Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== 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?