Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== 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>