 |
| Rev Eiken Kobai |
by Rev Eiken Kobai
The 750th Memorial Service for the Venerable Master Shinran
has successfully concluded, and now there is the anticipation of, “A New
Beginning” for our Nishi Hongwanji organization.
Unfortunately, there were also reports such as, “‘The voice
of the Nembutsu is becoming fainter with the times and I wonder if the 800th
Memorial Service will be held with the same fervor as this one?’ could be heard
among those who participated.” The long decline in the Nishi Hongwanji
organization is something that all have noticed.
I have now passed the age of seventy, and am in the same
state of mind that Yuien was when he wrote the Tannisho (Notes Lamenting
Differences): “In this transient world, my body has become like last year’s
grass…” and like him, would like to express my thoughts on what is most
important about our organization before it is too late.
To begin with my conclusion, I believe that at the very
least, scholars of our Nishi Hongwanji organization must be those whose
“shinjin is settled” (shinjin ketsujo).
QUESTIONS REGARDING RYUKOKU UNIVERSITY’S SHINSHU STUDIES
I began my studies at Ryukoku University during April of
1960, the year before the 700th Memorial Service for the Venerable Master
Shinran was held. During the latter part of my freshman year, I joined a school
club devoted to familiarizing students with being resident ministers of
Jodo-Shinshu temples. The club advisor was a professor (then assistant
professor) of Shinshu Studies.
Not long after joining the club, the professor made the
following statement: “I don’t expect you (students) to (give Dharma Talks) in
which you express joy (in being embraced by Amida’s Primal Vow).”
I thought this was an extremely strange thing for him to say
because I had always thought that giving Shinshu Dharma Talks meant giving
talks in which we expressed our personal joy in being within the embrace of
Amida Buddha’s Primal Vow.
I therefore asked the professor what he meant by his
statement, and was further surprised by the great displeasure that he showed.
That was when I realized that even professors of Shinshu studies do not have
“settled or received shinjin.”
Later, during the latter part of the year 1978, this
professor was felled by a cerebral stroke. This caused him, as he frankly
confessed, to concentrate on “listening to the Dharma” but found it extremely
difficult. In other words, he had been assigned to teach Shinshu at Ryukoku
University and advise a club at that school even though his shinjin might not
have been settled!
Further, during the latter part of 1965, when the present
Buddhist educational system was being proposed, two professors criticized the
teaching of “shinjin sho-in, shomyo ho-on” (shinjin is the true cause (of our
birth in the Pure Land); recitation of the Nembutsu in gratitude (for that
indebtedness is the result),” which is contained in Section Three of the
Hongwanji Constitution (shusei).
This is clear evidence that these two professors were unable
to differentiate between the Nembutsu “before (receiving) shinjin” (shinzen)
and the Nembutsu “after (receiving) shinjin” (shingo). The reason they were
unable to do so, of course, is because they had not experienced the gratitude
of indebtedness to the Primal Vow and the Nembutsu. (The details regarding the
above are given in my articles Shuso ni okeru shinjin to nembutsu (Shinjin and
the Nembutsu According to The Venerable Master Shinran), in Volume 13 of Ryukoku
Kyogaku, published in June, 1979; and Shuso ni okeru shinjin to nembutsu 2
(Shinjin and the Nembutsu According to The Venerable Master Shinran, Part Two),
in Volume 15 of Ryukoku Kyogaku, published in June, 1980.)
Expressing doctrinal matters in keeping with the times is
extremely important, of course, but just as it is impossible to lead others to
receiving shinjin if you have not experienced it yourself, so must doctrinal
expressions be from the point of view of “settled shinjin.” This seems so obvious
that I am slightly puzzled that I even have to mention it.
At any rate, what I expressed above were the conditions
regarding the lack of shinjin experience in how Shinshu was taught at Rykoku
University during the 1960’s and 1970’s; unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to
be much difference in those conditions even today.
DOUBT ABOUT THE KANGAKU-RYO
The Kangaku-ryo is a group of Shinsh scholars within Nishi
Hongwanji whose responsibility is to maintain doctrinal correctness within the
organization. These scholars are selected from the Shikyo rank of scholars, the
highest rank that can be earned.
The problem that the two professors raised - namely, casting
doubt on “shinjin sho-in, shomyo ho-on” - that I mentioned above, was taken up
by the Kangaku-ryo during January of 1980.
During March of 198, this group of scholars decided to
suspend judging whether one professor’s doubt was correct or not, and during
October of that same year, decided in the case of the other professor, to
suspend investigation regarding the contents of that doubt. No instructions
given to either of these two professors.
I believe the basic reason these two professors criticized
“shinjin sho-in, shomyo ho-on” was because of their lack of shinjin. The Head
of the Kangaku-ryo’s response to the criticism by the two was, “We can speak of
a ‘difference in anjin’ (i-anjin) among individuals, but we cannot say anything
about ‘no anjin’ (mu-anjin)” and “shinjin cannot be known” (shin wa fukaku).”
I felt a there was something terribly wrong with such a
response because, among other things, the Venerable Master Shinran wrote in a
letter, “… for they have not yet attained true shinjin”*1, and made references
to others using terms such as, “undetermined shinjin” (shinjin miketsujo), “not
determined” (fuketsujo), and “no anjin” (mu-anjin).
Master Rennyo also wrote things such as “…(those) in whom
the settled mind (anjin) is yet to be realized” (mianjin no hito)*2, and “… who
have not undergone a decisive settling of faith (anjin)” (shinjin miketsujo no
hito)*3 and often used terms such as “no anjin” (muanjin) and “‘not yet’ anjin”
(mianjin) that express the thought of anjin (shinjin) not yet received.
Further, both the Venerable Master Shinran and Master Rennyo
wrote about the joys of shinjin in many places so there cannot be anything such
as “no awareness” of it.
To say, “…we cannot say anything about (the)‘no anjin’(of
others)” or that “shinjin cannot be known,” clearly goes against the positions
of both the Venerable Master Shinran and Master Rennyo, and I believe are the
views of those without “determined (settled) shinjin” themselves.
In a work titled Koza shinshu anjin rondai (Lectures on
“Topics for Discussion” in Shinshu), written by the then Head of the
Kangaku-ryo, is the passage, “It can be said that originally those who were
said to be heretics and those with ‘different anjin’ (ianjin) … (omitted) …
could be divided into those who felt shinjin could be acquired through
‘self-centered effort’ (jiriki) and those who felt they could become enlightened
while maintaining their physical bodies.” Such thinking can lead to the
conclusion that there are no problems about anjin when it comes to those
without “determined shinjin/anjin.” That may have been the reason for the lack
of censure of the two professors previously mentioned. As already mentioned, I
personally found that decision extremely questionable. (See note at end of
article.)
Criticism of the Hongwanji by the Takamori Shinran-kai
organization arose just about that time.*1
I was then assigned to Nishi Hongwanji’s Dendo-in (Institute
for Transmitting (the Jodo-Shinsh Teaching), now “Combined Research Center”
(Sogo Kenkyu-sho) doing similar work with a slightly different charter), which
was requested to counter the criticism of Reverend Takamori. I wrote an article
criticizing their understanding of “stored good” (shukuzen) and “matter of
greatest importance in the next life” (gosho no ichidaiji), which they were
then emphasizing. This article was published in a house bulletin during December
of 1979.
Although my article was intended for readers within the
Hongwanji, the Shinran-kai organization began raising questions about it. I
responded to their specific questions, but they would not accept answers that
were not to their liking. That resulted in demonstrations against the Hongwanji
Headquarters Temple, which in turn caused the Headquarters Temple
administrators and the head of the Dendo-in (who was a kangaku) to form a
committee to respond to Shinran-kai. I was a member of that committee.
A document in response to Shinran-kai’s criticism was
completed during December of 1982. This document was titled Gendai no kyogaku
mondai - hagai karano rongi ni tsuite (Doctrinal Problems Today - Criticisms
from Outside (Our Hongwanji Organization)), and consisted of articles written
by various members of the committee. Strangely, however, when it was published,
my article was bound by itself, separate from the other articles that were
included in the title given above, with no indication that my article had been
written under the direction of the Head of the Kangaku-ryo or the Head of the
Dendo-in. It appeared to me that if Shinran-kai continued their questioning of
the Hongwanji position, responsibility for responding would be solely mine.
(This intent can be discerned from a document titled Hongwanji naze kotaenu
(Why Does the Hongwanji Not Respond?) published by Shinran-kai during March of
1984.)
I am heartened that many former followers of the Shinran-kai
organization have studied my articles and agreed with me, leading to their
leaving Shinran-kai. At least one former follower has created a Japanese blog
in which he uses all of the points made in my articles in refuting
Shinran-kai’s positions.
A new Kangaku-ryo has now been established but there does
not seem to be any change in their position regarding “non-determination of
shinjin” (shinjin fuketsujo taishitsu). The writings of the Head of this group
shows absolutely no recognition of the difference in the Nembutsu “before
(receiving) shinjin and after (receiving) it.”
In Issue 126 of Shinshu-gaku (Shinshu Studies), published
during March of 2012, is the following:
I wonder if “conversion (receiving shinjin)” (eshin) should
be considered in terms of time. The time that the “turning in” of sangan
tennyu*1 takes place … (omitted) … is something that is of more concern to
historians (than scholars of Shinshu doctrine), and I believe it is better to
not consider it within the realm of the “practice and (the receiving of
shinjin).” … (omitted) … I believe some consider that the time shinjin is
received can be known, but I do not.
This is a denial of the reality of “turning in” from the
20th Vow (the Nembutsu of “self-centered effort” (jiriki) before receiving
shinjin) to the 18th Vow (the Nembutsu of “Buddha-centered power” (tariki)
after receiving shinjin), as well as a denial of the conviction of having
received shinjin.
If those in the Nishi Hongwanji organization who are most
responsible for education in Shinshu and making clear what anjin is, have this
sort of understanding, I cannot hope for much light in our Buddhist
denomination’s future. (I believe I was rather disrespectful of certain persons
in writing the above, but this was unavoidable when I considered the future of
our Buddhist denomination, and I therefore beg for tolerance regarding how I
expressed myself.)
I have written other essays that considered the matters
discussed above from different perspectives. Two of those articles are: Bukkyo
o ikani manabu ka - shinshu-gaku no baai- (How Should We Study/Teach
Buddha-dharma - With Emphasis on Jodo-Shinshu), printed in Issue 66 of Nippon
bukkyo gakkai nempo; and Shin ichinen to shin no kakufu ni tsuite (On the
Single Moment of Shinjin and Unawareness of Shinjin), printed in the 55-2 issue
of Nippon indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyu.
(This article was written during July of 2012 and submitted
to a Japanese religious newspaper. Since it was not accepted for publication, I
have decided to make it public here. November 19, 2012. Eiken Kobai.)
NOTES
Recently, one of the professors mentioned in this article
wrote a work titled, Shinshu gudo gaku (Seeking the Truth in Shinsh Studies),
published by the prestigious Buddhist publishing company, Hozokan, September,
2011. In that work, the author denies the doctrine of “shinjin sho-in, shomyo
ho-on.” I can only repeat that the author’s lack of “decided shinjin” makes it
impossible for him to understand the difference between the “Nembutsu before
receiving shinjin” and the “Nembutsu after receiving shinjin.” In other words,
he has no experience of “indebtedness to the Nembutsu” (ho-on Nembutsu).
Fortunately, in the modification to the Nishi Hongwanji
organization’s constitution concerning the function of the Kangaku-ryo, there
is the following addition that has never appeared before: “The Kangaku-ryo has
the duty to correct the views of those who have an understanding of Jodo-Shinsh
that is different from that of the Hongwanji, i.e., denying shinjin-shoin,
shomyo ho-on” goes against our religious institution. I believe the addition of
this clause is extremely important. (December 18, 2012)
0 comentarii:
Post a Comment