Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== 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.