Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== 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.''