Editing SG31SBE-T (section)

=== The Anti-Religion Movement and Our Position ===
'''B:''' What exactly is this anti-religion movement that has recently begun as one wing of the proletarian movement?

'''A:''' In fact, just last night I participated in a joint public meeting at the Central Buddhist Hall with Takatsu Seidō of the anti-religion movement, Honjō Kasō, Kon Tōkō, a certain Mr. Miwa, secretary-general of the Buddhist Youth Federation, Shibata Ichinō of the Nichiren school, and others.<ref>This public meeting brought together representatives of the anti-religion movement and several currents of Buddhist reform. Participants included Takatsu Seidō 高津正道 (1893–1974), a socialist activist and politician active in the contemporary anti-religion movement; Kon Tōkō 今東光 (1898–1977), novelist and Tendai monk; Honjō Kasō 本莊可宗 (1891–1987); Mibu Shōjun 壬生照順 (1908–1987), Tendai monk, secretary-general of the All-Japan Buddhist Youth Federation and soon-to-be member of Seno’o’s Youth League; and Nichiren monk Shibata Ichinō 柴田一能 (1873–1951). Akita Ujaku 秋田雨雀 (1883–1962), a playwright and prominent figure in the proletarian cultural movement, served as chairman of the Japan Anti-Religious League (Nihon Han-Shūkyō Dōmei 日本反宗教同盟). According to Seno’o’s account of an article by Akita in the Yomiuri Shimbun, disagreement arose over the movement’s attitude toward the “Social Democrats”: more radical members favored their exclusion, while Takatsu opposed this position and withdrew.</ref> According to Takatsu’s explanation, the basic argument of the anti-religion movement, from his socialist standpoint, is this: “Justice is that which guarantees the welfare of the masses. Anything that obstructs the welfare of the masses must therefore be attacked. Religion is the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the masses because it serves as the watchdog of capitalism. Religion must therefore be attacked.”

'''B:''' Is Takatsu’s position different from that of Akita Ujaku and the League for Anti-Religious Struggle?

'''A:''' According to something Akita wrote in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the issue was the value to be placed on making use of the Social Democrats. The more radical members of the League wanted to exclude them, while Takatsu disagreed and withdrew. But if, as Takatsu explained last night, his anti-religion movement takes justice as its starting point, then theoretically it contains something that cannot be reconciled with pure Marxism. As a practical movement, however, the two are alike insofar as they attack religion as an opiate.

'''B:''' Then what attitude do they take toward your Revitalized Buddhist movement? You too reject capitalism and attack the established religious institutions. Do they attack you as well?

'''A:''' Even though we agree on those points, the anti-religion movement arose from a Marxism that denies religion itself. So naturally they cannot exempt Revitalized Buddhism from their attack.

Indeed, precisely because we are “Red Buddhists,” they may regard us as all the more troublesome.

<span id="Page 300"></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 300|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 300</div>

For our part, although we likewise reject capitalism and the established religious institutions, so long as our understanding differs from that of Marxism, we cannot simply throw ourselves wholesale into Marxism. ''But this is no different from the fact that, even though they belong to the same anti-religion movement, differences between Akita and Takatsu have unfortunately produced a split between them. ''The fundamental issue, therefore, must be a critique of Marxism itself—particularly its conception of religion.

In his Feuerbach, Engels writes: “If religion can exist without God, then alchemy can exist without the philosopher’s stone.”

And: “Nothing exists outside nature and humanity. The higher beings created by our religious fantasies are nothing other than the fantastic reflection of our own essence.”<ref>Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), especially sections II–III. Engels there discusses Feuerbach’s critique of theism, according to which the supernatural beings of religion are projections or “fantastic reflections” of human beings themselves, while criticizing Feuerbach’s attempt to preserve a non-theistic “religion”: “if religion can exist without its God, then alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone.” The work circulated in prewar Japan as Foierubahha ron (フォイエルバッハ論). Seno’o uses Engels’s argument to distinguish the Marxist critique of theistic religion from Buddhism, which he argues requires no creator, ruling, or judging God.</ref>

With this, the spell was broken. The Marxist conception of religion represented in this passage is, after all, a response to the Christian creator God. If the essence of religion consisted in believing in the actual existence of such a God, then we too would deny religion along with Marx. Why? Because Buddhism did not arise by acknowledging anything like a “creator God, ruling God, or judging God.” ''Moreover, since Buddhism has undeniably existed as a religion, religion as such cannot be something that must simply be rejected. Established religious institutions that exploit the masses, of course, may be rejected—and indeed ought to be rejected. I doubt that anyone desires their rejection more strongly than we do. Precisely for that reason, we respect the ideal of the anti-religion movement insofar as it is motivated by concern for the masses.''

But suppose that, as expressed in the aspiration “I desire only to become a Buddha,” we understand religiosity as the whole-person demand that ceaselessly seeks the ideal of the complete human being—the Buddha. Then the various sectarian forms found in established religions are simply forms in which this religiosity has been conceived at different stages of cultural development. Those established religious institutions must naturally undergo the appropriate historical reckoning demanded by their age. ''But a movement that denies religiosity itself reveals, on the contrary, an inadequate understanding of human life. What we should demand is a religion appropriate to the age. In this sense, should not the anti-religion movement itself be properly sublated? Needless to say, if religion is to be rejected wholesale because it obstructs the welfare of the masses, that judgment can properly apply only to established religious institutions.''

<span id="Page 301"></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 301|➣ Original Text of this Page.]]</div>
<div style="font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;">Page 301</div>

''The essence of religion itself emphatically does not run counter to the welfare of the masses. ''The Buddha and Christ are obvious examples. Lincoln’s movement for the emancipation of slaves provides another striking one. Is not religiosity itself the source of the great ideal of mutual love among the masses and of the passionate energy required to put that ideal into practice?

'''B:''' I understand much better now. On May 23, the League for Anti-Religious Struggle is holding its inaugural lecture meeting at the Jichikan in Ueno, and apparently your movement will be criticized there too. After I’ve heard what they have to say, I’d like to ask your opinion again.

'''A:''' I’d like to hear it myself, but unfortunately I have to attend the Kanazawa branch meeting on the twenty-third, so I can’t go. Listen carefully for me. ''If by any chance there is even the slightest error in my convictions, I will never hesitate to stop this movement. ''Nichiren said:'' ''“Even if I am defeated in argument, if my mind does not change, may the gods take my life.” But he also said: “If my doctrine is refuted by a wise person, I will not use it.”'' ''It is in this spirit that I want to press forward single-mindedly with the Revitalized Buddhist movement.'' ''Blind faith is no good.