Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== 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?