without citing the Prosecutor-General, there are more than enough defects demanding reform.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

There is no need to point out that Marxism identifies the cause of popular poverty in the capitalist economic system. It is equally well known that capitalism necessarily produces an ever-widening class divide between rich and poor; and that once this divide reaches a certain point, just as compressed steam…

{{opage|246}}

…explodes a boiler when it passes a certain limit, the present economic system will ultimately be shattered by revolution at the hands of the oppressed Fourth Estate.<ref>The term “Fourth Estate” (daiyon kaikyū 第四階級) was widely used in early twentieth-century Japanese socialist discourse to designate the proletariat or working class, following the European convention of identifying the bourgeoisie as the “Third Estate.” Seno’o’s image of compressed steam bursting a boiler presents revolution not primarily as ideological conspiracy or moral aberration, but as the predictable consequence of intolerable social conditions.</ref> Marxism claims to have demonstrated this both scientifically and historically.

If we turn back to our own Buddhism, however, we find that the Buddha likewise explicitly identifies the moment at which a nation faces destruction as the moment when its people suffer from disease, poverty, and hardship. The judgment of the Buddha, who saw deeply into human nature, appears to have been correct. Certainly, throughout history famine has gone hand in hand with straw-mat banners and bamboo spears.

What deserves serious consideration here is this: Marxism, which rejects religion from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history, and Buddhism, which stands upon a personalist conception of history—one that sublates both the materialist and idealist conceptions of history—are of course not simply compatible with one another.<ref>Seno’o’s “personalist conception of history” (jinkaku shikan 人格史観) marks an early attempt to formulate a distinctively Buddhist alternative to both Marxist historical materialism and idealism. He describes this position as one that “sublates” (shiyō 止揚) the materialist and idealist conceptions of history, employing the Japanese philosophical rendering of the Hegelian Aufhebung: an overcoming that simultaneously preserves elements of what it transcends. Seno’o accepts the Marxist insistence on the historical force of material suffering while refusing to reduce human and social transformation to material conditions alone. His jinkaku shikan thus signals an emerging effort to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with a structural analysis of social conditions without simply adopting Marxist materialism.</ref> Their understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty therefore differs. And yet, remarkably, they arrive at a common judgment: the point at which popular suffering reaches an impasse constitutes the pivotal motive force in the rise and fall of states and societies.

Accordingly, whether one approaches the matter from a moral standpoint or follows scientific analysis, concrete measures to relieve the suffering of the people must in either case be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.

What, then, is the cause of the people’s impoverishment?

As I have already said, according to the Marxists, it lies in the capitalist economic system. Under capitalism, they argue:

<blockquote>
Advances in the techniques of production do not benefit everyone; they increase the profits of the capitalist. For the laboring masses, on the contrary, they bring unemployment and ruin. Capitalists do not employ workers from some humanitarian desire to feed the hungry. They hire workers in order to extract profit from them. It is this desire for profit that drives them to build factories, employ workers, and ceaselessly sniff out those places where still higher rates of profit can be obtained—markets in which their commodities can be sold at higher prices. And while workers suffer the unfreedom of being unable to live unless they sell their labor-power, capitalists possess the freedom to dismiss them, the freedom to expose workers to starvation. A new system of slavery, reproduced within civilized society!<ref>This passage summarizes central themes of Marxist political economy, including production for profit, technological unemployment, and the unequal relation between wage labor and capital. Seno’o does not identify his source; its rhetorical language suggests that he may be drawing upon a contemporary Japanese popularization of Marxist economics rather than quoting Marx directly. He presents the passage as the Marxist explanation of popular impoverishment before turning to capitalism from the “moral standpoint of Buddhism.”</ref>

</blockquote>

Their diagnosis is, in this respect, remarkably penetrating.

What, then, if we examine, from the moral standpoint of Buddhism, the economic principles of Adam Smith upon which the capitalism so condemned by…

{{opage|247}}

…Marxism was founded?

<blockquote>
Human beings constantly require the assistance of others. Yet such assistance is not obtained through the benevolence of others. We can expect others to assist us only by appealing to their self-interest and showing them that what we desire is also to their own advantage. Our food and drink are provided not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, but because they regard their own interests. We appeal not to their charity, but solely to their self-interest. We need say nothing to them of our own necessities, for they will do what is required for the sake of their own advantage. —<ref>Seno’o here quotes or closely paraphrases Adam Smith’s famous discussion of self-interest in Book I, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (1776), including the example of the butcher, brewer, and baker. He treats Smith as a representative theorist of the economic principles underlying modern capitalism, contrasting economic self-interest and free competition with Buddhist ethics.</ref>

</blockquote>

Such an economic system, founded upon egoism and laissez-faire, is precisely the essence of contemporary capitalism. Yet it scarcely needs saying that such egoism and laissez-faire run directly counter to the fundamental spirit of Buddhism.

The Buddha says in the ''Lotus Sutra'', “The root of all suffering is greed,” and “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish.”<ref>Seno’o quotes two passages from Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra (Myōhō renge-kyō 妙法蓮華経; T'' ''9, no. 262): “The origin of all suffering is greed” (諸苦所因貪欲為本) appears in Chapter 3, “Simile and Parable” (Hiyu-hon 譬喩品), while “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish” (三悪道増長阿修羅亦充満) appears in Chapter 2, “Expedient Means” (Hōben-hon 方便品). Seno’o gives the traditional Buddhist critique of attachment to “I” (ga 我) and “mine” (gasho 我所) an explicitly socioeconomic interpretation: “I” becomes individualism, while “mine” becomes unrestricted private property. Capitalist egoism and competition thus become institutional expressions of the attachments Buddhism seeks to overcome. Seno’o contrasts these with “common ownership and repayment of indebtedness” (kyōyū hōon 共有報恩).</ref> What could these be if not warnings against the evils brought about by self-interest and unrestricted competition? “I” and “mine”—that is, individualism and unrestricted private property—are impediments to the practice of the Buddhist path. Common ownership and the reciprocal indebtedness, in thought and practice alike, constitute instead the fundamental spirit of our Buddhism. And when socialists say, “If production were carried out not for the profit of capitalists but for the happiness of all, an entirely different form of society would now appear,” surely precisely such a society must also be the ideal the Buddha held for social life.

On this point, the aforementioned ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' says: “Evil monks, because they seek fame and profit, do not follow my Dharma”; and again: “The True Dharma declines and grows weak, the people cease to act rightly, evils gradually increase, and their lives daily grow shorter.” Here the harmful consequences of egoism are exposed at their root. Look directly at the facts. Capitalist civilization has advanced with the strides of a giant. The production of wealth has increased to an astonishing degree. And yet the promised “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has proved a dream.<ref>“The greatest happiness of the greatest number” (saidai tasū no saidai kōfuku 最大多数の最大幸福) invokes the utilitarian principle associated especially with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Seno’o uses the maxim as a standard against which to judge capitalist modernity: despite enormous increases in productive capacity and wealth, he argues, general welfare has remained unrealized and the majority have grown relatively poorer.</ref> The monopoly of the means of production, combined with the monopoly of financial institutions and further reinforced by the unchecked freedom of syndicates, trusts, and the like, has enabled a small number of capitalists to grow ever more extravagantly wealthy. The great majority of the people, by contrast, despite engaging in the blood-soaked labor of production, receive as little as ever…

{{opage|248}}

…and become relatively poorer and increasingly miserable, until, pitifully, entire families are condemned to groan forever beneath the iron chains of wage labor.

Is this single point not precisely where the concern of communists and socialists lies? Extremism should be rejected. But why should this cry for reform itself be unjust? Consider it. Depending upon market prices, cotton that has already been produced may simply be burned, even while our fellow human beings shiver from the cold. Mountains of sugar remain stored in capitalist warehouses, even while fellow human beings go hungry without so much as a lump of brown sugar. And look further: while the capitalist and landlord classes are said to enjoy enormous profits amounting to some 3.55 billion yen annually, how precariously the laborers, tenant farmers, and masses of society struggle merely to live! Who, possessing even a single tear of compassion and looking squarely at the reality of our fellow human beings—who, though they labor until their sweat is mingled with blood, still find themselves pressed for tomorrow’s bread—could fail, at least in this respect, to rise up and demand that the iron chains of capitalism, the wage system, first be broken, and that the masses be granted immediate freedom and well-being?

Of course, human beings do not live by bread alone. Nor do we disregard that faith by which, amid hunger and cold, Nichiren could declare, “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all.” We do not forget that the liberation of human beings, who seek the infinite while dwelling within the finite, can never ultimately be fulfilled by bread alone. And yet, when we confront the reality that human beings cannot live without bread either, what could embody the divine spirit that “man does not live by bread alone” more concretely than first guaranteeing bread for our less fortunate fellow human beings, ensuring its equitable distribution, and enabling them to share in abundant material resources? What could be more expressive of the highest human morality of compassionate concern for others? Nichiren said:

<blockquote>
White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.

</blockquote>

Bread is indeed life. It is precisely within the problem of bread that the Buddha’s compassion must be realized. All the more so in an age such as ours, an age of acute hardship. Nichiren also said:

<blockquote>
Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation.<ref>This passage combines the biblical dictum “Man does not live by bread alone” with three passages from the writings of Nichiren (1222–1282). “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all” comes from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄 (The Opening of the Eyes, 1272; Goshō, p. 223), where spiritual possession of the Lotus Sutra is contrasted with worldly wealth. “White rice is not merely white rice; it is life itself” derives from the Hakumai ippyō gosho 白米一俵御書 (On a Bushel of White Rice, 1280; Goshō, p. 1597), a letter thanking a follower for a gift of food. Finally, “Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation” cites the Senji-shō 撰時抄 (On the Selection of the Time, 1275; Goshō, p. 258), in which Nichiren stresses discerning the historical moment and acting accordingly. Seno’o brings these passages together to distinguish his position from reductive materialism without allowing spiritual aspiration to become an excuse for indifference to material suffering. Nichiren’s identification of rice with life thus becomes a scriptural basis for bringing Buddhist compassion into material and economic life.</ref>

</blockquote>

The Dharma is ''myō''—wondrous, responsive, something to be put into living application. Only when an impartial and universal compassion is brought to bear as a light upon the solution of the central problems of actual life can religion and morality remain enduring values for humanity. Otherwise, in the end, they are no different from…

{{opage|249}}

…opiates that numb our sense of reality.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

That “something” is now all too clear. The people are impoverished, and their '''groans''' of anguish can already be heard beneath the carriages. It is precisely these '''groans''' that become the terrifying force latent within human nature, erupting with the declaration that “necessity knows no law.”<ref>The phrase “necessity knows no law” (hitsuyō wa hōritsu o shirazu 必要は法律を知らず) echoes the Western maxim necessitas non habet legem, according to which extreme necessity may override ordinary legal constraint. Seno’o connects the maxim to the “groans” (umeki うめき) of an impoverished population: when basic needs become sufficiently urgent, popular suffering may burst through the restraints imposed by law.</ref>

Look at the geometrical, explosive progression: sixteen, twenty-eight, five hundred. And listen to the voices of the children of this young age—the many who take an interest and feel sympathy—resounding deep within the earth. Truly, this is a problem demanding the attention of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time. We hardly needed Prosecutor-General Koyama to tell us so.

The masses are not necessarily a foolish multitude. They experience things before they understand them intellectually. That is why their knowledge is grounded in actuality. Their intuition is comparatively accurate. Thus the pioneers of an age have always found the people on their side, just as the people in turn support those pioneers. It is a mistake to imagine that the masses merely follow others blindly. In the very ordinariness of their everyday lives, how often they grasp the subtleties of human feeling, intuit the rights and wrongs of things, and act accordingly! How much of the pure-heartedness that loves the homeland and courageously defends justice still remains preserved in their very bodies! The people do not readily jump aboard the bandwagon of propaganda and cavort through an empty world of abstractions. They act through contact with the realities of life. Consequently, if the state were governed impartially in the spirit of the Humane King, and the lives of ordinary households were truly secure, why would people willingly throw themselves into movements in which their lives were at stake? They love their wives; their children are dear to them.

Thus, if there actually existed a concrete politics based upon our Imperial Way—“The wealth of the people is Our wealth”—then however widely Marxism might be propagated and however vigorously the Communist Party might act, the state of the Humane King would remain eternally unmoved.<ref>The dictum “The wealth of the people is Our wealth” (tami no tomeru wa chin no tomeru nari 民の富めるは朕の富めるなり) derives from the traditional account of Emperor Nintoku recorded in the Nihon shoki (720). According to the legend, Nintoku, observing that no smoke rose from his subjects’ cooking fires, suspended taxation for three years; when prosperity returned, he declared their prosperity to be his own. Seno’o turns this ideal of benevolent imperial rule into a standard for criticizing contemporary government: if the “Imperial Way” (kōdō 皇道) genuinely identifies the sovereign’s welfare with that of the people, government must secure the material well-being of ordinary households. His increasingly radical critique of capitalism thus remains, at this stage, articulated within an idealized conception of imperial sovereignty.</ref> For such a Humane King embodies the spirit common to the people themselves. He is the source of their well-being. Moreover, the principle of such humane kingship can embrace and assimilate all things, continually making them into a clear mirror for the improvement of government. Arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts: know that when this occurs, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

<blockquote>
O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

Looking back upon the fault described here, I recall hearing that, at the time of the Kōtoku Shūsui Incident in Meiji 43 [1910], our great Meiji Emperor repented before the deities of heaven and earth with these words:

{{opage|250}}

<blockquote>
If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body.<ref>The “Kōtoku Shūsui Incident” refers to the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku Jiken 大逆事件) of 1910–11, in which twenty-six socialists and anarchists were convicted of plotting against the Meiji Emperor; Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水, 1871–1911) and eleven others were executed. Seno’o associates the incident with a gyosei (御製, imperial poem) by the Meiji Emperor: “Tsumi araba ware o togameyo Amatsu-kami / tami wa waga mi no umishi ko nareba” (“If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body”). The poem was actually composed in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, but was later popularly associated with the High Treason Incident as an expression of imperial self-reproach. Seno’o turns this idealized memory against the government of 1928: rather than simply condemning political dissent, responsible rulers should examine the conditions that produced it.</ref>

</blockquote>

I was so deeply moved and awestruck that I scarcely knew how to respond. Indeed, considered with reverence, it is precisely such self-reflection that makes our sovereign a sovereign in the truest sense; that bears witness to a relationship which, though in principle one of ruler and subject, is in feeling that of parent and child; and that consequently demonstrates the possibility of reforming defective institutions and social structures. It is therefore also the one true safety valve against revolution. And it is here, I believe, that we can recognize the genuine value of our national polity as an unbroken imperial line through all ages, an unblemished golden vessel.

And yet, how are the Ministers of State, who ought to embody this spirit and bear the grave responsibility of assisting the Emperor, actually wielding the reins of government today? It was precisely this question, raised by the Communist Party Incident, that prompted me to read the ''Sutra for Humane Kings.''

Can it truly be said that they do not rely upon their own power and authority, that they do not suppress the fourfold assembly, but instead follow reason, uphold justice, and properly attend to the welfare of the nation and its people?

Surely a cry of “No!”, bursting forth from righteous indignation, comes crashing toward us with a force exceeding even the raging waves of the ocean. The memories of universal manhood suffrage and of the Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet remain fresh in the minds of the people—indeed, they should remain permanent sources of righteous indignation.<ref>Seno’o alludes to Japan’s first general election under universal manhood suffrage, held in February 1928, and the subsequent Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet. The election greatly expanded the electorate and brought representatives of the newly organized proletarian parties into the Diet, but was also marked by police interference, restrictions on left-wing campaigning, and allegations of electoral abuses under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi. Significantly, Seno’o describes the outraged public as the “fourfold assembly” (shishū 四衆), the traditional Buddhist term for the complete community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, thereby recasting popular political indignation as a form of Buddhist moral judgment.</ref>

Interference, intervention, repression, detention, the rampant activity of violent gangs and official acquiescence in it, mysterious-document scandals, adjournment followed by further adjournment, the buying of Diet members, and so forth: was it not they who abused virtually every form of power available to them, leaving behind an unparalleled spectacle of ugliness in the history of our constitutional government? And when we are told that all this was done merely to keep their party cabinet in power, does that not exceed all bounds? Can such criticism really be called unjust?

Where reason cannot make itself heard and speech is sealed off, we must expect direct action inevitably to be provoked. Fraud is fraud, even if it involves only a single sen; a bribe is a bribe, even if it amounts to only one yen. Yet in a world where the petty thefts of the lower classes are punished mercilessly and severely, we hear rumors of men who use tens of thousands of yen to purchase the consciences of Diet members and, more broadly, to deceive and outrage the voters of the entire nation. And these very same men proclaim, on the other hand, that they will “sacrifice themselves for the nation in its hour of crisis” and issue solemn-sounding directives about “cultivating national thought and contributing to the promotion of the national spirit.”

What part of your own conduct, I ask, gives you the authority to substantiate such pronouncements?

Is not the absurdity of this rather…

{{opage|251}}

…like that of a libertine who continues frequenting prostitutes while solemnly insisting that he is doing everything in his power, with the utmost sincerity, to cure the venereal disease he has contracted?

The Emperor must be the embodiment of the Imperial Way—of perfect impartiality and complete sincerity, of justice itself. He must be an emperor who guarantees the genuine welfare of all the people. He cannot be someone whose existence is exploited for the advancement or decline of the partisan interests and power of a single party or faction.

And yet the conduct of the Ministers of State charged with the grave responsibility of assisting him has now become so lawless and so utterly lacking in self-reflection. Is this not precisely what the sutra means by such things as certain legislative bills—“arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts,” “creating the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and themselves suffering the consequences”? Long ago, confronted by the abuses of his own age, Nichiren declared to the regent Hōjō Tokiyori:

<blockquote>
The entire world has turned its back upon what is right, and all people have returned to evil. Therefore benevolent deities abandon the nation and depart, while sages leave their places and do not return. Demons and devils enter in their stead; disasters arise and calamities occur. We cannot remain silent; we cannot but be afraid.

</blockquote>

And he thundered:

<blockquote>
You must quickly reform the small measure of faith in your heart and return at once to the single good teaching of the True Vehicle. Then the threefold world will all become the Buddha-land—how could a Buddha-land ever decline? The lands of the ten directions will all become treasure lands—how could a treasure land ever be destroyed? If the nation does not decline and the land is not destroyed, then the body will be secure and the mind serene.<ref>Both passages cite Nichiren’s most famous political treatise, the Risshō ankoku ron 立正安国論 (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, 1260; Goshō, pp. 17, 31), submitted to the former regent Hōjō Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227–1263) amid famine, epidemics, and other calamities. Seno’o constructs a deliberate parallel between Nichiren’s thirteenth-century remonstration and his own critique of the government in 1928. Nichiren’s promise that the land might become a “treasure realm” (hōdo 宝土) thereby acquires a contemporary social meaning: “peace in the land” (ankoku 安国) requires transformation of the conditions responsible for popular suffering.</ref>

</blockquote>

And yet today there is not a single religious figure who will rise and speak in this way against the abuses of the age. On the contrary, they willingly submit to being ordered about by those in power; obediently pursue fame and profit, transient as floating clouds; and together devote themselves to opium-like sermons, concerned with little more than devising ways of pacifying the people. What a disgraceful spectacle! Is this not precisely what is meant by the saying that those entrusted with protecting the Three Treasures destroy them themselves, “like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh”?

When we consider that those who ought to serve as teachers of the nation have already sunk to such a state, where, then, should young people who understand the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to the age and aspire to devote themselves to their homeland in its hour of danger seek their path?

Yet when we look more deeply at the ignorance and evils of such an age, we must ask: who among us is truly qualified to pass authoritative judgment upon them and subject them to an uncompromising ''shakubuku''?<ref>Shakubuku 折伏 (literally “to break and subdue”) is a traditional Buddhist method of confronting and refuting erroneous views, commonly contrasted with shōju 摂受 (“to embrace and accept”), a more accommodating approach to propagation. In Nichiren Buddhism, shakubuku acquired particular importance as a forceful means of defending the correct Dharma and remonstrating with religious and political authority. Seno’o redirects the practice inward as well as outward: before subjecting others to shakubuku, young Buddhists must confront their own egoism and complicity in the social order they condemn. Shakubuku thus becomes simultaneously a practice of self-criticism and social criticism.</ref> Can we not discover within ourselves, too, some measure of the capitalist and establishment-party roots and manifestations of these same evils? Would not nearly everyone, once placed in a position of power, suddenly—or perhaps gradually—end by revealing the ugly base metal beneath the surface and changing sides? Has the righteousness professed while out of power really remained…

{{opage|252}}

…the same once one entered government? Or were we merely like an apparently honest cat that keeps its claws and fangs hidden only so long as the meat remains caught on a hook beyond its reach? Before we judge and subject others to ''shakubuku'', we must first judge and attack ourselves.

In the final analysis, the ugliness of society is not the fault of present-day capitalists and statesmen alone. It is nothing other than the interconnected and collective product of the materialistic and egoistic tendencies and ways of life of us all. Where could there possibly be a judge who stands absolutely outside it? Social life entails collective responsibility.

The admonition, “O Great King, the causes and conditions for the destruction of the nation are all of your own making,” is, in the final analysis, an admonition directed to each and every one of us as well.

Accordingly, the first step in transforming this ugly state of affairs must necessarily be directed toward our own inner lives. Before attacking other people, society, or the authorities, we must first subject to shakubuku our own materialistic and egoistic lives, which have strayed from and forgotten the spirit of the Buddha.

But although our reflection must begin in this way, genuine awakening cannot be permitted to stop at the level of the individual and the inward. True repentance and true transformation must, on the basis of this reflection and way of life, unfold once again toward the organic whole of social phenomena. Only by seeking the realization of both organic self-reflection and social transformation can we finally penetrate to the true self. Is it not precisely here that we discover the concrete and essential life of true repentance and self-transformation grounded in collective responsibility? For society is our own society. To struggle against defects in society is itself to extinguish our own karmic offenses. Criticism and shakubuku directed toward the governing authorities must therefore never amount merely to antagonistic hatred or to demagogic agitation designed to court popularity. Rather, I believe they can and must be affirmed and advocated as the necessary consequence of a yearning for truth and a concern for society.

Of course, to those who have not thought the matter through this far, such criticism and attack will clearly appear to be an attack upon and rebellion against themselves. Reaction, hatred, exclusion, and repression will inevitably follow. But for the genuine seeker of the Way, what can such counterattacks be if not the actual proof of one’s own repentance? The more deeply and broadly one reflects upon and recognizes one’s own karmic offenses and one’s previously unawakened way of life, the more such criticism and persecution can be understood as the natural karmic recompense for those offenses. Repentance thereby receives ever greater confirmation, and it is precisely here that a life of seeking the Way at the risk of one’s life begins to shine. Criticism and repression will arise in proportion to one’s unwavering effort and perseverance. Yet for the genuine seeker of the Way, they become ever more…

{{opage|253}}

…occasions for reflection, not causes for fear; a path of Dharma-joy, not a path of suffering.

They are trials. Stone turns to ash; gold remains true gold. Those who fall away will fall away; those who advance can only continue advancing. Listen to the cry of our Nichiren Shōnin:

<blockquote>
When Nichiren turned the bright mirror of the ''Lotus Sutra'' upon himself, he found it entirely free of cloudiness. There can be no doubt that the offense of slandering the Dharma exists within my own person from the past. If I do not extinguish this offense in this present life, how shall I escape the sufferings of hell in the future? I considered how I might gather together the grave offenses accumulated over countless ages, extinguish them all within this single lifetime, and thereby escape great suffering in the future. In this present age, people who slander the Dharma fill every province of the country. Moreover, the ruler of the nation himself has already become the foremost among those who slander it. If I do not extinguish these grave offenses at such a time, when should I ever expect to do so? If Nichiren, insignificant though his person may be, were to cover the nation of Japan with his voice and denounce them, the countless members of the fourfold assembly who follow false teachings would all revile him at once with countless mouths. At that time, the ruler of the nation, taking the side of the monks who slander the Dharma, would likewise revile Nichiren. He might have his head cut off, or subject him to exile or execution. If such things were to happen time and again, the grave offenses accumulated over innumerable ''kalpas'' could be extinguished within this single lifetime. I devised this great strategy, and things have unfolded without the slightest deviation from it. Having come to such a state, surely my aspiration will be fulfilled. — “On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma” (''Hōbō metsuzai-shō'')

</blockquote>

And listen again:

<blockquote>
Now, because Nichiren vigorously attacks the slander of the Dharma throughout the nation, these great persecutions have arisen. Surely the grave offenses of the past have been summoned forth in this lifetime through my defense of the Dharma. Iron remains black so long as it does not encounter fire; when joined with fire, it becomes red. When a swift current is struck with a piece of wood, waves rise like mountains; when one lays a hand upon a sleeping lion, it roars mightily.<ref>Seno’o draws these passages from two writings composed during Nichiren’s exile on Sado Island (1271–1274). The first, the Hōbō metsuzai-shō 謗法滅罪抄 (On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma, 1273; Goshō, pp. 1121–22), interprets Nichiren’s persecution and exile as an opportunity to expiate past karmic offenses and fulfill his religious mission. The second, the Sado gosho 佐渡御書 (Letter from Sado, 1272; Goshō, p. 958), uses the images of iron exposed to fire, swift water struck by a log, and a sleeping lion awakened by touch to suggest that fierce opposition is the natural response elicited by forceful propagation of the Dharma. Seno’o transforms the Sado exile into a model of perseverance for young Buddhists confronting political opposition in 1928.</ref>

</blockquote>

Religion is not opium. What permitted the followers of Lenin to indulge so freely in their mockery of religion as opium? Was it not that religion stopped at merely conceptual, inward repentance and reflection, failing to advocate and carry out a critique extending into the very contents and forms of actual social life—and a movement for their transformation?

Religion is not opium. The religion of the holy Nichiren is emphatically not opium-like.

Religion, for us, is life. Society forms the content of the self. The self is society. Politics, economics, education, military affairs, the arts, and everything else—all of these are also our religion. They are the contents of social life that must be criticized and transformed in accordance with the spirit of the Buddha.<ref>The characterization of religion as the “opium of the people” is most famously associated with Karl Marx, who used the expression in his 1844 introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vladimir Lenin subsequently made the critique of religion an important element of Marxist political thought, notably in “Socialism and Religion” (1905). By referring to the “followers of Lenin,” Seno’o confronts the Marxist charge that religion reconciles the oppressed to existing social conditions. Rather than rejecting the accusation, he concedes that religion becomes “opium” when repentance remains merely inward (shintaiteki zange 心態的懺悔) and leaves political, economic, and social structures untouched. Because “society forms the content of the self,” genuine religious transformation must extend to social institutions. Seno’o thus turns the Marxist critique of religion into a Buddhist critique of religion that fails to transform social life.</ref> For precisely this reason, to aspire to and enter into the work of social transformation is genuine self-knowledge and genuine repentance; at the same time, it is a life of gratitude and the repayment of indebtedness. Ultimately, it is the conclusion and completion of the life of faith.

Indeed, is it not only when we see matters in this way that we can recognize the essential difference between a movement for transformation arising from religion and the movements for social transformation of so-called socialism and communism,…

{{opage|254}}

…which take the materialist conception of history as their point of departure?

Thus truth breathes within reality, and religion becomes one with life. “Above all, having been born in this land, how could I fail to concern myself with my country?” “White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.” Social institutions are not merely social institutions: they are religion.

The principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality (''ji no ichinen sanzen'') taught by the holy Nichiren can take the place of Tiantai’s three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle (''ri no ichinen sanzen'').<ref>The doctrine of “Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment” (ichinen sanzen 一念三千), systematized by the Chinese Tiantai master Zhiyi (智顗, 538–597), holds that each moment of mind encompasses the totality of possible states of existence. Seno’o invokes the Nichirenist distinction between “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle” (ri no ichinen sanzen 理の一念三千), associated with Tiantai contemplative teaching, and “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality” (ji no ichinen sanzen 事の一念三千), associated with Nichiren’s teaching and practice in the age of the Final Dharma. Seno’o gives this doctrinal distinction a distinctly social interpretation: Buddhist truth must become actual in political, economic, and social life. Ji no ichinen sanzen thus becomes a warrant for Buddhist praxis—the concrete transformation of both self and society.</ref> That is to say, it is the actualization of the Buddhist spirit.

In truth, theories can be constructed however one likes; arguments can be made in any number of ways. Ah, but you living young people, possessed of a profound concern for human life, for society, for your fellow human beings, and for the present and future of your homeland—

where, then, will you choose to direct your path?

(Shōwa 3 [1928], ''Wakōdo'' [''Youth''], vol. 9, no. 6)

== Notes ==

<references />

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-28T19:49:10Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''}}
{{Under Construction}}

__NOTOCNUMBER__

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」『若人』第9巻第6号、1928年（昭和3年）6月.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu” 共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む; “Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''.” ''Wakōdo'' 若人 9, no. 6 (June 1928).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、242–254頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 242–254. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==
{{opage|242}}

'''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'''''

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', Chapter Eight, “Entrustment”<ref>The Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation (Ninnō gokoku hannya haramitsu-kyō 仁王護国般若波羅蜜経; T 8, nos. 245–246) is one of East Asian Buddhism’s principal “state-protecting sutras,” traditionally grouped among the “three sutras for protecting the nation” (gokoku sanbu-kyō 護国三部経). An apocryphal scripture composed in China, it became the basis in Japan for state-sponsored rites known as Ninnō-e 仁王会, performed to protect the realm from calamity and disorder. In Chapter 8, “Entrustment” (Shokuru-hon 囑累品), the Buddha warns that rulers, ministers, and religious leaders who violate the Dharma themselves create the conditions for the destruction of Buddhism and the state. Seno’o turns this traditional state-protecting scripture against the state itself, locating responsibility for national disorder in political authority and the social conditions it sustains.</ref> ===

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

Relying upon your own power and authority, you suppress the fourfold assembly and do not permit them to cultivate merit. Evil monks arise who accept the practice of separate invitations; together with learned monks, they become of one mind, cultivate close relations with one another, hold religious feasts, and seek merit. This is the way of non-Buddhists and has nothing whatsoever to do with my teaching.

The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

O Great King, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, kings, ministers, and the disciples of the fourfold assembly will each commit unlawful acts, arbitrarily interfering with Buddhism and committing numerous offenses. These accord neither with the Dharma nor with the Vinaya.

O Great King, after my extinction, the disciples of the fourfold assembly, all kings, princes, and officials—those charged with protecting and preserving the Three Treasures—will themselves destroy them. It will be like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh: the destruction will not come from outsiders.

Those who destroy my Dharma will incur grave offenses. The True Dharma will decline, and the people will cease to act rightly. Evils will gradually multiply and their lives will daily grow shorter. There will no longer be filial children; the six relations will fall into discord; devas and dragons will offer no protection; evil spirits and evil dragons will come daily to inflict harm; calamities and strange portents will follow one upon another, bringing disasters in every direction. They will fall into hell or be reborn as animals or hungry ghosts. Even should they attain human birth, they will be poor and lowly and their faculties incomplete. Just as a shadow follows a form, as an echo responds to a voice, or as writing remains visible after the lamp by which someone writes at night has gone out, so too are the karmic consequences of destroying the Dharma. Evil monks, seeking fame and profit, preach before the king things that are not my Dharma, speaking themselves of transgressions and thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of the Dharma. The king, unable to distinguish what is true, believes and favors their words and arbitrarily establishes laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts. Know that when this happens, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

{{opage|243}}

Confronted with the Communist Party Incident,<ref>The “Communist Party Incident” refers to the March 15 Incident of 1928 (San-ichigo Jiken 三・一五事件), a nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,600 suspected members and supporters of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, including labor organizers and student activists, were arrested under the Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法). Seno’o redirects attention from communist “conspiracy” to the social and economic conditions that made radicalism increasingly compelling.</ref> people immediately became indignant: “This is treason aimed at destroying our flawless national polity!<ref>The phrase “flawless national polity” translates kin’ō muketsu (金甌無缺 / 金甌無欠), literally “an unblemished golden vessel.” In modern Japan, the metaphor signified the integrity and inviolability of the imperial state (kokutai 国体), particularly its supposedly unbroken imperial lineage. Seno’o initially invokes the expression ironically, challenging those who denounced communism as a threat to an inherently perfect polity. Later, however, he reappropriates the metaphor: the kokutai can remain genuinely “flawless,” he argues, only insofar as imperial rule retains the capacity for self-criticism and institutional reform.</ref> It is a seditious conspiracy!” Yet they went no further than denunciation and repression. They did not reflect upon why such a tremendous calamity had arisen in a supposedly flawless nation. They gave no serious thought to the essential nature of this supposedly “flawless” polity, nor to the actual conditions of the people’s lives, which had strayed so very far from it. And consequently they failed to recognize the underlying disease that required radical treatment. For such foolish citizens, this golden admonition of the Buddha may perhaps be nothing more than “a ''nenbutsu'' in a horse’s ear.”<ref>The phrase “a nenbutsu in a horse’s ear” translates the Japanese proverb uma no mimi ni nenbutsu 馬の耳に念仏, meaning to offer wisdom or admonition to an unreceptive audience—roughly equivalent to “casting pearls before swine.” The nenbutsu refers here to the invocation of the Buddha’s name, conventionally Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏.</ref> Even so, I am convinced that this warning from our Sutra for Humane Kings is indeed a needle thrust into the crown of the modern state. I have therefore ventured to set it down here explicitly, in the hope that it might provide thoughtful readers with occasion for repeated and profound reflection.

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'', “Entrustment” ===

<blockquote>
‘Humane King’ means that, because he bestows benevolence and spreads virtue, he is called ‘humane’; and because he acts with purity and freedom, he is called ‘king.’ ‘Protecting the nation’ means that, by following the Dharma of the Humane King and adhering to the Way, he protects the realm, so that the people live in happiness and the nation is secure.

</blockquote>

So it is explained. “Entrustment” means that one is commanded, in accordance with this principle, both to govern oneself and to propagate the teaching so that other kings may govern in the same way.

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

</blockquote>

The Buddha’s judgment is concise and precisely to the point. In a single sentence he pronounces that all responsibility for the causes of a nation’s destruction lies with you. One might truly say that this one sentence settles the entire matter.

When we think about it, this is surely how things must be. Whatever the country, responsibility for the problems of a nation naturally comes to rest with the sovereign who governs and rules it. Only then can one truly possess, in both name and reality, the qualifications of a king. Indeed, world history clearly tells us that this is where cries of “Long live the king!” converge—and this is also where the flames of revolution are directed. The causes of a nation’s destruction, therefore, should not be sought among the people. Still less should they be sought abroad. When the Buddha admonishes the king that “they are all of your own making,” we must acknowledge that his judgment strikes squarely at the truth.

If this judgment is indeed correct, then the causes of our nation’s destruction are emphatically not to be found in a small group of Communist Party members, nor in the Russian Third International that is said to direct them, nor yet in Marxism itself. Rather, they must be sought…

{{opage|244}}

…in the defective conditions of the nation itself—conditions that make such incursions possible and allow such movements to arise. It is therefore by no means unreasonable to seek responsibility as well in those sovereign authorities who rule the nation and possess the power freely to reform those conditions.

Yet according to our Constitution, Article<ref>Seno’o makes a pointed constitutional maneuver by pairing the warnings of the Sutra for Humane Kings with the Meiji Constitution (1889). Because the sutra places responsibility for national destruction upon the ruler, its application to modern Japan raised the sensitive question of imperial responsibility. Seno’o invokes Article 3—“The Emperor is sacred and inviolable”—alongside Article 55, which stipulated that Ministers of State advise the Emperor and bear responsibility for that advice. He thus redirects the sutra’s admonition from the inviolable imperial person to the Ministers of State, turning a traditional scripture of state protection into a critique of contemporary government while formally preserving imperial inviolability.</ref> Three states that “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable,” while Article Fifty-Five declares that “The Ministers of State shall advise the Emperor and be responsible for their advice.” It goes without saying, therefore, that in our country those who must bear the responsibility indicated by the Buddha’s admonition are the Ministers of State.

Consider someone plagued by mosquitoes. Everyone understands that the fundamental solution—and the wisest way to settle the problem most quickly—is to dredge the muddy ditches where they breed or to construct a proper sewer system. However long one shouts that the mosquitoes are at fault for laying their eggs, or however often one smokes them out with mosquito coils, mosquitoes will continue to appear in swarms so long as the ditches and sewers are not improved. In places in Osaka and Tokyo where proper sewer systems have been constructed, however, the sound and sight of mosquitoes have simply disappeared, without anyone having to say a word, and residents can sleep peacefully. Even should mosquitoes happen to arrive from elsewhere, it is of course impossible for them to survive for long. Proper sewer construction is thus a more fundamental necessity than dealing with the mosquitoes that lay the eggs; it is the underlying problem that must be properly addressed.

But to say that completing the sewer system is the fundamental issue does not mean that sewers are more important than human beings. A sewer system is simply a facility that can be transformed by human will. A person who understands how things work, when troubled by mosquitoes, will therefore promptly design and complete the necessary sewer system. In precisely the same way, if the institutions and structures of society contain defects that give rise to problems, then a person who understands the logic of things will first set about correcting those defects.

What, then, are these defects that must be reformed? And do they in fact exist?

For anyone with even a little social concern, this question ought by now to be a matter of common sense. Indeed, there is something almost trite about spelling it out in such a roundabout fashion. But, just to make the point, let me quote here the remarks reportedly made by Prosecutor-General Koyama concerning the recent Communist Party Incident:

<blockquote>
With Takatsu Seidō, Sakai Toshihiko, and now the present case, this is the third Communist Party Incident.<ref>Seno’o cites Koyama Matsukichi 小山松吉 (1869–1948), then Prosecutor-General (kenji sōchō 検事総長), who characterized the March 15 Incident as the “third Communist Party incident.” Koyama refers to earlier cases involving Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974) and Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), before conceding that the continued attraction of communism might indicate “some defect in the organization of society itself,” and that even a perfected Peace Preservation Law could not eradicate the movement unless those defects were corrected. Seno’o seizes upon this admission from the state’s own chief prosecutor as evidence that repression cannot eliminate radicalism without addressing its social causes.</ref> The first involved sixteen people, the next twenty-eight, and this time…

{{opage|245}}

… approximately five hundred [are expected]. What does this gradual increase in numbers tell us? Among those arrested on this occasion are many extremely serious-minded individuals. Ultimately, if ideas of this kind continue to spread, there must be something there with which they sympathize. Might there not be some defect in the organization of society itself? No matter how thoroughly the Peace Preservation Law<ref>The Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法), enacted in 1925, criminalized participation in organizations seeking either to alter the imperial polity (kokutai 国体) or abolish the system of private property, providing the principal legal basis for suppressing the Japanese Communist Party and other radical organizations. Following the March 15 Incident, the Tanaka Giichi government strengthened the law by emergency imperial ordinance in 1928, introducing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for certain offenses.</ref> is perfected, unless those defects are corrected, there can be no hope of rooting the problem out. I believe that correcting them is more important than blaming those who have been arrested. In any case, this represents a kind of crisis, and these social conditions demand the consideration of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time.

</blockquote>

So he is reported to have said. When we look at the people who joined the Party, the fact that many of them were sincere young people, possessed of considerable education and sound in both mind and body, surely deserves our attention. These were not the sort of pathological acts of desperation once casually mocked as the work of sickly misfits who cursed society, nor can they simply be dismissed as the pranks of youths infatuated with the West.

A pure soul is always moved by what possesses truth; the blood of the righteous always surges in defense of the weak.

Precisely for this reason, when we consider the fact that, despite such severe repression, the number of sympathizers continues to increase, there must indeed be, as the Prosecutor-General says, “something there.” Unless this “something” is investigated and reformed—or, if their understanding of this “something” is mistaken, unless they are provided with clear explanation and guidance—merely regarding them as dangerous and rebellious would be, again in the Prosecutor-General’s words, as foolish as “shooing flies away from one’s rice.” Would this not leave one open to the accusation that such an attitude is precisely what the Buddha condemned when he spoke of “evil monks accepting separate invitations, learned monks joining together with them in one mind, cultivating close relations with one another, holding religious feasts, and seeking merit”—that, beneath the empty slogan of “cultivating national thought,” officials and establishment religious figures are merely joining forces and devoting themselves to their own preservation? Even without citing the Prosecutor-General, there are more than enough defects demanding reform.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

There is no need to point out that Marxism identifies the cause of popular poverty in the capitalist economic system. It is equally well known that capitalism necessarily produces an ever-widening class divide between rich and poor; and that once this divide reaches a certain point, just as compressed steam…

{{opage|246}}

…explodes a boiler when it passes a certain limit, the present economic system will ultimately be shattered by revolution at the hands of the oppressed Fourth Estate.<ref>The term “Fourth Estate” (daiyon kaikyū 第四階級) was widely used in early twentieth-century Japanese socialist discourse to designate the proletariat or working class, following the European convention of identifying the bourgeoisie as the “Third Estate.” Seno’o’s image of compressed steam bursting a boiler presents revolution not primarily as ideological conspiracy or moral aberration, but as the predictable consequence of intolerable social conditions.</ref> Marxism claims to have demonstrated this both scientifically and historically.

If we turn back to our own Buddhism, however, we find that the Buddha likewise explicitly identifies the moment at which a nation faces destruction as the moment when its people suffer from disease, poverty, and hardship. The judgment of the Buddha, who saw deeply into human nature, appears to have been correct. Certainly, throughout history famine has gone hand in hand with straw-mat banners and bamboo spears.

What deserves serious consideration here is this: Marxism, which rejects religion from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history, and Buddhism, which stands upon a personalist conception of history—one that sublates both the materialist and idealist conceptions of history—are of course not simply compatible with one another.<ref>Seno’o’s “personalist conception of history” (jinkaku shikan 人格史観) marks an early attempt to formulate a distinctively Buddhist alternative to both Marxist historical materialism and idealism. He describes this position as one that “sublates” (shiyō 止揚) the materialist and idealist conceptions of history, employing the Japanese philosophical rendering of the Hegelian Aufhebung: an overcoming that simultaneously preserves elements of what it transcends. Seno’o accepts the Marxist insistence on the historical force of material suffering while refusing to reduce human and social transformation to material conditions alone. His jinkaku shikan thus signals an emerging effort to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with a structural analysis of social conditions without simply adopting Marxist materialism.</ref> Their understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty therefore differs. And yet, remarkably, they arrive at a common judgment: the point at which popular suffering reaches an impasse constitutes the pivotal motive force in the rise and fall of states and societies.

Accordingly, whether one approaches the matter from a moral standpoint or follows scientific analysis, concrete measures to relieve the suffering of the people must in either case be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.

What, then, is the cause of the people’s impoverishment?

As I have already said, according to the Marxists, it lies in the capitalist economic system. Under capitalism, they argue:

<blockquote>
Advances in the techniques of production do not benefit everyone; they increase the profits of the capitalist. For the laboring masses, on the contrary, they bring unemployment and ruin. Capitalists do not employ workers from some humanitarian desire to feed the hungry. They hire workers in order to extract profit from them. It is this desire for profit that drives them to build factories, employ workers, and ceaselessly sniff out those places where still higher rates of profit can be obtained—markets in which their commodities can be sold at higher prices. And while workers suffer the unfreedom of being unable to live unless they sell their labor-power, capitalists possess the freedom to dismiss them, the freedom to expose workers to starvation. A new system of slavery, reproduced within civilized society!<ref>This passage summarizes central themes of Marxist political economy, including production for profit, technological unemployment, and the unequal relation between wage labor and capital. Seno’o does not identify his source; its rhetorical language suggests that he may be drawing upon a contemporary Japanese popularization of Marxist economics rather than quoting Marx directly. He presents the passage as the Marxist explanation of popular impoverishment before turning to capitalism from the “moral standpoint of Buddhism.”</ref>

</blockquote>

Their diagnosis is, in this respect, remarkably penetrating.

What, then, if we examine, from the moral standpoint of Buddhism, the economic principles of Adam Smith upon which the capitalism so condemned by…

{{opage|247}}

…Marxism was founded?

<blockquote>
Human beings constantly require the assistance of others. Yet such assistance is not obtained through the benevolence of others. We can expect others to assist us only by appealing to their self-interest and showing them that what we desire is also to their own advantage. Our food and drink are provided not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, but because they regard their own interests. We appeal not to their charity, but solely to their self-interest. We need say nothing to them of our own necessities, for they will do what is required for the sake of their own advantage. —<ref>Seno’o here quotes or closely paraphrases Adam Smith’s famous discussion of self-interest in Book I, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (1776), including the example of the butcher, brewer, and baker. He treats Smith as a representative theorist of the economic principles underlying modern capitalism, contrasting economic self-interest and free competition with Buddhist ethics.</ref>

</blockquote>

Such an economic system, founded upon egoism and laissez-faire, is precisely the essence of contemporary capitalism. Yet it scarcely needs saying that such egoism and laissez-faire run directly counter to the fundamental spirit of Buddhism.

The Buddha says in the ''Lotus Sutra'', “The root of all suffering is greed,” and “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish.”<ref>Seno’o quotes two passages from Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra (Myōhō renge-kyō 妙法蓮華経; T'' ''9, no. 262): “The origin of all suffering is greed” (諸苦所因貪欲為本) appears in Chapter 3, “Simile and Parable” (Hiyu-hon 譬喩品), while “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish” (三悪道増長阿修羅亦充満) appears in Chapter 2, “Expedient Means” (Hōben-hon 方便品). Seno’o gives the traditional Buddhist critique of attachment to “I” (ga 我) and “mine” (gasho 我所) an explicitly socioeconomic interpretation: “I” becomes individualism, while “mine” becomes unrestricted private property. Capitalist egoism and competition thus become institutional expressions of the attachments Buddhism seeks to overcome. Seno’o contrasts these with “common ownership and repayment of indebtedness” (kyōyū hōon 共有報恩).</ref> What could these be if not warnings against the evils brought about by self-interest and unrestricted competition? “I” and “mine”—that is, individualism and unrestricted private property—are impediments to the practice of the Buddhist path. Common ownership and the reciprocal indebtedness, in thought and practice alike, constitute instead the fundamental spirit of our Buddhism. And when socialists say, “If production were carried out not for the profit of capitalists but for the happiness of all, an entirely different form of society would now appear,” surely precisely such a society must also be the ideal the Buddha held for social life.

On this point, the aforementioned ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' says: “Evil monks, because they seek fame and profit, do not follow my Dharma”; and again: “The True Dharma declines and grows weak, the people cease to act rightly, evils gradually increase, and their lives daily grow shorter.” Here the harmful consequences of egoism are exposed at their root. Look directly at the facts. Capitalist civilization has advanced with the strides of a giant. The production of wealth has increased to an astonishing degree. And yet the promised “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has proved a dream.<ref>“The greatest happiness of the greatest number” (saidai tasū no saidai kōfuku 最大多数の最大幸福) invokes the utilitarian principle associated especially with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Seno’o uses the maxim as a standard against which to judge capitalist modernity: despite enormous increases in productive capacity and wealth, he argues, general welfare has remained unrealized and the majority have grown relatively poorer.</ref> The monopoly of the means of production, combined with the monopoly of financial institutions and further reinforced by the unchecked freedom of syndicates, trusts, and the like, has enabled a small number of capitalists to grow ever more extravagantly wealthy. The great majority of the people, by contrast, despite engaging in the blood-soaked labor of production, receive as little as ever…

{{opage|248}}

…and become relatively poorer and increasingly miserable, until, pitifully, entire families are condemned to groan forever beneath the iron chains of wage labor.

Is this single point not precisely where the concern of communists and socialists lies? Extremism should be rejected. But why should this cry for reform itself be unjust? Consider it. Depending upon market prices, cotton that has already been produced may simply be burned, even while our fellow human beings shiver from the cold. Mountains of sugar remain stored in capitalist warehouses, even while fellow human beings go hungry without so much as a lump of brown sugar. And look further: while the capitalist and landlord classes are said to enjoy enormous profits amounting to some 3.55 billion yen annually, how precariously the laborers, tenant farmers, and masses of society struggle merely to live! Who, possessing even a single tear of compassion and looking squarely at the reality of our fellow human beings—who, though they labor until their sweat is mingled with blood, still find themselves pressed for tomorrow’s bread—could fail, at least in this respect, to rise up and demand that the iron chains of capitalism, the wage system, first be broken, and that the masses be granted immediate freedom and well-being?

Of course, human beings do not live by bread alone. Nor do we disregard that faith by which, amid hunger and cold, Nichiren could declare, “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all.” We do not forget that the liberation of human beings, who seek the infinite while dwelling within the finite, can never ultimately be fulfilled by bread alone. And yet, when we confront the reality that human beings cannot live without bread either, what could embody the divine spirit that “man does not live by bread alone” more concretely than first guaranteeing bread for our less fortunate fellow human beings, ensuring its equitable distribution, and enabling them to share in abundant material resources? What could be more expressive of the highest human morality of compassionate concern for others? Nichiren said:

<blockquote>
White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.

</blockquote>

Bread is indeed life. It is precisely within the problem of bread that the Buddha’s compassion must be realized. All the more so in an age such as ours, an age of acute hardship. Nichiren also said:

<blockquote>
Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation.<ref>This passage combines the biblical dictum “Man does not live by bread alone” with three passages from the writings of Nichiren (1222–1282). “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all” comes from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄 (The Opening of the Eyes, 1272; Goshō, p. 223), where spiritual possession of the Lotus Sutra is contrasted with worldly wealth. “White rice is not merely white rice; it is life itself” derives from the Hakumai ippyō gosho 白米一俵御書 (On a Bushel of White Rice, 1280; Goshō, p. 1597), a letter thanking a follower for a gift of food. Finally, “Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation” cites the Senji-shō 撰時抄 (On the Selection of the Time, 1275; Goshō, p. 258), in which Nichiren stresses discerning the historical moment and acting accordingly. Seno’o brings these passages together to distinguish his position from reductive materialism without allowing spiritual aspiration to become an excuse for indifference to material suffering. Nichiren’s identification of rice with life thus becomes a scriptural basis for bringing Buddhist compassion into material and economic life.</ref>

</blockquote>

The Dharma is ''myō''—wondrous, responsive, something to be put into living application. Only when an impartial and universal compassion is brought to bear as a light upon the solution of the central problems of actual life can religion and morality remain enduring values for humanity. Otherwise, in the end, they are no different from…

{{opage|249}}

…opiates that numb our sense of reality.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

That “something” is now all too clear. The people are impoverished, and their '''groans''' of anguish can already be heard beneath the carriages. It is precisely these '''groans''' that become the terrifying force latent within human nature, erupting with the declaration that “necessity knows no law.”<ref>The phrase “necessity knows no law” (hitsuyō wa hōritsu o shirazu 必要は法律を知らず) echoes the Western maxim necessitas non habet legem, according to which extreme necessity may override ordinary legal constraint. Seno’o connects the maxim to the “groans” (umeki うめき) of an impoverished population: when basic needs become sufficiently urgent, popular suffering may burst through the restraints imposed by law.</ref>

Look at the geometrical, explosive progression: sixteen, twenty-eight, five hundred. And listen to the voices of the children of this young age—the many who take an interest and feel sympathy—resounding deep within the earth. Truly, this is a problem demanding the attention of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time. We hardly needed Prosecutor-General Koyama to tell us so.

The masses are not necessarily a foolish multitude. They experience things before they understand them intellectually. That is why their knowledge is grounded in actuality. Their intuition is comparatively accurate. Thus the pioneers of an age have always found the people on their side, just as the people in turn support those pioneers. It is a mistake to imagine that the masses merely follow others blindly. In the very ordinariness of their everyday lives, how often they grasp the subtleties of human feeling, intuit the rights and wrongs of things, and act accordingly! How much of the pure-heartedness that loves the homeland and courageously defends justice still remains preserved in their very bodies! The people do not readily jump aboard the bandwagon of propaganda and cavort through an empty world of abstractions. They act through contact with the realities of life. Consequently, if the state were governed impartially in the spirit of the Humane King, and the lives of ordinary households were truly secure, why would people willingly throw themselves into movements in which their lives were at stake? They love their wives; their children are dear to them.

Thus, if there actually existed a concrete politics based upon our Imperial Way—“The wealth of the people is Our wealth”—then however widely Marxism might be propagated and however vigorously the Communist Party might act, the state of the Humane King would remain eternally unmoved.<ref>The dictum “The wealth of the people is Our wealth” (tami no tomeru wa chin no tomeru nari 民の富めるは朕の富めるなり) derives from the traditional account of Emperor Nintoku recorded in the Nihon shoki (720). According to the legend, Nintoku, observing that no smoke rose from his subjects’ cooking fires, suspended taxation for three years; when prosperity returned, he declared their prosperity to be his own. Seno’o turns this ideal of benevolent imperial rule into a standard for criticizing contemporary government: if the “Imperial Way” (kōdō 皇道) genuinely identifies the sovereign’s welfare with that of the people, government must secure the material well-being of ordinary households. His increasingly radical critique of capitalism thus remains, at this stage, articulated within an idealized conception of imperial sovereignty.</ref> For such a Humane King embodies the spirit common to the people themselves. He is the source of their well-being. Moreover, the principle of such humane kingship can embrace and assimilate all things, continually making them into a clear mirror for the improvement of government. Arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts: know that when this occurs, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

<blockquote>
O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

Looking back upon the fault described here, I recall hearing that, at the time of the Kōtoku Shūsui Incident in Meiji 43 [1910], our great Meiji Emperor repented before the deities of heaven and earth with these words:

{{opage|250}}

<blockquote>
If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body.<ref>The “Kōtoku Shūsui Incident” refers to the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku Jiken 大逆事件) of 1910–11, in which twenty-six socialists and anarchists were convicted of plotting against the Meiji Emperor; Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水, 1871–1911) and eleven others were executed. Seno’o associates the incident with a gyosei (御製, imperial poem) by the Meiji Emperor: “Tsumi araba ware o togameyo Amatsu-kami / tami wa waga mi no umishi ko nareba” (“If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body”). The poem was actually composed in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, but was later popularly associated with the High Treason Incident as an expression of imperial self-reproach. Seno’o turns this idealized memory against the government of 1928: rather than simply condemning political dissent, responsible rulers should examine the conditions that produced it.</ref>

</blockquote>

I was so deeply moved and awestruck that I scarcely knew how to respond. Indeed, considered with reverence, it is precisely such self-reflection that makes our sovereign a sovereign in the truest sense; that bears witness to a relationship which, though in principle one of ruler and subject, is in feeling that of parent and child; and that consequently demonstrates the possibility of reforming defective institutions and social structures. It is therefore also the one true safety valve against revolution. And it is here, I believe, that we can recognize the genuine value of our national polity as an unbroken imperial line through all ages, an unblemished golden vessel.

And yet, how are the Ministers of State, who ought to embody this spirit and bear the grave responsibility of assisting the Emperor, actually wielding the reins of government today? It was precisely this question, raised by the Communist Party Incident, that prompted me to read the ''Sutra for Humane Kings.''

Can it truly be said that they do not rely upon their own power and authority, that they do not suppress the fourfold assembly, but instead follow reason, uphold justice, and properly attend to the welfare of the nation and its people?

Surely a cry of “No!”, bursting forth from righteous indignation, comes crashing toward us with a force exceeding even the raging waves of the ocean. The memories of universal manhood suffrage and of the Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet remain fresh in the minds of the people—indeed, they should remain permanent sources of righteous indignation.<ref>Seno’o alludes to Japan’s first general election under universal manhood suffrage, held in February 1928, and the subsequent Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet. The election greatly expanded the electorate and brought representatives of the newly organized proletarian parties into the Diet, but was also marked by police interference, restrictions on left-wing campaigning, and allegations of electoral abuses under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi. Significantly, Seno’o describes the outraged public as the “fourfold assembly” (shishū 四衆), the traditional Buddhist term for the complete community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, thereby recasting popular political indignation as a form of Buddhist moral judgment.</ref>

Interference, intervention, repression, detention, the rampant activity of violent gangs and official acquiescence in it, mysterious-document scandals, adjournment followed by further adjournment, the buying of Diet members, and so forth: was it not they who abused virtually every form of power available to them, leaving behind an unparalleled spectacle of ugliness in the history of our constitutional government? And when we are told that all this was done merely to keep their party cabinet in power, does that not exceed all bounds? Can such criticism really be called unjust?

Where reason cannot make itself heard and speech is sealed off, we must expect direct action inevitably to be provoked. Fraud is fraud, even if it involves only a single sen; a bribe is a bribe, even if it amounts to only one yen. Yet in a world where the petty thefts of the lower classes are punished mercilessly and severely, we hear rumors of men who use tens of thousands of yen to purchase the consciences of Diet members and, more broadly, to deceive and outrage the voters of the entire nation. And these very same men proclaim, on the other hand, that they will “sacrifice themselves for the nation in its hour of crisis” and issue solemn-sounding directives about “cultivating national thought and contributing to the promotion of the national spirit.”

What part of your own conduct, I ask, gives you the authority to substantiate such pronouncements?

Is not the absurdity of this rather…

{{opage|251}}

…like that of a libertine who continues frequenting prostitutes while solemnly insisting that he is doing everything in his power, with the utmost sincerity, to cure the venereal disease he has contracted?

The Emperor must be the embodiment of the Imperial Way—of perfect impartiality and complete sincerity, of justice itself. He must be an emperor who guarantees the genuine welfare of all the people. He cannot be someone whose existence is exploited for the advancement or decline of the partisan interests and power of a single party or faction.

And yet the conduct of the Ministers of State charged with the grave responsibility of assisting him has now become so lawless and so utterly lacking in self-reflection. Is this not precisely what the sutra means by such things as certain legislative bills—“arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts,” “creating the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and themselves suffering the consequences”? Long ago, confronted by the abuses of his own age, Nichiren declared to the regent Hōjō Tokiyori:

<blockquote>
The entire world has turned its back upon what is right, and all people have returned to evil. Therefore benevolent deities abandon the nation and depart, while sages leave their places and do not return. Demons and devils enter in their stead; disasters arise and calamities occur. We cannot remain silent; we cannot but be afraid.

</blockquote>

And he thundered:

<blockquote>
You must quickly reform the small measure of faith in your heart and return at once to the single good teaching of the True Vehicle. Then the threefold world will all become the Buddha-land—how could a Buddha-land ever decline? The lands of the ten directions will all become treasure lands—how could a treasure land ever be destroyed? If the nation does not decline and the land is not destroyed, then the body will be secure and the mind serene.<ref>Both passages cite Nichiren’s most famous political treatise, the Risshō ankoku ron 立正安国論 (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, 1260; Goshō, pp. 17, 31), submitted to the former regent Hōjō Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227–1263) amid famine, epidemics, and other calamities. Seno’o constructs a deliberate parallel between Nichiren’s thirteenth-century remonstration and his own critique of the government in 1928. Nichiren’s promise that the land might become a “treasure realm” (hōdo 宝土) thereby acquires a contemporary social meaning: “peace in the land” (ankoku 安国) requires transformation of the conditions responsible for popular suffering.</ref>

</blockquote>

And yet today there is not a single religious figure who will rise and speak in this way against the abuses of the age. On the contrary, they willingly submit to being ordered about by those in power; obediently pursue fame and profit, transient as floating clouds; and together devote themselves to opium-like sermons, concerned with little more than devising ways of pacifying the people. What a disgraceful spectacle! Is this not precisely what is meant by the saying that those entrusted with protecting the Three Treasures destroy them themselves, “like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh”?

When we consider that those who ought to serve as teachers of the nation have already sunk to such a state, where, then, should young people who understand the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to the age and aspire to devote themselves to their homeland in its hour of danger seek their path?

Yet when we look more deeply at the ignorance and evils of such an age, we must ask: who among us is truly qualified to pass authoritative judgment upon them and subject them to an uncompromising ''shakubuku''?<ref>Shakubuku 折伏 (literally “to break and subdue”) is a traditional Buddhist method of confronting and refuting erroneous views, commonly contrasted with shōju 摂受 (“to embrace and accept”), a more accommodating approach to propagation. In Nichiren Buddhism, shakubuku acquired particular importance as a forceful means of defending the correct Dharma and remonstrating with religious and political authority. Seno’o redirects the practice inward as well as outward: before subjecting others to shakubuku, young Buddhists must confront their own egoism and complicity in the social order they condemn. Shakubuku thus becomes simultaneously a practice of self-criticism and social criticism.</ref> Can we not discover within ourselves, too, some measure of the capitalist and establishment-party roots and manifestations of these same evils? Would not nearly everyone, once placed in a position of power, suddenly—or perhaps gradually—end by revealing the ugly base metal beneath the surface and changing sides? Has the righteousness professed while out of power really remained…

{{opage|252}}

…the same once one entered government? Or were we merely like an apparently honest cat that keeps its claws and fangs hidden only so long as the meat remains caught on a hook beyond its reach? Before we judge and subject others to ''shakubuku'', we must first judge and attack ourselves.

In the final analysis, the ugliness of society is not the fault of present-day capitalists and statesmen alone. It is nothing other than the interconnected and collective product of the materialistic and egoistic tendencies and ways of life of us all. Where could there possibly be a judge who stands absolutely outside it? Social life entails collective responsibility.

The admonition, “O Great King, the causes and conditions for the destruction of the nation are all of your own making,” is, in the final analysis, an admonition directed to each and every one of us as well.

Accordingly, the first step in transforming this ugly state of affairs must necessarily be directed toward our own inner lives. Before attacking other people, society, or the authorities, we must first subject to shakubuku our own materialistic and egoistic lives, which have strayed from and forgotten the spirit of the Buddha.

But although our reflection must begin in this way, genuine awakening cannot be permitted to stop at the level of the individual and the inward. True repentance and true transformation must, on the basis of this reflection and way of life, unfold once again toward the organic whole of social phenomena. Only by seeking the realization of both organic self-reflection and social transformation can we finally penetrate to the true self. Is it not precisely here that we discover the concrete and essential life of true repentance and self-transformation grounded in collective responsibility? For society is our own society. To struggle against defects in society is itself to extinguish our own karmic offenses. Criticism and shakubuku directed toward the governing authorities must therefore never amount merely to antagonistic hatred or to demagogic agitation designed to court popularity. Rather, I believe they can and must be affirmed and advocated as the necessary consequence of a yearning for truth and a concern for society.

Of course, to those who have not thought the matter through this far, such criticism and attack will clearly appear to be an attack upon and rebellion against themselves. Reaction, hatred, exclusion, and repression will inevitably follow. But for the genuine seeker of the Way, what can such counterattacks be if not the actual proof of one’s own repentance? The more deeply and broadly one reflects upon and recognizes one’s own karmic offenses and one’s previously unawakened way of life, the more such criticism and persecution can be understood as the natural karmic recompense for those offenses. Repentance thereby receives ever greater confirmation, and it is precisely here that a life of seeking the Way at the risk of one’s life begins to shine. Criticism and repression will arise in proportion to one’s unwavering effort and perseverance. Yet for the genuine seeker of the Way, they become ever more…

{{opage|253}}

…occasions for reflection, not causes for fear; a path of Dharma-joy, not a path of suffering.

They are trials. Stone turns to ash; gold remains true gold. Those who fall away will fall away; those who advance can only continue advancing. Listen to the cry of our Nichiren Shōnin:

<blockquote>
When Nichiren turned the bright mirror of the ''Lotus Sutra'' upon himself, he found it entirely free of cloudiness. There can be no doubt that the offense of slandering the Dharma exists within my own person from the past. If I do not extinguish this offense in this present life, how shall I escape the sufferings of hell in the future? I considered how I might gather together the grave offenses accumulated over countless ages, extinguish them all within this single lifetime, and thereby escape great suffering in the future. In this present age, people who slander the Dharma fill every province of the country. Moreover, the ruler of the nation himself has already become the foremost among those who slander it. If I do not extinguish these grave offenses at such a time, when should I ever expect to do so? If Nichiren, insignificant though his person may be, were to cover the nation of Japan with his voice and denounce them, the countless members of the fourfold assembly who follow false teachings would all revile him at once with countless mouths. At that time, the ruler of the nation, taking the side of the monks who slander the Dharma, would likewise revile Nichiren. He might have his head cut off, or subject him to exile or execution. If such things were to happen time and again, the grave offenses accumulated over innumerable ''kalpas'' could be extinguished within this single lifetime. I devised this great strategy, and things have unfolded without the slightest deviation from it. Having come to such a state, surely my aspiration will be fulfilled. — “On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma” (''Hōbō metsuzai-shō'')

</blockquote>

And listen again:

<blockquote>
Now, because Nichiren vigorously attacks the slander of the Dharma throughout the nation, these great persecutions have arisen. Surely the grave offenses of the past have been summoned forth in this lifetime through my defense of the Dharma. Iron remains black so long as it does not encounter fire; when joined with fire, it becomes red. When a swift current is struck with a piece of wood, waves rise like mountains; when one lays a hand upon a sleeping lion, it roars mightily.<ref>Seno’o draws these passages from two writings composed during Nichiren’s exile on Sado Island (1271–1274). The first, the Hōbō metsuzai-shō 謗法滅罪抄 (On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma, 1273; Goshō, pp. 1121–22), interprets Nichiren’s persecution and exile as an opportunity to expiate past karmic offenses and fulfill his religious mission. The second, the Sado gosho 佐渡御書 (Letter from Sado, 1272; Goshō, p. 958), uses the images of iron exposed to fire, swift water struck by a log, and a sleeping lion awakened by touch to suggest that fierce opposition is the natural response elicited by forceful propagation of the Dharma. Seno’o transforms the Sado exile into a model of perseverance for young Buddhists confronting political opposition in 1928.</ref>

</blockquote>

Religion is not opium. What permitted the followers of Lenin to indulge so freely in their mockery of religion as opium? Was it not that religion stopped at merely conceptual, inward repentance and reflection, failing to advocate and carry out a critique extending into the very contents and forms of actual social life—and a movement for their transformation?

Religion is not opium. The religion of the holy Nichiren is emphatically not opium-like.

Religion, for us, is life. Society forms the content of the self. The self is society. Politics, economics, education, military affairs, the arts, and everything else—all of these are also our religion. They are the contents of social life that must be criticized and transformed in accordance with the spirit of the Buddha.<ref>The characterization of religion as the “opium of the people” is most famously associated with Karl Marx, who used the expression in his 1844 introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vladimir Lenin subsequently made the critique of religion an important element of Marxist political thought, notably in “Socialism and Religion” (1905). By referring to the “followers of Lenin,” Seno’o confronts the Marxist charge that religion reconciles the oppressed to existing social conditions. Rather than rejecting the accusation, he concedes that religion becomes “opium” when repentance remains merely inward (shintaiteki zange 心態的懺悔) and leaves political, economic, and social structures untouched. Because “society forms the content of the self,” genuine religious transformation must extend to social institutions. Seno’o thus turns the Marxist critique of religion into a Buddhist critique of religion that fails to transform social life.</ref> For precisely this reason, to aspire to and enter into the work of social transformation is genuine self-knowledge and genuine repentance; at the same time, it is a life of gratitude and the repayment of indebtedness. Ultimately, it is the conclusion and completion of the life of faith.

Indeed, is it not only when we see matters in this way that we can recognize the essential difference between a movement for transformation arising from religion and the movements for social transformation of so-called socialism and communism,…

{{opage|254}}

…which take the materialist conception of history as their point of departure?

Thus truth breathes within reality, and religion becomes one with life. “Above all, having been born in this land, how could I fail to concern myself with my country?” “White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.” Social institutions are not merely social institutions: they are religion.

The principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality (''ji no ichinen sanzen'') taught by the holy Nichiren can take the place of Tiantai’s three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle (''ri no ichinen sanzen'').<ref>The doctrine of “Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment” (ichinen sanzen 一念三千), systematized by the Chinese Tiantai master Zhiyi (智顗, 538–597), holds that each moment of mind encompasses the totality of possible states of existence. Seno’o invokes the Nichirenist distinction between “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle” (ri no ichinen sanzen 理の一念三千), associated with Tiantai contemplative teaching, and “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality” (ji no ichinen sanzen 事の一念三千), associated with Nichiren’s teaching and practice in the age of the Final Dharma. Seno’o gives this doctrinal distinction a distinctly social interpretation: Buddhist truth must become actual in political, economic, and social life. Ji no ichinen sanzen thus becomes a warrant for Buddhist praxis—the concrete transformation of both self and society.</ref> That is to say, it is the actualization of the Buddhist spirit.

In truth, theories can be constructed however one likes; arguments can be made in any number of ways. Ah, but you living young people, possessed of a profound concern for human life, for society, for your fellow human beings, and for the present and future of your homeland—

where, then, will you choose to direct your path?

(Shōwa 3 [1928], ''Wakōdo'' [''Youth''], vol. 9, no. 6)

== Notes ==

<references />

SG28KJC-T

2026-08-28T19:47:01Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''}}
{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」『若人』第9巻第6号、1928年（昭和3年）6月.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu” 共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む; “Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''.” ''Wakōdo'' 若人 9, no. 6 (June 1928).

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、242–254頁.

Seno’o Girō. “Kyōsantō jiken ni chokumen shite Ninnō gokoku-kyō no issetsu o yomu.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' 妹尾義郎宗教論集, ed. Inagaki Masami, 242–254. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==
{{opage|242}}

'''Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'''''

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', Chapter Eight, “Entrustment”<ref>The Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation (Ninnō gokoku hannya haramitsu-kyō 仁王護国般若波羅蜜経; T 8, nos. 245–246) is one of East Asian Buddhism’s principal “state-protecting sutras,” traditionally grouped among the “three sutras for protecting the nation” (gokoku sanbu-kyō 護国三部経). An apocryphal scripture composed in China, it became the basis in Japan for state-sponsored rites known as Ninnō-e 仁王会, performed to protect the realm from calamity and disorder. In Chapter 8, “Entrustment” (Shokuru-hon 囑累品), the Buddha warns that rulers, ministers, and religious leaders who violate the Dharma themselves create the conditions for the destruction of Buddhism and the state. Seno’o turns this traditional state-protecting scripture against the state itself, locating responsibility for national disorder in political authority and the social conditions it sustains.</ref> ===

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

Relying upon your own power and authority, you suppress the fourfold assembly and do not permit them to cultivate merit. Evil monks arise who accept the practice of separate invitations; together with learned monks, they become of one mind, cultivate close relations with one another, hold religious feasts, and seek merit. This is the way of non-Buddhists and has nothing whatsoever to do with my teaching.

The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

O Great King, in the age of the decline of the Dharma, kings, ministers, and the disciples of the fourfold assembly will each commit unlawful acts, arbitrarily interfering with Buddhism and committing numerous offenses. These accord neither with the Dharma nor with the Vinaya.

O Great King, after my extinction, the disciples of the fourfold assembly, all kings, princes, and officials—those charged with protecting and preserving the Three Treasures—will themselves destroy them. It will be like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh: the destruction will not come from outsiders.

Those who destroy my Dharma will incur grave offenses. The True Dharma will decline, and the people will cease to act rightly. Evils will gradually multiply and their lives will daily grow shorter. There will no longer be filial children; the six relations will fall into discord; devas and dragons will offer no protection; evil spirits and evil dragons will come daily to inflict harm; calamities and strange portents will follow one upon another, bringing disasters in every direction. They will fall into hell or be reborn as animals or hungry ghosts. Even should they attain human birth, they will be poor and lowly and their faculties incomplete. Just as a shadow follows a form, as an echo responds to a voice, or as writing remains visible after the lamp by which someone writes at night has gone out, so too are the karmic consequences of destroying the Dharma. Evil monks, seeking fame and profit, preach before the king things that are not my Dharma, speaking themselves of transgressions and thereby creating the conditions for the destruction of the Dharma. The king, unable to distinguish what is true, believes and favors their words and arbitrarily establishes laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts. Know that when this happens, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

{{opage|243}}

Confronted with the Communist Party Incident,<ref>The “Communist Party Incident” refers to the March 15 Incident of 1928 (San-ichigo Jiken 三・一五事件), a nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,600 suspected members and supporters of the illegal Japanese Communist Party, including labor organizers and student activists, were arrested under the Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法). Seno’o redirects attention from communist “conspiracy” to the social and economic conditions that made radicalism increasingly compelling.</ref> people immediately became indignant: “This is treason aimed at destroying our flawless national polity!<ref>The phrase “flawless national polity” translates kin’ō muketsu (金甌無缺 / 金甌無欠), literally “an unblemished golden vessel.” In modern Japan, the metaphor signified the integrity and inviolability of the imperial state (kokutai 国体), particularly its supposedly unbroken imperial lineage. Seno’o initially invokes the expression ironically, challenging those who denounced communism as a threat to an inherently perfect polity. Later, however, he reappropriates the metaphor: the kokutai can remain genuinely “flawless,” he argues, only insofar as imperial rule retains the capacity for self-criticism and institutional reform.</ref> It is a seditious conspiracy!” Yet they went no further than denunciation and repression. They did not reflect upon why such a tremendous calamity had arisen in a supposedly flawless nation. They gave no serious thought to the essential nature of this supposedly “flawless” polity, nor to the actual conditions of the people’s lives, which had strayed so very far from it. And consequently they failed to recognize the underlying disease that required radical treatment. For such foolish citizens, this golden admonition of the Buddha may perhaps be nothing more than “a ''nenbutsu'' in a horse’s ear.”<ref>The phrase “a nenbutsu in a horse’s ear” translates the Japanese proverb uma no mimi ni nenbutsu 馬の耳に念仏, meaning to offer wisdom or admonition to an unreceptive audience—roughly equivalent to “casting pearls before swine.” The nenbutsu refers here to the invocation of the Buddha’s name, conventionally Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏.</ref> Even so, I am convinced that this warning from our Sutra for Humane Kings is indeed a needle thrust into the crown of the modern state. I have therefore ventured to set it down here explicitly, in the hope that it might provide thoughtful readers with occasion for repeated and profound reflection.

=== ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation'', “Entrustment” ===

<blockquote>
‘Humane King’ means that, because he bestows benevolence and spreads virtue, he is called ‘humane’; and because he acts with purity and freedom, he is called ‘king.’ ‘Protecting the nation’ means that, by following the Dharma of the Humane King and adhering to the Way, he protects the realm, so that the people live in happiness and the nation is secure.

</blockquote>

So it is explained. “Entrustment” means that one is commanded, in accordance with this principle, both to govern oneself and to propagate the teaching so that other kings may govern in the same way.

<blockquote>
O Great King, the causes and conditions that bring about the destruction of the nation are all of your own making.

</blockquote>

The Buddha’s judgment is concise and precisely to the point. In a single sentence he pronounces that all responsibility for the causes of a nation’s destruction lies with you. One might truly say that this one sentence settles the entire matter.

When we think about it, this is surely how things must be. Whatever the country, responsibility for the problems of a nation naturally comes to rest with the sovereign who governs and rules it. Only then can one truly possess, in both name and reality, the qualifications of a king. Indeed, world history clearly tells us that this is where cries of “Long live the king!” converge—and this is also where the flames of revolution are directed. The causes of a nation’s destruction, therefore, should not be sought among the people. Still less should they be sought abroad. When the Buddha admonishes the king that “they are all of your own making,” we must acknowledge that his judgment strikes squarely at the truth.

If this judgment is indeed correct, then the causes of our nation’s destruction are emphatically not to be found in a small group of Communist Party members, nor in the Russian Third International that is said to direct them, nor yet in Marxism itself. Rather, they must be sought…

{{opage|244}}

…in the defective conditions of the nation itself—conditions that make such incursions possible and allow such movements to arise. It is therefore by no means unreasonable to seek responsibility as well in those sovereign authorities who rule the nation and possess the power freely to reform those conditions.

Yet according to our Constitution, Article<ref>Seno’o makes a pointed constitutional maneuver by pairing the warnings of the Sutra for Humane Kings with the Meiji Constitution (1889). Because the sutra places responsibility for national destruction upon the ruler, its application to modern Japan raised the sensitive question of imperial responsibility. Seno’o invokes Article 3—“The Emperor is sacred and inviolable”—alongside Article 55, which stipulated that Ministers of State advise the Emperor and bear responsibility for that advice. He thus redirects the sutra’s admonition from the inviolable imperial person to the Ministers of State, turning a traditional scripture of state protection into a critique of contemporary government while formally preserving imperial inviolability.</ref> Three states that “The Emperor is sacred and inviolable,” while Article Fifty-Five declares that “The Ministers of State shall advise the Emperor and be responsible for their advice.” It goes without saying, therefore, that in our country those who must bear the responsibility indicated by the Buddha’s admonition are the Ministers of State.

Consider someone plagued by mosquitoes. Everyone understands that the fundamental solution—and the wisest way to settle the problem most quickly—is to dredge the muddy ditches where they breed or to construct a proper sewer system. However long one shouts that the mosquitoes are at fault for laying their eggs, or however often one smokes them out with mosquito coils, mosquitoes will continue to appear in swarms so long as the ditches and sewers are not improved. In places in Osaka and Tokyo where proper sewer systems have been constructed, however, the sound and sight of mosquitoes have simply disappeared, without anyone having to say a word, and residents can sleep peacefully. Even should mosquitoes happen to arrive from elsewhere, it is of course impossible for them to survive for long. Proper sewer construction is thus a more fundamental necessity than dealing with the mosquitoes that lay the eggs; it is the underlying problem that must be properly addressed.

But to say that completing the sewer system is the fundamental issue does not mean that sewers are more important than human beings. A sewer system is simply a facility that can be transformed by human will. A person who understands how things work, when troubled by mosquitoes, will therefore promptly design and complete the necessary sewer system. In precisely the same way, if the institutions and structures of society contain defects that give rise to problems, then a person who understands the logic of things will first set about correcting those defects.

What, then, are these defects that must be reformed? And do they in fact exist?

For anyone with even a little social concern, this question ought by now to be a matter of common sense. Indeed, there is something almost trite about spelling it out in such a roundabout fashion. But, just to make the point, let me quote here the remarks reportedly made by Prosecutor-General Koyama concerning the recent Communist Party Incident:

<blockquote>
With Takatsu Seidō, Sakai Toshihiko, and now the present case, this is the third Communist Party Incident.<ref>Seno’o cites Koyama Matsukichi 小山松吉 (1869–1948), then Prosecutor-General (kenji sōchō 検事総長), who characterized the March 15 Incident as the “third Communist Party incident.” Koyama refers to earlier cases involving Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974) and Sakai Toshihiko 堺利彦 (1871–1933), before conceding that the continued attraction of communism might indicate “some defect in the organization of society itself,” and that even a perfected Peace Preservation Law could not eradicate the movement unless those defects were corrected. Seno’o seizes upon this admission from the state’s own chief prosecutor as evidence that repression cannot eliminate radicalism without addressing its social causes.</ref> The first involved sixteen people, the next twenty-eight, and this time…

{{opage|245}}

… approximately five hundred [are expected]. What does this gradual increase in numbers tell us? Among those arrested on this occasion are many extremely serious-minded individuals. Ultimately, if ideas of this kind continue to spread, there must be something there with which they sympathize. Might there not be some defect in the organization of society itself? No matter how thoroughly the Peace Preservation Law<ref>The Peace Preservation Law (Chian Iji Hō 治安維持法), enacted in 1925, criminalized participation in organizations seeking either to alter the imperial polity (kokutai 国体) or abolish the system of private property, providing the principal legal basis for suppressing the Japanese Communist Party and other radical organizations. Following the March 15 Incident, the Tanaka Giichi government strengthened the law by emergency imperial ordinance in 1928, introducing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for certain offenses.</ref> is perfected, unless those defects are corrected, there can be no hope of rooting the problem out. I believe that correcting them is more important than blaming those who have been arrested. In any case, this represents a kind of crisis, and these social conditions demand the consideration of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time.

</blockquote>

So he is reported to have said. When we look at the people who joined the Party, the fact that many of them were sincere young people, possessed of considerable education and sound in both mind and body, surely deserves our attention. These were not the sort of pathological acts of desperation once casually mocked as the work of sickly misfits who cursed society, nor can they simply be dismissed as the pranks of youths infatuated with the West.

A pure soul is always moved by what possesses truth; the blood of the righteous always surges in defense of the weak.

Precisely for this reason, when we consider the fact that, despite such severe repression, the number of sympathizers continues to increase, there must indeed be, as the Prosecutor-General says, “something there.” Unless this “something” is investigated and reformed—or, if their understanding of this “something” is mistaken, unless they are provided with clear explanation and guidance—merely regarding them as dangerous and rebellious would be, again in the Prosecutor-General’s words, as foolish as “shooing flies away from one’s rice.” Would this not leave one open to the accusation that such an attitude is precisely what the Buddha condemned when he spoke of “evil monks accepting separate invitations, learned monks joining together with them in one mind, cultivating close relations with one another, holding religious feasts, and seeking merit”—that, beneath the empty slogan of “cultivating national thought,” officials and establishment religious figures are merely joining forces and devoting themselves to their own preservation? Even without citing the Prosecutor-General, there are more than enough defects demanding reform.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

There is no need to point out that Marxism identifies the cause of popular poverty in the capitalist economic system. It is equally well known that capitalism necessarily produces an ever-widening class divide between rich and poor; and that once this divide reaches a certain point, just as compressed steam…

{{opage|246}}

…explodes a boiler when it passes a certain limit, the present economic system will ultimately be shattered by revolution at the hands of the oppressed Fourth Estate.<ref>The term “Fourth Estate” (daiyon kaikyū 第四階級) was widely used in early twentieth-century Japanese socialist discourse to designate the proletariat or working class, following the European convention of identifying the bourgeoisie as the “Third Estate.” Seno’o’s image of compressed steam bursting a boiler presents revolution not primarily as ideological conspiracy or moral aberration, but as the predictable consequence of intolerable social conditions.</ref> Marxism claims to have demonstrated this both scientifically and historically.

If we turn back to our own Buddhism, however, we find that the Buddha likewise explicitly identifies the moment at which a nation faces destruction as the moment when its people suffer from disease, poverty, and hardship. The judgment of the Buddha, who saw deeply into human nature, appears to have been correct. Certainly, throughout history famine has gone hand in hand with straw-mat banners and bamboo spears.

What deserves serious consideration here is this: Marxism, which rejects religion from the standpoint of the materialist conception of history, and Buddhism, which stands upon a personalist conception of history—one that sublates both the materialist and idealist conceptions of history—are of course not simply compatible with one another.<ref>Seno’o’s “personalist conception of history” (jinkaku shikan 人格史観) marks an early attempt to formulate a distinctively Buddhist alternative to both Marxist historical materialism and idealism. He describes this position as one that “sublates” (shiyō 止揚) the materialist and idealist conceptions of history, employing the Japanese philosophical rendering of the Hegelian Aufhebung: an overcoming that simultaneously preserves elements of what it transcends. Seno’o accepts the Marxist insistence on the historical force of material suffering while refusing to reduce human and social transformation to material conditions alone. His jinkaku shikan thus signals an emerging effort to combine Buddhist ethical and religious commitments with a structural analysis of social conditions without simply adopting Marxist materialism.</ref> Their understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty therefore differs. And yet, remarkably, they arrive at a common judgment: the point at which popular suffering reaches an impasse constitutes the pivotal motive force in the rise and fall of states and societies.

Accordingly, whether one approaches the matter from a moral standpoint or follows scientific analysis, concrete measures to relieve the suffering of the people must in either case be regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.

What, then, is the cause of the people’s impoverishment?

As I have already said, according to the Marxists, it lies in the capitalist economic system. Under capitalism, they argue:

<blockquote>
Advances in the techniques of production do not benefit everyone; they increase the profits of the capitalist. For the laboring masses, on the contrary, they bring unemployment and ruin. Capitalists do not employ workers from some humanitarian desire to feed the hungry. They hire workers in order to extract profit from them. It is this desire for profit that drives them to build factories, employ workers, and ceaselessly sniff out those places where still higher rates of profit can be obtained—markets in which their commodities can be sold at higher prices. And while workers suffer the unfreedom of being unable to live unless they sell their labor-power, capitalists possess the freedom to dismiss them, the freedom to expose workers to starvation. A new system of slavery, reproduced within civilized society!<ref>This passage summarizes central themes of Marxist political economy, including production for profit, technological unemployment, and the unequal relation between wage labor and capital. Seno’o does not identify his source; its rhetorical language suggests that he may be drawing upon a contemporary Japanese popularization of Marxist economics rather than quoting Marx directly. He presents the passage as the Marxist explanation of popular impoverishment before turning to capitalism from the “moral standpoint of Buddhism.”</ref>

</blockquote>

Their diagnosis is, in this respect, remarkably penetrating.

What, then, if we examine, from the moral standpoint of Buddhism, the economic principles of Adam Smith upon which the capitalism so condemned by…

{{opage|247}}

…Marxism was founded?

<blockquote>
Human beings constantly require the assistance of others. Yet such assistance is not obtained through the benevolence of others. We can expect others to assist us only by appealing to their self-interest and showing them that what we desire is also to their own advantage. Our food and drink are provided not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, but because they regard their own interests. We appeal not to their charity, but solely to their self-interest. We need say nothing to them of our own necessities, for they will do what is required for the sake of their own advantage. —<ref>Seno’o here quotes or closely paraphrases Adam Smith’s famous discussion of self-interest in Book I, Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations (1776), including the example of the butcher, brewer, and baker. He treats Smith as a representative theorist of the economic principles underlying modern capitalism, contrasting economic self-interest and free competition with Buddhist ethics.</ref>

</blockquote>

Such an economic system, founded upon egoism and laissez-faire, is precisely the essence of contemporary capitalism. Yet it scarcely needs saying that such egoism and laissez-faire run directly counter to the fundamental spirit of Buddhism.

The Buddha says in the ''Lotus Sutra'', “The root of all suffering is greed,” and “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish.”<ref>Seno’o quotes two passages from Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra (Myōhō renge-kyō 妙法蓮華経; T'' ''9, no. 262): “The origin of all suffering is greed” (諸苦所因貪欲為本) appears in Chapter 3, “Simile and Parable” (Hiyu-hon 譬喩品), while “The three evil paths increase, and the asuras likewise flourish” (三悪道増長阿修羅亦充満) appears in Chapter 2, “Expedient Means” (Hōben-hon 方便品). Seno’o gives the traditional Buddhist critique of attachment to “I” (ga 我) and “mine” (gasho 我所) an explicitly socioeconomic interpretation: “I” becomes individualism, while “mine” becomes unrestricted private property. Capitalist egoism and competition thus become institutional expressions of the attachments Buddhism seeks to overcome. Seno’o contrasts these with “common ownership and repayment of indebtedness” (kyōyū hōon 共有報恩).</ref> What could these be if not warnings against the evils brought about by self-interest and unrestricted competition? “I” and “mine”—that is, individualism and unrestricted private property—are impediments to the practice of the Buddhist path. Common ownership and the reciprocal indebtedness, in thought and practice alike, constitute instead the fundamental spirit of our Buddhism. And when socialists say, “If production were carried out not for the profit of capitalists but for the happiness of all, an entirely different form of society would now appear,” surely precisely such a society must also be the ideal the Buddha held for social life.

On this point, the aforementioned ''Sutra for Humane Kings'' says: “Evil monks, because they seek fame and profit, do not follow my Dharma”; and again: “The True Dharma declines and grows weak, the people cease to act rightly, evils gradually increase, and their lives daily grow shorter.” Here the harmful consequences of egoism are exposed at their root. Look directly at the facts. Capitalist civilization has advanced with the strides of a giant. The production of wealth has increased to an astonishing degree. And yet the promised “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has proved a dream.<ref>“The greatest happiness of the greatest number” (saidai tasū no saidai kōfuku 最大多数の最大幸福) invokes the utilitarian principle associated especially with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Seno’o uses the maxim as a standard against which to judge capitalist modernity: despite enormous increases in productive capacity and wealth, he argues, general welfare has remained unrealized and the majority have grown relatively poorer.</ref> The monopoly of the means of production, combined with the monopoly of financial institutions and further reinforced by the unchecked freedom of syndicates, trusts, and the like, has enabled a small number of capitalists to grow ever more extravagantly wealthy. The great majority of the people, by contrast, despite engaging in the blood-soaked labor of production, receive as little as ever…

{{opage|248}}

…and become relatively poorer and increasingly miserable, until, pitifully, entire families are condemned to groan forever beneath the iron chains of wage labor.

Is this single point not precisely where the concern of communists and socialists lies? Extremism should be rejected. But why should this cry for reform itself be unjust? Consider it. Depending upon market prices, cotton that has already been produced may simply be burned, even while our fellow human beings shiver from the cold. Mountains of sugar remain stored in capitalist warehouses, even while fellow human beings go hungry without so much as a lump of brown sugar. And look further: while the capitalist and landlord classes are said to enjoy enormous profits amounting to some 3.55 billion yen annually, how precariously the laborers, tenant farmers, and masses of society struggle merely to live! Who, possessing even a single tear of compassion and looking squarely at the reality of our fellow human beings—who, though they labor until their sweat is mingled with blood, still find themselves pressed for tomorrow’s bread—could fail, at least in this respect, to rise up and demand that the iron chains of capitalism, the wage system, first be broken, and that the masses be granted immediate freedom and well-being?

Of course, human beings do not live by bread alone. Nor do we disregard that faith by which, amid hunger and cold, Nichiren could declare, “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all.” We do not forget that the liberation of human beings, who seek the infinite while dwelling within the finite, can never ultimately be fulfilled by bread alone. And yet, when we confront the reality that human beings cannot live without bread either, what could embody the divine spirit that “man does not live by bread alone” more concretely than first guaranteeing bread for our less fortunate fellow human beings, ensuring its equitable distribution, and enabling them to share in abundant material resources? What could be more expressive of the highest human morality of compassionate concern for others? Nichiren said:

<blockquote>
White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.

</blockquote>

Bread is indeed life. It is precisely within the problem of bread that the Buddha’s compassion must be realized. All the more so in an age such as ours, an age of acute hardship. Nichiren also said:

<blockquote>
Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation.<ref>This passage combines the biblical dictum “Man does not live by bread alone” with three passages from the writings of Nichiren (1222–1282). “Among the wealthy people of Japan today, Nichiren is the richest of all” comes from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄 (The Opening of the Eyes, 1272; Goshō, p. 223), where spiritual possession of the Lotus Sutra is contrasted with worldly wealth. “White rice is not merely white rice; it is life itself” derives from the Hakumai ippyō gosho 白米一俵御書 (On a Bushel of White Rice, 1280; Goshō, p. 1597), a letter thanking a follower for a gift of food. Finally, “Borrow the Buddha’s eye and consider the time and its capacities; use the Buddha’s sun to illuminate the nation” cites the Senji-shō 撰時抄 (On the Selection of the Time, 1275; Goshō, p. 258), in which Nichiren stresses discerning the historical moment and acting accordingly. Seno’o brings these passages together to distinguish his position from reductive materialism without allowing spiritual aspiration to become an excuse for indifference to material suffering. Nichiren’s identification of rice with life thus becomes a scriptural basis for bringing Buddhist compassion into material and economic life.</ref>

</blockquote>

The Dharma is ''myō''—wondrous, responsive, something to be put into living application. Only when an impartial and universal compassion is brought to bear as a light upon the solution of the central problems of actual life can religion and morality remain enduring values for humanity. Otherwise, in the end, they are no different from…

{{opage|249}}

…opiates that numb our sense of reality.

<blockquote>
The people suffer from disease and immeasurable hardships. Know that when this occurs, the nation will be destroyed.

</blockquote>

That “something” is now all too clear. The people are impoverished, and their '''groans''' of anguish can already be heard beneath the carriages. It is precisely these '''groans''' that become the terrifying force latent within human nature, erupting with the declaration that “necessity knows no law.”<ref>The phrase “necessity knows no law” (hitsuyō wa hōritsu o shirazu 必要は法律を知らず) echoes the Western maxim necessitas non habet legem, according to which extreme necessity may override ordinary legal constraint. Seno’o connects the maxim to the “groans” (umeki うめき) of an impoverished population: when basic needs become sufficiently urgent, popular suffering may burst through the restraints imposed by law.</ref>

Look at the geometrical, explosive progression: sixteen, twenty-eight, five hundred. And listen to the voices of the children of this young age—the many who take an interest and feel sympathy—resounding deep within the earth. Truly, this is a problem demanding the attention of the intellectuals and statesmen of our time. We hardly needed Prosecutor-General Koyama to tell us so.

The masses are not necessarily a foolish multitude. They experience things before they understand them intellectually. That is why their knowledge is grounded in actuality. Their intuition is comparatively accurate. Thus the pioneers of an age have always found the people on their side, just as the people in turn support those pioneers. It is a mistake to imagine that the masses merely follow others blindly. In the very ordinariness of their everyday lives, how often they grasp the subtleties of human feeling, intuit the rights and wrongs of things, and act accordingly! How much of the pure-heartedness that loves the homeland and courageously defends justice still remains preserved in their very bodies! The people do not readily jump aboard the bandwagon of propaganda and cavort through an empty world of abstractions. They act through contact with the realities of life. Consequently, if the state were governed impartially in the spirit of the Humane King, and the lives of ordinary households were truly secure, why would people willingly throw themselves into movements in which their lives were at stake? They love their wives; their children are dear to them.

Thus, if there actually existed a concrete politics based upon our Imperial Way—“The wealth of the people is Our wealth”—then however widely Marxism might be propagated and however vigorously the Communist Party might act, the state of the Humane King would remain eternally unmoved.<ref>The dictum “The wealth of the people is Our wealth” (tami no tomeru wa chin no tomeru nari 民の富めるは朕の富めるなり) derives from the traditional account of Emperor Nintoku recorded in the Nihon shoki (720). According to the legend, Nintoku, observing that no smoke rose from his subjects’ cooking fires, suspended taxation for three years; when prosperity returned, he declared their prosperity to be his own. Seno’o turns this ideal of benevolent imperial rule into a standard for criticizing contemporary government: if the “Imperial Way” (kōdō 皇道) genuinely identifies the sovereign’s welfare with that of the people, government must secure the material well-being of ordinary households. His increasingly radical critique of capitalism thus remains, at this stage, articulated within an idealized conception of imperial sovereignty.</ref> For such a Humane King embodies the spirit common to the people themselves. He is the source of their well-being. Moreover, the principle of such humane kingship can embrace and assimilate all things, continually making them into a clear mirror for the improvement of government. Arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts: know that when this occurs, the extinction of the Dharma will not be far off.

<blockquote>
O Great King, in a future age, kings, ministers, and disciples of the fourfold assembly will themselves create the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and they themselves will suffer the consequences. The fault does not lie with the Buddha-Dharma.

</blockquote>

Looking back upon the fault described here, I recall hearing that, at the time of the Kōtoku Shūsui Incident in Meiji 43 [1910], our great Meiji Emperor repented before the deities of heaven and earth with these words:

{{opage|250}}

<blockquote>
If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body.<ref>The “Kōtoku Shūsui Incident” refers to the High Treason Incident (Taigyaku Jiken 大逆事件) of 1910–11, in which twenty-six socialists and anarchists were convicted of plotting against the Meiji Emperor; Kōtoku Shūsui (幸徳秋水, 1871–1911) and eleven others were executed. Seno’o associates the incident with a gyosei (御製, imperial poem) by the Meiji Emperor: “Tsumi araba ware o togameyo Amatsu-kami / tami wa waga mi no umishi ko nareba” (“If there be fault, O gods of heaven, blame me, for the people are children born of my own body”). The poem was actually composed in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War, but was later popularly associated with the High Treason Incident as an expression of imperial self-reproach. Seno’o turns this idealized memory against the government of 1928: rather than simply condemning political dissent, responsible rulers should examine the conditions that produced it.</ref>

</blockquote>

I was so deeply moved and awestruck that I scarcely knew how to respond. Indeed, considered with reverence, it is precisely such self-reflection that makes our sovereign a sovereign in the truest sense; that bears witness to a relationship which, though in principle one of ruler and subject, is in feeling that of parent and child; and that consequently demonstrates the possibility of reforming defective institutions and social structures. It is therefore also the one true safety valve against revolution. And it is here, I believe, that we can recognize the genuine value of our national polity as an unbroken imperial line through all ages, an unblemished golden vessel.

And yet, how are the Ministers of State, who ought to embody this spirit and bear the grave responsibility of assisting the Emperor, actually wielding the reins of government today? It was precisely this question, raised by the Communist Party Incident, that prompted me to read the ''Sutra for Humane Kings.''

Can it truly be said that they do not rely upon their own power and authority, that they do not suppress the fourfold assembly, but instead follow reason, uphold justice, and properly attend to the welfare of the nation and its people?

Surely a cry of “No!”, bursting forth from righteous indignation, comes crashing toward us with a force exceeding even the raging waves of the ocean. The memories of universal manhood suffrage and of the Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet remain fresh in the minds of the people—indeed, they should remain permanent sources of righteous indignation.<ref>Seno’o alludes to Japan’s first general election under universal manhood suffrage, held in February 1928, and the subsequent Fifty-Fifth Imperial Diet. The election greatly expanded the electorate and brought representatives of the newly organized proletarian parties into the Diet, but was also marked by police interference, restrictions on left-wing campaigning, and allegations of electoral abuses under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi. Significantly, Seno’o describes the outraged public as the “fourfold assembly” (shishū 四衆), the traditional Buddhist term for the complete community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen, thereby recasting popular political indignation as a form of Buddhist moral judgment.</ref>

Interference, intervention, repression, detention, the rampant activity of violent gangs and official acquiescence in it, mysterious-document scandals, adjournment followed by further adjournment, the buying of Diet members, and so forth: was it not they who abused virtually every form of power available to them, leaving behind an unparalleled spectacle of ugliness in the history of our constitutional government? And when we are told that all this was done merely to keep their party cabinet in power, does that not exceed all bounds? Can such criticism really be called unjust?

Where reason cannot make itself heard and speech is sealed off, we must expect direct action inevitably to be provoked. Fraud is fraud, even if it involves only a single sen; a bribe is a bribe, even if it amounts to only one yen. Yet in a world where the petty thefts of the lower classes are punished mercilessly and severely, we hear rumors of men who use tens of thousands of yen to purchase the consciences of Diet members and, more broadly, to deceive and outrage the voters of the entire nation. And these very same men proclaim, on the other hand, that they will “sacrifice themselves for the nation in its hour of crisis” and issue solemn-sounding directives about “cultivating national thought and contributing to the promotion of the national spirit.”

What part of your own conduct, I ask, gives you the authority to substantiate such pronouncements?

Is not the absurdity of this rather…

{{opage|251}}

…like that of a libertine who continues frequenting prostitutes while solemnly insisting that he is doing everything in his power, with the utmost sincerity, to cure the venereal disease he has contracted?

The Emperor must be the embodiment of the Imperial Way—of perfect impartiality and complete sincerity, of justice itself. He must be an emperor who guarantees the genuine welfare of all the people. He cannot be someone whose existence is exploited for the advancement or decline of the partisan interests and power of a single party or faction.

And yet the conduct of the Ministers of State charged with the grave responsibility of assisting him has now become so lawless and so utterly lacking in self-reflection. Is this not precisely what the sutra means by such things as certain legislative bills—“arbitrarily establishing laws that do not accord with the Buddhist precepts,” “creating the causes and conditions for the destruction of the Dharma and the destruction of the nation, and themselves suffering the consequences”? Long ago, confronted by the abuses of his own age, Nichiren declared to the regent Hōjō Tokiyori:

<blockquote>
The entire world has turned its back upon what is right, and all people have returned to evil. Therefore benevolent deities abandon the nation and depart, while sages leave their places and do not return. Demons and devils enter in their stead; disasters arise and calamities occur. We cannot remain silent; we cannot but be afraid.

</blockquote>

And he thundered:

<blockquote>
You must quickly reform the small measure of faith in your heart and return at once to the single good teaching of the True Vehicle. Then the threefold world will all become the Buddha-land—how could a Buddha-land ever decline? The lands of the ten directions will all become treasure lands—how could a treasure land ever be destroyed? If the nation does not decline and the land is not destroyed, then the body will be secure and the mind serene.<ref>Both passages cite Nichiren’s most famous political treatise, the Risshō ankoku ron 立正安国論 (On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land, 1260; Goshō, pp. 17, 31), submitted to the former regent Hōjō Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227–1263) amid famine, epidemics, and other calamities. Seno’o constructs a deliberate parallel between Nichiren’s thirteenth-century remonstration and his own critique of the government in 1928. Nichiren’s promise that the land might become a “treasure realm” (hōdo 宝土) thereby acquires a contemporary social meaning: “peace in the land” (ankoku 安国) requires transformation of the conditions responsible for popular suffering.</ref>

</blockquote>

And yet today there is not a single religious figure who will rise and speak in this way against the abuses of the age. On the contrary, they willingly submit to being ordered about by those in power; obediently pursue fame and profit, transient as floating clouds; and together devote themselves to opium-like sermons, concerned with little more than devising ways of pacifying the people. What a disgraceful spectacle! Is this not precisely what is meant by the saying that those entrusted with protecting the Three Treasures destroy them themselves, “like worms within the lion’s own body devouring the lion’s flesh”?

When we consider that those who ought to serve as teachers of the nation have already sunk to such a state, where, then, should young people who understand the Buddha-Dharma appropriate to the age and aspire to devote themselves to their homeland in its hour of danger seek their path?

Yet when we look more deeply at the ignorance and evils of such an age, we must ask: who among us is truly qualified to pass authoritative judgment upon them and subject them to an uncompromising ''shakubuku''?<ref>Shakubuku 折伏 (literally “to break and subdue”) is a traditional Buddhist method of confronting and refuting erroneous views, commonly contrasted with shōju 摂受 (“to embrace and accept”), a more accommodating approach to propagation. In Nichiren Buddhism, shakubuku acquired particular importance as a forceful means of defending the correct Dharma and remonstrating with religious and political authority. Seno’o redirects the practice inward as well as outward: before subjecting others to shakubuku, young Buddhists must confront their own egoism and complicity in the social order they condemn. Shakubuku thus becomes simultaneously a practice of self-criticism and social criticism.</ref> Can we not discover within ourselves, too, some measure of the capitalist and establishment-party roots and manifestations of these same evils? Would not nearly everyone, once placed in a position of power, suddenly—or perhaps gradually—end by revealing the ugly base metal beneath the surface and changing sides? Has the righteousness professed while out of power really remained…

{{opage|252}}

…the same once one entered government? Or were we merely like an apparently honest cat that keeps its claws and fangs hidden only so long as the meat remains caught on a hook beyond its reach? Before we judge and subject others to ''shakubuku'', we must first judge and attack ourselves.

In the final analysis, the ugliness of society is not the fault of present-day capitalists and statesmen alone. It is nothing other than the interconnected and collective product of the materialistic and egoistic tendencies and ways of life of us all. Where could there possibly be a judge who stands absolutely outside it? Social life entails collective responsibility.

The admonition, “O Great King, the causes and conditions for the destruction of the nation are all of your own making,” is, in the final analysis, an admonition directed to each and every one of us as well.

Accordingly, the first step in transforming this ugly state of affairs must necessarily be directed toward our own inner lives. Before attacking other people, society, or the authorities, we must first subject to shakubuku our own materialistic and egoistic lives, which have strayed from and forgotten the spirit of the Buddha.

But although our reflection must begin in this way, genuine awakening cannot be permitted to stop at the level of the individual and the inward. True repentance and true transformation must, on the basis of this reflection and way of life, unfold once again toward the organic whole of social phenomena. Only by seeking the realization of both organic self-reflection and social transformation can we finally penetrate to the true self. Is it not precisely here that we discover the concrete and essential life of true repentance and self-transformation grounded in collective responsibility? For society is our own society. To struggle against defects in society is itself to extinguish our own karmic offenses. Criticism and shakubuku directed toward the governing authorities must therefore never amount merely to antagonistic hatred or to demagogic agitation designed to court popularity. Rather, I believe they can and must be affirmed and advocated as the necessary consequence of a yearning for truth and a concern for society.

Of course, to those who have not thought the matter through this far, such criticism and attack will clearly appear to be an attack upon and rebellion against themselves. Reaction, hatred, exclusion, and repression will inevitably follow. But for the genuine seeker of the Way, what can such counterattacks be if not the actual proof of one’s own repentance? The more deeply and broadly one reflects upon and recognizes one’s own karmic offenses and one’s previously unawakened way of life, the more such criticism and persecution can be understood as the natural karmic recompense for those offenses. Repentance thereby receives ever greater confirmation, and it is precisely here that a life of seeking the Way at the risk of one’s life begins to shine. Criticism and repression will arise in proportion to one’s unwavering effort and perseverance. Yet for the genuine seeker of the Way, they become ever more…

{{opage|253}}

…occasions for reflection, not causes for fear; a path of Dharma-joy, not a path of suffering.

They are trials. Stone turns to ash; gold remains true gold. Those who fall away will fall away; those who advance can only continue advancing. Listen to the cry of our Nichiren Shōnin:

<blockquote>
When Nichiren turned the bright mirror of the ''Lotus Sutra'' upon himself, he found it entirely free of cloudiness. There can be no doubt that the offense of slandering the Dharma exists within my own person from the past. If I do not extinguish this offense in this present life, how shall I escape the sufferings of hell in the future? I considered how I might gather together the grave offenses accumulated over countless ages, extinguish them all within this single lifetime, and thereby escape great suffering in the future. In this present age, people who slander the Dharma fill every province of the country. Moreover, the ruler of the nation himself has already become the foremost among those who slander it. If I do not extinguish these grave offenses at such a time, when should I ever expect to do so? If Nichiren, insignificant though his person may be, were to cover the nation of Japan with his voice and denounce them, the countless members of the fourfold assembly who follow false teachings would all revile him at once with countless mouths. At that time, the ruler of the nation, taking the side of the monks who slander the Dharma, would likewise revile Nichiren. He might have his head cut off, or subject him to exile or execution. If such things were to happen time and again, the grave offenses accumulated over innumerable ''kalpas'' could be extinguished within this single lifetime. I devised this great strategy, and things have unfolded without the slightest deviation from it. Having come to such a state, surely my aspiration will be fulfilled. — “On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma” (''Hōbō metsuzai-shō'')

</blockquote>

And listen again:

<blockquote>
Now, because Nichiren vigorously attacks the slander of the Dharma throughout the nation, these great persecutions have arisen. Surely the grave offenses of the past have been summoned forth in this lifetime through my defense of the Dharma. Iron remains black so long as it does not encounter fire; when joined with fire, it becomes red. When a swift current is struck with a piece of wood, waves rise like mountains; when one lays a hand upon a sleeping lion, it roars mightily.<ref>Seno’o draws these passages from two writings composed during Nichiren’s exile on Sado Island (1271–1274). The first, the Hōbō metsuzai-shō 謗法滅罪抄 (On Extinguishing Slanders of the Dharma, 1273; Goshō, pp. 1121–22), interprets Nichiren’s persecution and exile as an opportunity to expiate past karmic offenses and fulfill his religious mission. The second, the Sado gosho 佐渡御書 (Letter from Sado, 1272; Goshō, p. 958), uses the images of iron exposed to fire, swift water struck by a log, and a sleeping lion awakened by touch to suggest that fierce opposition is the natural response elicited by forceful propagation of the Dharma. Seno’o transforms the Sado exile into a model of perseverance for young Buddhists confronting political opposition in 1928.</ref>

</blockquote>

Religion is not opium. What permitted the followers of Lenin to indulge so freely in their mockery of religion as opium? Was it not that religion stopped at merely conceptual, inward repentance and reflection, failing to advocate and carry out a critique extending into the very contents and forms of actual social life—and a movement for their transformation?

Religion is not opium. The religion of the holy Nichiren is emphatically not opium-like.

Religion, for us, is life. Society forms the content of the self. The self is society. Politics, economics, education, military affairs, the arts, and everything else—all of these are also our religion. They are the contents of social life that must be criticized and transformed in accordance with the spirit of the Buddha.<ref>The characterization of religion as the “opium of the people” is most famously associated with Karl Marx, who used the expression in his 1844 introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vladimir Lenin subsequently made the critique of religion an important element of Marxist political thought, notably in “Socialism and Religion” (1905). By referring to the “followers of Lenin,” Seno’o confronts the Marxist charge that religion reconciles the oppressed to existing social conditions. Rather than rejecting the accusation, he concedes that religion becomes “opium” when repentance remains merely inward (shintaiteki zange 心態的懺悔) and leaves political, economic, and social structures untouched. Because “society forms the content of the self,” genuine religious transformation must extend to social institutions. Seno’o thus turns the Marxist critique of religion into a Buddhist critique of religion that fails to transform social life.</ref> For precisely this reason, to aspire to and enter into the work of social transformation is genuine self-knowledge and genuine repentance; at the same time, it is a life of gratitude and the repayment of indebtedness. Ultimately, it is the conclusion and completion of the life of faith.

Indeed, is it not only when we see matters in this way that we can recognize the essential difference between a movement for transformation arising from religion and the movements for social transformation of so-called socialism and communism,…

{{opage|254}}

…which take the materialist conception of history as their point of departure?

Thus truth breathes within reality, and religion becomes one with life. “Above all, having been born in this land, how could I fail to concern myself with my country?” “White rice is '''not merely''' white rice; it is life itself.” Social institutions are not merely social institutions: they are religion.

The principle of three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality (''ji no ichinen sanzen'') taught by the holy Nichiren can take the place of Tiantai’s three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle (''ri no ichinen sanzen'').<ref>The doctrine of “Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought-Moment” (ichinen sanzen 一念三千), systematized by the Chinese Tiantai master Zhiyi (智顗, 538–597), holds that each moment of mind encompasses the totality of possible states of existence. Seno’o invokes the Nichirenist distinction between “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as principle” (ri no ichinen sanzen 理の一念三千), associated with Tiantai contemplative teaching, and “three thousand realms in a single thought-moment as actuality” (ji no ichinen sanzen 事の一念三千), associated with Nichiren’s teaching and practice in the age of the Final Dharma. Seno’o gives this doctrinal distinction a distinctly social interpretation: Buddhist truth must become actual in political, economic, and social life. Ji no ichinen sanzen thus becomes a warrant for Buddhist praxis—the concrete transformation of both self and society.</ref> That is to say, it is the actualization of the Buddhist spirit.

In truth, theories can be constructed however one likes; arguments can be made in any number of ways. Ah, but you living young people, possessed of a profound concern for human life, for society, for your fellow human beings, and for the present and future of your homeland—

where, then, will you choose to direct your path?

(Shōwa 3 [1928], ''Wakōdo'' [''Youth''], vol. 9, no. 6)

== Notes ==

<references />

SG28KJC

2026-08-28T19:36:48Z

James: Created page with "{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__ {{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉}} Seno’o Girō (妹尾義郎) (1928). 〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉 [“Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''”]. 《若人》 9.6. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編《妹尾義郎宗教論集》 (東京：大蔵出版..."

{{Textual Verification}}__NOTOC__
{{DISPLAYTITLE:妹尾義郎、〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉}}

[[Seno’o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (1928). 〈共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む〉 [“Confronting the Communist Party Incident: Reading a Passage from the ''Sutra for Humane Kings Protecting the Nation''”]. 《若人》 9.6. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編《妹尾義郎宗教論集》 (東京：大蔵出版, 1975), 242–254.

{{tpage|242}}

'''{{size|150%|共産党事件に直面して仁王護国経の一節を読む}}'''

仁王経嘱累品第八

大王よ、破国の因縁は皆汝自ら作る。
己が威力を恃み、四部の衆を制して修福を聴かず、諸の悪比丘あって別請の法を受け、知識の比丘共に一心となり、互に相親善し、斎会して福を求む、是れ外道の法にして都べて我が教に非ず。
百姓疾疫し無量の苦難あり、当に知るべし、爾の時に国土破滅せん。
大王よ、法末世の時、国王、大臣、四部の弟子各々非法を作し、横ざまに佛教に与し諸の過咎を作る。法に非ず律に非ざるなり。

大王よ、我が滅度の後、四部の弟子、一切の国王、王子、百官、乃ち是れ三宝の護持に任ずる者、而かも自ら破壊す、師子身中の虫自ら師子の肉を食ふが如し、外道に非ずや。

我が法を壊る者は大過咎を得ん、正法衰薄して民に正行無し、諸悪漸く増して其の寿日に減じ、復孝子なし、六親不和にして天龍祐けず、悪鬼悪龍日に来って侵害し災怪相継ぎ禍を為すこと縦横なり、当に地獄、畜生、餓鬼に堕つべし、若し人と為ることを得るも貧窮下賤にして諸根具せず、影の形に随ふが如く響の声に応ずるが如く、人の夜書するに火滅して字存するが如し、法を毀る果報も亦復是の如し。悪比丘名利を求むるが為に我が法に非ず、国王の前に於て自ら過患を説き破法の縁を作る、其の王別へずして此の語を信愛し、横ざまに制法を立てて佛戒に依らず当に知るべし、爾の時に法滅せんこと久しからず。

大王よ、未来世の中に、国王、大臣、四部の弟子、自ら破法破国の因縁を作り、身自ら之を受く、佛法の咎に非ざるなり。

{{tpage|243}}

共産党事件を目にして、言下に、金甌無欠の国体を破壊せんとする反逆だ、不逞の陰謀だと亢憤してただ、排撃弾圧するのみにとどまって、何が故に金甌無欠の国家にかかる一大不祥事が発生するに至ったかを省みず、言ふところの金甌無欠なる本質と、それに遠ざかれること甚しき国民生活の実情とを深思せず、従って、切開し根治すべき主要なる患部に気付かざる、おろかな国民にとっては、佛陀のこの金戒も、或は馬の耳に念佛であるかもしらぬが、それにしても、わが仁王経は現代の国家にとって、たしかに頂門の一針に値することだけは間違ひないと信ずるから、敢て特書して、識者の三省九思に資して見たいと思ふ。

仁王護国経嘱累品

『「仁王」とは恩を施し徳を布くが故に「仁」と名づけ、純化自在なるが故に王と名づく、「護国」とは仁王法に由り道に率ふて国界を守護するが故に、人民適楽し国土安穏なるをいふ』

と解釈され、「嘱累」とは、かかる道理に従って、自らも政治し他の国王にも政治すべく伝道せよと命ぜられたものである。

大王よ、破国の因縁は皆汝自ら作る。

佛陀の断案は要を得て簡潔だ。破国の因縁を一言にして皆汝の責任なりと論告されるのだ。全く一句万了といふべきである。

考へれば、物の道理はまさしくさうであらねばならぬと思ふ。その何国たるを問はず、いやしくも一国の問題は、すべて之を統治し支配する主権者に責任が帰結されることはあたりまへのことで、かくあってこそ、名実ともに備はる国王の資格があるわけであらう。事実、万歳の声の集まるのもここであり、革命の烽火の指すのもここであることは世界の歴史が明らかに物語ってをる。従って、破国の因縁は之を人民に求むべきではない。況や国外に求むべきではない。「皆汝自ら作る」と戒告されたのは、何としても、正鵠を得たる論断だといはねばならぬ。

もし、この論断にして真なりとせば、わが破国の因縁は、断じて一部共産党でもなければ、彼等を司令してるといふ露西亜の第三インターナショナルでもなければ、またマルキシズムでもないわけであって、実にそれらの

{{tpage|244}}

依って乗じうる、また依って発生しうる、欠陥を有する国情そのものに求めなければならぬ。従ってまた、国家を支配してその国情を自由に改革しうる主権者に之を求むべきことは決して不当の論理ではないと信じられる。

しかし、わが憲法によれば、その第三条に「天皇は神聖にして侵すべからず」とあり、第五十五条には「国務大臣は天皇を輔弼し其の責に任ず」とあるからには、わが国に於ては、佛陀の戒告にあたるべき責任者は、当然国務大臣であるべきは言をまたぬ。

思ふに蚊の襲撃に困るものは、それが発生する泥溝ざらへや或は下水工事を完全にすることが根本的の施設で、また最も早く問題をかたづける一ばん賢明な遣り方であることは何人にもわかることだ。いつまで、卵を生みつける蚊がいけないのだと呶鳴って見ても、また毎度、蚊遣線香でくすべ殺して見ても、どぶや下水を改浚せぬかぎりは蚊は依然として続々と発生する分とも減るものではない。ところが、大阪でも東京でも下水工事がうまくできたところは、文字なしに、いつのまにか蚊の声や姿が消えてしまって住民は安気に睡眠がとれるやうになった如く、また、たまたま他所からやってきても、長く生存することは勿論不可能であるやうに、下水工事の必要さは、産卵する蚊の処置以上に必要にして、適当に施設すべき根本問題でなければならない。

しかし、下水工事の完成が根本問題だといったからって、下水工事が人間より大事だといふのではない。ただ下水工事は人間の意志によって改造しうる一ツの施設だから、従って、事理のわかった人間は、蚊に困る場合はこの下水工事を速かに設計し完成すべきで、それと同じく、もし社会の制度組織に問題の発生する欠陥があるとすれば、まづ其の欠陥の改善に進むべき事理のわかった人間の生活だといふのだ。

然らば、改造すべき欠陥が果してあるのか。あるとすれば、それは何か。

この問題は、今さら、こんな廻りくどく言はなくても、少しく社会的関心をもつ者にとっては、もはや常識であるはずで、から言ふさへすでに陳腐の嫌ひがあるほどだが、念のために、此度の共産党事件に関して、明言されたといふ小山検事総長の言葉を、ここに引用すれば

「高津正道、堺利彦と、それに今回とで共産党事件は三回目である。第一回は十六名、次が二十八名、今回

{{tpage|245}}

は約五百名（予想）とその人員が漸次増加して行くことは何を物語るか。今回検挙された人々の中には非常に真面目な分子が多いのである。畢竟するに、かくの如き思想の弥漫してゆくといふことはそこに彼等の共鳴する何物かがあらねばならぬ。そこに社会組織上に何等かの欠陥があるのではあるまいか。治安法をいかに完備するとも欠陥を直さなければ根絶を期するわけには行かぬ。捕はれた者を責めるよりも其の方が肝腎であると思ふ。何れにしても、これは一種の困難であつて、この社会相は世の識者並びに為政者の考慮を要することである。」

とのことだ。参加党員の顔ぶれを見るに、その多くが純真な青年であり、また相当な知識の所有者であり、身心ともに健康な連中だといふことは、たしかに注目に値する事実でなければならぬ。かつては無造作に嘲笑されたいはゆる社会を呪ふ病弱者の病的なやけ仕事でもなく、また西洋カブレの悪戯とばかり言へないのだ。

純真な魂は、常に真理性に感激し、義人の血は、常に弱者に味方して湧くものだ。

さてこそ、あの厳しい圧迫があるにも拘らず、ますます共鳴者が増加する事実を考へるとき、たしかに総長がいふが如く「そこに何物かが」なくてはならぬので、この何物かを研究し改造せずして、またもし「何物か」の解釈について、彼等の認識に誤診があるならば、之に対して明確なる理解指導を与へずして、ただ之を危険視し反逆視するのみであるならば、別にまた総長の言ふがごとく「飯の上の蠅を追ふに等しい」愚かさである。それこそ、佛陀の戒められた「諸の悪比丘あつて別請の法を受け知識の比丘共に一心になり、互に相親善し斎会して福を求むる」の態度で、たしかに不徹底なる「国民思想涵養の題目をかかげて御用宗教家と共に、互に自己擁護に腐心する魂胆だ」と非難されても仕方がないことではあるまいか。総長の言を引くまでもなく改造すべき欠陥はありすぎるほどあるのだ。

百姓疾病して無量の苦難あり、当に知るべし、爾の時に国土破滅せん。

民衆貧困の原因について、マルキシズムが資本主義経済組織を指摘してゐることは言を要せぬ。さらにこの資本主義は必然に次第に階級的に貧富の懸隔を嵩ぜしめて、その懸隔がある程度に到達すると、恰も、汽罐に圧縮

{{tpage|246}}

された蒸気が、ある一定限度に達すると突然爆音を立てて汽罐を破裂するやうに、現経済組織も圧搾された第四階級の手によって、遂に革命が行はれるにいたるものだと科学的に歴史的に立証してることも周知の事柄である。

翻って、わが佛教を顧みると、佛陀も亦、ここに国土破滅の時を、疾病窮乏に苦しむ民衆の生活難の時と明示されてをられるが、人間性を徹見してをられる佛陀の断案は正しいやうだ。たしかに、昔から飢饉に莚旗や竹槍はつきものであつたやうだ。ここに於て深く考慮すべきは、たとへ唯物史観に立って宗教を否認するマルキシズムと、人格史観（唯物史観と唯心史観とを止揚したるもの）に立てる佛教とが、もとよりそのままに相容れざるものであり、従って、窮乏の根本原因の認識について、その見解を異にするものであるとするも、而も民衆の生活苦の行き詰りをもって、国家社会興亡の支点動機と見るところに、不思議にも共通せる断案の与へられてあることである。

従って、民衆の生活苦を救済する具体的施設は、道義的欠点に立つも、科学的認識に従ふも、どっちにしても、最も留意すべき肝腎な問題だと言はねばならぬことだ。

然らば、民衆窮乏の原因は何か。

マルキストによれば、それが資本主義経済組織の故であることは前にも言った。マルキストは資本主義経済組織のもとにあっては

『生産枝術の進歩は万人を利するものではなく、資本家の利潤の増大を齎すのだ。労働大衆にはかへって失業と滅亡を与へるのだ。資本家は決して飢えたる労働者を養ふといふ人道的な立場から、労働者を養ふのではない。彼等は利潤を搾り取るために労働者を雇ふのだ。この利潤慾が、彼等をして工場を建てしめ、労働者を雇はしめ、そして不断に、より高率の利潤を得べき所――より高価に、商品を売り得る市場を嗅ぎ搜さしむるのだ。」といふのだ。而も「労働者には、労働力を売らねば生きられぬ不自由があり、資本家には馘首の自由があり、労働者を飢餓に曝しうる自由がある。この文明社会に再現した新しき奴隷制度！』

と、かなり彼等は喝破してゐるのだ。

然らば、佛教の道義的観点に立って、かくもマルキシ

{{tpage|247}}

ズムに呪はれたる、資本主義の依って成立したるアダム・スミスの経済学原理を審理して見ればどうだらう。スミスの国富論に曰く

人間は不断に他人の援助を必要とする。然し、その援助は、他人の恩恵に依つて得られるものではない。他人の利己心に訴へ自分の欲するところのものが、彼等自身の利益なることを知らしめることに於てのみ、他人に依る自己の援助は期待し得られる。我等の飲食物は、肉屋、酒屋、パン屋の恩恵にまつのでなく、彼等が彼等自身の利益を重んずるが故に調へられる。我等は彼等の慈善心に訴へるのではない。唯彼等の自利心に訴へるのである。我等は彼等に対して、すこしも我等自身の必要をかたるにおよばない。彼等が彼等自身の利益のために何事もやってくれるから。――

と。かかる利己主義と自由放任主義の上に立てられた経済組織こそまさしく今の資本主義の本態であるが、しかしながら、かかる利己主義と自由放任とが佛教の根本精神に背戻することは今更いふまでもないことである。

佛陀は、法華経に「諸苦の本は貪欲なり」といひ「三悪道増長して阿修羅も亦盛んなり」といはれた。ひつきよう、この我利と自由競争のもたらす罪悪の戒告でなくて何であらう。「我」と「我所」即ち個人主義と、無制限なる私有財産とは佛道修行の禁物であって、共有報恩の思想と実行こそ、わが佛教の根本精神であるわけであって、かの社会主義者が「生産が資本家の利潤の為に行はれるのではなく、生産が万人の幸福のために行はれるとしたら、今こそ全く異つた社会相が現はれるであらう」といふ、その社会相こそ、また佛陀の社会生活に対していだかれる理想でもあるはずである。

この点、前記、仁王経には「悪比丘、名利を求むるが故に我が法に依らず」といひ、「正法衰薄して民に正行なし、諸悪漸く増して其の寿日に減じ」といはれて利己主義の流弊を道破されてあるが、直視すれば、資本主義文明は、巨人の歩みのごとく進歩した。富の生産は驚嘆すべきほど増大した。しかしながら、予期された、「最大多数の最大幸福」は夢であった。生産機関の独占と金融機関の独占とに相俟つて、さらに制裁なきシンヂケートやトラスト等の自由によって、一部少数の資本家はますます殷富に躍るに反して、最大多数の民衆は、その血みどろの労働生産に従事するにも拘らず恵まるるものは依

{{tpage|248}}

然として薄く、相対的にますます貧困を来し不幸を増大して、あはれ一家こぞって永久に賃銀労働の鉄鎖に呻吟せねばならなくなったのだ。

まことに、共産主義者、社会主義者の関心こそこの一点にかかるものでなくて何であらう。過激はたむべきだ。しかしこの改造の叫びは何が故に不当であらうか。思へ、価格の関係によっては、寒さにふるへてゐる同胞はさらにある世に、折角生産された棉花が、ムザムザと焼却されることもあるのだ。一塊の黒砂糖にもありつけぬ飢えたる同胞がある世に、とけて流れる山のごとき砂糖が依然として資本家の倉庫にしまはれてあるのだ。さらに見よ、資本家や地主階級等が一年概算三十五億五千万円からの巨利を恵まれつつあるといふのに、労働者小作人等、社会大衆がいかに生活難に競々たることぞ。この汗につく血をもってするも、猶明日のパンに迫はるるわが同胞の現実を正視して、一片涙を有するもの、この限りに於てたれか、まづ資本主義――賃銀制度の鉄鎖を切断して、大衆当面の自由と福利とを与へんと奮起せざるものぞ。

もとよりだ、人はパンのみにして生くるものではない。われらは、飢寒の中にあって、「当世日本国に富める者日蓮第一なり」と仰せられたあの信念を無視するものではない。有限に処して無限を求むる人間の解脱は遂にパンの上にのみたされざることを忘れるものではない。しかしながら、またパンなくして生きえぬ現実を直視するとき、まづ恵まれざる同胞のために、パンの保証と、その公平なる分配とをはかることこそまた、如意の財源を同胞に分潤せしめることこそ、パンのみにして生くるものにあらざる神の精神を現実に意識し体験するものでなくて何であらう。思ひ遣りある人間至高の道義でなくて何であらう。日蓮聖人はいはれた。

白米は白米にあらずして命なり

と。パンこそ命だ。パンの問題の中にこそ、佛陀の慈悲の実現があるのだ。わけて現代のごとき生活苦の時において然りだ。日蓮聖人はまた言はれた。

佛眼をかって時機をかんがへよ、佛日を用ひて国土をてらせ

と。法とは妙だ、活用だ。一視同仁の慈愛が現実の中心問題解決の光として活用されてこそ、宗教も道義も永劫に人生の価値でありうるのだ。さもなくば畢竟、現実性

{{tpage|249}}

麻痺の阿片剤と同類だ。

百姓疾疫し無量の苦難あり、当に知るべし、爾の時国土破滅せん。

かの「何物」こそあまりにも明瞭である。民衆は窮乏して苦悶のうめきはまさに輦載のもとにきこえてをるのだ。このうめきこそ人間性にひそむ「必要は法律を知らず」と言をたてて破裂する恐しい力となるのだ。

見よ、十六名、二十八名、五百名とくるこの幾何的飛躍的伝播性を。而も聞け、いかに多くの関心をもち共鳴を感ずる若き時代の子の声の大地ふかくひびけるかを。
まことに、世の識者、為政者の考慮を要すべき今、小山検事総長をまって知るごとき問題ではないのである。

民衆は必ずしも衆愚ではない。知る以前に味ふ存在である。だから実際なのだ。彼等の直観は比較的正確だ。だから、時の先覚は常に民衆に味方され民衆はまた先覚を支持してゆくのだ。民衆を雷同するものと考へるのは間違ひだ。彼等は、その平凡な日常生活の中に、いかに反って、人情の機微にふれ、物の筋目を直観し、行動しつつあるか。祖国を愛し仁侠に勇む純真性が、いかに今も、多分に彼等の五体に保存されてをるか。民衆は容易に宣伝の尻馬に乗って空虚な観念の世界に跳梁するものではない。常に生活の実際にふれて行動するものだ。従って、もし国家が仁王の精神によって公平に統治され、民家の生活が真に安泰であるとするならば、彼等は何を好んで命がけの運動なんかするものか。妻もいとしく子供も可愛いのだ。

だから、もし「民の富めるは朕の富めるなり」なる、わが皇道に則る具体的政治が現実にあるならば、いかにマルキシズムが宣伝されようとも、共産党がどのやうに跳梁しようとも、仁王の国家は永久に微動だもするものではない。なぜなれば、かかる仁王こそ民衆共通の精神であるからだ。民衆至福の源泉であるからだ。また、かかる仁王の哲理はよく一切を包容し融化して不断に統治向上の明鑑となすからだ。

横ざまに制法を立てて佛戒に依らず、当に知るべし、爾の時に法滅せんこと久しからず。

大王よ、未来世の中に、国王、大臣、四部の弟子自ら破法破国の因縁を作り、身自ら之を受く、佛法の咎に非ざるなり。

顧みれば、わが明治大帝が、

{{tpage|250}}

罪あらばわれをとがめよ天つ神民はわが身のうみし子なれば

と、天神地祇にさんげましましたと拝聞して、感動恐懼その答ふるところを知らなかったのは、明治四十三年かの幸徳秋水事件の時であった。まこと拝すれば、かかる御内省こそ、わが主権のまことの主権におはします所以であり、義は君臣なれど情は父子なる関係を裏書きさるるものであり、従って欠陥ある制度組織改造の可能を示すものであり、従ってまた、革命に対して唯一の安全弁であり、而して、ここに万世一系、金甌無欠の国体として真の価値を認識しうることだと信じられるのだ。

しかしながら、かかる精神を体して、その補弼の重責に任ずべき国務大臣等は、現在、いかにわが政柄を執ってをるのだ。共産党事件に直面して仁王経を読まんとする徴表はここに動いたのだ。

彼等は、果して己が威力を恃まず、四部の衆を制せず、道理に従ひ正義を奉じて、よく国家大衆の福利を計りつつあると言ひうるか。

義憤より迸る「ノー」の叫びは、大洋の激浪にもまし物凄く寄せてくまいか。普選の記憶も、第五十五議会の記憶も、国民の脳裡にはまだホヤホヤだ、否、永久に義憤の種であるべきだ。

交渉、干渉、弾圧、検束、暴力団の横行、黙認、怪文書事件、停会再停会、議員買収等々、数へきたれば、およそ利用しうる威力のかぎりを乱用しつくして、醜悪の極をわが憲政史上にのこしたのは彼等ではなかった。而も、それらのすべてが、唯、我党内閣存続のためであるとはいはれるに至っては、沙汰のかぎりではないか。それは果して不当の批難だらうか。

道理がきかれず、言論が封鎖されるところに、直接行動は必然に誘発されるものと思はねばならぬ。わづかに一銭でも詐欺は詐欺だ、一円でも賄賂は賄賂だ。而も、下層の貧盗みなど、容赦もなくビシビシ厳罰されてをる世の中に、万金を以て議員の良心を買収し、広くは天下の選挙民を欺瞞し痛憤せしめる邪悪戻徳の行為をするというがごとき噂もつ身が而も、一面、「身を以て国難に殉ぜん」といひ「国民思想の涵養、精神の作興に努力貢献」なんどと、いかにも、まことしやかな教令を発するのだ。汝等の行動のどの部分を押へば、その教令を裏書きする権威があるといふのだ。その愚かさ加減は、女

{{tpage|251}}

郎買ひをつづけながら、病みついた悪病を、誠心もって努力根治せんと力むの遊野郎と五十歩百歩の言ひ草ではあるまいか。

天皇は皇道――至公至誠、正義を表象する存在であらせられねばならぬのだ。全民衆の真正なる福利を保証される天皇であらせられねばならぬのだ。一党一派の党利党勢の消長に利用すべき存在ではあらせられぬはずなのだ。

而も補弼の重責にある国務大臣の行状、今やかくのごとく無道にして無反省である。何々法律案等「横ざまに制法を立てて佛戒によらず、破法破国の因縁を作り自ら之を受く」とはここのことではないか。かつては、日蓮聖人、かくのごとき時弊に際して時の執権北条時頼に向って、

世皆正に背き人悉く悪に帰す、故に善神国を捨てて相去り、聖人所を辞して還らず、是をもって魔来り鬼来り災起り難起る。言はずんばあるべからず、恐れずんばあるべからず

と断ぜられ、

汝早く信仰の寸心を改めて速に実乗の一善に帰せよ。

然らば三界は皆佛国なり佛国其れ衰へんや、十方は悉く宝土なり宝土何ぞ壊れんや、国に衰微なく土に破壊なくんば、身はこれ安全にして心はこれ禅定ならん

と喝しられたのだ。然るに今や、一人の起って之を言ふる宗教家のあるなく、反って、その頤使に甘んじ、浮雲のごとき名利に唯々として、相率ゐて阿片のごとき説法に浮身をやつして、わづかに民衆鎮撫の対策にのみ腐心せんとするとは、そもそも何のざまだ。これまさしく「三宝護持に任ずる者、而も自ら破壊す。獅子身中の虫自ら獅子の肉を食ふが如し」そのままではないか。

考へれば国師の任にあたるべきもの、すでに、この為態だ。時宜の佛法を解して祖国の危難に殉ぜんと志す若人の覚悟果していづれにかひそめるぞ。

しかしながら、顧みればかかる時代の迷蒙罪悪に対して、何人かよく権威ある審判と懺からざる折伏とをなしうる資格を有するであらうぞ。各自の内にも亦、多少の資本主義的、既成政党的、罪根罪相を発見し得ないであらうか。万人がおよそ万人、局にあたっては一変に或は序々に終に醜き地金を露出して納りかへる底の代物ではないであらうか。野にあっての正義は果して朝に立って

{{tpage|252}}

のそれでありえたか。肉が鈎にかかって手のとどかぬ間だけの爪牙を露出せぬ正直なる猫と同類ではなかったか。われらは、他を審判し折伏する前に先づ自らを審判し攻撃せねばうそである。

畢竟、社会の醜状は独り現資本家や為政者のみの罪ではないのだ。相互の唯物的利己的性向と生活との連帯的総合的産物に外ならぬのだ。どこに絶対に局外に立ちうる審判者が許されえようぞ。社会生活は連帯責任だ。

「大王よ、破国の因縁は皆汝自らを作る」の戒告は、ひっきょう、また各自への戒告なのだ。

ここに於てか、この醜状を改造する第一歩は、当然自己の内面生活にむけねばうそだ。他人を社会を当局を攻撃する前に、まづ佛陀の精神に遠ざかれる。忘却せる各自の唯物的、利己的現存生活を折伏してかかることを忘れてはならぬのだ。

だが、先づかうは反省すべきものであるものの、更に真の自覚は、この個的観念の生活の上に止まるべきものではあってはならぬ。真の懺悔、真の改造はまさに、この反省と生活の上に立って、再び有機的な全体的、社会的事象に向って展開して、而して有機的内省と、社会改造の実現とを期成してこそ、はじめて真の自己に徹底するものと思はねばならぬ。そこにこそ、真の連帯責任的自己懺悔と自己改造の具体的本質的生活が認識されるのではないか。なぜならば、社会は自己の社会なのだ、社会的欠陥への運動はまた自己の罪障消滅なのだ。かくして、当局為政者への批判折伏は、畢竟、一片の対立的憎悪や人気的やま師的運動ではなくして、実に、真理思慕と社会的関心からの必然として肯定し唱道しうるのでなくてはならぬと信ずる。

しかしながら、かかる批判攻撃ももとより、此処まで徹して考へざる対象にとっては、あきらかに自己への攻撃反逆と思惟されるのだ。反感、憎悪、排撃、圧迫は必然に起らざるをえないのだ。だが真の求道者にとってはかかる反運動こそ、まさに自己懺悔の実証でなくて何であらう。自己の罪業を、過去の無自覚なる生活を広く深く反省し認識すればするほど、この批難迫害こそ、当然の業報と観ぜられて、懺悔心はますます実証され、ここにはじめて命がけの求道生活は輝かしくあるのではないか。批難と圧迫とは不退転の努力精進に比例して起ってこよう。だが、それらは、真の求道者にとってはいよいよ反

{{tpage|253}}

省の種であって恐怖の種ではない。法悦の道であって、苦悩の道ではないのだ。試めされるのだ。石は灰に金は真金に、落ちるものは落ちるのだ、進むものは進むばかりだ。聞け、わが日蓮聖人の叫びを、

日蓮は法華経の明鏡をもって自身に引き向へたるに都てくもりなし。過去の謗法の我身にあること疑ひなし。此の罪を今生に消さずば未来いかでか地獄の苦をば免るべき。過去遠々の重罪をばいかにしてか皆集めて今生に消滅して未来の大苦を免れんと勘へしに、当世時に当って謗法の人々国々に充満せり。其上国主既に第一の誹謗の人たり。此時、此の重罪を消さず何の時を期すべき。日蓮が小身を日本国に打ち覆ひてののしらば、無量無辺の邪法の四衆等、無量無辺の口を以て一時に誹るべし。爾の時に国主は謗法の僧等が方人として一時に誹るべし。爾の時に国主は謗法の僧等が方人として日蓮を怨み或は頸を刎ね、或は流罪死罪に行ふべし。度々かかる事出来せば無量劫の重罪一生の内に消えなんと謀てたる大術少しも違ふことなく、かかる身となれば所願も満足なるべし（同頁謗法滅罪鈔）

と。また聞け、

今、日蓮強盛に国土の謗法を責むれば、此の大難の来るは過去の重罪の今生の護法に招き出せるなるべし。鉄は火に値はざれば黒し、火と合ひぬれば赤し。木をもって急流をかけば波山のごとし、睡れる獅子に手をつくれば大に吼ゆ

と。宗教は阿片ではない。レーニンの徒をして阿片の嘲笑をほしいままにせしめたるもの、蓋し、一片の観念内的懺悔反省にとどまって、進んで実社会生活の内容形式にまで立ち入っての批判と、その改造運動とを唱道し実行せしめざりしが為ではなかったか。

宗教は阿片ではない。聖日蓮の宗教は断じて阿片的ではないのだ。
宗教は我等にとっては生活だ。社会は自己の内容なのだ。自己は即ち社会なのだ。政治、経済、教育も軍事も、芸術等々、一切はまたわれらの宗教なのだ。佛陀の精神によって、批判され改造されるべき社会生活の内容なのだ。さればこそ、社会改造に志願し進出してこそ、真実の自己認識であり、自己懺悔であり、同時にまた報恩感謝の生活であり、畢竟、信仰生活の帰結であり完成なのだ。

まことに、かく観じてこそ、宗教に出発する改造運動と、いはゆる唯物史観に出発する社会主義、共産主義の

{{tpage|254}}

改造運動とに本質的相違が認識されるのではあるまいか。

かくして、真理は現実に呼吸し、宗教は生活に一致する。「就中、生を此の土に得たり、豈我国を思はざらんや」だ。「白米は白米にあらずして命なり」だ。社会制度は社会制度にあらずして宗教なのだ。聖日蓮の事の一念三千の哲理は、天台の理の一念三千に取って代りうるのだ。即ち佛教精神の現実化なのだ。

まこと理論はどうでも立たう、理窟はどうでも言へ、ああ併しながら、人生に社会に同胞に祖国の現在と将来に深い関心をもった生きた青年よ。そも卿等の進路は奈辺に取らうとするのだ。

（昭和三年、『若人』第九巻第六号）

[[category:Seno’o Girō]]
[[category:Original Texts in Japanese]]

SG31SBE-T

2026-08-28T19:18:50Z

James:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Seno’o Girō, ''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism''}}

{{Under Construction}}

'''Original publication:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」『新興佛教の旗の下に』1931年（昭和6年）4月以降、分載.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin” (新興佛教への転身; Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism). Serialized in ''Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni'' (新興佛教の旗の下に), beginning April 1931.

'''Source text:'''

妹尾義郎「新興佛教への転身」稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』東京：大蔵出版、1975年、260–301頁.
Seno’o Girō. “Shinkō Bukkyō e no tenshin.” In ''Seno’o Girō shūkyō ronshū'' (妹尾義郎宗教論集), ed. Inagaki Masami, 260–301. Tokyo: Daizō Shuppan, 1975.

== Translation ==

'''[p. 260]'''

'''Conversion to Revitalized Buddhism'''

=== The Rejection of Established Buddhist Institutions and Capitalism ===
'''B:''' I hear that you’ve recently given up on Nichirenism<ref>Nichirenism (Nichirenshugi 日蓮主義) was a modern ideological formulation of Nichiren Buddhism that emerged in the late Meiji period under the leadership of Tanaka Chigaku 田中智學 (1861–1939) and became influential during the Taishō and early Shōwa periods. Seno’o was an active proponent of Nichirenism before breaking with it and establishing the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref> and are starting something called the Revitalized Buddhist movement.<ref>Revitalized Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō 新興仏教) was Seno’o Girō’s term for the new Buddhist movement he launched in 1931—technically, the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism (Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Domei 新興仏教青年同盟). Shinkō literally suggests something newly arising or emergent; “Revitalized Buddhism” is used here to emphasize Seno’o’s conception of the movement as a renewal of Buddhism rather than the establishment of a new Buddhist sect.</ref> Is that true?

'''A:''' It is.

'''B:''' What’s the purpose of it?

'''A:''' First, I want to attack the corrupt established Buddhist institutions and demonstrate the true value of Buddhism in the present age. Second, I want to unify a divided Buddhism and put an end to these ugly sectarian quarrels. Third, I want to participate in the movement to transform the capitalist economic system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Buddha, and realize an ideal society of love and equality.

'''B:''' Isn’t that impossible? Won’t it end up as nothing more than a fantasy?

'''A:''' It’s no fantasy. I believe that both the destruction of established Buddhist institutions and the collapse of capitalism are now simply a matter of time.

'''B:''' Leaving aside the transformation of capitalism, couldn’t you simply pursue Nichirenism more thoroughly instead of starting an entirely new religious movement? Especially since you’ve devoted yourself all these years to building up Nichirenism—don’t you feel some regret at abandoning it?

'''A:''' It’s not in my nature to make calculations when confronted with the truth. There was no path left open to me except to launch a new movement. Nichirenism as we have known it has reached an impasse in all sorts of ways. Of course, the other Buddhist institutions have as well. At this point, I don’t think Buddhism can be revived without undertaking a fundamental revolution. Just as capitalism cannot be fixed through a few minor adjustments, the corruption of the Buddhist institutions has penetrated to the very marrow.

'''B:''' But isn’t this just a sudden impulse to go along with the times?

'''A:''' You know how long my life of faith has been.

'''B:''' It certainly has been a long time. How many years has it been, anyway?

'''A:''' I embraced the faith of Nichirenism in 1911.

'''[p. 261]'''

And it was in the autumn of 1920 that I began publishing the magazine ''Youth''<ref>Wakōdo 若人 (“Youth”) was a Buddhist journal with which Seno’o was closely associated and in which he published extensively during the 1920s and early 1930s. It became an important venue for the development of the ideas that eventually led him beyond Nichirenism and toward Revitalized Buddhism.</ref> and advocating Nichirenism. So I have spent twelve years in public propagation and fully twenty-one years in my personal life of faith. And I don’t think I’ve ever been second to anyone in the intensity of my faith. I have devoted my entire life to that faith and to spreading it right up to the present day. After all that, surely this isn’t something I could simply switch away from on a passing whim.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I suppose so. They say that even after living with someone for only three days, you don’t easily forget them. So you must have thought this through very seriously. Still, it’s quite a decisive step—to go so far as to abandon Master Nichiren himself.

'''A:''' Nothing could be further from the truth. My reverence for Master Nichiren only grows stronger with the years. Looking back now, my past life of faith seems to have been nothing more than a game. The more deeply the spirit of love enters my heart, and the more I strive to put even a little of the bodhisattva practice into concrete action, the more deeply Master Nichiren’s life and words impress themselves upon me, right down to the bone. I truly believe there has never been a greater person.

'''B:''' Then why give up Nichirenism?

'''A:''' If you call it “giving it up,” I suppose that’s how it may look. As I see it, I am casting off Master Nichiren’s old forms precisely in order to revive his spirit in the present. The more single-mindedly I devote myself to reviving Master Nichiren’s fundamental spirit in the present age, the more firmly convinced I become of the possibility of this Revitalized Buddhist movement—and that this alone is the form of salvation most suited to our age. Indeed, I have come firmly to believe that the revival of Buddhism as a whole is to be found in this movement.

'''B:''' Calling it “casting off the old forms” makes it sound reasonable enough, but whatever words you use, in practice you are rejecting Nichirenism, aren’t you?

=== It is a Revival of Nichirenism ===
'''A:''' That’s right.

'''B:''' Even if you reject Nichirenism to that extent, doesn’t that amount to betraying Master Nichiren?

'''A:''' Not at all. Nichirenism, too, is one particular form that arose in response to the needs of its age. Looking at the history of the Master’s propagation of his teaching and the many writings he left behind, there is nothing objectionable about changing forms. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely by reforming them in response to objective circumstances that one truly comes into contact with the spirit of Master Nichiren. The Master was in fact a man possessed of an extraordinarily enlightened and discerning…

'''[p. 262]'''

…intelligence. He was certainly no inflexible conservative who “stood by a tree stump waiting for a rabbit” or “glued the tuning pegs of a lute”—someone incapable of adapting to changing circumstances.

Mencius praised Confucius as “the sage who was timely,” but even more than this, our Master Nichiren was the exemplary sage who discerned the demands of the time. He said, “Everything depends upon the country and the time”; “Although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice must vary in countless ways according to people’s capacities and the circumstances of the age”; and “One should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country, it must necessarily be suitable for this country as well.”<ref>Seno’o assembles a series of classical and Nichirenist references around the importance of historical circumstance. The idioms “waiting by a stump” (守株) and “gluing the tuning pegs of a lute” (膠柱) denote foolish adherence to fixed conditions. “The sage who was timely” (聖之時者也) is Mencius’s famous characterization of Confucius (Mencius, “Wan Zhang II”). Nichiren’s statements that “everything depends upon the country and the time” (Senji-shō 撰時抄, 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, p. 1003); “although the Lotus Sutra is a single Dharma, its modes of practice vary…” (Shōji Ichidaiji Ketsumyaku-shō 生死一大事血脈抄, 1272; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 523); and “one should not suppose that because a teaching was suitable for one country…” (Kyōki Jikoku-shō 教機時国抄, 1262; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 242) allow Seno’o to present adaptation to modern social conditions not as a departure from Nichiren but as fidelity to his method.</ref> I could go on indefinitely. As these examples show, the religion of the Master was a religion of criticism. And if criticism is not equally rigorous in examining and settling accounts with oneself, can it really be called criticism? Perhaps this is also what Confucius meant when he said, “If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?”<ref>Confucius, Analects (Lunyu 論語), 4.1 (“Li Ren” 里仁): 「子曰、里仁爲美。擇不處仁、焉得知」 (“The Master said: ‘To dwell in benevolence is beautiful. If one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one attain wisdom?’”). The passage connects wisdom or discernment (zhi 知) with commitment to benevolence (ren 仁). Seno’o invokes it here to reinforce his claim that genuine criticism must also be directed toward oneself.</ref>

=== The Essence of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' I can see your point, at least to some extent.

'''A:''' Buddhism itself is fundamentally like this. Indeed, the Buddha is even described as “one whose bonds have been untied.” One of Buddhism’s distinctive features is precisely its refusal to cling to any fixed form. And that, too, is liberation.

To put it somewhat more technically, Buddhism denies “self” and “what belongs to the self”—that is, the individual ego and private property—and teaches “no-self” and “non-possession.” Even the last of the famous Three Dharma Seals, known as Buddhism’s three fundamental principles—“all conditioned things are impermanent,” “all dharmas are without self,” and “nirvana is tranquility”—ultimately comes down to the single word “emptiness.”<ref>The Three Dharma Seals (sanbōin 三法印) are impermanence (shogyō mujō), no-self (shohō muga), and the tranquility of nirvana (nehan jakujō). Seno’o interprets all three here in terms of emptiness (kū).</ref> It means not clinging to either A or B and therefore, depending upon circumstances, being capable of being either A or B: a teaching of unrestricted adaptability. In the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'', this is taught as “all dharmas are empty”; in the “Skillful Means” chapter it is called the “true aspect of all dharmas,” explained through the so-called Ten Suchnesses—“such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity,” and so forth—in order to demonstrate the capacity of things to change according to causes and conditions. Thus it is also taught that “dharmas have no fixed nature; the Buddha-seed arises through conditions.”<ref>The Ten Suchnesses (jūnyoze 十如是) appear in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the Lotus Sutra and describe ten aspects of the reality of phenomena, beginning with “such an appearance, such a nature, such an entity.”</ref>

Again, the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', which serves as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'', says: “Such non-form is not form; being without form, it is called the true aspect. Having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is clear and certain and not in vain, and among sentient beings they are truly able to remove suffering.”<ref>Muryōgi Kyō 無量義経 (Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings), Chapter 2, “Preaching the Dharma” (Seppō-bon 説法品第二); T 9, no. 276. The passage connects realization of the “true aspect” (jissō 実相), characterized by formlessness (musō 無相), directly with compassion: having established themselves in this true aspect, bodhisattvas give rise to compassion that is “clear and certain and not in vain” and are thereby “truly able to remove suffering” (真能拔苦). The Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is traditionally regarded in East Asia as the introductory scripture (kaikyō 開経) to the Lotus Sutra. Seno’o uses the passage to argue that nonattachment to fixed forms enables practical compassionate action rather than withdrawal from the world.</ref> According to the meaning of this passage, in short, one takes no fixed standpoint—a standpoint that even negates “no standpoint” as a fixed standpoint—and ultimately stands in a position that clings to nothing…

'''[p. 263]'''

…whatsoever. It is precisely in an attitude of freely adapting oneself according to time, place, and circumstance that thoroughgoing compassion manifests itself and the masses can truly be saved. Nichirenism is no exception to this Buddhist philosophical principle. Depending upon time, place, and circumstances, there should therefore be no objection to sublating it as well.<ref>“Sublate” renders yōki 揚棄, a modern philosophical term used to translate the Hegelian Aufheben or Aufhebung: the dialectical overcoming of a form while preserving what remains valid within it.</ref> The real question is whether there are sufficient grounds for reform in light of the culture of a particular age. When there are, isn’t it only by boldly carrying out such reform that we remain faithful to Buddhism’s true character and penetrate to the spirit of Master Nichiren?

'''B:''' When you put it that way, I can see that even the forms adopted by Master Nichiren may be reformed as the times change.

=== Forms Change ===
'''A:''' Exactly. Take an egg, for example. As long as the white and yolk remain as they are, the shell is an indispensable outer form. But once the egg has been nurtured by the mother bird and a chick begins to develop inside, that shell becomes an unnecessary opposing force. And unless it is broken, new life cannot emerge.

'''B:''' That sounds like Marx’s materialist dialectic.

'''A:''' Truth doesn’t become two different things depending on who says it. “Time” really is a mysterious force. It bears down upon us with a necessity that cannot be altered by the ideas of one or two individuals. That is why Master Nichiren began his ''Selection of the Time'' (''Senji-shō'') by writing, “In studying the Buddha Dharma, one must first of all learn the time.” He went on to say, “The cuckoo awaits spring and the cock awaits the dawn. Even animals are like this; how much more so a Dharma teacher practicing the Buddha Dharma!” Elsewhere, speaking in relation to the capacities of those being taught, he judged that “the wise person is one who accords with the time.” By invoking the examples of the cuckoo awaiting spring and the cock awaiting dawn, he made perfectly clear that the Dharma must never be taught apart from its “time.” Isn’t that an extraordinarily thoroughgoing insight?<ref>Nichiren (1222–1282), Senji-shō 撰時抄 (“Selection of the Time”), composed in 1275. The treatise emphasizes the necessity of discerning the historical “time” (toki) in determining the appropriate form in which the Buddhist Dharma should be propagated. Seno’o draws upon this principle repeatedly to justify the transformation of inherited Buddhist forms in response to modern conditions.</ref> Here ‘capacity’ means the particular character of the individual. The passage therefore rejects an individualistic movement of salvation based on the model of ‘prescribing medicine according to the illness,’ which takes the particular characteristics of individual persons as its object. Instead, it lays down the firm principle that we must move beyond the individual, take as our object the objective conditions of society as a whole, and make our primary concern a method of social salvation suited to the age.

'''B:''' That sounds very much like what the social sciences tell us.

'''A:''' There is another striking parallel. Among Master Nichiren’s writings is this passage, which explains the possibility of mass struggle in the present age. It is from the Shōgu mondō-shō:

The present age is a defiled age, and human feelings have become warped and distorted. Because provisional teachings and slanders of the Dharma abound, it is difficult for the True Dharma to spread. At such a time, practices such as reciting and copying the scriptures, as well as contemplation, reflection, and spiritual cultivation, are of no use. One must simply practice shakubuku<ref>Shakubuku 折伏, literally “to break and subdue,” refers to the forceful refutation of erroneous views and is conventionally contrasted with shōju 摂受, the more accommodating method of leading others toward the Dharma without directly refuting their views. The distinction became particularly important in Nichiren Buddhism, where shakubuku was understood as especially appropriate to circumstances in which erroneous teachings obstructed the Dharma.</ref>: if one has the power, use that power and authority to crush slander of the Dharma, and use Buddhist doctrine to attack erroneous…

'''[p. 264]'''

…teachings. Yet one must properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected and never cling exclusively to a single course.”<ref>Shōgu Mondō-shō 聖愚問答抄 (“Questions and Answers between a Sage and a Fool”); see Shōwa Teihon Nichiren Shōnin Ibun, vol. 1, pp. 363–64 (Gosho Zenshū, p. 143). The treatise argues that the appropriate method of propagation depends upon historical circumstances. Seno’o appropriates the passage to argue that the conditions of the present age demand open struggle rather than quietist self-cultivation.</ref>

What an uncompromising declaration! People who, when they hear the word Buddhism, immediately think of practicing seated meditation, or who tend to associate Buddhism with nonresistance, may well imagine a passage like this to be some kind of reverse propaganda by the Devil. But once we look squarely at actual society, we can see just how much what today passes for “self-cultivation” actually performs an opiate-like function,<ref>“Opiate-like function” (ahenteki yakuwari 阿片的役割) unmistakably evokes Marx’s characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Seno’o applies the criticism here specifically to contemporary Buddhist practices of “self-cultivation” (shūyō).</ref> castrating promising young people. In an age such as this, it seems to me that there is simply no way to build heaven on earth except through an open and forthright struggle. Yet struggle for struggle’s sake would be equally troublesome. This is why the phrase, “properly discern what is to be accepted and rejected,” strikes me as an extraordinarily well-considered teaching.

'''B:''' When you put it that way, it makes me think that the Buddhism we have known until now has been almost completely off the mark.

'''A:''' To speak frankly, much of it has indeed been completely off the mark. That is a consequence of religion’s having repeated the same formalistic sermons day after day, year after year—either unconscious of the character of the age or, even when conscious of it, tragically reduced to the role of a religion in service to established power. Society is moving increasingly toward equality of opportunity without distinctions in human worth between someone dressed in work clothes and someone dressed in a morning coat. Yet within the Buddhist institutions, which ought to be leading the way, they still make an endless fuss over the colors of clerical robes and distinctions in ecclesiastical rank. Social policy advances day by day in society at large—but what on earth are the Buddhist institutions doing?

'''B:''' On that point, I agree. I understand now that forms have to be reformed in accordance with the age. In the end, then, yours is a movement to revive Buddhism within the present age by giving it forms appropriate to that age.

=== The Central Aim of the Revitalized Buddhist Movement ===
'''B:''' But I hear that you’re going to stop chanting ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—“Homage to Śākyamuni Buddha.”

'''A:''' That is precisely the central aim of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. All disciples of the Buddha who profess Buddhism should give up the ''nenbutsu'', give up faith in Mahāvairocana, and give up all the forms of the established Buddhist institutions. First, we should unite under the banner of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', expressing our reverence for the person of the Buddha, and from there attempt a new advance into society. Can you think of any better form than this…

'''[p. 265]'''

…one that could serve both as the single fundamental form common to all Buddhists and, at the same time, as a means of unifying Buddhism? Of course, this form has already been advocated in the past by earnest pioneers. Perhaps because the times were not yet ripe, however, it has never acquired much influence. But whether or not it presently has influence is beside the point. I believe this to be the inevitable destiny of Buddhism from the present into the future, and I intend to put my whole spirit into casting this one stone.

'''B:''' I understand what you’re striving for. But there’s one thing I still can’t accept. You said that you’re trying to “bring the spirit of Master Nichiren to life.” Yet Nichiren himself said, “The soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”<ref>Nichiren, Kyō’ō-dono Gohenji 経王殿御返事 (“Reply to Kyō’ō”), composed in 1273. The passage reads: “The Buddha’s intent is the Lotus Sutra; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō.”</ref> If you abandon the ''daimoku'' and instead chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'', doesn’t that amount to abandoning the spirit of the Master?

'''A:''' That is a perfectly reasonable question. But immediately before that passage come the words, “The Buddha’s intent is the ''Lotus Sutra''; the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō''.”

In other words, if it has been established that the ''Lotus Sutra'' is not the unique scripture embodying the fundamental spirit of the Buddha whom Master Nichiren so ceaselessly revered, then chanting the name of that very Buddha—''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''—rather than ''Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō'' would actually be more faithful to the spirit of Master Nichiren, who founded his teaching on the basis of scholarly inquiry. I certainly do not believe that doing so constitutes a desecration of the Master.

'''B:''' If that way of understanding the ''Lotus Sutra'' is correct, then your argument makes sense. But are you saying that the ''Lotus Sutra'' does not embody the fundamental spirit of Buddhism?

=== The Theory That the Mahāyāna Was Not Taught by the Buddha ===
'''A:''' That is precisely where the problem arises. Have you ever heard of the scholarly theory being advanced in modern Buddhist circles known as “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (''Daijō hi-Bussetsu'')?<ref>“The Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha” (Daijō hi-bussetsu 大乗非仏説) refers to the historical-critical view that the Mahāyāna sutras were composed after the lifetime of the historical Buddha rather than constituting direct records of his preaching. Although the question had earlier precedents in Japan, it became a major problem for modern Japanese Buddhist scholarship around the turn of the twentieth century, notably in the work of Murakami Senshō (1851–1929). The theory posed an obvious challenge to sectarian traditions, including Nichiren Buddhism, whose authority rested upon particular Mahāyāna scriptures as the Buddha’s own teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' I can’t say I’ve never heard of it, but I don’t really know what it means. Tell me about it.

'''A:''' I’ll explain it briefly. Buddhist scriptures had broadly been classified into Mahāyāna scriptures—the ''Prajñāpāramitā Sutras'', ''Lotus Sutra'', ''Amida Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Laṅkāvatāra Sutra'', and so forth—and the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures, such as the Āgamas. Both groups had been regarded as scriptures recording sermons preached by the Buddha.

In recent times, however, scholars have argued that those Mahāyāna scriptures were not actually preached directly by the Buddha. That is what is meant by the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.”

'''B:''' Then how did those scriptures come to be composed?

'''A:''' Well, that’s because Buddhism too developed as the times changed and society and culture…

'''[p. 266]'''

…advanced, and in order to adapt to the changing age, numerous new scriptures were composed by later disciples of the Buddha. Those became the Mahāyāna sutras. Since the Mahāyāna sutras are therefore not direct records of the Buddha’s preaching, this is called the theory that “the Mahāyāna was not taught by the Buddha.” In other words, it means Buddhism as a developing tradition.<ref>“Buddhism as a developing tradition” renders hattatsu bukkyō 発達仏教, the modern conception of Buddhism as a historically developing religious tradition rather than a fixed body of doctrine delivered in its entirety by Śākyamuni. This conception allowed modern Buddhist thinkers to accept the later historical origins of the Mahāyāna sutras while continuing to regard them as legitimate developments of the Buddha’s teaching.</ref>

'''B:''' Then from the standpoint of this theory, the ''Lotus Sutra'' too is one example of this “developing Buddhism.” ''So the Lotus Sutra cannot simply be identified with the Buddha’s fundamental spirit.''<ref>Seno’o’s emphasis.</ref>

'''A:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' But in Master Nichiren’s time, the roughly seven thousand fascicles comprising the entire Buddhist canon were all regarded as direct records of the Buddha’s preaching. Given that assumption, why did Master Nichiren single out the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone and declare it to embody ''Buddhism’s fundamental spirit''?

'''A:''' Because that was how the scriptures themselves were understood to explain the matter. More particularly, this was the explanation offered by Tiantai doctrine, which formed the matrix of Japanese Buddhism. According to that teaching, the entire Buddhist canon consisted of sermons preached during the fifty years between the Buddha’s attainment of enlightenment at age thirty and his entry into nirvana at age eighty. These fifty years were divided into two periods. The first forty-two years comprised all the teachings preached before the ''Lotus Sutra'', known as the pre-Lotus teachings (''nizenkyō''). The ''Lotus Sutra'', preached during the final eight years, was regarded as the true scripture in which the Buddha revealed his genuine spirit. All the earlier scriptures were judged to be expedient teachings preached in preparation for the revelation of the ''Lotus Sutra''.<ref>The Tiantai (J. Tendai) system of doctrinal classification known as the Five Periods and Eight Teachings (goji hakkyō, 五時八教) organized the Buddha’s teaching career into a chronological and hierarchical sequence culminating in the Lotus and Nirvāṇa sutras. Within this scheme, the Lotus Sutra represented the fullest disclosure of the Buddha’s teaching. Nichiren inherited this framework and radicalized its elevation of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

'''B:''' Was there substantial scriptural evidence for that?

'''A:''' Yes. For example, in the “Dharma Preacher” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'' we find the statement, “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost.” There are many other passages that assign the ''Lotus Sutra'' supreme value. Particularly influential was the statement in the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'', regarded as an introduction to the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Because the desires and dispositions of beings differ, various teachings were preached; these various teachings were preached through the power of expedient means. For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed.” And in the “Skillful Means” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way.” These were powerful pieces of scriptural evidence. From the standpoint of Buddhist unification available at the time, the Tiantai doctrinal interpretation was therefore hardly unreasonable. There was also the scriptural proof supplied by the “Medicine King Bodhisattva” chapter of the ''Lotus Sutra'': that in the “last five hundred years” it would be “widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa.” Tiantai likewise looked forward to the age of the Final Dharma, declaring, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide.”<ref>The text cites four key passages that provided a scriptural foundation for the Tiantai (J. Tendai) classification of doctrines (kyōhan 教判) and Nichiren’s later elevation of the Lotus Sutra: (1) “Among all the sutras I have preached, the Lotus is foremost” (Lotus Sutra, ch. 10, “Dharma Preacher”; T 9, no. 262, 31b); (2) “For more than forty years, the truth had not yet been revealed” (四十余年未顕真実; Sutra of Innumerable Meanings, ch. 2; T 9, no. 276, 386b); (3) “Honestly discarding expedient means, I preach only the unsurpassed Way” (正直捨方便但説無上道; Lotus Sutra, ch. 2, “Skillful Means”; T 9, no. 262, 10a); and (4) “In the last five hundred years, it will be widely proclaimed and propagated throughout Jambudvīpa” (後五百歳広宣流布; Lotus Sutra, ch. 23, “Medicine King Bodhisattva”; T 9, no. 262, 54c). The accompanying statement, “In the latter five hundred years, the wondrous Way will spread far and wide” (後五百歳妙道広行), is from Zhiyi’s Fahua Wenju (法華文句; T 34, no. 1718, 129a).</ref> And Dengyō Daishi, the pioneer of the Lotus Sutra in Japan, likewise expressed the same conviction and prediction.<ref>Saichō (767–822), posthumously Dengyō Daishi, founder of the Japanese Tendai school.</ref>

'''[p. 267]'''

Now, it was within this tradition that Master Nichiren appeared. Outraged by the fragmentation and degeneration of Buddhism, he made its reform and unification the aspiration of his entire life. Moreover, his historical moment was the beginning of the age of the Final Dharma, more than two thousand years after the Buddha’s passing. There is no need to explain how powerfully the ''Lotus Sutra'' must have resonated with Nichiren’s intelligence and passionate commitment.<ref>The “Three Ages” (sanji 三時) is an East Asian Buddhist scheme describing the historical decline of the Dharma after the Buddha’s passing: the age of the True Dharma (shōbō 正法), the age of the Semblance Dharma (zōbō 像法), and the age of the Final Dharma (mappō 末法), conventionally assigned durations of 1000, 1000, and 10,000 years respectively. According to a widely accepted Japanese chronology, mappō began in 1052. Drawing upon scriptural traditions concerning the decline of the Dharma, Nichiren understood his thirteenth-century age as mappō, a period of corruption in which the Lotus Sutra required urgent propagation. See Nichiren, Senji-shō 撰時抄, “Selection of the Time,” 1275; Shōwa Teihon, vol. 2, pp. 1001–1058. Seno’o invokes this historical framework to emphasize Nichiren’s conviction that Buddhist practice must respond to the particular demands of its age.</ref>

'''B:''' Hearing it explained that way, there certainly seems to have been a powerful sense of historical necessity behind Nichiren’s self-understanding as “Nichiren, practitioner of the ''Lotus Sutra''.” It’s easy to see why he therefore felt compelled to reject every Buddhist school outside the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Within the limits of that doctrinal framework, there was no Buddhist spirit in the age of the Final Dharma apart from the ''Lotus Sutra''. A passage from Nichiren’s ''Hōon-shō'' (''Essay on Gratitude'') makes the situation particularly clear.<ref>Nichiren’s Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude”), composed in 1276, is one of his major writings and contains a sustained defense of the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra over other Buddhist teachings.</ref>

The various schools all rely upon their own basic sutras and treatises and claim, each in its own way, that theirs is foremost among all the scriptures. The Shingon school says, “Among all the scriptures, the ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' is first”; the other scriptures are like idle chatter. The Zen school says that sutras such as the ''Laṅkāvatāra'' are fingers pointing at the moon, while Zen itself is the moon. And so forth. We ordinary people ought to be able to trust whichever teacher we follow, revering that teacher in faith; yet Nichiren’s doubts could not be dispelled. Looking at the world, everyone may claim, “I, I,” but there is only one sovereign of a country. If there are two, the country will not be at peace; if a household has two masters, that household will surely fall into ruin. Might it not be the same with all the scriptures? Among all the sutras, must there not be one scripture that is sovereign over all the others? Yet the ten schools and seven schools each contend with one another and refuse to submit. It is as though a country had seventy or eighty sovereigns: its people could never live in peace. Wondering what was to be done, I made a single resolve: I would follow none of the eight schools or ten schools. Instead, just as the Great Master Tiantai took the scriptural texts themselves as his teacher and judged the relative superiority of the teachings preached during the Buddha’s lifetime, I would open and examine all the scriptures. In the ''Nirvana Sutra'' it is said: “Rely on the Dharma, not on persons.” “Rely on the Dharma” means to rely on all the scriptures; “not on persons” means not to rely upon teachers other than the Buddha himself, including such figures as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra and Mañjuśrī and the various masters mentioned above.

The same sutra also says: “Rely on sutras of definitive meaning, not on sutras of provisional meaning.” Here the “sutra of definitive meaning” is the Lotus Sutra, while the “sutras of provisional meaning” are the ''Avataṃsaka Sutra'', ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'', ''Nirvana Sutra'', and all the other sutras of the past, present, and future. But if one trusts the Buddha's final testament, then one must take the Lotus Sutra as the bright mirror through which to understand all…

'''[p. 268]'''

…the scriptures. Hence, when we open the ''Lotus Sutra'', we find the words: “This ''Lotus Sutra'' stands highest among all the sutras,” and so on.

'''B:''' I see. That makes it quite clear. Master Nichiren’s judgment that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' is supreme” was therefore not simply his own dogmatic assertion. It was the result of his seeking the Buddha’s spirit through the scriptures themselves. In other words, after attempting as objectively and as scholarly as possible to determine Buddhism’s fundamental spirit, he concluded that it was embodied in the ''Lotus Sutra''.

'''A:''' Exactly. Nichiren himself explained this by saying: “This is not because Nichiren is especially wise. It is simply what the time demands. In spring the flowers bloom, in autumn the fruit appears, summer is warm and winter is cold. Is this not simply what the time brings about?”

In this way he explained the historical necessity of the ''Lotus Sutra'' spreading in the age of the Final Dharma. Now, if that were the end of the matter, there would be no problem. But if we accept as true the theory I mentioned earlier—that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—then the scholarly foundation underlying this whole structure collapses. The ''Lotus Sutra'', which Master Nichiren propagated with sixty years of blood and tears, must itself be subjected to a historical reckoning.

'''B:''' So in the end it really was a matter of Master Nichiren’s inadequate understanding?

'''A:''' You still haven’t understood what I’m saying. Far from it. As a Buddhist revolutionary movement in his own age, this was the only possible path. It was an entirely defensible position.

But “time” moved on, and modern scientific research into the scriptures produced new conclusions. That is not something we should blame on Nichiren’s lack of understanding. And a man who declared that “one must first learn the time” surely would not cling sentimentally to his position when confronted by the criticism of a later age. That, at least, is what I believe.

=== The Reckoning with Tiantai Doctrine ===
'''A:''' Speaking of “time,” there is another problem. Modern research has drastically changed the dating of the Buddha’s birth.

'''B:''' So it’s no longer three thousand years ago? I remember singing in Sunday school, “Long, long ago—three thousand years ago.”

'''A:''' Today, according to Dr. Takakusu, it was 2,497 years ago, while according to Dr. Ui, it was 2,397 years ago.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945) and Ui Hakuju (宇井伯寿, 1882–1963) were leading Japanese scholars of Buddhism whose historical and philological research contributed to the modern reassessment of traditional Buddhist chronology. Seno’o invokes their differing calculations of the Buddha’s dates to illustrate the incompatibility of modern historical scholarship with the chronology presupposed by traditional Tiantai doctrine.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t those just scholars’ arbitrary guesses?

'''A:''' You shouldn’t dismiss scholarship out of hand like that. Those conclusions are the result of research. Whatever the precise answer may be, the Buddha is now generally placed around the fourth or fifth century BCE. And whereas tradition had said that he left home at nineteen, attained enlightenment at thirty, and entered nirvana at eighty,…

'''[p. 269]'''

…the accepted view has become that he left home at twenty-nine, attained enlightenment at thirty-five, and entered nirvana at eighty.

'''B:''' Then he taught for forty-five years. That means Tiantai’s system of the Five Periods, which was based on the old account of fifty years of teaching from enlightenment at thirty to nirvana at eighty, becomes questionable too.<ref>The Five Periods (goji 五時) is the chronological scheme systematized by the Tiantai patriarch Zhiyi (智顗 538–597) to classify the Buddha’s teachings into five sequential stages: (1) Kegon (Avataṃsaka, three weeks); (2) Agon (Āgama, twelve years); (3) Hōdō (Vaipulya, eight years); (4) Hannya (Prajñāpāramitā, twenty-two years); and (5) Hokke-Nehan (Lotus and Nirvāṇa, the final eight years). The scheme presupposes the traditional chronology in which the Buddha attained enlightenment at age thirty and taught until his death at eighty. Modern historical-critical scholarship instead dated his enlightenment to approximately age thirty-five and his teaching career to about forty-five years, while also treating the Mahāyāna sutras as later compositions. Seno’o invokes these discrepancies to argue that the traditional Tiantai chronology—and consequently the historical framework inherited by Nichiren—must itself be subjected to modern critical scrutiny.</ref>

'''A:''' There’s no avoiding it. If the ''Lotus Sutra'' was preached for eight years, then the pre-Lotus teachings could only have lasted thirty-seven years, which makes the phrase “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed” unstable. And if the pre-Lotus teachings lasted forty-two years, then the ''Lotus Sutra'' could only have been taught for three years.

'''B:''' Still, we’re talking about events from twenty-four or twenty-five hundred years ago. Even if we calculate things that precisely, how can we really know which account is correct?

'''A:''' India was hardly a country with a strong tradition of historical record keeping, so perfect precision may be impossible. But scholarship still deserves our respect. This is, after all, an age in which science can calculate the numbers of the astronomical world with extraordinary accuracy. At any rate, one fact is unavoidable: Tiantai doctrine must undergo a reckoning, and Nichiren doctrine must therefore also be reexamined. Nor is that all. Modern scholarship has also proposed an account of how the ''Lotus Sutra'' itself was formed. According to this theory, the earliest form of the sutra ran from the “Introduction” chapter through the tenth chapter, “Dharma Preacher.” Later material was added through the twenty-second chapter, “Entrustment,” and then another six chapters were added, producing the present twenty-eight-chapter form.<ref>Seno’o here summarizes a modern historical-critical theory according to which the Lotus Sutra developed in successive stages: an initial text comprising chapters 1–10, a subsequent expansion through chapter 22, and the later addition of six chapters producing the received twenty-eight-chapter version.</ref>

I myself have lectured on the ''Lotus Sutra'' several times, and the breaks in the textual structure certainly can give that impression. In any event, I think we may safely say that it is now virtually impossible to deny that the ''Lotus Sutra'', like the other Mahāyāna scriptures, represents Buddhism in the process of historical development.

'''B:''' Then were the so-called Hīnayāna scriptures actually written by Śākyamuni himself?

'''A:''' No. Those scriptures too were compiled by his disciples after his death.

'''B:''' Then strictly speaking, couldn’t we say that the Hīnayāna scriptures were also “not taught by the Buddha”? And if we are prepared to call them the Buddha’s teaching, why couldn’t we equally call the Mahāyāna scriptures the Buddha’s teaching?

'''A:''' There is something to that argument, and people have made it before. But I think it is sophistry. Shouldn’t we properly distinguish between the Buddha’s immediate disciples gathering together and reciting what remained vivid in their memories, and later generations—disciples of disciples and their descendants—composing scriptures on the basis of those earlier records?

'''B:''' Is there really enough evidence to establish the Mahāyāna as later development?

'''A:''' Scholars have reached that conclusion on the basis of writing, literary style, and many other forms of textual evidence.

'''[p. 270]'''

Scholarly conscience leaves us no choice but to acknowledge it.

=== Faith Requires Objectivity ===
'''B:''' I understand that. But faith and scholarship are different things. Even if the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha is true, why should faith have to concern itself with it?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that too. As the saying goes, “Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it.”<ref>“Even a sardine’s head can be sacred if you believe in it” renders the proverb iwashi no atama mo shinjin kara (鰯の頭も信心から), an ironic expression for the power of faith to invest even an insignificant object with religious value.</ref> But that is precisely where the crucial issue lies. It marks the dividing line between superstition and genuine faith. A scripture says that faith without understanding increases ignorance, while understanding without faith increases wrong views; faith and understanding must be harmonized and become the basis of life.<ref>Seno’o cites a Tiantai formulation attributed to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597): “Faith without understanding increases ignorance; understanding without faith increases wrong views” (信而不解、増長無明。解而不信、増長邪見). See Zhiyi, Weimojing Xuanshu (維摩經玄疏, J. Yuimakyō Gensho).</ref> A merely subjective faith that says “just believe,” while ignoring science, cannot be called genuine faith. Unless the content of faith possesses objectivity, it lacks social universality and cannot provide genuine satisfaction. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose there is an old woman devoted to Tenrikyō. She is completely absorbed in her faith. Then her only son, who has been educated in school, begins searching for a religion of his own. Naturally, he first examines the Tenrikyō faith practiced by his mother. But suppose it fails to satisfy him intellectually, and he turns instead to Christianity. Now you have one person in the household crying, “Save me!” and the other saying, “Amen!” What kind of atmosphere would that create in the family? Can they simply shrug and say that faith is subjective and leave each other alone? The more authority each of them invests in their own faith, and the more faithfully each adheres to it, the more each will inevitably look upon the other with a certain painful sense of dissatisfaction. But suppose, by contrast, that the mother’s faith were something that could also be accepted on scholarly grounds, and the son came to embrace the same Tenrikyō faith. Their perspectives and degree of commitment might still differ, but the whole household could at least share a common religious life, and wouldn’t that bring greater satisfaction?

'''B:''' That’s true. And not just in religion—it’s always pleasant when people see eye to eye.

'''A:''' Exactly. If the object of faith has a content that can withstand scholarly, moral, and aesthetic judgment, then even if people approach it from different perspectives, it can gather and embrace a greater number of spiritual brothers and sisters throughout the world. That is why faith too requires an objective and scientific element, especially in the modern age. Nichiren himself said, “The Buddha Dharma is reason.”<ref>“The Buddha Dharma is reason” (buppō wa dōri 仏法は道理なり). Nichiren, Shijō Kingo-dono Gohenji 四条金吾殿御返事 (“Reply to Shijō Kingo,” 1277).</ref>

'''[p. 271]'''

For a seeker who tries to ground faith in reason, it is no longer possible to ignore the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha and simply assert dogmatically that “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone embodies the Buddha’s spirit.” Such a religion will become increasingly incapable of speaking to the present or the future.

'''B:''' I understand now that religion cannot survive as merely subjective belief. And I also understand that, in light of the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha, Nichiren doctrine exactly as it stood six hundred and fifty years ago cannot simply be applied to modern people. So if Master Nichiren were born today, do you really think he would still invoke the polemical spirit of the Four Dicta—“the other schools cannot lead to enlightenment,” “they are the root cause of falling into hell,” “the ''Lotus Sutra'' alone is the Dharma of buddhahood”—and make chanting the ''daimoku'' his one and only method for saving the modern world?<ref>Nichiren’s Four Dicta (shika kakugen 四箇格言) are conventionally summarized as “Nenbutsu leads to the Avīci hell” (nenbutsu muken 念仏無間), “Zen is the work of the devil” (zen tenma 禅天魔), “Shingon destroys the nation” (shingon bōkoku 真言亡国), and “Ritsu is treasonous” (ritsu kokuzoku 律国賊). The four formulas encapsulate Nichiren’s polemical rejection of the principal rival Buddhist traditions of his day.</ref>

'''A:''' I don’t think so. In fact, I began this new movement only after asking myself over and over for a long time: “If Master Nichiren appeared in the world today, what would he do?” A man with a scholarly conscience as sharp as his would not close his eyes, six hundred and fifty years later, to the transformed culture and social conditions of the modern world—much less to everything that modern Buddhist scholarship has discovered—and simply repeat the old formulas: “The other schools cannot attain the Way; the ''Lotus Sutra'' is the path to buddhahood.” Nor would he insist upon the absolute supremacy of ''daimoku'' chanting.

'''B:''' Then what form do you think he would take?

'''A:''' Probably something very much like this new movement—when considered from the standpoint of Buddhism’s essential nature and the demands of the present age.

=== Love and Equality Are the Spirit of Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Speaking of the various schools, how does Shin Buddhism view the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha?

'''A:''' It seems that all serious modern seekers are adherents of that theory. Kaneko Daiei was even excommunicated over precisely this issue.<ref>Kaneko Daiei (金子大栄 1881–1976) was a prominent modern Jōdo Shinshū thinker and professor at Ōtani University. Employing modern historical-critical scholarship, he reinterpreted Amida Buddha and the Pure Land in symbolic rather than conventionally ontological terms. His views were condemned as doctrinal heterodoxy (ianjin 異安心), and in 1928 he was forced to leave his position at Ōtani University. Seno’o’s description of this as “excommunication” is somewhat stronger than the institutional action actually taken.</ref> Anyone with the least rational sense can hardly still become ecstatic today over things like a Pure Land ten billion worlds away or salvation through Other Power, as preached in the ''nenbutsu'' tradition.

'''B:''' Then how should we understand Amida Buddha?

'''A:''' Amida Buddha is the idealized self, and the Western Pure Land, countless worlds away, is idealized reality. The monk Dharmākara represents the fundamental human self, and his practice toward becoming Amida signifies a life of self-realization. Thus the wish to be saved by Amida symbolizes the joy inherent in a life that seeks what is right; salvation, in the final analysis, is nothing other than the life of love itself. To put it simply, love strides courageously even across the terrifying boundary of death. The scripture says, “When the mind of compassion is firmly determined, there is no fear.” This surely expresses the same principle.

'''[p. 272]'''

'''B:''' Then the central meaning of the ''Lotus Sutra'' must teach something similar.

'''A:''' Exactly. Even the words “Since I attained buddhahood” in the “Life Span” chapter, regarded as the heart of the ''Lotus Sutra'', are ultimately a celebration of the awakening of the self. The scriptures differ in expression, but their meaning is fundamentally the same. If we regard the entire canon as literally spoken by the Buddha, then, given the statements in the ''Lotus Sutra'' and the ''Sutra of Innumerable Meanings'' that “for more than forty years the truth had not yet been revealed,” scriptures such as the ''Amida Sutra'' and ''Mahāvairocana Sutra'' would have to be regarded merely as expedient teachings to be set aside before the ''Lotus Sutra''. But if we understand them instead as products of Buddhism’s historical development, then the whole canon is an explanation of the content of Śākyamuni Buddha’s awakening. Reduced to its essence, it is a symbolic expression of love and equality. And from that awakening comes the rule running through all Buddhism: “Do no evil; practice all that is good; purify one’s own mind: this is the teaching of all buddhas.”<ref>“Do no evil; practice every good; purify your own mind: this is the teaching of all Buddhas” is traditionally known in East Asian Buddhism as the “Verse of the Common Admonition of the Seven Buddhas” (shichibutsu tsūkai ge 七仏通誡偈). The verse corresponds to Dhammapada 183 and appears widely in East Asian Buddhist literature.</ref>

'''B:''' Then practices such as esoteric rites and prayers, as well as faith in worldly benefits, so common among Buddhists, are decisively not the proper Buddhist path.

'''A:''' Correct. In the strict sense, Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic. There is a teaching in the Kōkigyōkyō that says something like this:

Disciples, there are three mistaken views here. A wise person examines these errors and leads others to abandon them. If these views are followed through to their conclusion, they negate human action in this world. What are the three? One renunciant claims that whatever suffering, pleasure, or neither-suffering-nor-pleasure a human being experiences in this life is entirely the result of karma from a previous existence. Another claims that all of it is caused by the creative activity of Īśvara. Still another claims that everything occurs without cause or condition.<ref>Seno’o attributes this passage to the Kōki-gyō-kyō 興起行経 (T 4, no. 197), though the refutation of the “Three Wrong Views” (三邪見) has a close parallel in the Dokyō 度経 (Madhyama Āgama 13; T 1, no. 26, pp. 435a–436b; corresponding to the Pali Titthāyatana Sutta, AN 3.61). The passage rejects three views that undermine moral agency: (1) strict fatalism (shukumeiron 宿命論), attributing all experience solely to past karma; (2) divine creationism (sōzōshinron 創造神論), attributing it to a creator god; and (3) accidentalism (gūzenron 偶然論), denying cause and condition. Seno’o invokes the passage to emphasize that Śākyamuni rejected fatalistic interpretations of karma and instead grounded Buddhist practice in causality, human agency, and the possibility of transforming the conditions that produce suffering.</ref>

In other words, it rejects fatalism, creationism, and accidentalism, and continues: “Disciples, in opposition to these mistaken views, I teach the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. This teaching of mine is such that no reasonable person can abuse, defile, slander, or reject it.” The Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination describe the path from delusion to awakening. Human suffering arises from inadequate understanding; the Buddha therefore taught the Eightfold Path as the method by which correct wisdom is to be fully attained. Buddhism therefore teaches us to see reality correctly and to act correctly. Even the word “Buddha” means “one who has attained perfect wisdom.”

'''B:''' By “creationism,” you mean something like the Christian God?

=== Buddhism Is Atheistic ===
'''B:''' Modern people are, of course, becoming less and less willing to accept that kind of deity. On this subject, Archbishop Brown wrote something like the following in ''God and the Capitalist'':

'''[p. 273]'''

“Does God wish to remove evil from this world but lack the power? Or is he able to remove it but unwilling? If he wishes to but cannot, then he is impotent, which contradicts the nature of God. If he can but will not, then he is evil, which likewise contradicts the nature of God. If he neither wishes nor is able, then he is both evil and impotent. But if he both wishes to remove evil and is able to do so—which is the only conception appropriate to God—then how can evil exist in the world?”<ref>William Montgomery Brown (1855–1937) was an American Episcopal bishop who became an outspoken socialist and communist and was deposed for heresy in 1925. Seno’o cites Brown’s critique of the Christian conception of God in God and the Capitalist, which circulated in Japanese as Kami to shihonka (神と資本家). The argument itself is a version of the classical “Epicurean paradox” concerning divine omnipotence and the existence of evil.</ref>

'''A:''' That is a painful criticism for Christianity. Before Buddhism, Brahmanism taught gods who created heaven and earth and also advocated ascetic practices of various kinds. The Buddha rejected these and, as I said before, taught the Four Noble Truths and the twelve links of dependent origination. There is another story related to this. An apostate named Sunakkhatta went around criticizing the Buddha, saying: “The Buddha possesses no superhuman teaching and no exceptional knowledge or vision. He simply teaches ideas he has thought up in his own head. And he claims that anyone who thinks according to that teaching can reach a state free from suffering.” When the Buddha heard this, he told Śāriputra that Sunakkhatta, speaking in anger, thought he was criticizing the Buddha but was actually praising him.<ref>Sunakkhatta, a Licchavi and former disciple of the Buddha, appears in the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 12) criticizing his former teacher for possessing no “superhuman states” or extraordinary knowledge and vision. Significantly for Seno’o’s argument, Sunakkhatta’s demythological reading nevertheless acknowledges that the Buddha’s teaching leads those who practice it to the destruction of suffering.</ref> For to say that “according to his teaching, anyone who thinks properly can reach a state free from suffering” is itself praise of the Buddha. As this shows, the heart of Buddhism is to see the true nature of human life correctly, think correctly, and then live correctly.

'''B:''' But isn’t it said that Saint Nichiren himself performed prayers and rites?

'''A:''' Those are merely peripheral matters. Nichiren’s real spirit is found in the ''Kaimoku-shō'', where he declared: “Let heaven abandon me if it will; let every hardship befall me; I will stake my life upon this.... I vowed that I would become the pillar of Japan, that I would become the eyes of Japan, that I would become the great ship of Japan. These vows must never be broken.”<ref>Nichiren’s Kaimoku-shō (開目抄 “Opening of the Eyes”), composed in 1272 during his exile on Sado Island, is one of his major writings. It examines the grounds for religious authority and Nichiren’s understanding of his own mission in relation to the Lotus Sutra.</ref> That was his great religious resolve. The prayer rites being performed today are a disgrace to Master Nichiren.

=== The Proper Meaning of Faith in the Buddha ===
'''B:''' Then what do you mean when you chant ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''?

'''[p. 274]'''

'''A:''' It expresses gratitude and reverence toward Śākyamuni as the founder and teacher—not belief in him as an actually existing creator god. Buddhism teaches that “one who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.”<ref>“One who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha” (Pāli: yo dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati) derives from the Vakkali Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 22.87), where the Buddha tells the monk Vakkali: “One who sees the Dharma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dharma.”</ref> Anyone who follows the Buddha’s teaching, comes to understand and embody even a little of the truth, and experiences joy as a result will naturally come to praise, revere, and feel gratitude toward Śākyamuni Buddha as the ideal person who realized that truth.

And praising, revering, and thanking such a person in turn helps lead us more deeply into a life of truth. Praying to Śākyamuni Buddha will not make rice suddenly appear in your rice chest. If you are poor, the Buddha would tell you to work hard and figure out how to earn money.

But if, as under our present economic system, people work and yet their labor brings no worthwhile return, then the Buddha would surely tell us first to transform that bad system and guarantee the welfare of the masses. He would not mechanically repeat some maxim like “poverty can never catch up with hard work.” If you are sick, rather than making vows or relying on prayer rites, the Buddha would tell you first to seek proper treatment, reflect upon the causes of the illness, and observe the principles of health. That is the Buddha I understand.

'''B:''' As expected, the Buddha even seems to have understood Marxist theory.

'''A:''' That’s giving him too much credit. There is no way the Buddha could have known Marx’s theories. And his authority is not diminished in the least by not knowing them. He lived twenty-five hundred years ago; of course he did not know them. The point is that those who genuinely understand the Buddha’s life of love and equality naturally acquire the kind of understanding appropriate to their own time, place, and circumstances. Buddhism therefore develops continuously along with the age. That is the process I meant earlier when speaking of historically developing Buddhism. What we need to learn from Buddhism is the fundamental orientation of human life. Once we stand upon that foundation, an appropriate way of life will unfold in accordance with circumstances. I express this in the slogan: “From Impermanence to Devotion.”

'''B:''' Then Confucius’s saying, “A neighborhood is beautiful when there is benevolence; if one does not choose to dwell in benevolence, how can one be called wise?” expresses the same view of life.

'''A:''' I think so. The ''tian'' of Confucianism, the God of Christianity, Japanese Shintō and the Buddha of Buddhism may all be explained differently, but if we follow them to their roots, I believe they all rest upon the same path of sacred love.

=== Buddhism and Christianity Will Merge ===
'''B:''' Some time ago, an organization called the Concordia Association was established to bring together the three teachings of Shintō, Confucianism, and Buddhism.<ref>The Concordia Association (Kiitsu Kyōkai 帰一協会) was a private interreligious organization founded in June 1912 by leading intellectuals and public figures, including industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi 渋沢栄一, educator Naruse Jinzō 成瀬仁蔵, religious scholar Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治, and philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. Formed in the same year as the government-sponsored Three Religions Conference (Sankyō Kaidō 三教会同), the association sought to foster moral and intellectual unity (kiitsu 帰一) across religious and philosophical traditions. Seno’o regarded such ecumenical efforts critically, seeing them as attempts to achieve an abstract religious harmony without confronting the social and economic conflicts of capitalist society.</ref>

'''[p. 275]'''

If what you’re saying is right, then Buddhism should ultimately be able to unite with Christianity as well.

'''A:''' I believe the day will come when they do. As the languages and writing systems of the world, and culture more generally, gradually converge—and especially as economic structures become increasingly integrated—religion alone cannot remain forever in a state of warring kingdoms. I think a new movement will emerge in which the two are sublated. After all, the innermost sanctuary of the human spirit must fundamentally be one. Religions should not continue opposing one another as they do today. Indeed, from the standpoint of religion’s true purpose, a world federation of religions ought to be proposed even before the political world federation now being discussed. I believe the mission of religious movements must be to work toward the realization of a worldwide human fellowship.

=== The Disappearance of the Established Buddhist Institutions Is Inevitable ===
'''B:''' I agree. In that case, the immediate priority would have to be a movement to unify Buddhism. The present fragmentation amounts to nothing more than Buddhists demonstrating their own lack of religious resolve. How many schools and branches does Buddhism actually have today?

'''A:''' I’ve heard there are thirteen schools and fifty-six branches.<ref>“Thirteen schools and fifty-six branches” (jūsanshū gojūrokuha, 十三宗五十六派) was a conventional enumeration of the institutional divisions of Japanese Buddhism in the modern period. Seno’o invokes the formula as evidence of the sectarian fragmentation that his movement sought to overcome.</ref>

'''B:''' But if you start a movement for unification, won’t you in practice simply create one more sect?

'''A:''' Even if it means adding one more sect for the moment, if the movement truly corresponds to the needs of the age, then as it expands and grows stronger, the established Buddhist institutions that have fallen out of step with the times will gradually lose their power and naturally undergo liquidation and disappear. That is just what happened when the new Buddhist movements of the Kamakura period displaced the established Buddhism of Nara and Heian and caused its older forms gradually to dissolve.

'''B:''' Then you’re saying that this Revitalized Buddhist movement represents the highest form of Buddhism demanded by the modern age.

'''A:''' As I said before, so long as Buddhism has its source in the person of the Buddha, is there really any other path by which it can be brought back into unity?

'''B:''' At the very least, it seems to be a method that should be acceptable across the schools. In fact, whichever Buddhist institution you examine, each has doctrines of some substance. But if every school keeps proclaiming exclusively, “Our school alone has grasped the Buddha’s intent,” the beginning seeker is completely bewildered. And if, despite all those differences, they all offer essentially the same opiate-like sermons of escape from reality, modern people will not merely reject Buddhism—they will quite naturally become advocates of its repudiation.

'''A:''' “Rotten wood cannot be carved.”<ref>“Rotten wood cannot be carved” (朽木不可雕也) derives from the Analects 5.10, where Confucius uses the image to describe someone upon whom further instruction would be wasted.</ref> There is no need to fear revolution.

'''[p. 276]'''

Even Shinran, regarded as the very model of humility, declared at the establishment of his teaching that “the teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace.”<ref>“The teachings left by Śākyamuni have all entered the Dragon Palace” (釈迦の遺法ことごとく龍宮にいりたまいにき) is from Shinran’s Shōzōmatsu Wasan (正像末和讃, “Hymns of the Dharma-Ages”). The verse describes the disappearance of Śākyamuni’s conventional path of practice and realization in the age of the Final Dharma; the Dragon Palace (ryūgū, 龍宮) is the mythical undersea realm in which Buddhist scriptures were said to be preserved beyond the human world.</ref> To put it plainly, he too rejected the whole of established Buddhism as obsolete.

=== On the Scriptural Basis of the New Movement ===
'''B:''' I understand. Earlier you said ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya''. Would ''Namu Shakamuni Butsu'' not be sufficient?

'''A:''' According to correct Sanskrit usage, when ''namu''—“homage”—is used, the ending ''-āya'' must be added to indicate the dative case. Only then does it properly mean “homage to Śākyamuni Buddha” or “I take refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha.” With Namu Shakamuni Butsu, by contrast, “Śākyamuni Buddha” remains in the nominative, so the grammatical relationship between namu and “Śākyamuni Buddha” does not work properly. Or so I am told. Since we are launching a new movement aimed at Buddhist unity, we have taken the opportunity to correct the expression as well.<ref>Seno’o prefers Namu Shakamuni Budaya 南無釈迦牟尼仏陀耶 to the conventional Namu Shakamuni Butsu 南無釈迦牟尼仏, explaining the former as grammatically preferable on the basis of Sanskrit namas (“homage”) and the dative buddhāya. The phonetic form Budaya is retained here as Seno’o gives it rather than Sanskritized. The formula became characteristic of the Revitalized Buddhist movement.</ref>

'''B:''' I understand that too. But what about your authoritative scripture? You can hardly choose one scripture now—the ''Lotus Sutra'', the ''Amida Sutra'', or some other text—and carrying around the entire enormous Buddhist canon is obviously impossible.

'''A:''' You’re right. If we take the position that, despite differences of importance and emphasis, the entire Buddhist canon arises from the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, then it is impossible—especially after abandoning our former sectarian standpoint—to choose a single scripture as uniquely authoritative. So, for practical purposes, we have decided for the time being to adopt the ''Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures'' compiled by Kizu Muan and others.<ref>Kizu Muan 木津無庵 (1876–1943) was a lay Buddhist reformer associated with efforts to make Buddhist scripture accessible beyond sectarian boundaries. His Shin’yaku Bukkyō Seiten (新訳仏教聖典 Newly Translated Buddhist Scriptures), published in 1925, presented selections from major Buddhist scriptures in accessible modern Japanese and was intended to provide ordinary Japanese Buddhists with a common scriptural anthology</ref> It is a handy modern translation containing selections from the essential teachings of the entire canon.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t Kizu and the other compilers inevitably impose their own personalities upon such an anthology?

'''A:''' That cannot entirely be avoided. I would prefer something more thoroughly revised. If possible, I would like the members of our own movement eventually to compile and publish such a translation ourselves.

'''B:''' But wouldn’t that plant the seeds for yet another inevitable division?

'''A:''' I can’t deny that possibility. Since believers differ in their inclinations, if we make scriptures themselves the basis, division will naturally arise again. Indeed, the scriptures themselves recognize the necessity of diversified teaching. We find statements such as “innumerable meanings arise from one Dharma” and “because desires and dispositions differ, various teachings are preached.” A scripture could even be called the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings precisely because it recognizes the necessity of the Dharma being expressed in different forms. So if we make scripture the basis, division will certainly recur. Instead of defining the Buddha through the scriptures,…

'''[p. 277]'''

…we should take the person of the Buddha as our starting point and reduce the essential meaning of the entire canon to the realization of love and equality. Wouldn’t Buddhism then be able to unite without strain? The essential point is to recognize that Amida Buddha, Mahāvairocana Buddha, and the other figures who came to be believed in as actually existing beings through faith in the scriptures are all representations of the person of Śākyamuni. I therefore propose that all Buddhists unite in Namu Shakamuni Budaya. It is like Christianity: however many denominations there may be, they are united in their object of faith—the one God—to whom they say “Amen.”

'''B:''' Wasn’t that ultimately the real intention behind Master Nichiren’s religious revolution as well?

'''A:''' Exactly. We should now subject it to modern criticism—including the theory that the Mahāyāna was not directly taught by the Buddha—and thereby purify it, while at the same time stripping away the old shell of ''daimoku'' chanting, corroded by all manner of popular beliefs and superstitions. In that way we can make the central principle of Buddhist unification unmistakably clear and, beyond that, establish the spiritual basis for a worldwide human fellowship. And this cry of ''Namu Shakamuni Budaya'' necessarily leads us to scrutinize the economic system that forms the basic condition of actual life. Since the present capitalist economic system violates the Buddha’s realization of love and equality, we have no choice but, in the name of that love and equality, to join the movement to transform it.

'''B:''' That seems to be one of the three central aims of the Revitalized Buddhist movement. But before you explain that, what does your movement intend to do about funerals? You certainly aren’t going to ask the priests to perform them.

=== On Funerals ===
'''A:''' Don’t be ridiculous. What good would it do to have priests like that perform the final rites over us? Today I attended the private funeral of a certain eminent archbishop. A certain head priest who had betrayed his teacher while the latter was still alive acted as officiant. Arrayed in a gold-brocade kesa, with a procession of similarly dressed priests behind him, he recited sutras and chanted the ''daimoku'' as he performed the final rites. If my teacher had been able to speak from within the jeweled ''stūpa'', what would he have said?<ref>The deceased “teacher” was Honda Nisshō 本多日生 (1867–1931), the influential Nichiren Buddhist leader under whom Seno’o had studied and with whom he had long been associated before his break with Nichirenism. Honda’s death in March 1931 thus occurred at precisely the moment of Seno’o’s turn toward Revitalized Buddhism. Seno’o’s discomfort at the elaborate funeral rites of his former teacher underscores both the personal and institutional dimensions of that break. The jeweled stūpa (hōtō 宝塔) alludes to chapter 11 of the Lotus Sutra, in which a magnificent stūpa emerges from the earth containing the Buddha Prabhūtaratna (J. Tahō Nyorai).</ref> I could do nothing but weep. There they were in a main hall beautifully decorated with donations—unearned income contributed by the bourgeoisie—a group of seemingly castrated priests banging away on their old-fashioned gongs, interminably reciting ''dhāraṇī''s whose meaning no one could understand, and putting on an air of solemnity. For someone who sincerely mourns his teacher and is resolved to bring that teacher’s aspirations to life in a new age, how could a ''dhāraṇī''-style funeral like that possibly be satisfying? No doubt such forms once possessed value appropriate to their age,…

'''[p. 278]'''

…but today, from beginning to end, they are nothing but anachronisms. They are like beer left sitting for days, with sediment collecting in it. In the end, that is what happens when a funeral has lost its spirit.

'''B:''' Then what sort of form do you propose replacing it with?

'''A:''' Are you so worried about the form of the funeral that you can’t attain buddhahood? As long as the movement itself is genuinely alive and substantial, I believe forms appropriate to the age will arise naturally in the course of the movement. Look at how solemn a makeshift burial on the battlefield can be. Think, too, how deeply moving Yamasen’s funeral was.<ref>“Yamasen” was the familiar name of Yamamoto Senji 山本宣治 (1889–1929), a biologist, birth-control advocate, socialist politician, and labor activist assassinated by a right-wing nationalist in 1929. His funeral and memorial processions became major public events for the Japanese left.</ref> The point is that appropriate forms arise in proportion to the intensity of one’s commitment to justice in life. So I don’t think we need to calculate the form of a funeral in advance. The essential thing is to adopt a simple, spiritual form appropriate to the modern age; beyond that, we can proceed as circumstances require.

'''B:''' But a funeral does adorn the end of a person’s life....

'''A:''' The end isn’t something you decorate once you’ve reached it. To put it strongly, think of a funeral as little more than disposing of used coffee grounds. What matters is rebuilding each living day into a life of justice and love. Isn’t that what Nichiren meant when he said, “A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world”?<ref>“A hundred years of practice in the Pure Land does not equal the merit of a single day in this defiled world.” Nichiren, Hōon-shō 報恩抄 (“On Repaying Debts of Gratitude,” 1276).</ref> To think of a funeral as a ceremony that “adorns the end” is itself a variant of bourgeois ideology: people donate or contribute some percentage of wealth accumulated through sinful exploitation and imagine that this constitutes admirable faith and atonement. ''Why be calculating funeral arrangements before the banner has even been raised? Those advancing arm in arm in the march of justice should already be prepared to leave their corpses by the roadside. Would the dead not prefer the tearful offering of a single comrade to the hymns of a thousand people without heart? “Let the dead bury their dead!”''<ref>Matthew 8:22; cf. Luke 9:60.</ref> The fundamental ideology of our Revitalized Buddhist movement must be the resolve to embody the Buddhist spirit in actual life—a resolve that will make even our funerals bleed tears.

'''B:''' I understand. Then will you go on to explain the relationship between reform of the economic system and the Revitalized Buddhist movement?

=== Revitalized Buddhism and Class Struggle ===
'''A:''' We’ve talked for quite a long time today, so let’s leave this subject until next time. In the meantime, from January through March of this year I published my views in Youth on the attitude Buddhists should take toward…

'''[p. 279]'''

…capitalism. I’ll eventually publish those articles as a pamphlet, so study them when it comes out.<ref>Seno’o refers to his essay series “Capitalism and the Stance of Buddhists” (Shihonshugi ni taisuru Bukkyōto no taido 資本主義に対する仏教徒の態度), serialized in Wakōdo 若人 from January through March 1931 and subsequently published as Shihonshugi to Bukkyō 資本主義と仏教 (Capitalism and Buddhism; Tokyo: Shinkō Bukkyō Seinen Dōmei Shuppanbu, 1931).</ref> In the end, Buddhist priests too are parasites of capitalism and, generally speaking, cannot avoid becoming its servants. The shortest road to religious revolution therefore lies in transforming capitalism, the underlying condition that sustains them. In any case, doesn’t this new movement acquire value only when it advances into the concrete problems of actual life?

'''B:''' Let me ask you one thing. In the end, then, you recognize “joining the proletarian movement”—that is, class struggle?

'''A:''' Yes.

'''B:''' Earlier you said that Buddhism is “emptiness” and that it occupies “no standpoint.” But if you endorse class struggle and side with the proletarian movement, doesn’t that contradict the Buddhist spirit?

'''A:''' It is precisely because Buddhism is “emptiness” and occupies “no standpoint” that, when circumstances require it, participation in the proletarian movement can be justified. To look at the class struggle actually taking place before our eyes and simply disregard it amounts to nothing more than indifference to the conditions of our own lives. The question is which side it is right to support. That alone is the issue.

'''B:''' But proletarian activists are often inclined to resort to violence. Can that too be called just?

'''A:''' Before speaking of violence by the proletarian movement, don’t you recognize the overwhelming presence of the military, the police, and all the other instruments of power controlled by those who rule? It is precisely on the basis of this recognition of reality that proletarian activists are compelled to resort to violence in order to realize their ideal society.

'''B:''' You speak of “those who control the instruments of power,” but these are the nation’s military and police. Surely they do not belong to any one particular class.

'''A:''' That is true in name only. Look at the facts: which class actually controls the military and the police? You have to open your eyes to reality. Today, the justice and morality spoken of by the ruling class are entirely one-sided—a morality of the strong. Otherwise, how could they enjoy such lives of splendor while ignoring the masses living at the very bottom?

'''B:''' Still, their present position is one they have attained by prevailing in competition. Surely being the victor does not necessarily make one unjust.

'''A:''' If that is not unjust, then why is it considered unjust—and impermissible—for the proletariat today to seek victory through unions and solidarity?

'''B:''' Isn’t that because it would disrupt the existing social order?

'''[p. 280]'''

'''A:''' For whose benefit is the present social order arranged? Look at the facts. Today, justice and morality are all colored by class. They are a class-based justice and order, and by no means genuine justice. Nevertheless, the educators either unconsciously—or sometimes consciously, and quite brazenly—serve as mouthpieces for the ruling class. If it is just for the present ruling class to use its power to suppress the proletarian movement, then it must equally be just for proletarian activists to seize power and turn it back against them. If religious people are to condemn violence as unjust, then from which class should they first demand its abandonment? And if, under certain circumstances, violence itself can be regarded as just, then which movement contains within it more of the true essence of justice? The impossible neutral standpoint that is neither bourgeois nor proletarian belongs now to the realm of ghosts. True justice must be sought in securing the welfare of the masses. So, what do you think? I believe that the Revitalized Buddhist movement can ultimately find its true social ground only among the proletarian class.

'''B:''' I think I understand now. Justice is an ideology that becomes concretely felt through opposition. Looking back over history, the true character of justice has been recognized most clearly in struggles against the powerful on behalf of the weak of their time. In fact, I myself have been inwardly dissatisfied with calling myself “neutral.” I have always tried to formulate a conception of justice by working from the concrete calculations of actual life rather than from abstraction. On that point, I should read your pamphlet carefully and think it over.

'''A:''' Until now, almost all Buddhists have, more or less without exception, adhered to a conceptual and conservative faith in “gratitude.” As a result, they have been blind to the problems of actual social life, have conducted no research whatsoever into socialism, and have been driven from the outset into a blindly reactionary movement. This is a grave anachronism. The original ideal of Buddhism was, on the contrary, itself socialist. On this point, too, I am genuinely glad that the narcotic effect of the opium has begun to wear off and that the force of actual life has begun to move.

'''B:''' I understand quite well. Let’s discuss this question again after I’ve read your pamphlet. (Shōwa 6 [1931], “Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism,” April inaugural issue)

'''[p. 281]'''

=== The Economy Is the Foundation of Life ===
'''B:''' You promised me last month that you would explain the relationship between the Revitalized Buddhist movement and the transformation of the economic system.

'''A:''' Yes. Since launching this new movement, I have become painfully aware that the reason nearly all the comrades who initially joined me but later withdrew did so was the third item in our program: “opposition to capitalism.” This has made me realize all the more clearly that economic problems are the very foundation of human life, and that our thoughts and actions are therefore inevitably conditioned by them. Generally speaking, an edification movement that ignores economic problems is nothing more than a conceptual game. Indeed, I have become even more firmly convinced that any edification movement that does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to advancing the transformation of the present capitalist economic system is nothing less than an opiate-like form of wrongdoing. And surely there is no longer any need to explain that capitalism is a mechanism of selfishness and self-interest that runs counter to the Buddhist spirit.

'''B:''' From the enthusiastic response of the audience at the April 5 inaugural commemorative lecture meeting of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, I too could clearly sense how thoroughly society has become disillusioned with capitalism and with the established Buddhist institutions.

But what about organizations such as the Hope Society and the Cultivation Society, which have recently been conducting very active edification movements? Don’t you think they possess some contemporary value?<ref>Kibōsha 希望社 (“Hope Society”), founded by Gotō Seikō 後藤静香 (1884–1969) in 1918, and Shūyōdan 修養団 (“Self-Cultivation Association”), founded by Hasunuma Monzō 蓮沼門三 (1882–1980) in 1906, were prominent organizations in Japan’s modern moral-edification (kyōka 教化) and self-cultivation (shūyō 修養) movements. Both emphasized personal discipline, service, and social harmony. Seno’o rejects such movements as inadequate responses to structural economic problems, arguing that their emphasis on individual moral cultivation ultimately leaves capitalist relations intact.</ref>

'''A:''' They are both organizations for officially sanctioned edification, and in the end the result is the same. Precisely because they are novel edification movements, they may temporarily attract young men and women and, for that very reason, function all the more effectively as an opiate. Recently, however, I hear that even within the Cultivation Society an anti-capitalist consciousness has gradually begun to emerge. And didn’t the Hope Society recently fall several months behind in paying its employees’ salaries, leading to an employees’ strike and even a lawsuit? As the saying goes, “A hundred days of preaching are undone by a single fart.”<ref>A traditional Japanese proverb: Hyakunichi no seppō, he hitotsu 百日の説法、屁一つ (literally, “A hundred days of preaching, one fart”), meaning that prolonged preaching or painstaking effort can be undone by a single act that renders it ridiculous or ineffective. Seno’o invokes the deliberately coarse expression to suggest that moral edification is rendered futile when the social conditions produced by capitalism remain unchanged.</ref> There is also that amusing saying, “Faith, too, comes from an excess of ''toku''.” Here ''toku'' means “profit.” That one saying alone explains rather well the relationship between economic problems and established edification organizations.<ref>“Faith, too, comes from an excess of toku” plays on the proverb shinjin mo toku no amari 信心も徳の余り, meaning that religious devotion becomes possible only when one has sufficient material ease. Seno’o pointedly interprets toku here in the material sense of profit or economic gain, reinforcing his argument that religious and moral life cannot be separated from economic conditions.</ref>

'''[p. 282]'''

=== The Anachronism of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''B:''' You did quite a bit of arguing at the conference of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation on April 2 and 3. Was it about what you were just discussing?

'''A:''' It wasn’t only that, but I said everything that needed to be said. The obvious question was whether, in determining its attitude toward capitalism, which runs counter to the Buddhist spirit, the Federation would return to the Buddha—but they could not reach a decision. Worse still, although Buddhist youth from throughout Japan had joined together in a federation with the intention of advancing into a new society, they were still debating whether guiding principles were even necessary. It was like firing a gun in the dark; there was no real question to discuss.

'''B:''' Doesn’t the Federation’s second stated objective say, “We aim to awaken to the Buddhist spirit and promote its revitalization”?

'''A:''' However impressive such abstract phrases may sound, unless something new actually follows from them, things will simply continue as before. Even if they spend several hundred yen to establish another grand federation, what meaning can it possibly have unless they articulate concrete guiding principles appropriate to the demands of the new age? As I was saying, so long as the various sects each possess bodies of teaching that are historically incompatible with one another, the more faithfully each adheres to the doctrines of its own sect, the less what sect A regards as the Buddhist spirit will correspond to what sects B and C regard as the Buddhist spirit. Take the Nichiren sect: if it loudly proclaims the Buddhist spirit embodied in its Four Dicta, how can it possibly form a united front with the Nenbutsu and other sects? And if the Pure Land sect clings to the “Five Miscellaneous Practices,” wouldn’t the result be the same?<ref>The Five Miscellaneous Practices (gozōgyō 五雑行), derived from Shandao’s Pure Land classification, designate practices directed toward buddhas and teachings other than Amitābha and the Pure Land as “miscellaneous,” in contrast to the five “right practices” (goshōgyō 五正行). Seno’o juxtaposes this Pure Land exclusivism with Nichiren’s Four Dicta (see n. 30) to expose the unresolved doctrinal contradictions underlying claims of Buddhist unity.</ref> If they say cooperation is nevertheless possible, then that is shameless—unless, of course, they have already sublated their sectarian doctrines in accordance with the times. In any case, if the Federation is to become something more than a kind of religious social club and actually inaugurate a Buddhist movement appropriate to the new age, it must set forth a guiding principle of faith capable of unifying the Federation as a whole and, on that basis, a guiding principle for solving social problems. Otherwise, it is useless.

'''B:''' Surely people chosen to represent their respective regions must have thought about something as basic as that.

'''A:''' Exactly. Marx said that “humanity always sets itself only such problems as it is able to solve.”<ref>Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface (1859): “Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve.”</ref> Since these people have joined the Federation in order to join hands with one another, there must be some common point on which they ''can'' join hands—some problem capable of solution. That is why I proposed that we…

'''[p. 283]'''

…identify this concrete point and launch a new movement.

=== Two Major Proposals to the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation ===
'''A:''' Needless to say, I advocated the two fundamental principles of our Revitalized Buddhism. They took the following form:

(1)'' We recognize that the divisions among the established Buddhist institutions run counter to the Buddhist way of harmony; returning to the Buddha, we resolve to promote Buddhism anew in a manner appropriate to the age.''

(2)'' We recognize that the suffering of present society arises primarily from its contradictory social organization, and we resolve to reform that organization and build an ideal society grounded in the Buddhist spirit.''<ref>Compare these two proposals with the three founding principles subsequently proclaimed by the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism at its inaugural meeting on April 5, 1931: opposition to established Buddhist institutions, the construction of a new Buddhist movement suited to the present age, and opposition to capitalism.</ref>

'''B:''' Aren’t these proposals rather abstract?

'''A:''' I think they are sufficient as fundamental principles realistically possible under the present circumstances of the Buddhist Federation.

'''B:''' I hear there was considerable opposition.

'''A:''' There was. But the truth was self-evident. Whatever anyone might say, the only possible point of unity for such a federation was “returning to the Buddha.” The spirit of the proposal was therefore generally accepted. But time was short, and the matter was referred to the platform-drafting committee, so the proceedings came to an end. As the newspapers harshly criticized them the next day, however, a federation like this might almost have been better left unformed. They did not even have the courage to decide upon the obvious first proposal. As for the second, in practice it must have seemed about as remote as the Pure Land ten billion lands to the west.

=== Shin Buddhism’s Self-Reckoning ===
'''B:''' I understand that most of the delegates in attendance were Shin Buddhists. But if you say “Return to the Buddha,” doesn’t that amount to a declaration of bankruptcy for the Amida teaching of absolute Other Power?

'''A:''' Strictly speaking, I suppose it does. Recently, I saw an explanation by Dr. Takakusu published in the Yomiuri Shimbun under the title “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism.” Even there, Amida faith and the like have been completely disposed of. It seems to me that any seeker who reads one as one, correctly and without distortion, could have no possible objection to Shin Buddhism also “returning to the Buddha.” In the section on “atheism” in Dr. Takakusu’s “Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism,” he writes:

Human destiny is not governed by God; it is entirely self-governed. Through the principle that one reaps the consequences of one’s own actions, each person is continually opening up their own destiny. There is therefore no need to await God’s judgment: it is entirely a matter of self-judgment. Good causes and good effects do not arise through God’s judgment, but rather through natural law. Thus Śākyamuni stands firmly upon his own human personality, develops that personality upward, and attains complete buddhahood. Amida Nyorai and Dainichi Nyorai, too, are ideals manifested from Śākyamuni’s own ideal…

'''[p. 284]'''

… they are, after all, human beings brought to completion. Therefore, the Buddha has not the slightest trace of the meaning of a creator god, a sovereign god, or a judicial god. Rather, the Buddha himself attains the ultimate state of self-awakening and, from compassion for other unenlightened beings, begins the activity of awakening others so as to bring them to the same ultimate state of self-awakening.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎, 1866–1945), a prominent scholar of Buddhism and Sanskrit, developed a modern systematic interpretation of Buddhist doctrine that included an explicitly “atheistic” (mushinshugi 無神主義) principle. Seno’o here quotes Takakusu’s “The Fundamental Meaning of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no konpon gi 仏教の根本義), published in the morning edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun, March 22, 1931. See also Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref>

Accordingly, self-awakening, awakening others, and the perfection of awakened practice are the Buddha’s fundamental concern. As you know, Dr. Takakusu is a universally acknowledged authority on Shin Buddhism. Therefore, shouldn’t we simply dispense with an Amida Nyorai of Other-Power salvation, stand firmly upon our own human personality, and direct that personality upward toward the liberated Buddha? The destiny of the doctor himself lies in opening up his own self; in other words, it is a matter of an Amida Nyorai who saves himself through the development of his own self. Therefore, casting aside naïve reliance on Amida Buddha and Other Power, should not all Buddhists stand upon their own personhood and strive to develop and perfect it, uniting around the liberated Buddha, seeking the light of life in reverence for this ideal personality, and devoting themselves to responsible effort? Would this not be a Buddhist movement that modern people could find convincing?

'''B:''' I think that is exactly right. The conception of Other-Power Buddhism is quite similar to the Christian conception of a sovereign and judging God. Such an explanation can hardly satisfy the religion of tomorrow. If all this is so clear, why can’t they raise a platform and launch a new Buddhist movement?

=== The Resolve to Bear the Cross ===
'''A:''' From this point on, however, the issue becomes one of religious resolve. There is always a distance between explanation and practice. Between them stand inherited conventions, personal ties and feelings, and, above all, the many difficult problems accumulated through economic relationships and the circumstances of actual life. It is easy enough to speak of decisive action, but making the leap itself is by no means simple. Such a leap can only come from the earnest seeking spirit of a revolutionary who is driven by an irresistible inner necessity and is prepared even to bear the cross. This is especially true of our second principle. Without such determination, it would be impossible to revolutionize the tradition of religion in service to established power and launch a new Buddhist movement for the sake of the masses.

=== Sinclair’s View of Religion ===
'''B:''' At the Revitalized Buddhist founding commemorative lecture on the fifth, there were an awful lot of police present,…

'''[p. 285]'''

…keeping a very conspicuous watch. Was that because of Revitalized Buddhism’s third principle—the slogan “Down with Capitalism”?

'''A:''' Exactly. When I was summoned to the police station over the notification for the meeting, that was what they told me. They were not particularly concerned about the destruction of the established Buddhist institutions. What concerned them was the anti-capitalist movement. If the content of our Revitalized Buddhist movement consisted merely in destroying the established religious institutions and unifying Buddhism, that would amount to little more than destroying a number of robots and manufacturing one enormous robot in their place. The real problem is that, unless the Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a movement against capitalism—the modern devil that is mercilessly turning human beings into robots through the religious institutions—it cannot truly be called a religious movement that engages actual life. That is what I believe.

'''B:''' I can understand what you’re saying, but surely religion and economic movements are, by their very nature, separate fields?

'''A:''' That is a reasonable point, at least at first. But I believe that true religion should not divide things into two, economics on one side and spirit on the other; it should demand the idealization of life as a whole. Genuine love between a man and a woman cannot be satisfied with Platonic love; only where flesh and spirit are united can love attain fulfillment.

On this point, Upton Sinclair writes in his well-known book Is Religion Worth Believing?<ref>Upton Sinclair (1878–1968) was an American socialist writer and political activist. The passages quoted here are from his The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation (1918), a socialist critique of organized religion as an ally of economic exploitation. Seno’o encountered the work in Japanese as Shūkyō wa shinzuru ni taru ka 宗教は信ずるに足るか (Is Religion Worth Believing?; trans. Sakai Toshihiko et al., Tokyo: Kōbunsha, 1920). The English here translates the Japanese passages quoted by Seno’o rather than substituting Sinclair’s original English wording.</ref>

Religion, in the true sense, is the most fundamental of spiritual impulses: an ardent love of life, a sense of the preciousness of life, and a desire to nurture and foster life. In this sense, every thinking human being must be religious. In this sense, ‘religion’ is the eternal power of self-renewal and the true nature of humanity itself. In this sense, I have not the slightest intention of attacking religion. Indeed, I wish to make clear that religion, understood in this sense, is something that simply cannot be attacked.

But the word ‘religion’ has also been given another meaning, and as a result we have been deprived of the pleasure of using this word in that straightforward sense. For most people, the word ‘religion’ does not mean ‘the soul’s desire to grow’ or ‘the pursuit of righteousness as though hungering and thirsting for it.’ Instead, it means the historical forms in which that desire has appeared, and…

'''[p. 286]'''

…the doctrines, ‘revelations,’ creeds, and rituals it has acquired; a system under which the moral impulses of the people, the love of children, and the aspirations of youth are exploited and turned into a source of privilege and commercial profit for the clergy. ‘Religion’ in this sense is the natural ally of parasitic income and of every form of oppression and exploitation.

Can we not clearly understand from this the difference between true “religion” and distorted, so-called “religion”? ''Thus the actual path followed by the true religious person, who “hungers and thirsts after righteousness,” naturally diverges from the ideological dream-world in which the half-paralyzed pseudo-religionist dances, taking fixed doctrines and revelations, creeds and rituals to be religion.'' Sinclair’s next words express almost exactly my own present conviction:

I am certainly no shallow materialist. I am not so superficial as to think that human beings can be satisfied by meaningless rationalism. I know that the symbols of the old religions arose from the human heart. They arose because they corresponded to certain desires of the human heart. And I also know that, together with those desires, the symbols of a new religion suited to the needs of the present age can be discovered. If I am trying here to tear down an old, dilapidated building, it is not out of a blind impulse to destroy, but because I am an architect who wishes to build in its place a new and sturdier structure.

=== The True Character of Temple Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then today’s Nichiren sect, Nenbutsu sect, Shingon sect, and so forth, with their ruling hierarchies claiming divine authority and their fixed doctrines, “revelations,” creeds, and rituals, are what might be called “religion in the ordinary sense.”

'''A:''' They are indeed typical examples. Look at Mount Minobu, the eastern and western Honganji temples, or Narita’s Fudō temple. Where in any of them do we find a “hunger and thirst for righteousness,” or the “most fundamental spiritual impulse,” the vital force of life, being nurtured and fostered? What kind of contact do these sacred places have with young people, in whom spiritual impulses are at their strongest? Among the pilgrims to these sacred places, most are old people with no future, people making selfish petitions, or perhaps bourgeois and petit-bourgeois youth. What kind of promise do they make to the young people of tomorrow?

And speaking of that,…

'''[p. 287]'''

…Tsukiji Honganji, I hear, is planning to construct an enormous reinforced-concrete temple hall with a building budget of more than two million yen. The reason for doing so is truly remarkable. Since the Great Earthquake destroyed its main hall, most large funerals have been going instead to Zōjōji in Shiba. The new building, it is rumored, is therefore a scheme to win those customers back.<ref>Tsukiji Honganji 築地本願寺, the major Honganji-ha temple in Tokyo, lost its main hall in the fires following the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923. Its replacement, designed by Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954), was constructed in reinforced concrete between 1931 and 1934 in a distinctive Indian-inspired style, at a cost of more than two million yen. Seno’o refers critically to reports that the expensive reconstruction was driven partly by competition with Zōjōji 増上寺, the prominent Jōdo-shū temple in Shiba, for lucrative funerals. He presents the episode as an example of Buddhist institutions pursuing wealth and institutional prestige rather than the welfare of the masses.</ref> What kind of grotesque commercial competition between funeral corporations is this?

Given Buddhism under the leadership of temples like these, there is hardly any need to explain what the lives of ordinary Buddhists look like today. It amounts to little more than mouthing phrases such as “From Impermanence to Devotion,” accompanied by a smiling face, as though economic life were an entirely separate matter. People may shed grateful tears at the thought that “the founder spent ninety years clothed in paper,”<ref>“The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” alludes to a celebrated haiku by Ōtani Kubutsu 大谷句仏 (Ōtani Kōen, 1875–1943), the twenty-third head of Higashi Honganji: “How humbling! The founder spent ninety years clothed in paper” (勿体なや祖師は紙衣の九十年). The “founder” is Shinran (1173–1263), while “paper clothing” (kamiko 紙衣) evokes the austerity traditionally associated with his life. Seno’o invokes the verse ironically to contrast Shinran’s celebrated simplicity with the wealth and institutional practices of contemporary Shin Buddhism.</ref> and may be deeply moved as they recall his exile at Tsukahara; but how is any of that spirit actually woven into the everyday lives of believers? Look again at the recent practice of the ruling class, as one means of ideological guidance, of having elementary-school teachers install ''kamidana'' in their classrooms in order to instill the ideology of reverence for the gods and veneration of the ancestors. These are precisely the fossilized religious rites Sinclair was describing. What a strange situation we have today: at a time when there are said to be as many as a thousand villages where teachers’ salaries go unpaid, the gods and buddhas whose very life is equality and love are shut up inside such little boxes, while the ruling class orders teachers to bow before them in the name of ideological guidance.<ref>Seno’o refers to the increasing use of State Shintō rites in public education during the early Shōwa period, when practices such as the installation of kamidana 神棚 and shrine worship were promoted as expressions of civic morality and reverence for the emperor rather than as “religion.” He juxtaposes this ideological mobilization of elementary-school teachers with their low salaries and precarious economic position, exposing what he sees as the contradiction between state-sponsored moral edification and the material conditions of those charged with carrying it out.</ref> The ruling class is bad enough—but surely the teachers who have no choice but to reply, “Yes, indeed,” and obey deserve our sympathy as well. Think about it. Why should governors and department heads receive monthly salaries of four or five hundred yen, while elementary-school teachers receive only sixty or seventy? And isn’t the amount of time they actually spend working in precisely the opposite proportion?

Earlier I mentioned Dr. Takakusu’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism.” Among its four outward-facing principles are non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality.<ref>Takakusu Junjirō’s “Eight Principles of Buddhism” (Bukkyō no hachidai kōryō 仏教の八大綱領) distinguished four inward-facing principles from four outward-facing social principles, the latter comprising non-harm, great compassion, peace, and equality. See Takakusu, Bukkyō Tetsugaku Tsūron 仏教哲学通論 (General Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy; Tokyo: Dai’ichi Shobō, 1927).</ref> He says that Buddhism’s distinctive characteristic lies in carrying each of these principles through to its fullest possible extent. But that is merely a story about the past. Where do we see these principles being practiced today? Where are Buddhists even calling for their practice? Indeed, what could be more upside-down and confused than the fact that Buddhism now attacks socialism—which seeks to put those very principles into practice—as though it were the devil itself? We must once again recover the Buddha’s life of equality.

=== The Transformation of the Economic System is Essential ===
'''B:''' Then, from what you have said, is the concrete problem advocated by the Revitalized Buddhist movement ultimately the need for “a new religion integrated with the needs of the present age”?

'''A:''' Exactly. As I said before, generally speaking, economic relationships regulate our thought and action. Under the present profit-oriented…

'''[p. 288]'''

…capitalist economic system, antisocial egoism is naturally mass-produced. That is why I regard the transformation of this mechanism as a fundamental problem.

'''B:''' I asked you this before, but isn’t the proper function of religion nevertheless a spiritual one?

'''A:''' There is some truth in that. But the moment religion fixes itself exclusively in that role, it acquires the first qualification of a religion in the service of established power, and then becomes capable of reactionary preaching. If you could guarantee, for people in general, that they could perform hard physical labor even when hungry and remain mentally clear even when deprived of sleep, then I would accept your argument.

'''B:''' But many accomplished people have managed to transcend adverse circumstances. Doesn’t that show that spiritual power can rise above environment? And haven’t extraordinary powers of mind sometimes developed precisely under difficult conditions?

'''A:''' That is precisely the stock-in-trade of establishment preachers. Of course, there is the saying, “Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool.” <ref>“Extinguish the mind, and even fire becomes cool” (shintō mekkyaku sureba hi mo mata suzushi 心頭滅却すれば火もまた涼し) is a traditional expression for transcending physical suffering through mental composure, famously associated in Japan with the Zen monk Kaisen Jōki 快川紹喜 (d. 1582), who is said to have uttered it as he faced death by fire at Erinji.</ref> But, as I have repeatedly said in this conversation, I am speaking generally. Ordinary people tend to lack constancy of mind when they lack a secure livelihood. You can argue as you do now because you have no anxiety over food and clothing. But imagine yourself being hounded by the need to obtain today’s bread: a religion of spiritual bliss would inevitably become a secondary concern.

''Human beings, after all, exist within nature. Just as pine branches exposed to the sea wind are shaped in much the same way, we too are generally subject to the influence of our environment. It is therefore impossible simply to ignore those influences and speak only of ideals. Is this not precisely why the Confucian tradition could say:''

'''[p. 289]'''

''“When the granaries are full, people know propriety and decorum”?''<ref>A well-known maxim from the Guanzi 管子, “Mumin” 牧民: 倉廩実則知礼節 (“When the granaries are full, [the people] know ritual propriety”). Traditionally associated with Guan Zhong 管仲 (d. 645 BCE), it expresses the idea that material security is a prerequisite for moral and social order. Seno’o invokes the maxim here to support his increasingly materialist insistence that religious or ethical transformation cannot be separated from the economic conditions of everyday life.</ref>'' Unless the movement to establish a true Buddha-land takes this objective reality of human nature as its point of departure, it will remain an eternal dream.''

=== An Example of Economic Conditions Determining Action ===
'''A:''' On the eve of the formation of the Revitalized Buddhist movement, one incident gave me decisive confirmation on this issue: the withdrawal of the Kōfu branch.<ref>The Kōfu branch (Kōfu shibu 甲府支部) in Yamanashi Prefecture was one of the strongest regional bases of Seno’o’s earlier Nichirenist movement. It withdrew immediately before the founding of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism on April 5, 1931, following disagreement over the new movement’s explicit opposition to capitalism. As Seno’o explains here, many Kōfu members were shopkeepers and salaried workers whose livelihoods made such a commitment particularly difficult. He treats the episode as concrete evidence of the extent to which material conditions shape religious conviction and action.</ref>

'''B:''' That was actually something of a surprise to me as well. After all, that branch had been the one into which you had put the greatest effort ever since you first launched the Nichirenist movement, and it was also the most influential branch. What was the reason for its withdrawal?

'''A:''' Five comrades had even promised to come up to Tokyo for the founding ceremony on the fifth. But the anti-capitalist declaration contained in our third principle, published in the inaugural issue of Buddhist Banner delivered on the third, proved fatal.<ref>“Buddhist Banner” (Bukki 佛旗) is Seno’o’s abbreviated designation for Shinkō Bukkyō no hata no moto ni (新興仏教の旗の下に, Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism), the original title of the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism’s journal.</ref> Since the branch included quite a few members of the petit-bourgeois class and salaried employees, the basic reason was that opposition to capitalism threatened their own livelihoods and made it difficult for them to carry on. That, roughly speaking, was the reason.

'''B:''' But surely none of them were actually supporters of capitalism. And among the younger members, I heard there were some quite energetic people who had even told you that you ought to join a proletarian political party immediately.

'''A:''' When reform remains at the level of ideas and words, one can say almost anything. But when it comes time, as the saying goes, to “put the bell on the cat,” things no longer proceed according to one’s professed convictions. That, too, is ordinary human nature.

'''B:''' But for a religious organization that had worked hand in hand with you for ten years, wasn’t that an extraordinarily faithless response?

'''A:''' If blame is to be assigned, then my own lack of virtue and lack of ability deserve blame first. I cannot bring myself simply to condemn the attitude of the branch with the word “faithlessness,” because I still remember the genuine goodwill the comrades there had shown us. I also believe that among them were comrades who opposed withdrawal, or who thought the decision should at least be postponed. Nevertheless, the fact that the entire branch ultimately decided to withdraw revealed both human weakness in the face of the problem of bread and the workings of a group psychology that transcends the individual.

If this movement were really to deprive comrades of their jobs and cut off their means of obtaining bread—and I do not think that must necessarily happen—then, for someone with a wife, children, parents, or siblings, it would generally be unreasonable to expect him simply to advance in a straight line according to a single-minded conception of justice. If, despite such circumstances, the comrades who withdrew had merely disguised their own weakness and invented other reasons for leaving, then they would indeed deserve blame. But that was not what happened.

'''[p. 290]'''

'''A:''' In reality, even while cursing the tyranny of capitalism, they dropped out because they were forced to consider the immediate problems of making a living. “You can’t trade your belly for your back,” as the saying goes. ''Here we can see just how powerfully economic problems tend to govern human action, and how the ruling class, through its tyrannical repression, threatens the lives of the vulnerable masses. This, I think, demonstrates all the more clearly the significance of our having placed the transformation of the capitalist economic system in our third principle''.

=== The Historical Task Borne by Revitalized Buddhism ===
'''B:''' Then if you had simply left out the third principle, you would not have had to part from close comrades?

'''A:''' Probably so. But suppose that we affirmed capitalism—or criticized it only in words, while in practice carrying on just as before, happily singing hymns to the Buddha and loudly proclaiming socialism while indulging in an intellectual game. How much of the blood and sweat of the proletarian masses would have to be sacrificed to sustain us? Think, for example, of the countless comrades who labor thousands of feet underground, where the light of day never reaches, receiving scarcely enough to cover the bare cost of living. When are they to be liberated and allowed to live lives worthy of human beings? And then look at the luxurious lives of the handful of bourgeoisie. Is this really a social condition that Buddhists—who ought to carry the principles of great compassion and equality through to their fullest extent—can continue to overlook forever?

'''B:''' I understand how you feel. But Buddhism also has ways of looking at things such as “flowers are red, willows are green,” “differentiation is precisely equality,” and “karmic cause and recompense.” Isn’t one distinctive feature of Buddhism precisely its ability to endure painful realities through perspectives such as these?

'''A:''' Such interpretations are precisely the hundred-percent opiate sermons on which establishment religious figures have traditionally feasted. The historical task borne by Revitalized Buddhism must instead be to re-examine these distorted teachings, properly proclaim the Buddhist spirit, and make it a guiding principle for securing the welfare of the masses.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” May issue)

== Part Three ==

=== Is Poverty the Result of Previous-Life Karma? ===
'''B:''' Then how exactly have doctrines such as “karmic cause and recompense” been distorted so as to perform the function of religion in the service of established power?

'''[p. 291]'''

'''A:''' Let’s begin with “karmic cause and recompense.” As I said earlier, Buddhism is neither fatalism, creationism, nor a doctrine of chance. Of course Buddhism teaches the law of cause and effect, so differences between rich and poor certainly have causes. The distortion lies in placing the cause entirely on one side and thereby imposing resignation and submission. Take the proletarian masses who remain poor no matter how hard they work. How have priests traditionally explained the cause of their poverty? “It is karma from a previous existence. It is your own karma and your own recompense. It is neither the capitalist’s fault nor society’s responsibility. Therefore, instead of blaming capitalists or society, you should simply work even harder.” That is how they have solemnly explained it.

But anyone with even a little knowledge of the capitalist system can already see through such an explanation; there is hardly any need to belabor the point. Last year’s so-called “bumper-crop hell” is an excellent example. The weather was favorable and the farmers labored until the sweat poured from them, yet that unprecedented bumper crop actually became a cause of increased hardship for farming households. Can that fact really be disposed of through a doctrine of causation from a previous life? Or look at bank interest rates: small borrowers are charged more, while large borrowers receive more favorable rates, pushing the small borrower into an increasingly disadvantageous position. Or consider the grossly unequal distribution of profits generated through the cooperation of labor and capital, and the suppression by governmental authority of those who protest. If economic inequality is produced by such unfair social causes, can all of it really be dismissed as the poor person’s karmic consequence from a former existence?

=== Poverty Is Also a Matter of Collective Responsibility ===
'''A:''' Buddhist reasoning does not permit such one-sidedness. In this case Buddhism clearly asserts social “joint responsibility” (rentai sekinin, 連帯責任); it does not assign responsibility to one side alone. This is what Buddhism means by “collective karma, collectively experienced” (gūgō shokan 共業所感).<ref>Gūgō shokan 共業所感 refers to the collective experience of conditions arising from “shared karma” (gūgō 共業), in contrast to karmic consequences attributed solely to an individual’s actions. Seno’o invokes the concept here to reinterpret karma socially: poverty and economic inequality are not simply the individual karmic responsibility of the poor but conditions collectively produced and therefore entailing collective responsibility.</ref> ''If responsibility is joint, then capitalists too must bear part of the responsibility for the impoverished lives of the proletarian masses. More broadly, it is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Once we discover that defects in the capitalist economic system are among the causes of poverty, shouldn’t reform of that system become the first question confronting us as a matter of joint responsibility?''

'''B:''' But if that is so, how should we understand such ideas as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” (jigō jitoku, 自業自得) and “cause and effect through the three existences” (sanze inga, 三世因果)? Are you saying there is absolutely no individual responsibility…

'''[p. 292]'''

…at all?

'''A:''' I am not saying that individual responsibility does not exist. The question is whether responsibility is confined to an individual’s private life or whether the transformation of society is regarded as fundamental. We cannot determine which is fundamental without correctly understanding the relationship between the individual and society.

Now, in “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” an individual self is posited, and the actions it performs through the cycle of rebirth are described as “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” or “cause and effect through the three existences.” But so long as no-self is a fundamental principle of Buddhism, this way of thinking must naturally be re-examined.

For if we assert an individualistic doctrine of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense,” Buddhism’s fundamental principle collapses; while if we assert no-self, “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” cannot stand in that form. In this connection, a scholar named Rhys Davids is said to have explained that “the view current at the time”—the individualistic theory of karmic causation through the three existences—“was added to the teachings of original Buddhism without being logically integrated into them.”<ref>T. W. Rhys Davids (1843–1922), a pioneering British scholar of Pāli Buddhism who emphasized the tension between the Buddhist denial of an enduring self and the doctrine of karmic continuity across successive lives, describing the latter not as transmigration of a soul but as the “transmigration of character.” Seno’o draws upon this historical-critical interpretation to argue that an individualistic doctrine of karmic recompense was not fully consistent with Buddhism’s fundamental teaching of no-self.</ref> I suspect that is indeed the case.

=== The True Liberation of Humanity and Religion ===
The idea of “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” was a transitional conception belonging to an age in which individuality was exaggerated at the expense of sociality. Buddhism’s fundamental principle, however, remains no-self, together with “the conjunction of many conditions; no single cause produces anything” (shuen wagō, ichiin hishō, 衆縁和合・一因非生).<ref>Shuen wagō 衆縁和合 (“the conjunction of manifold conditions”) expresses the Buddhist principle that phenomena arise through the convergence of multiple causes and conditions rather than through an isolated cause. The principle is developed extensively in Madhyamaka literature, including Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Chūron 中論; T 30, no. 1564) and the Dazhidulun 大智度論 (T 25, no. 1509). Seno’o invokes it against an individualistic interpretation of jigō jitoku 自業自得 (“one’s own karma, one’s own recompense”), arguing that poverty must be understood in relation to social and economic conditions rather than attributed solely to an individual’s past karma. He thereby develops no-self (muga 無我) and dependent arising into principles of collective responsibility and structural social reform.</ref> Consequently, an individualistic theory of jigō jitoku cannot stand. If “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is properly interpreted, the “self” in that expression is not an isolated individual ego but a social self—a greater self—formed through the conjunction of causes and conditions. The causes of poverty must therefore be explained socially as well. Accordingly, the means of eliminating those causes should also be sought through positive and concrete social methods. And although society as a whole bears joint responsibility, so long as there remains a distinction between ruler and ruled, it is only reasonable that a greater share of responsibility be sought from the ruling class. To treat poverty simply as the proletarian’s “own karma and own recompense,” making individuals resign themselves, submit, sweat away at their labor, and be exploited for the gratification of the ruling class—could there be a more grotesque inversion of right and wrong on the part of priests? ''Therefore, ''jigō jitoku'' must be reconsidered through the Buddhist teaching of no-self. We must be liberated from the distinction between “self” and “other,” and through the true spirit of no-self seek a thoroughgoing, concrete social movement directed toward resolving the problem as a whole. Especially under a modern capitalist system organized as thoroughly as ours, surely it is here that the true liberation of humanity is to be found…''

'''[p. 293]'''

…and this is what it means to be a Buddha: a human being who attains such an awakening and then strives vigorously to realize it in society. The Buddha was precisely the exemplary embodiment of such a human personality.

'''B:''' I see. Explained that way, the statement I once heard attributed to the abbot of Zōjōji—that “the fundamental solution to the problem of labor and capital is to make workers understand the law of karmic causation”—really is, quite literally, an opiate sermon.

'''A:''' Exactly. And even if we interpret jigō jitoku in the traditional, individualistic way, such preaching amounts to nothing more than the self-indictment of utterly heartless pseudo-religious figures. For if the poverty suffered by workers is the consequence of causes from a previous life, then surely the difficulties capitalists experience when confronted by strikes of the proletarian masses must likewise be consequences of causes from a previous life. And if the same law of cause and effect applies in both cases, then rather than using it to make proletarians who presently lack material necessities submit and endure, how much more in keeping with the Buddha’s path of saving the weak would it be to use that blessed law of cause and effect to persuade the bourgeoisie, who possess more than enough, to satisfy the demands of the proletarian masses? Even from a practical standpoint, surely there is a far greater possibility of solving the problem by persuading those with abundant material goods simply to give some of them up than by trying to persuade masses who presently lack even bread. And yet in reality precisely the opposite occurs. Isn’t that astonishing?

'''B:''' Exactly. Isn’t this what Lenin meant when he said:

Religion teaches those who toil and suffer throughout their lives to be submissive and patient here on earth, consoling them with the hope of reward in heaven. But to those who live by the labor of others, it teaches charity while they are on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them tickets to heavenly bliss at a moderate price. <ref>V. I. Lenin, “Socialism and Religion” (1905), originally published in Novaya Zhizn, no. 28 (December 3, 1905); see Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, pp. 83–87. Seno’o’s wording reflects the Japanese translation available to him rather than corresponding exactly to later English translations.</ref>

But there is one thing I still wonder about. If responsibility is located socially in this way, won’t individual effort become weaker?

'''A:''' People accustomed to the kind of individualistic social life we have today may easily think so. But in reality, the more thoroughly a consciousness of belonging to a community with shared interests takes hold, the more strongly individual effort is intensified. Anyone who has committed himself wholeheartedly to a genuine communal life knows this from experience.

''Every pioneer worthy of respect has been someone who saw the whole of society within himself and understood himself in relation to social life. Such people could not help but engage in social action. ''The Buddha’s rejection of the individual ego and private possession, and his teaching of our indebtedness to society, arose from precisely this…

'''[p. 294]'''

…reason. And far from being misguided, were not the efforts of Marx and Lenin—who maintained that “the human essence is the totality of social relations”—magnificent?<ref>Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis VI (1845): “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Seno’o invokes the formulation to reinforce his reinterpretation of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self in explicitly social terms.</ref> Individual self-interest is, of course, also part of ordinary human nature, and in that sense “one’s own karma, one’s own recompense” is undoubtedly a transitional mode of thought rooted in that aspect of human nature. ''But the truth of no-self points eternally toward humanity’s highest liberation and toward a life of common production and common flourishing.''

=== The Distorted Doctrine of “Differentiation Is Precisely Equality” ===
'''A:''' Next comes the distorted doctrine of “differentiation is precisely equality.” Here too, as you said earlier with the expression “flowers are red, willows are green,” priests have devised clever explanations designed to make people accept irrational and unjust social inequalities exactly as they are.<ref>“Differentiation is precisely equality” (shabetsu soku byōdō 差別即平等) is a conventional Buddhist formulation, particularly associated with Tiantai and Huayan (J. Kegon) thought, expressing the nondual relation between the equality of phenomena and their particular differences. Rather than a quotation from a single classical text, the formula summarizes such doctrines as Tiantai’s perfect interpenetration of the Three Truths and Huayan’s interpenetration of identity and difference. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of this principle that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. “Willows are green, flowers are red” (yanagi wa midori, hana wa kurenai 柳緑花紅), a phrase common in Zen discourse, similarly evokes things as they are in their particularity. Seno’o attacks conservative interpretations of such formulas that treat existing differences of wealth and social position as natural or religiously sanctioned. For him, inequalities produced by social and economic institutions cannot be equated with natural differences such as the colors of flowers and leaves.</ref>

'''B:''' But as you yourself have often said, if a flowerpot requiring seven gō of water receives seven gō, and one requiring three gō receives three, neither has too much nor too little.<ref>Gō 合 is a traditional Japanese unit of volume equal to one-tenth of a shō 升, or approximately 180 milliliters. Seno’o uses the proportion of seven gō to three gō to illustrate a conception of equity—distribution according to differing needs—rather than rigid numerical equality.</ref> Isn’t that “differentiation is precisely equality”—a natural differentiation rather than an unjust one?

'''A:''' As far as that explanation goes, it is perfectly correct. Five gō is insufficient for someone who needs seven, while five is too much for someone who needs three. The one who needs seven should receive seven, and the one who needs three should receive three. But are the differences in present society really arranged in that way? A poor family of seven may be crammed into a three-tatami-mat tenement, suffering because they do not even have enough rice for today’s meal. Meanwhile, another couple may live spaciously in an enormous mansion, possessing more wealth than they could ever use and idling away their time in amusements.

A poor old man may be jostled about in third class on a train, while a wealthy young man sits grandly in second class. An ordinary laborer may work throughout the day for a daily wage of barely two yen, while someone else puts in an appearance at the company for four or five hours and pockets several hundred yen. A bright, physically capable child may be unable to proceed to higher education simply because there is no money, while elsewhere even a frail child of little ability can find some way through the examination ordeal. Present society is certainly not differentiated according to need in the way you described—seven gō to the person who needs seven and three to the person who needs three.

=== How Is True Equality to Be Realized? ===
'''B:''' But although these inequalities may at first look like nothing more than the selfishness of the wealthy, haven’t the wealthy made the effort necessary to become wealthy? Couldn’t those differences therefore be regarded as legitimate distinctions corresponding to differences in effort?

'''[p. 295]'''

'''A:''' If human society were no different from the competitive life of plants and animals—the strong devouring the weak in the struggle for survival—then I would have no objection to such differences. But insofar as human beings are beings possessed of personality, the differences within human society must themselves be ordered in a manner worthy of human personality. Otherwise, they cannot properly be called the differentiations of human society. Take the example we just used. If a two-person household receives six gō of rice, then a seven-person household should receive two shō and one gō. If a train has second- and third-class accommodation, then perhaps the elderly and children should ride second class, while young people ride third. If someone working two hour receives four yen, then someone working six hours should receive twelve. There would still be differences, but they would not simply be differences produced as the outcome of free competition. That, I think, is what “differentiation is precisely equality” ought to mean in human life. Moreover, as I said earlier, if poverty is not merely a matter of jigō jitoku but a matter of social joint responsibility, then wealth too must be regarded not simply as an individual’s own karmic reward but as something social. A person’s wealth therefore ought not to be used freely and arbitrarily for that person alone. Should not the genuine “differentiation that is precisely equality” of human society consist instead in differences rationally and purposively ordered under social regulation?

Yet on the one hand people loudly proclaim mutual aid and harmony between labor and capital, while on the other, religious figures in the service of established power preach that the differences produced by heartless, ruthless free competition are somehow the absolute truth of “differentiation is precisely equality.” What kind of gospel is that? Just think about it. The many spend their entire lives breaking their bodies in dark mine shafts extracting gold and silver, while the few freely appropriate that gold and silver and spend their lives in luxury. If we simply say that this too is the result of free competition, there is nothing more to discuss. But to take mastery of life and transform instinct into rational, purposive action—to make the world into a consciously ordered product—this is humanity’s task. If that is so, surely it is utterly irrational simply to contemplate these inequalities as they are and call them “differentiation is precisely equality.” Human society is not merely a natural phenomenon. ''It is a society endowed with reason and creative power. Therefore, insofar as this is possible, should not the phrase “differentiation is precisely equality” mean consciously using reason to order differences and thereby create the greatest practicable degree of equality?''

'''[p. 296]'''

=== Free Competition and Cooperative Harmony ===
'''B:''' But competitiveness is also part of human nature. Wouldn’t such an ideal society ultimately be nothing more than a fantasy? And if we impose a strong order upon society, might the result not instead be the mass production of idlers?

'''A:''' That is a concern one commonly hears. But just as human beings possess a capacity for competition, they also clearly possess a capacity for harmony. Indeed, it is precisely this capacity for harmony—this sociality—that is characteristic of human beings. Unfortunately, we have not yet attained a form of organized life in which it can be sufficiently cultivated and developed.

Consider the early stages of human evolution. Human beings did not possess the sharp and powerful weapons found naturally in other animals—fangs, claws, and the like. In the natural struggle for survival, therefore, they were at an extreme disadvantage. ''Why, despite this, were they able to become masters of the earth? Was it not because they possessed reason and creative power, and because they lived lives of cooperation and solidarity? If that is so, individual free competition cannot be the primary principle of human society; the primary principle must instead be the sociality of cooperation and harmony. Only within such a conscious society can individual freedom itself be guaranteed and established. This rational mode of existence, I believe, is both the distinctive characteristic and the destiny of humanity. ''

We can understand this quite well simply by considering the course of an individual human life.

From infancy through childhood we may be innocent, but we are virtually self-interest embodied as instinct. At no other stage do we wield the instinct of self-interest so unrestrainedly. Yet as the sphere of life expands from the family to school, and from school to society, self-control increases, we become more social, and as we enter old age we grow increasingly mature. Looking at the facts, I believe that the history of human society will probably develop in much the same way: with the development of reason, it will advance toward an ideal society. Unfortunately, however, present society is still entangled in the net of a capitalist economic system woven by instinctive free competition. It may therefore seem that if economic competition were abolished, life itself would lose its purpose. ''But competition need not be confined to economics. On the contrary, scientific…''

'''[p. 297]'''

''…artistic, moral, and other forms of competition will surely bring about an age of true competition worthy of humanity. ''At present, however, all the diverse capacities of human beings have been driven down the single path of economic competition and, grotesquely, have themselves been turned into commodities. We have become so accustomed to this that we have even constructed the conceptual formula “human life = economic life.” Consequently, even if people’s livelihoods were guaranteed, we imagine that without economic free competition they would lose all capacity for activity—like a morphine addict deprived of morphine. But I don’t believe that. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely when we are liberated from economic competition that the true stage of human life will finally open before us. Take manual labor, for example. If it were socially planned and distributed equally, workers and farmers who have traditionally suffered from overwork would of course be relieved of that burden. At the same time, appropriate work could be assigned to those members of society who had previously passed their days in idleness, allowing both groups to enjoy healthy lives in body and mind.

Yet today, while ordinary people have no rice for tomorrow and go hungry, the government has some four million koku of surplus rice piled up in warehouses and does not know what to do with it. In such a merciless and uncoordinated capitalist society, those who work must labor night and day simply to survive. Labor itself therefore comes generally to be hated. But appropriate labor ought, on the contrary, to be a source of joy. ''If appropriate work were available to everyone within a planned society, no one would simply want to be idle. People would come to spend a certain number of hours working less as a social duty than as an enjoyable right.''

Look, for example, at the lives of the people of Ittōen. They obtain only enough food for the day, yet are content with that and work happily throughout the day. Isn’t this evidence that human beings can live contentedly and work without necessarily accumulating private property?

=== The Role of Ittōen at the Present Stage ===
'''B:''' But is that sort of austere life really the ideal form of human life?

'''A:''' Of course I don’t think it is. I doubt that Tenkō-san thinks so either. Buddhism has the expression “ordinary people attached to appearances” (shusō no bonbu). There are those who are inclined to take the outward form of such a life of coarse clothing and simple food as though that itself constituted the ideal life of a sage. I don’t accept that.

''A truly human life…''

'''[p. 298]'''

''…I think, demands not only spiritual development but also a material life that is rich, wholesome, and beautiful. ''There is nothing unjust about seeking this. When such a life cannot be enjoyed by everyone, restraint born of compassion for others has meaning. But coarse clothing and simple food have no absolute value in themselves. The history of human development proves this. ''Humanity’s task is not to return to primitive life by cutting itself off from civilization, but rather to advance toward an ever higher form of cultural life.''

'''B:''' Then wouldn’t the ideal be to realize Ittōen’s cooperative life without private property throughout society, but in a materially more advanced cultural form?

'''A:''' Ideally, yes. But Ittōen is, after all, an anomalous form of utopian socialism born under the oppressive conditions of capitalist society. It has significance as a training ground in which intellectually and spiritually troubled people can experience the spirit of non-possession. Yet, viewed objectively in relation to present social conditions, one cannot expect it to function as a practical movement for social reconstruction. On the contrary, I think it has unconsciously come to play something like an opiate-like role.

=== The Proletarian Movement and the Realization of an Ideal Society ===
'''B:''' Then how do you envision the practical movement for realizing such an ideal society?

'''A:''' As I said before, I see no path to reconstruction other than through the political power of the emerging proletarian class, provided that it develops properly.

'''B:''' Legally or illegally?

'''A:''' In principle, I would like it to proceed legally. But I do not believe that what is illegal is necessarily unjust. A commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sutra explains it this way:

Whether monastic or lay, those who would protect the Dharma should take account of the original intention, setting aside the particular act while preserving the principle, and thereby rightly propagate the Great Teaching. Thus, in “protecting and upholding the True Dharma,” one must not be constrained by minor observances. … In former times, when conditions were peaceful and the Dharma flourished, one should have upheld the precepts. Now, in a dangerous age when the Dharma is obscured, one should take up the staff. … Choose and reject according to circumstances; one must not adhere exclusively to a single course.<ref>Seno’o cites Guanding 灌頂 (561–632), Dabanniepan jing shu (大般涅槃經疏; J. Daihatsu Nehangyō Sho, “Commentary on the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra”; T 1767), concerning the protection of the True Dharma (shōbō goji 正法護持). The underlying Nirvāṇa Sutra famously permits lay defenders of the Dharma to bear weapons in dangerous circumstances while prohibiting them from taking life. Seno’o uses the commentary to argue that Buddhist ethical action must respond to historical circumstances rather than adhere inflexibly to outward forms, extending this principle here to the possible use of force in pursuit of social transformation.</ref>

''In short, one must not cling to forms.'' ''If the motive is right, then depending on circumstances one may even have to resolve matters through force.'' There is also the saying, “Kill one in order to let ten thousand live.” Thus illegality is not necessarily evil. Whether an act is to be approved should be determined by examining its fundamental motive and the circumstances of the particular case. Japanese history itself provides examples. The reforms of the Meiji Restoration are an obvious case.

'''[p. 299]'''

But naturally,'' what I hope for is a transformation that is legal from the outset and involves as little sacrifice as possible. For that to happen, people throughout society must recognize as quickly as possible the evils of capitalist society and the historical necessity of the emergence of the new class, until this becomes common knowledge. By giving the proletarian movement as'' ''much sympathy and support as possible, we can minimize the unavoidable sacrifices accompanying social transformation.''

=== The Anti-Religion Movement and Our Position ===
'''B:''' What exactly is this anti-religion movement that has recently begun as one wing of the proletarian movement?

'''A:''' In fact, just last night I participated in a joint public meeting at the Central Buddhist Hall with Takatsu Seidō of the anti-religion movement, Honjō Kasō, Kon Tōkō, a certain Mr. Miwa, secretary-general of the Buddhist Youth Federation, Shibata Ichinō of the Nichiren school, and others.<ref>This public meeting brought together representatives of the anti-religion movement and several currents of Buddhist reform. Participants included Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a socialist activist and politician active in the contemporary anti-religion movement; Kon Tōkō 今東光 (1898–1977), novelist and Tendai monk; Honjō Kasō 本莊可宗 (1891–1987); Mibu Shōjun 壬生照順 (1908–1987), Tendai monk, secretary-general of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation and soon-to-be member of Seno’o’s Youth League; and Nichiren monk Shibata Ichinō 柴田一能 (1873–1951). Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), a playwright and prominent figure in the proletarian cultural movement, served as chairman of the Japan Anti-Religious League (Nihon Han-Shūkyō Dōmei 日本反宗教同盟). According to Seno’o’s account of an article by Akita in the Yomiuri Shimbun, disagreement arose over the movement’s attitude toward the “Social Democrats”: more radical members favored their exclusion, while Takatsu opposed this position and withdrew.</ref> According to Takatsu’s explanation, the basic argument of the anti-religion movement, from his socialist standpoint, is this: “Justice is that which guarantees the welfare of the masses. Anything that obstructs the welfare of the masses must therefore be attacked. Religion is the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the masses because it serves as the watchdog of capitalism. Religion must therefore be attacked.”

'''B:''' Is Takatsu’s position different from that of Akita Ujaku and the League for Anti-Religious Struggle?

'''A:''' According to something Akita wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the issue was the value to be placed on making use of the Social Democrats. The more radical members of the League wanted to exclude them, while Takatsu disagreed and withdrew. But if, as Takatsu explained last night, his anti-religion movement takes justice as its starting point, then theoretically it contains something that cannot be reconciled with pure Marxism. As a practical movement, however, the two are alike insofar as they attack religion as an opiate.

'''B:''' Then what attitude do they take toward your Revitalized Buddhist movement? You too reject capitalism and attack the established religious institutions. Do they attack you as well?

'''A:''' Even though we agree on those points, the anti-religion movement arose from a Marxism that denies religion itself. So naturally they cannot exempt Revitalized Buddhism from their attack.

Indeed, precisely because we are “Red Buddhists,” they may regard us as all the more troublesome.

'''[p. 300]'''

For our part, although we likewise reject capitalism and the established religious institutions, so long as our understanding differs from that of Marxism, we cannot simply throw ourselves wholesale into Marxism. ''But this is no different from the fact that, even though they belong to the same anti-religion movement, differences between Akita and Takatsu have unfortunately produced a split between them. ''The fundamental issue, therefore, must be a critique of Marxism itself—particularly its conception of religion.

In his Feuerbach, Engels writes: “If religion can exist without God, then alchemy can exist without the philosopher’s stone.”

And: “Nothing exists outside nature and humanity. The higher beings created by our religious fantasies are nothing other than the fantastic reflection of our own essence.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), especially sections II–III. Engels there discusses Feuerbach’s critique of theism, according to which the supernatural beings of religion are projections or “fantastic reflections” of human beings themselves, while criticizing Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve a non-theistic “religion”: “if religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.” The work circulated in prewar Japan as Foierubahha ron (フォイエルバッハ論). Seno’o uses Engels’s argument to distinguish the Marxist critique of theistic religion from Buddhism, which he argues requires no creator, ruling, or judging God.</ref>

With this, the spell was broken. The Marxist conception of religion represented in this passage is, after all, a response to the Christian creator God. If the essence of religion consisted in believing in the actual existence of such a God, then we too would deny religion along with Marx. Why? Because Buddhism did not arise by acknowledging anything like a “creator God, ruling God, or judging God.” ''Moreover, since Buddhism has undeniably existed as a religion, religion as such cannot be something that must simply be rejected. Established religious institutions that exploit the masses, of course, may be rejected—and indeed ought to be rejected. I doubt that anyone desires their rejection more strongly than we do. Precisely for that reason, we respect the ideal of the anti-religion movement insofar as it is motivated by concern for the masses.''

But suppose that, as expressed in the aspiration “I desire only to become a Buddha,” we understand religiosity as the whole-person demand that ceaselessly seeks the ideal of the complete human being—the Buddha. Then the various sectarian forms found in established religions are simply forms in which this religiosity has been conceived at different stages of cultural development. Those established religious institutions must naturally undergo the appropriate historical reckoning demanded by their age. ''But a movement that denies religiosity itself reveals, on the contrary, an inadequate understanding of human life. What we should demand is a religion appropriate to the age. In this sense, should not the anti-religion movement itself be properly sublated? Needless to say, if religion is to be rejected wholesale because it obstructs the welfare of the masses, that judgment can properly apply only to established religious institutions.''

'''[p. 301]'''

''The essence of religion itself emphatically does not run counter to the welfare of the masses. ''The Buddha and Christ are obvious examples. Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves provides another striking one. Is not religiosity itself the source of the great ideal of mutual love among the masses and of the passionate energy required to put that ideal into practice?

'''B:''' I understand much better now. On May 23, the League for Anti-Religious Struggle is holding its inaugural lecture meeting at the Jichikan in Ueno, and apparently your movement will be criticized there too. After I’ve heard what they have to say, I’d like to ask your opinion again.

'''A:''' I’d like to hear it myself, but unfortunately I have to attend the Kanazawa branch meeting on the twenty-third, so I can’t go. Listen carefully for me. ''If by any chance there is even the slightest error in my convictions, I will never hesitate to stop this movement. ''Nichiren said:'' ''“Even if I am defeated in argument, if my mind does not change, may the gods take my life.” But he also said: “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person, I will not use it.”'' ''It is in this spirit that I want to press forward single-mindedly with the Revitalized Buddhist movement.'' ''Blind faith is no good.

=== Rational Religion and Reverence for Śākyamuni Buddha ===
'''B:''' But isn’t precisely that attitude the genuinely religious attitude? Rational religion! Isn’t the very motive force behind humanity’s limitless capacity for renewal precisely this rational religiosity?

'''A:''' ''When we desire this kind of rational passion, we are necessarily drawn in reverence toward humanity’s highest exemplar, Śākyamuni Buddha. And when we revere Śākyamuni Buddha, this rational passion that we cannot cease desiring naturally burns still more intensely.'' Thus reason calmly subjects problems to criticism, while passion drives us directly toward the realization of the ideal, even at the risk of death. The scripture says: “Single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives.” And elsewhere: “Because their hearts yearn for him, he then appears and preaches the Dharma for them.”<ref>Seno’o brings together two statements by Nichiren with two passages from the Lotus Sutra. “Even if I am defeated in argument...” derives from Nichiren’s Hōō-shō 法王抄, 1267 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 438), while “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person...” is from the Kaimoku-shō 開目抄, 1272 (Shōwa Teihon, vol. 1, p. 572). The scriptural passages—“single-mindedly desiring to see the Buddha, they do not begrudge their own lives”) and “because their hearts yearn for him ... he then appears and preaches the Dharma”)—are from chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, “The Life Span of the Thus Come One” (Nyorai Juryō-hon 如来寿量品第十六; T 9, no. 262, 43c). Seno’o juxtaposes Nichiren’s insistence on rational scrutiny with the Lotus Sutra’s language of passionate devotion to articulate his ideal of a “rational religion” (gōriteki shūkyō 合理的宗教) combining critical inquiry with commitment to realizing the Buddhist ideal.</ref> These too must surely be confessions of precisely this kind of religious experience. In any event, this is how our Revitalized Buddhist movement becomes a religious movement that unifies the whole of life within reverence for the person of Śākyamuni Buddha.

'''B:''' I think I now more or less understand what you mean by your “conversion to Revitalized Buddhism.”

'''A:''' Then let’s bring this conversation to a close for now and promise to talk again another time.

(Shōwa 6 [1931], “''Under the Banner of Revitalized Buddhism'',” June issue)

<references />