Editing SG33SHS-T (section)

=== 2. The Possibility of Buddhist Reform ===

Buddhism is no different; it is nothing but the principle of development and change. Indeed, the Buddhist teachings expounded by Śākyamuni Buddha have undergone a two-thousand-five-hundred-year history of division into thirteen schools and fifty-six sects. This history is a result of the objective conditions and circumstances of a changing society and not necessarily a product of subjective beliefs held by each of the sect founders. For example, Shinran’s acceptance of married priests and consumption of meat might have been considered a heretical reform within the Buddhist community at the time. However, today, there are no objections raised by [Japanese] Buddhist practitioners as it is ultimately seen to be a response to objective requirements and the recognition that “what is rational exists.” In the ''Sutra of Infinite Meanings'', it is stated, “Infinite meaning arises from one dharma.”<ref>T no. 276, 9: 717b04. The''Sutra of Infinite Meanings'' (Ch.''Wuliangyi jing'', Jp.''Muryōgikyō'' 無量 義經), closely associated with the''Lotus Sutra'', is generally considered an apocryphal Mahayana Chinese text composed before the 5th c.</ref> The “one dharma” refers to the true nature of reality, the very essence of the constantly evolving world. The fact that Buddhism has produced a vast array of teachings and scriptures, comprising eighty-four thousand doctrines and seven thousand volumes, is a testament to its nature as a product of changing social contexts. Therefore, as long as society continues to develop in the present and future, Buddhism can undergo limitless development and change without hindrance. It is through such adaptability that Buddhism can continue to maintain its social significance and value.

Currently, there is a widespread emergence of “new” voices in various sectors of society and culture, such as new sciences, new arts, new educational practices, and so on. What exactly do these “new” voices imply? It goes without saying that they signify the demand for the evaluation and transformation of the old cultural forms of the Meiji and Taishō [1912–1926] eras. Under such emerging social conditions, if Buddhism sticks to the old forms as they are, its fate will surely be nothing other than decay. The indifference of the masses toward established temple Buddhism already speaks volumes. If we are to have Buddhism for society, rather than society for Buddhism, then it is quite clear that the temple Buddhism of the Kamakura period of six or seven hundred years ago cannot simply be adapted to the present day. The old Buddhism must be thoroughly reevaluated and reformed both in terms of its teachings and its ritual forms. This is precisely why we are advocating a modern, revitalized Buddhism. If Buddhism is completely irrelevant to contemporary society, it should be unequivocally discarded. However, if it still possesses elements that can be useful when reexamined, then its teachings should be clarified in and for a modern context. The question of whether Buddhism has the potential to meet the essential demands of modern society requires careful consideration. But what exactly are the demands of contemporary society? This is a problem that needs to be scrutinized.