SG34BHU-T: Difference between revisions
m →IV |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''English translation:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (2026). “Buddhism and the Peace Movement.” Trans. [[user:James|James Mark Shields]]. ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Translated from the text reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 389–392. | '''English translation:''' [[Senoo Giro|Seno'o Girō]] (妹尾義郎) (2026). “Buddhism and the Peace Movement.” Trans. [[user:James|James Mark Shields]]. ''Radical Buddhism Project''. Translated from the text reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 389–392. | ||
<div class="noautonum">__TOC__</div> | |||
<!--T:1--> | <!--T:1--> | ||
== I == | == I == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
<!--T:3--> | <!--T:3--> | ||
To be sure, human history has been stained by all too many scars of conflict. According to statistics, across the long five thousand years of human history, for every thirteen years of dark conflict there has been only a single year along the line of peace. This is indeed a sorrowful historical fact. And yet, despite all this, peace—in the past, present, and future—remains the pillar of cloud guiding all humanity and the white path leading to the farther shore of culture. It is precisely for this reason that so many awakened predecessors took upon themselves the cross of sacred love and became imperishable signposts pointing toward the ideal realm of peace. | To be sure, human history has been stained by all too many scars of conflict. According to statistics, across the long five thousand years of human history, for every thirteen years of dark conflict there has been only a single year along the line of peace.<ref>The claim that recorded history contained only a small fraction of years free from war circulated widely in European and international peace literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, often presented as statistical evidence of the persistence of organized conflict. Seno’o invokes this ostensibly scientific calculation to underscore the systemic character of warfare in human history.</ref> This is indeed a sorrowful historical fact. And yet, despite all this, peace—in the past, present, and future—remains the pillar of cloud guiding all humanity and the white path leading to the farther shore of culture. It is precisely for this reason that so many awakened predecessors took upon themselves the cross of sacred love and became imperishable signposts pointing toward the ideal realm of peace.<ref>Seno’o freely incorporates Christian imagery into his Buddhist rhetoric. The “pillar of cloud” recalls the divine presence that guides the Israelites through the wilderness in Exodus 13:21–22, while the “cross of sacred love” evokes Christ's sacrificial death. Such language reflects Seno’o's longstanding engagement with Christianity as a model of socially engaged religious practice.</ref> | ||
<!--T:4--> | <!--T:4--> | ||
The Buddha, Christ, and others were exemplary pioneers of the peace movement. But beyond them, not a single drop of the blood and tears shed by martyrs was sacrificed for anything other than the cause of peace. Even the class struggle that today swirls throughout the world and at first glance appears so objectionable—if we quietly sound the true intentions of Marx beneath the ground at | The Buddha, Christ, and others were exemplary pioneers of the peace movement. But beyond them, not a single drop of the blood and tears shed by martyrs was sacrificed for anything other than the cause of peace. Even the class struggle that today swirls throughout the world and at first glance appears so objectionable—if we quietly sound the true intentions of Marx beneath the ground at Highgate<ref>Karl Marx (1818–1883) was buried in Highgate Cemetery in London. Seno’o's striking image of “sounding” Marx's intentions beneath Highgate allows him to reinterpret class struggle not as an end in itself but as a means toward universal peace.</ref>—we find that all their efforts, too, constitute a scientific social movement directed toward the construction of a peaceful society and animated by the aspiration to save all humanity. | ||
<!--T:5--> | <!--T:5--> | ||
Of course, conflict and war cannot simply and easily be eradicated. Nor should they be regarded as absolutely evil. Indeed, there are times in human life when a solution by the sword is necessary. But such a course should be an | Of course, conflict and war cannot simply and easily be eradicated. Nor should they be regarded as absolutely evil. Indeed, there are times in human life when a solution by the sword is necessary. But such a course should be an exceptional course (''kendō'' 権道), restricted solely to those unavoidable occasions when it is necessary to safeguard peace; it must never become the ordinary course (''jōdō'' 常道) of human life.<ref>''Kendō'' (権道) denotes an exceptional or provisional course of action justified by circumstances, in contrast to ''jōdō'' (常道), the normal or enduring way. Seno’o uses the distinction to argue that force may sometimes be provisionally necessary to preserve or establish peace, but can never constitute the normative principle of human relations.</ref> From problems within a single household to relations among nations, conflict and war lead human beings into anxiety, agitation, fear, and despair, bringing economic and cultural destruction in their wake. It hardly needs saying that these are actions to be avoided. War is an action of last resort, permissible only to a human conscience that deeply abhors the cruelty of war itself. The peace movement, by contrast, must remain the eternal common undertaking of all humanity. | ||
<!--T:6--> | <!--T:6--> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
<!--T:7--> | <!--T:7--> | ||
There is, broadly speaking, no religion that does not exalt peace. Among them, however, it would seem that Buddhism carries the religion of peace to its highest point. “When you see the community falling into discord, bring it skillfully back into harmony.” The Buddha’s spirit of peace expressed in this injunction flows throughout the seven thousand fascicles of the Buddhist canon and across the entire Buddhist tradition. Although Buddhism today is divided into thirteen schools and fifty-six sects, whose banners bear different designs, all are ultimately grounded in the same fundamental principle of exalting peace. | There is, broadly speaking, no religion that does not exalt peace. Among them, however, it would seem that Buddhism carries the religion of peace to its highest point. “When you see the community falling into discord, bring it skillfully back into harmony.” The Buddha’s spirit of peace expressed in this injunction flows throughout the seven thousand fascicles of the Buddhist canon and across the entire Buddhist tradition.<ref>“Seven thousand fascicles” (七千巻) is a conventional designation for the enormous extent of the Buddhist canon, deriving from catalogues such as the Tang-dynasty ''Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu'' (貞元新定釈教目録), which enumerated more than seven thousand fascicles of Buddhist scriptures.</ref> Although Buddhism today is divided into thirteen schools and fifty-six sects, whose banners bear different designs, all are ultimately grounded in the same fundamental principle of exalting peace.<ref>“Thirteen schools and fifty-six sects” (十三宗五十六派) was the conventional administrative classification of Japanese Buddhism before the wartime reorganization of Buddhist denominations under the Religious Organizations Law. The classification remained current when Seno’o wrote in 1934; in 1939–40 the fifty-six sects were consolidated into twenty-eight denominations.</ref> | ||
<!--T:8--> | <!--T:8--> | ||
The establishment of the “Perfect and Sudden Precept Platform” by Dengyō on Mount Hiei; the Diamond and Womb Realm Maṇḍalas depicted by Kōbō on Mount Kōya; Hōnen and Shinran’s ideal that “all shall meet together in one place”; Dōgen’s “the mind itself is Buddha”; and Nichiren’s “all return to the Wonderful Dharma”—although these doctrines have, through speculative reasoning, been turned into weapons in the sectarian struggles of the present day, the founding spirit behind them was clearly, in every case, a historical elevation of Buddhism’s ideal of “harmony” (''wa''). | The establishment of the “Perfect and Sudden Precept Platform” by Dengyō on Mount Hiei; the Diamond and Womb Realm Maṇḍalas depicted by Kōbō on Mount Kōya; Hōnen and Shinran’s ideal that “all shall meet together in one place”; Dōgen’s “the mind itself is Buddha”; and Nichiren’s “all return to the Wonderful Dharma”—although these doctrines have, through speculative reasoning, been turned into weapons in the sectarian struggles of the present day, the founding spirit behind them was clearly, in every case, a historical elevation of Buddhism’s ideal of “harmony” (''wa'').<ref>Seno’o compresses the major traditions of Japanese Buddhism into a genealogy of “harmony”: Saichō (Dengyō Daishi, 767–822), founder of Japanese Tendai; Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi, 774–835), founder of Japanese Shingon; the Pure Land teachers Hōnen (1133–1212) and Shinran (1173–1263); Dōgen (1200–1253), founder of the Japanese Sōtō Zen tradition; and Nichiren (1222–1282). Seno’o's point is polemical: doctrines subsequently used to differentiate and divide Buddhist sects originally expressed, in his reading, a common Buddhist aspiration toward harmony.</ref> | ||
<!--T:9--> | <!--T:9--> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
“Harmony is to be valued.”<br /> | “Harmony is to be valued.”<br /> | ||
“Revere the Three Treasures deeply—for if one does not take refuge in the Three Treasures, by what means can that which is crooked be made straight?” | “Revere the Three Treasures deeply—for if one does not take refuge in the Three Treasures, by what means can that which is crooked be made straight?”<ref>The Seventeen-Article Constitution (''Jūshichijō kenpō'' 十七条憲法), traditionally attributed to Prince Shōtoku (574–622) and dated to 604, opens with the injunction “Harmony is to be valued” (和を以て貴しとなす); its second article commands reverence for the Three Treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Shōtoku's historical role in composing the document is disputed, but he became a foundational figure in Japanese Buddhist historical memory.</ref></blockquote> | ||
</blockquote> | |||
Passages such as these are imperishable words of gold that testify to Buddhism’s ideal of peace. | Passages such as these are imperishable words of gold that testify to Buddhism’s ideal of peace. But what, then, is the foundation of Buddhism’s ideal of peace? | ||
But what, then, is the foundation of Buddhism’s ideal of peace? | |||
<!--T:11--> | <!--T:11--> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 48: | ||
<!--T:13--> | <!--T:13--> | ||
As for the Buddha Treasure, the personality of the Buddha and the course of his life were themselves models of peace—this is an undeniable fact. The Dharma Treasure, as I will explain below, likewise constitutes a coherent Buddhist teaching of peace that other religions cannot rival. | As for the Buddha Treasure, the personality of the Buddha and the course of his life were themselves models of peace—this is an undeniable fact. The Dharma Treasure, as I will explain below, likewise constitutes a coherent Buddhist teaching of peace that other religions cannot rival. Finally, the Sangha Treasure, the practical embodiment of this Buddhism, must provide the most appropriate model for the Buddhist peace movement. | ||
<!--T:14--> | <!--T:14--> | ||
“Monk” (''sō'')—that is, | “Monk” (''sō'')—that is, Sangha (''sōgya'')—means a community or harmonious association. Today even one or two persons may be permitted to live the monastic life, but strictly speaking a Sangha required a communal life of four or more persons. Members of the Sangha shared their dwelling, begged for food together, distributed what they received equally, shared both suffering and happiness, yielded to one another and put an end to disputes, and devoted themselves in harmony to the practice of truth. Here the consciousness of “taking refuge in the Sangha Treasure” shines forth as the most concrete model for the peace movement. The Buddha included disrupting the harmony of the Sangha among the Five Heinous Offenses, for words and actions that destroy peace must be regarded as the source of all evil.<ref>The Sanskrit ''saṅgha'' (Japanese ''sōgya'' 僧伽; here translated “Sangha”) denotes the Buddhist monastic community; according to the Vinaya tradition, a fully constituted local Sangha normally required at least four monastics. “Creating a schism in the Sangha” (''saṃghabheda'') is traditionally counted among the Five Heinous Offenses, karmically grave acts said to entail immediate rebirth in hell.</ref> | ||
<!--T:15--> | <!--T:15--> | ||
| Line 66: | Line 63: | ||
<!--T:18--> | <!--T:18--> | ||
It was for this reason that the Buddha himself became a member of the | It was for this reason that the Buddha himself became a member of the Sangha and, from an early period, advocated the principle of “universal common ownership” (''shihō kyōyū'' 四方共有), working toward the construction of a communal society.<ref>Literally “common ownership of the four directions” (''shihō kyōyū'' 四方共有). The expression refers to the principle that monastic property belongs to the Sangha collectively rather than to an individual monk. Seno’o characteristically expands this monastic principle into a social and economic ideal of “universal common ownership.”</ref> It was for the same reason that he launched the great explosive charge of “equality of the four castes” (''shishō byōdō'' 四姓平等), thereby undertaking a movement to negate the class society of his age.<ref>“Equality of the four castes” (''shishō byōdō'' 四姓平等) refers to the Buddhist rejection of inherent spiritual distinctions among the four major social classes of ancient India—Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras. Early Buddhist texts repeatedly subordinate inherited status to conduct and karma. Seno’o radicalizes this principle into a Buddhist “movement to negate the class society” of the Buddha's age.</ref> | ||
<!--T:19--> | <!--T:19--> | ||
Recognition of “no-self” and “dependent origination” as this relational worldview is further brought to life as each person reflects upon their own way of living. Thoughts of gratitude and service naturally well up, giving birth to Buddhism’s distinctive concept of “indebtedness” or “beneficence” (''on'') and bringing Mahāyāna Buddhism to maturity. From this emerged the great philosophy of the “Dharma realm of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena” (''jiji muge hokkai'' | Recognition of “no-self” and “dependent origination” as this relational worldview is further brought to life as each person reflects upon their own way of living. Thoughts of gratitude and service naturally well up, giving birth to Buddhism’s distinctive concept of “indebtedness” or “beneficence” (''on'') and bringing Mahāyāna Buddhism to maturity. From this emerged the great philosophy of the “Dharma realm of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena” (''jiji muge hokkai'' 事事無礙法界);<ref>''Jiji muge hokkai'' (事事無礙法界), the “Dharma realm of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena,” is the culminating vision of Huayan (Japanese Kegon) thought, in which every individual phenomenon exists through and interpenetrates every other without obstruction. Seno’o presents this classical Mahāyāna cosmology as the philosophical culmination of the relational worldview of dependent origination.</ref> and as crystallizations of the bodhisattva spirit expressed in the vow “I aspire to become a Buddha and immediately save all sentient beings,” there arose such great works as the ''Lotus Sutra'' and the ''Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life''.<ref>The phrase 「我成仏して直ちに一切衆生を救はん」 (“If I attain Buddhahood, I shall immediately save all sentient beings”) is Seno’o's classical Japanese formulation of the fundamental bodhisattva vow (''praṇidhāna''). It closely echoes formulas in the Chinese ''Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life'', including 「誓到菩提岸，度脫諸有情」 (“I vow to reach the shore of enlightenment and liberate all sentient beings”; T12, no. 360, 267c23) and the recurring opening of Dharmākara's forty-eight vows, 「設我得佛」 (“If I attain Buddhahood”; T12, no. 360, 268a6ff.).</ref> In these ways, Buddhism’s ideal of peace was raised to its fullest expression. | ||
<!--T:20--> | <!--T:20--> | ||
| Line 75: | Line 72: | ||
<!--T:21--> | <!--T:21--> | ||
Yet, for all this, Buddhism also firmly contains a doctrine of the sword. Fudō Myōō, standing erect amid the roaring flames of the cosmic conflagration while holding his sword, is the archetypal symbol of Buddhism’s doctrine of the sword. The Buddhism of the sword can be found in any number of scriptures, including the ''Nirvāṇa Sutra'', the ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', and the '' | Yet, for all this, Buddhism also firmly contains a doctrine of the sword. Fudō Myōō, standing erect amid the roaring flames of the cosmic conflagration while holding his sword, is the archetypal symbol of Buddhism’s doctrine of the sword.<ref>Fudō Myōō (不動明王; Skt. Acala), one of the principal esoteric Buddhist “Wisdom Kings,” is conventionally depicted surrounded by flames and holding a sword that cuts through ignorance and delusion. Seno’o turns this iconographic symbol into the organizing image for what he calls Buddhism's “doctrine of the sword”—the exceptional use of force in the service of liberation.</ref> The Buddhism of the sword can be found in any number of scriptures, including the ''Nirvāṇa Sutra'', the ''Sutra for Humane Kings'', and the ''Sūtra Spoken by the Great Nirgrantha Satyaka''.<ref>Seno’o cites three scriptures containing materials relevant to Buddhist kingship, protection of the Dharma, and the permissible use of force: the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra'' (涅槃経, ''Nehan-gyō''; T12, no. 374), the ''Sūtra for Humane Kings'' (仁王経, ''Ninnō-kyō''; T8, no. 245), and the ''Sūtra Spoken by the Great Nirgrantha Satyaka'' (大薩遮尼乾子所説経; T9, no. 272). The last is particularly concerned with kingship and the ethical exercise of political and military power.</ref> Nevertheless, particularly in Buddhism, the doctrine of the sword can be accepted only when its purpose is “to kill one so that many may live, and to liberate the masses” (''issatsu tashō taishū kaihō'' 一殺多生大衆解放).<ref>''Issatsu tashō'' (一殺多生), literally “killing one so that many may live,” expresses the paradoxical justification of killing when the death of one is understood to save many. Its ethical logic has Mahāyāna precedents in narratives of “compassionate killing,” most famously the story of the bodhisattva ship captain who kills a would-be murderer in the ''Upāyakauśalya Sūtra'', as well as in passages concerning armed defense of the Dharma in the ''Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra''. In modern Japan the formula acquired an explicitly political—and sometimes ultranationalist—resonance; most notoriously, Inoue Nisshō invoked ''issatsu tashō'' in connection with the Blood-Pledge Corps (''Ketsumeidan'') assassinations of 1932. Writing only two years later, Seno’o strikingly joins the expression to the socialist language of ''taishū kaihō'' (大衆解放), “liberation of the masses.” Yet he simultaneously restricts violence to an exceptional and tragic expedient subordinated to peace and ultimately redirects Buddhism's “critical sword” against attachment to self and every form of absolutism (see Shields, ''Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan'' [Oxford University Press], pp. 235–236).</ref> This, too, must be a paradoxical teaching within Buddhism’s ideal of peace. | ||
<!--T:22--> | <!--T:22--> | ||
| Line 84: | Line 81: | ||
<!--T:24--> | <!--T:24--> | ||
Yet when we turn and look squarely at contemporary society, what we see is a world that resembles nothing so much as the realm of the asuras: the decadence of the Final Dharma and a world in which the strong prey upon the weak. In such an age, how should Buddhists actually practice the peace movement? What should be its central objective? Can we really be satisfied with the conventional, abstract proclamation of peace and love? If the present age requires the sanction of force, then upon whom should the sharp sword of “killing one so that many may live” fall | Yet when we turn and look squarely at contemporary society, what we see is a world that resembles nothing so much as the realm of the asuras: the decadence of the Final Dharma and a world in which the strong prey upon the weak.<ref>The asuras are belligerent beings of Buddhist cosmology, conventionally associated with jealousy, rivalry, and perpetual conflict. The “Final Dharma” (''mappō'' 末法) is the degenerate final age of the Buddhist teaching, in which the Dharma remains but effective religious practice and realization have drastically declined. Seno’o combines the two images to characterize contemporary capitalist society as an age of systemic struggle and spiritual decay.</ref> In such an age, how should Buddhists actually practice the peace movement? What should be its central objective? Can we really be satisfied with the conventional, abstract proclamation of peace and love? If the present age requires the sanction of force, then upon whom should the sharp sword of “killing one so that many may live” fall? | ||
<!--T:25--> | <!--T:25--> | ||
Upon what social phenomena? Upon what forms of international relations? | |||
<!--T:26--> | |||
In short, every form of discord and conflict is the inevitable product of a life governed by attachment to self. Such a life is an expression of delusion, incapable of comprehending the relational truth of the universe. Thus Buddhism’s principle of “dependent origination” and its practice of “no-self” constitute both the critical sword that negates every form of attachment to self—every form of absolutism—and the embrace of love. These must become the fundamental principles of the entire peace movement. | In short, every form of discord and conflict is the inevitable product of a life governed by attachment to self. Such a life is an expression of delusion, incapable of comprehending the relational truth of the universe. Thus Buddhism’s principle of “dependent origination” and its practice of “no-self” constitute both the critical sword that negates every form of attachment to self—every form of absolutism—and the embrace of love. These must become the fundamental principles of the entire peace movement. | ||
== Notes == | |||
<references /> | |||
[[category:Senoo Giro]] | [[category:Senoo Giro]] | ||
[[category:Translations from Japanese]] | [[category:Translations from Japanese]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:37, 18 August 2026
|
⚠ Under Construction ⚠ This page is currently being compiled or translated by the editorial team. The text is incomplete, subject to active revisions, and should not yet be utilized as a stable citation source. |
Original Japanese: Seno'o Girō (妹尾義郎) (1934). 「仏教と平和運動」 [Buddhism and the Peace Movement]. 『国民仏教聖典』. Tokyo: 秀文閣書房. Reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 389–392.
English translation: Seno'o Girō (妹尾義郎) (2026). “Buddhism and the Peace Movement.” Trans. James Mark Shields. Radical Buddhism Project. Translated from the text reprinted in 稲垣真美編『妹尾義郎宗教論集』 (Tokyo: 大蔵出版, 1975), 389–392.
I
[edit]The joy of a morning when the dark violence of the storm and the raging waves have at last subsided, and we are blessed with a bright and tranquil voyage over calm seas, is a joy shared by all humankind. Toward peace! The light of peace is the common hope of all humanity; it must be the North Star guiding the course of human creation.
To be sure, human history has been stained by all too many scars of conflict. According to statistics, across the long five thousand years of human history, for every thirteen years of dark conflict there has been only a single year along the line of peace.[1] This is indeed a sorrowful historical fact. And yet, despite all this, peace—in the past, present, and future—remains the pillar of cloud guiding all humanity and the white path leading to the farther shore of culture. It is precisely for this reason that so many awakened predecessors took upon themselves the cross of sacred love and became imperishable signposts pointing toward the ideal realm of peace.[2]
The Buddha, Christ, and others were exemplary pioneers of the peace movement. But beyond them, not a single drop of the blood and tears shed by martyrs was sacrificed for anything other than the cause of peace. Even the class struggle that today swirls throughout the world and at first glance appears so objectionable—if we quietly sound the true intentions of Marx beneath the ground at Highgate[3]—we find that all their efforts, too, constitute a scientific social movement directed toward the construction of a peaceful society and animated by the aspiration to save all humanity.
Of course, conflict and war cannot simply and easily be eradicated. Nor should they be regarded as absolutely evil. Indeed, there are times in human life when a solution by the sword is necessary. But such a course should be an exceptional course (kendō 権道), restricted solely to those unavoidable occasions when it is necessary to safeguard peace; it must never become the ordinary course (jōdō 常道) of human life.[4] From problems within a single household to relations among nations, conflict and war lead human beings into anxiety, agitation, fear, and despair, bringing economic and cultural destruction in their wake. It hardly needs saying that these are actions to be avoided. War is an action of last resort, permissible only to a human conscience that deeply abhors the cruelty of war itself. The peace movement, by contrast, must remain the eternal common undertaking of all humanity.
II
[edit]There is, broadly speaking, no religion that does not exalt peace. Among them, however, it would seem that Buddhism carries the religion of peace to its highest point. “When you see the community falling into discord, bring it skillfully back into harmony.” The Buddha’s spirit of peace expressed in this injunction flows throughout the seven thousand fascicles of the Buddhist canon and across the entire Buddhist tradition.[5] Although Buddhism today is divided into thirteen schools and fifty-six sects, whose banners bear different designs, all are ultimately grounded in the same fundamental principle of exalting peace.[6]
The establishment of the “Perfect and Sudden Precept Platform” by Dengyō on Mount Hiei; the Diamond and Womb Realm Maṇḍalas depicted by Kōbō on Mount Kōya; Hōnen and Shinran’s ideal that “all shall meet together in one place”; Dōgen’s “the mind itself is Buddha”; and Nichiren’s “all return to the Wonderful Dharma”—although these doctrines have, through speculative reasoning, been turned into weapons in the sectarian struggles of the present day, the founding spirit behind them was clearly, in every case, a historical elevation of Buddhism’s ideal of “harmony” (wa).[7]
This Buddhist ideal of peace found vivid expression at an early date in the opening provisions of the famous Seventeen-Article Constitution of Prince Shōtoku, the progenitor of Japanese Buddhism:
“Harmony is to be valued.”
“Revere the Three Treasures deeply—for if one does not take refuge in the Three Treasures, by what means can that which is crooked be made straight?”[8]
Passages such as these are imperishable words of gold that testify to Buddhism’s ideal of peace. But what, then, is the foundation of Buddhism’s ideal of peace?
III
[edit]Buddhist faith finds its most appropriate form in “taking refuge in the Three Treasures.” Let us therefore seek the Buddhist ideal of peace through these Three Treasures.
As for the Buddha Treasure, the personality of the Buddha and the course of his life were themselves models of peace—this is an undeniable fact. The Dharma Treasure, as I will explain below, likewise constitutes a coherent Buddhist teaching of peace that other religions cannot rival. Finally, the Sangha Treasure, the practical embodiment of this Buddhism, must provide the most appropriate model for the Buddhist peace movement.
“Monk” (sō)—that is, Sangha (sōgya)—means a community or harmonious association. Today even one or two persons may be permitted to live the monastic life, but strictly speaking a Sangha required a communal life of four or more persons. Members of the Sangha shared their dwelling, begged for food together, distributed what they received equally, shared both suffering and happiness, yielded to one another and put an end to disputes, and devoted themselves in harmony to the practice of truth. Here the consciousness of “taking refuge in the Sangha Treasure” shines forth as the most concrete model for the peace movement. The Buddha included disrupting the harmony of the Sangha among the Five Heinous Offenses, for words and actions that destroy peace must be regarded as the source of all evil.[9]
What, then, does the Dharma Treasure teach concerning the peace movement?
As the Dharma Treasure, Buddhism possesses worldviews such as “suchness” (shinnyo), “dependent origination” (engi), and “no-self” (muga). “Suchness” offers guidance for the peace movement insofar as it sees the fundamental nature of all phenomena as equal and undifferentiated. “Dependent origination,” meanwhile, is a worldview that rejects all isolation and absoluteness: everything comes into being, develops, and passes away through relationships. It therefore permits neither self-righteousness nor exclusion. Individuals and society, nations and the world—all constitute a single interconnected living body, and this truth powerfully calls us toward the work of communal harmony.
The same is true of “no-self.” The negation of the “self” is an awakening from the deluded and dogmatic blindness that disregards these relationships of dependent origination. A life of no-self must therefore mean nothing less than a communal-social peace movement.
It was for this reason that the Buddha himself became a member of the Sangha and, from an early period, advocated the principle of “universal common ownership” (shihō kyōyū 四方共有), working toward the construction of a communal society.[10] It was for the same reason that he launched the great explosive charge of “equality of the four castes” (shishō byōdō 四姓平等), thereby undertaking a movement to negate the class society of his age.[11]
Recognition of “no-self” and “dependent origination” as this relational worldview is further brought to life as each person reflects upon their own way of living. Thoughts of gratitude and service naturally well up, giving birth to Buddhism’s distinctive concept of “indebtedness” or “beneficence” (on) and bringing Mahāyāna Buddhism to maturity. From this emerged the great philosophy of the “Dharma realm of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena” (jiji muge hokkai 事事無礙法界);[12] and as crystallizations of the bodhisattva spirit expressed in the vow “I aspire to become a Buddha and immediately save all sentient beings,” there arose such great works as the Lotus Sutra and the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life.[13] In these ways, Buddhism’s ideal of peace was raised to its fullest expression.
The precept against taking life is another expression of this Buddhist ideal of peace. The movement of equality and harmony does not stop at equality among the various races of humanity. The concept of indebtedness joins with a recognition of the equal right to life of every living being, developing into a movement for the protection of living creatures. Pursued to its logical conclusion, this even led to the establishment of a precept against eating meat. Although such a precept may be impossible to practice under present conditions, it nevertheless demonstrates more than adequately the extent to which the Buddhist spirit is a spirit that loves peace.
Yet, for all this, Buddhism also firmly contains a doctrine of the sword. Fudō Myōō, standing erect amid the roaring flames of the cosmic conflagration while holding his sword, is the archetypal symbol of Buddhism’s doctrine of the sword.[14] The Buddhism of the sword can be found in any number of scriptures, including the Nirvāṇa Sutra, the Sutra for Humane Kings, and the Sūtra Spoken by the Great Nirgrantha Satyaka.[15] Nevertheless, particularly in Buddhism, the doctrine of the sword can be accepted only when its purpose is “to kill one so that many may live, and to liberate the masses” (issatsu tashō taishū kaihō 一殺多生大衆解放).[16] This, too, must be a paradoxical teaching within Buddhism’s ideal of peace.
IV
[edit]Seen in this light, the peace movement is a worldwide mission entrusted to Buddhists.
Yet when we turn and look squarely at contemporary society, what we see is a world that resembles nothing so much as the realm of the asuras: the decadence of the Final Dharma and a world in which the strong prey upon the weak.[17] In such an age, how should Buddhists actually practice the peace movement? What should be its central objective? Can we really be satisfied with the conventional, abstract proclamation of peace and love? If the present age requires the sanction of force, then upon whom should the sharp sword of “killing one so that many may live” fall?
Upon what social phenomena? Upon what forms of international relations?
In short, every form of discord and conflict is the inevitable product of a life governed by attachment to self. Such a life is an expression of delusion, incapable of comprehending the relational truth of the universe. Thus Buddhism’s principle of “dependent origination” and its practice of “no-self” constitute both the critical sword that negates every form of attachment to self—every form of absolutism—and the embrace of love. These must become the fundamental principles of the entire peace movement.
Notes
[edit]- ↑ The claim that recorded history contained only a small fraction of years free from war circulated widely in European and international peace literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, often presented as statistical evidence of the persistence of organized conflict. Seno’o invokes this ostensibly scientific calculation to underscore the systemic character of warfare in human history.
- ↑ Seno’o freely incorporates Christian imagery into his Buddhist rhetoric. The “pillar of cloud” recalls the divine presence that guides the Israelites through the wilderness in Exodus 13:21–22, while the “cross of sacred love” evokes Christ's sacrificial death. Such language reflects Seno’o's longstanding engagement with Christianity as a model of socially engaged religious practice.
- ↑ Karl Marx (1818–1883) was buried in Highgate Cemetery in London. Seno’o's striking image of “sounding” Marx's intentions beneath Highgate allows him to reinterpret class struggle not as an end in itself but as a means toward universal peace.
- ↑ Kendō (権道) denotes an exceptional or provisional course of action justified by circumstances, in contrast to jōdō (常道), the normal or enduring way. Seno’o uses the distinction to argue that force may sometimes be provisionally necessary to preserve or establish peace, but can never constitute the normative principle of human relations.
- ↑ “Seven thousand fascicles” (七千巻) is a conventional designation for the enormous extent of the Buddhist canon, deriving from catalogues such as the Tang-dynasty Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu (貞元新定釈教目録), which enumerated more than seven thousand fascicles of Buddhist scriptures.
- ↑ “Thirteen schools and fifty-six sects” (十三宗五十六派) was the conventional administrative classification of Japanese Buddhism before the wartime reorganization of Buddhist denominations under the Religious Organizations Law. The classification remained current when Seno’o wrote in 1934; in 1939–40 the fifty-six sects were consolidated into twenty-eight denominations.
- ↑ Seno’o compresses the major traditions of Japanese Buddhism into a genealogy of “harmony”: Saichō (Dengyō Daishi, 767–822), founder of Japanese Tendai; Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi, 774–835), founder of Japanese Shingon; the Pure Land teachers Hōnen (1133–1212) and Shinran (1173–1263); Dōgen (1200–1253), founder of the Japanese Sōtō Zen tradition; and Nichiren (1222–1282). Seno’o's point is polemical: doctrines subsequently used to differentiate and divide Buddhist sects originally expressed, in his reading, a common Buddhist aspiration toward harmony.
- ↑ The Seventeen-Article Constitution (Jūshichijō kenpō 十七条憲法), traditionally attributed to Prince Shōtoku (574–622) and dated to 604, opens with the injunction “Harmony is to be valued” (和を以て貴しとなす); its second article commands reverence for the Three Treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Shōtoku's historical role in composing the document is disputed, but he became a foundational figure in Japanese Buddhist historical memory.
- ↑ The Sanskrit saṅgha (Japanese sōgya 僧伽; here translated “Sangha”) denotes the Buddhist monastic community; according to the Vinaya tradition, a fully constituted local Sangha normally required at least four monastics. “Creating a schism in the Sangha” (saṃghabheda) is traditionally counted among the Five Heinous Offenses, karmically grave acts said to entail immediate rebirth in hell.
- ↑ Literally “common ownership of the four directions” (shihō kyōyū 四方共有). The expression refers to the principle that monastic property belongs to the Sangha collectively rather than to an individual monk. Seno’o characteristically expands this monastic principle into a social and economic ideal of “universal common ownership.”
- ↑ “Equality of the four castes” (shishō byōdō 四姓平等) refers to the Buddhist rejection of inherent spiritual distinctions among the four major social classes of ancient India—Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras. Early Buddhist texts repeatedly subordinate inherited status to conduct and karma. Seno’o radicalizes this principle into a Buddhist “movement to negate the class society” of the Buddha's age.
- ↑ Jiji muge hokkai (事事無礙法界), the “Dharma realm of the unobstructed interpenetration of all phenomena,” is the culminating vision of Huayan (Japanese Kegon) thought, in which every individual phenomenon exists through and interpenetrates every other without obstruction. Seno’o presents this classical Mahāyāna cosmology as the philosophical culmination of the relational worldview of dependent origination.
- ↑ The phrase 「我成仏して直ちに一切衆生を救はん」 (“If I attain Buddhahood, I shall immediately save all sentient beings”) is Seno’o's classical Japanese formulation of the fundamental bodhisattva vow (praṇidhāna). It closely echoes formulas in the Chinese Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life, including 「誓到菩提岸，度脫諸有情」 (“I vow to reach the shore of enlightenment and liberate all sentient beings”; T12, no. 360, 267c23) and the recurring opening of Dharmākara's forty-eight vows, 「設我得佛」 (“If I attain Buddhahood”; T12, no. 360, 268a6ff.).
- ↑ Fudō Myōō (不動明王; Skt. Acala), one of the principal esoteric Buddhist “Wisdom Kings,” is conventionally depicted surrounded by flames and holding a sword that cuts through ignorance and delusion. Seno’o turns this iconographic symbol into the organizing image for what he calls Buddhism's “doctrine of the sword”—the exceptional use of force in the service of liberation.
- ↑ Seno’o cites three scriptures containing materials relevant to Buddhist kingship, protection of the Dharma, and the permissible use of force: the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (涅槃経, Nehan-gyō; T12, no. 374), the Sūtra for Humane Kings (仁王経, Ninnō-kyō; T8, no. 245), and the Sūtra Spoken by the Great Nirgrantha Satyaka (大薩遮尼乾子所説経; T9, no. 272). The last is particularly concerned with kingship and the ethical exercise of political and military power.
- ↑ Issatsu tashō (一殺多生), literally “killing one so that many may live,” expresses the paradoxical justification of killing when the death of one is understood to save many. Its ethical logic has Mahāyāna precedents in narratives of “compassionate killing,” most famously the story of the bodhisattva ship captain who kills a would-be murderer in the Upāyakauśalya Sūtra, as well as in passages concerning armed defense of the Dharma in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. In modern Japan the formula acquired an explicitly political—and sometimes ultranationalist—resonance; most notoriously, Inoue Nisshō invoked issatsu tashō in connection with the Blood-Pledge Corps (Ketsumeidan) assassinations of 1932. Writing only two years later, Seno’o strikingly joins the expression to the socialist language of taishū kaihō (大衆解放), “liberation of the masses.” Yet he simultaneously restricts violence to an exceptional and tragic expedient subordinated to peace and ultimately redirects Buddhism's “critical sword” against attachment to self and every form of absolutism (see Shields, Against Harmony: Progressive and Radical Buddhism in Modern Japan [Oxford University Press], pp. 235–236).
- ↑ The asuras are belligerent beings of Buddhist cosmology, conventionally associated with jealousy, rivalry, and perpetual conflict. The “Final Dharma” (mappō 末法) is the degenerate final age of the Buddhist teaching, in which the Dharma remains but effective religious practice and realization have drastically declined. Seno’o combines the two images to characterize contemporary capitalist society as an age of systemic struggle and spiritual decay.
