Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodgrass

The impulse to believe the absurd when presented with the unknowable is called religion. Whether this is wise or unwise is the domain of doctrine. Once you understand someone's doctrine, you understand their rationale for believing the absurd. At that point, it may no longer seem absurd. You can get to both sides of this conondrum from here.

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:48 am

Part 2 of 2

The Question of Access

The need to compete with Western philosophy and Christianity also directed Buddhist reform to produce an introductory literature. Western philosophy and Christianity were readily accessible through books written in the vernacular. Although Buddhism possessed a vast literature, it was intended for specialists and was written in an archaic form of language densely scattered with technical terms that required doctrinal elucidation. The target audience for Buddhist revival was precisely the Western-educated generation who found it "easier to read the novels of Scott than to read the Genji Monogatari."42 Consequently, even when this generation felt the need to assert a distinctive national character in indigenous cultural terms, it found Buddhism largely inaccessible. Shin bukkyo addressed this problem by presenting selected Buddhist teachings in the contemporary vernacular. One of the first and most successful of these was Inoue Enryo's Bukkyo katsuron joron (1887), an introduction to Buddhist philosophy directed to "young men of talent and education,"43 which will be discussed in the following chapter. Inoue's slogan gokoku airi (defend the nation and love the truth) called for a redirection of the patriotic spirit and international vision that had inspired Christian conversion to the revival of Buddhism. Inoue invited "these talented young men" who had fallen "victim to this untruth" to seek the truth in Buddhism: "[I]f they know that the clergy's ignorance and lack of intelligence make them unfit to map out the revival of Buddhism, why do they not plan for the revival of the religion without the clergy?"44 Inoue himself provided the model of active lay support and lay promotion of Buddhist philosophy by severing his institutional ties. His work is the subject of the following chapter.

Buddhism in Society

The encouragement of lay supporters, koji Buddhists, and the promotion of noninstitutional lay practice, zaike bukkyo, was a distinctive feature of Meiji Buddhist reform. Advocates of zaike bukkyo, like Inoue, publicly described institutional Buddhism as "feudalistic, anti-social and impractical,"45 but because they included such eminent institutional priests as Hara Tanzan, Fukuda Gyokai, Shaku Unsho, Shimaji Mokurai, and Chicago delegate Ashitsu Jitsuzen, the thrust of the movement should be understood as providing lay access to Buddhism parallel to the continuing institutional forms rather than replacing them. Zaike bukkyo offered a variety of paths. The temples were open to intellectuals. Chicago delegates Hirai Kinzo and Noguchi Zenshir6 took a lay initiation. Hirai studied at the Rinzai Zen temple Kenninji in Kyoto with an ordained master. D. T. Suzuki and novelist Soseki Natsume studied with Shaku Soen at Engakuji. Alternative paths were offered to other sections of the community by zaike bukkyo activists such as Ouchi Seiran, who gave public lectures, wrote tracts, and designed daily observances suitable for domestic practice. Taking the tonsure was still a noble path but it was no longer the only one. Intellectuals needed a philosophical Buddhism. Ordinary people needed ordinary people's Buddhism, Buddhism that had been socialized.46

Buddhism was also given social relevance through the promotion of philanthropic works. This was in part a response to the charges that Buddhism was otherworldly, its support a drain on society. Christian social activities were both a model and a stimulus for this. Reform leaders, aware of the importance of establishing a broad base of support in the community, urged the Buddhist community to observe the growing goodwill that Christian missions were establishing among the general population through such efforts as their hospitals, charities, and famine relief and to emulate their model.47

The Christian model also inspired other innovations directed toward increasing lay community involvement with Buddhism. A network of youth organizations in the style of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) was established and formalized by the founding of the Dainihon bukkyo seinenkai in 1894.48 Buddhist marriage ceremonies were created from 1887;49 Shimaji Mokurai performed a marriage ceremony in Tokyo in June 1892. A short description of the new ritual in the Japan Weekly Mail (July 1892) remarks on the similarity with the Christian form. Although the model was Christian, a possible domestic precedent for this was the early Meiji government's experiment in creating and installing Shinto funerals. Both cases were attempts to establish binding ties with the community through control of the rights of passage.50

Many of the most prominent Meiji Buddhists and supporters of the delegation remained laymen, practicing a nonsectarian and socially oriented Buddhism. One of particular relevance to this study was Ouchi Seiran, whose Buddhist promotional activities ranged through such diverse projects as education for the blind and mute, printing, publishing newspapers, forming a society for the protection of animals, and establishing a life insurance company. He worked with Inoue Enryo to forge links between progressive leaders of the Buddhist and secular worlds, actively campaigned for government support of Buddhism, and stood as a candidate for election to bring Buddhist representation into the Diet.51 In Ouchi's writings Shotoku Taishi, the sixth-century regent credited with establishing Buddhism in the Yamato state, provided the Buddhist paradigm of lay participation and government support.

Strengthening Imperial Rule

The Meiji government policy of shinbutsu bunri severed the relationship between Buddhism and the ruling powers that had existed in various forms since Buddhism had been first introduced to Japan. Throughout Japanese history religious institutions had shared in the exercise of political authority through a coalition of the major temples with the court and the military. Buddhism had been protector of the state since the emperor Shomu had established Todaiji at Nara as the head temple in a network of state-sponsored provincial temples (kokubunji) in the eighth century. In these temples sutras were to be read for the prosperity and protection of the state. Tendai and Shingon, the oldest of the sects active in the Meiji period, had both been founded with imperial support, and both declared pacification and protection of the state (chingo kokka) to be their primary duty. In the Kamakura period, as Collcutt has shown, the military rulers established networks of Zen temples to parallel the Tendai and Shingon temple-based power systems of the courts.52 In the Tokugawa, the use of temples to register and control local populations established Buddhism as a de facto state religion. Ooms's account of the use of religion by Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu in the legitimation of their rule attests strongly to the importance of the relationship between the state and religious institutions.53

The ideal of the mutually supporting and reinforcing relationship between the state and Buddhism was formalized in the expression obo-buppo, the Japanese formulation of the Buddhist polity of the interdependence of the sangha -- the community of Buddhist specialists -- and the state. Though usually translated as "imperial law -- Buddhist law," as McMullin explains, buppo must be understood to designate the Buddhist-Shinto and even Confucian composite of the living Japanese religion.54 Obo (imperial law) is not simply "secular law" but raja dharma, the duty of the righteous king, which implies a reciprocal relation with religious specialists and, in Japan, the sanction of the Shinto kami. Although the balance of the relationship between obo and buppo was in constant tension and regularly reinterpreted, the various sects of Japanese Buddhism, amalgamated doctrinally, ritually, and institutionally with Shinto and incorporating Confucianism, enjoyed the prerogatives of the de facto state religion of Japan until the Meiji period.

Consequently, renegotiating a relationship between Buddhism and the state was an overriding concern of Meiji reform. The first three "topics for study" the Association of Buddhist Sects listed in 1869 as areas for reform action were "The indivisibility of Imperial and Buddhist law; The study and refutation of Christianity; The co-operation between and perfection of the three Japanese faiths: Shinto, Confucianism, and Buddhism."55 The juxtaposition is significant. The three issues were explicitly linked by the Shingon Buddhist leader, Shaku Unsho, in a formal petition to the government calling for a reversal of the policy of separation, to "save the people from the foreign barbarians." He argued that the emperor could not continue omnipotent unless the three faiths-Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shinto -- were united. "Haibutsu kishaku will estrange the people from Buddhism, they will doubt Shinto, and Christianity will try to exploit this doubt."56 The security of the nation depended on restoring the relationship between Buddhism, in its long-established fusion with other aspects of Japanese religiosity, and the state.

As Shaku Unsho's petition shows, regardless of the actual extent of the Christian threat to Japan in the early years of the Meiji, it was most useful as the specter of disruption in reform rhetoric. It was the religious specialists' focus of Western incursion, and their reference to it might be compared with the Meiji Restoration activists' use of the Western threat in the sonno joi campaign (revere the emperor, expel the barbarian). The Nishi Honganji, the institution most active in post- Restoration reform, had supported the Restoration movement under the slogan sanno goho (revere the emperor, preserve the dharma).57 The symmetry of the slogans associated expelling the barbarian with the protection of the dharma. Evidence of Christianity's disruptive influence was ready to hand in the national memory of the Iberian Christian incursion of the early seventeenth century and the consequent disruptions that led to the proscription of Christianity for over two hundred years. The memory, kept alive by Tokugawa rhetoric of the "evil religion," was evoked at Chicago by Hirai Kinzo, who explained to his audience at the Parliament that this early contact had convinced the Japanese that "Christianity is the instrument of depredation." As he described it, "Christian missionaries, combined with the local converts, caused a tragic and bloody rebellion against the country, and it is understood that those missionaries intended to subjugate Japan to their own mother country .... it took the government of the Shogun a year to suppress this terrible and intrusive commotion."58 History, or rather the national "memory" of events two hundred years earlier, justified Buddhist rejection of Christianity as part of its role as protector of the nation. The rhetoric of Christian aggression was part of the Meiji Buddhist attempt to reclaim a position as defender of the nation.

In the early Meiji years of Buddhist persecution, restoring links with the state was vital for the defense of the religion. The campaign remained a crucial issue in 1893,and consequently in the representation of Buddhism at Chicago, but by this time the emphasis in the rhetoric had shifted. The change in Buddhist priorities as the Meiji period progressed is indicated by the change of name of the Buddhist journal Dampo (Defender of the faith), which became Gakaku (Protector of the nation) in 1892.59 Buddhist reformers promoted Buddhism as the spirit of the nation and called for support not to protect the religion but to strengthen the nation against Western aggression.

Buddhism and Japanese Identity

By the 1880s the radical reforms enforced on the institutions had produced new interpretations of Buddhism intended to answer the needs of the transforming society and to provide a role for Buddhism under the new regime. Following the lead and methods of Western Orientalist scholarship, a Buddhist philosophy was isolated from the ritual, mythology, and folk belief of actual practice. This New Buddhism was a noninstitutional lay practice accessible through the vernacular language. It was nonsectarian, "progressive, democratic, spiritual, social and rational," an indigenous alternative to the Western materialist philosophy and Protestant Christianity to which many Western-educated Japanese of this generation had turned. It was available when events of the late 1880s focused a growing reaction against the previous indiscriminate adoption of things Western and ushered in a search for an ideological basis for modern Japan. Buddhist reform leaders seized the opportunity to propagate shin bukkyo by linking it to the search for Japanese national identity.

The change in attitude to the West culminated in the failure of the 1887 attempt to revise the Ansei Treaties. The Japanese had been confident, given the progress of reforms and the degree of Westernization in Meiji Japan, that the treaties would be revised. The attempts at this time ultimately failed not because of Western rejection but because of internal reaction against what were perceived as humiliating concessions demanded by Western powers. Because the treaties symbolized the asymmetry of the relationship that had existed between Japan and Western powers three decades earlier when they were originally signed, revision on terms of equality would equally strongly symbolize Western recognition of Japan's sovereign status. Western intransigence on revision was interpreted as a threat to' national independence. Failure to revise the treaties in spite of the progress that had been made in social and institutional reform discredited the previously widespread belief in Westernization as a path to revision. New strategies were required, and one proposal came from the Seikyosha, a society formed in 1888 "for the preservation of Japan's cultural autonomy."60 The Seikyosha was not a specifically Buddhist organization -- its membership encompassed a wide range of religious and nonreligious positions -- but its founding members included the familiar reform leaders Ouchi Seiran, Shimaji Mokurai, Inoue Enryo, and Ashitsu Jitsuzen.

The Seikyosha argued that Japan's defense against Western imperialism depended on developing a strong national spirit. As Inoue wrote, imitation was poor political strategy because it would lead the West to despise the Japanese as lacking energy, strength, and independent spirit. Imitation was the behavior of slaves and flatterers. If the Japanese continued to adopt customs and ideas from those in the West indiscriminately, "they will consider us as simple and despicable, and they may regard us as a vassal state ... but never, by any stretch of the imagination, look upon us as equals."61 The Seikyosha argued instead that Japan should follow the model of the smaller European states such as Hungary and Italy, which were at that time at a similar stage of development. These countries took pride in preserving their individual languages and cultures and coexisted with the more powerful and better developed nations in mutual respect. Only by maintaining an independent national identity could Japan expect to deal with world powers as equals. The Seikyosha therefore looked within its own tradition for something uniquely Japanese that would be internationally esteemed and which Japan could contribute to the modern world. Buddhism, which had been the basis of Japanese civilization for fifteen hundred years, seemed a logical candidate.62

In the increasingly nationalistic atmosphere of the 1880s,the Seikyosha search for the basis of national identity meshed with Buddhist reform initiatives, providing a platform and impetus for the propagation of shin bukkyo in the wider community. Inoue Enryo propagated the message of Buddhist nationalism through the journal Nihonjin, arguing that "the best way Japanese can be made Japanese and Japan can remain independent" was to preserve and propagate Buddhism.63 He argued that Buddhism was the means by which Japan could gain the respect of the world and contribute to international welfare. Buddhism was Japan's "special product," its "strong point," a source of national identity and international recognition, a source of international prestige. It was a means of gaining recognition as a "civilized" nation and thereby affecting treaty revision: "Everyone knows that we must look to the West to supply models not only for all kinds of commodities and utensils, but also for models of government, law, the military system, education, the physical sciences and technology. However, there is one thing that Japan can transmit to foreign countries and win fame; that thing is Buddhism."64

Prestige did not require a mass contribution but one of quality, a point of strength and distinction. For Okakura Kakuzo, organizer of the Japanese Pavilion and the exhibition of Japanese art at the Chicago exposition -- and author of the classic The Book of Tea -- it was the Japanese aesthetic sensibility. Inoue and the Japanese delegates offered Buddhism: "Buddhism is now our so-called strong point. If we merely nurture it in our own country and do not export it abroad what else can we transmit to other countries? Material commodities are an advantage of the West. Scholarship is also one of their strong points. The only advantage we have is religion. This fine product of ours excels those of other countries."65

In 1889, shortly after the founding of the Seikyosha, Inoue Enryo, Ouchi Seiran, Shimaji Mokurai, Ashitsu Jitsuzen, and others concerned about the impact of the constitutional government on Buddhism formed the more specifically Buddhist organization Sonno hobutsu daidodan (The Great Society for Revering the Emperor and Worshiping the Buddha). The society was "a union of all those who wish to protect our land and our religion from the contempt of the foreigner," principally by excluding Christians from public office and installing Buddhists in positions of influence. Its policy statement declared that by "selecting our representatives to the national parliament, to provincial assemblies, to town councils, or local offices, in the distribution of honors, in appointing school teachers, officials of societies and business companies etc., we pledge ourselves to carefully exclude all those who are disloyal to our Emperor or untrue to Buddhism."66

The society not only was specifically Buddhist but was overtly political, concerned to seize the opportunity of the promised representational government to gain a voice for Buddhism in governing the nation.67 This was one of its strategies for reestablishing ties between Buddhism and the state. Inoue and Guchi also formally petitioned the government to this end. The organization's journal, Daido shinpo, explained that the perpetuation of the Japanese race depended on a state religion that advocated "revering the Emperor," who represented the blood lineage, and "worshipping the Buddha," the spiritual lineage of the nation.68 Adapting the ideal of Buddhist polity to the processes of representational government in a secular state, the organization attempted to mobilize the considerable voting power of the community of Buddhist priests to political action, fielded candidates for election, and campaigned against Christian candidates. Guchi himself stood for election and urged Buddhist priests to do likewise, arguing that more could be achieved for Buddhism at this time by leaving the priesthood to enter politics.69

The Discourse of the Meiji Twenties

Inoue Enryo's Bukkyo katsuron joron was published in 1887, Meiji 20, the start of a decade of intense activity in Buddhist revival. The formation of the Seikyosha in 1888, the Sonno hobutsu daidodan in early 1889, and the promotion of their political positions through their respective journals were indicative of the growing importance of Buddhism in the Meiji sociopolitical arena. Apart from the factors already mentioned-the changed attitude to the West and growing nationalist sentiment that caused interest in Buddhism as a repository of national identity-certain political events, such as the introduction of constitutional government in 1889, had a direct bearing on religion in Japan. Article 28 of the Constitution granted Japanese citizens a rather conditional "freedom of religion" and placed Christianity on the same legal status as Buddhism.70 The boost of confidence the Christian community received from this was dampened by the Imperial Rescript on Education, issued November 3, 1890, and its subsequent interpretation, which raised doubts about the possibility of being both Christian and a loyal Japanese citizen.?1 Another major factor in increased activity among Buddhist leaders at this time was the successive failure of the attempt to install first State Shinto and then the Daikyo as the binding ideology and social ethic of the nation. These failures had created a national ideological space for possession of which Buddhism and Christianity were principal contenders. The battle, however, was not a simple confrontation. Buddhism and Christianity together contended against the perceived threat of Western imperialism, religious indifference, and "the forces of materialism." Their relationship was further complicated by government attempts to form a "civil religion." As Christian delegate to Chicago Kishimoto Nobuta described the situation in his paper "Future of Religion in Japan";72 "Japan at present is the battlefield between religion and no religion, and also between Christianity and other systems of religion .... The prevailing attitude of our educated classes toward any system of religion is one of co-indifference if not strong antagonism. Among them the agnosticism of Spencer, the materialism of Comte, and the pessimism of Schopenhauer and Hartmann are the most influential. To them, God is either the product of our own imagination or, at most, unknowable .... The religions of Japan, whatever they may be, have to contend with these no-god and no-religion doctrines."73

Christianity had been favored among the intellectual elite during the period of the early 1880s when Westernization had been actively encouraged, but the change in attitude toward the end of the decade brought with it a search for an indigenous ideological basis for modern Japan. Interest in Buddhism was no longer confined to the religious institutions. For their part Japanese Christians -- equally opposed to foreign domination -- responded to the changed environment by distancing themselves from Western missions financially, institutionally, and doctrinally, creating and promoting an indigenous interpretation of Christianity. The victor in this contest would be whoever succeeded in attracting the support of the young, Western-educated elite, the future leaders of the nation. The discourse on religion of the Meiji Twenties was a contest for the allegiance of this audience. The nature of the discourse -- particularly the political and social relevance of religion -- and the sense of crisis within it during the months preceding the Parliament are apparent in an editorial in the Japan Weekly Mail, March 4, 1893: "If we are to judge from the intellectual vigour and variety displayed in the periodicals of the month, we should be sure that religion is fast becoming one of the most active concerns of the Japanese people. Especially noticeable is the attempt now being made on all sides to settle the problem of religion in its political and social bearings. The stake at issue is of vital importance-possession and guidance of social development in the empire."

The diversity of opinion and the importance of the discourse in the early 1890S are reflected in the profusion of new publications. Although many of them were short-lived, 2,767 journals and periodicals appeared between 1889 and 1894.74 In October 1891, in recognition of the extraordinary activity in religious publications in the recent past, the Yokohama-based English-language newspaper, Japan Weekly Mail, introduced as a regular feature its "Monthly Summary of the Religious Press." There were at that time more than 400 Buddhist journals alone, as well as numerous Christian journals, and journals such as the Daido soshi, which represented a union of Shinto, Confucianism, and Buddhism, proposed as the basis of a new religion.75 Although the "Summary" was conceived in the recognition that religious groups of this time were vitally concerned with political and social issues, the intensity of this involvement seems to have surprised the editor, who wrote in July 1892: "It is a noticeable feature of the Japanese religious journals, Buddhist as well as Christian, that much less space is devoted in this country to doctrinal exposition than in the West.... There are a few conservative magazines of [the Buddhists] in which one finds from time to time a lecture on the mystifying doctrines of the sacred books; but as a rule, the entire press devotes itself to news, and to the discussion of the topics of the day. Speculative and technical disquisitions do not seem to meet the needs of the people, if the contents of the press are any index of those wants."

The space that progressive journals did devote to doctrinal matters was, however, crucial. It was the forum for the formation, presentation, and propagation of the new interpretations of Christianity and reform Buddhism. Doctrinal disputation between sects was not only irrelevant at this time of intense social concern but counterproductive. The important issues of the discourse were what each religion could offer the nation and the compatibility of each with modern science, Western philosophy, and Japanese identity, "settling the problem of religion in its political and social bearings" for the "possession and guidance of social development in the empire."

Although for the editor of the Mail doctrinal disputation may have been an essential characteristic of religious journals, it was actively discouraged by both reform Buddhists and the Doshisha Christians76 (the Buddhist and Christian delegates to Chicago respectively), who were intent on strengthening their positions by uniting the various sects and denominations, not in emphasizing their differences. The Buddhist All Sects Council commissioned a "bible," a text that would encapsulate nonsectarian belief. Japanese Christians, while not all in agreement on what exactly they believed, preferred to consider themselves as members of the Church of Christ in Japan than as members of different denominations. "In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity."77 Although Buddhists and Christians each attempted to form a united front against the other, they united as "men of religion" (shukyosha) against the forces of materialism and especially of foreign encroachment. On September 2, 1893, the Mail commented that "the religious papers say nothing of politics; but what they say of religion is coloured through and through with that spirit of independence of foreign control which is so manifest in the political world."

The intensity of debate these articles aroused contradicts the Mail's suggestion that the Japanese were less interested than their Western counterparts in "speculative or technical disquisitions." Such interests were simply of less immediate concern. The Mail's surprise at the content of the journals of religious associations arose from an inappropriate stereotyping of "religious" journals. Unlike the Christian journalists of England and America, the Japanese journalists, particularly those I am concerned with, were not writing for a committed audience, but attempting to form one.78 Religious journals such as these promoted modernization and social change by educating their readers. Conversely, the Seikyosha journal Nihonjin, which was not Buddhist but contained articles by Buddhist writers such as Inoue Enryo, Ouchi Seiran, and Ashitsu Jitsuzen, became an important channel for presenting Buddhist views on social and political issues to the wider public precisely because it reached a different audience from the religious journals.

The delegates to the World's Parliament of Religions were all active in reform movements and contributors to religious journals. The journals these delegates and their respective associates published, their books, the lectures and meetings they held, and their attendance at the Parliament were directed toward influencing the opinions of the contemporary intellectual elite, the active and influential Western-educated minority group of Meiji society concerned with social and political issues involved in the formation of the modern nation. The delegation to Chicago was an extension of this project, a strategy in this discourse contesting the religious basis of modern Japan. The leaders of Buddhist revival believed that the best way to convince pro-Western Japanese of their claim that Buddhism was superior to Christianity, that it was the answer to the religious problems of the modern world, was to win the support of Western intellectuals and religious leaders. They were confident that Japanese Buddhism, formed out of the contests of nineteenth-century skepticism, as alive in Japan as in the West, was a stronger candidate than Christianity to be the universal world religion. They were well rehearsed in defense against the standard Christian criticisms. Shin bukkyo, though the product of domestic imperatives to reform, had been shaped by the religious debates that informed the World's Parliament of Religions. Taking it to Chicago would show that it was the most suitable religion for the modern scientific world.

The anti-Buddhist movements of mid-nineteenth-century Japan gave rise to an interpretation of Buddhism prepared to meet its Christian critics. Domestic criticism included the charges leveled by various anti-Buddhist factions that the Mahayana was not taught by the Buddha, that Buddhism was irrational and incompatible with the age of science, that Buddhism was otherworldly and irrelevant to modern society, that Buddhism was un-Japanese -- criticisms that clearly overlap with principal issues of the Western discourse on Buddhism. The charge that Buddhism was a foreign religion gave rise to its claim for universality.

Shin bukkyo was also prepared for Chicago by Meiji Japan's resort to the West as measure and model of the modern. In the Meiji spirit of seeking knowledge throughout the world to strengthen imperial rule, Buddhist reform leaders were among the first to travel to Europe and America, observing the condition and function of religion in Western societies, studying the methods of Orientalist scholarship and biblical criticism, and observing the European debates between religion, science, and materialist philosophy. Consequently, proponents of shin bukkyo knew of Buddhism's function in Western discourse, particularly the approval the Theravada construct enjoyed among certain intellectuals at this time because of the perceived similarities between the teachings of the Buddha and contemporary European thought. Japanese Buddhism, they believed, offered even more than this, as we will see in the following chapter. It contained all the truth of German idealism, held in great esteem in Japan at the time, and, moreover, transcended the conflict between religion, the scientific world view, and philosophy. It was therefore better suited than Christianity to be the future world religion. This belief was vital in making Buddhism acceptable to the Western-educated elite of Japan, the future leaders of the nation.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:56 am

Chapter 6. Buddhist Revival and Japanese Nationalism

Meiji Buddhist revival and Japanese nationalism were united in the work of Inoue Enryo (1858-1919). His widely read and influential book, Bukkyo katsuron joron (1887),1 did much to promote interest in Buddhism among the Western-educated elite of the Meiji Twenties, bringing a new interpretation of Buddhism, the product of two decades of Buddhist reform, out of specialist circles and linking it to the surge in nationalist sentiment of this time. Although Buddhism entered the Meiji period under attack, the foreign heresy against which Shinto was defined, by the 1890s, through the efforts of Inoue and others, it had become a major resource for defining modern, national identity. The apparent paradox is that to promote Buddhism, Inoue gave up his status as a Buddhist priest and took the title of philosopher (tetsugakusha). The word tetsugaku had been introduced into the Japanese language around 1870 by materialist philosopher Nishi Amane. It specifically denoted Western philosophy and carried the post-Enlightenment European connotation of the opposition between religion and philosophy.2 Philosophy was a secular activity.

The previous chapter showed how Buddhist reformers, including Inoue, used the West as a resource in the formation of shin bukkyo [new buddhism]. They adapted the methods of Orientalist scholarship and biblical criticism to their needs. They domesticated Christian institutions in the formation of a local Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA), in instigating a Buddhist marriage ceremony, in using Christianity as a model of the role of religion in modern society. They used Western constructs of scholarship to present Meiji Buddhism as the religion of the modern nation. In Bukkyo katsuron joron, Inoue elaborated on the theme of pro-Buddhist Western scholars who promoted Buddhism as a religion compatible with science and modern thought. He adapted Western philosophical theory to present an analysis of Buddhism. He reinterpreted evolutionary theory to show that Christianity needed Buddhism to reach its full development. This chapter investigates Bukkyo katsuron joron to reveal an additional function of the West in Buddhist revival, Inoue’s deployment of the authority and prestige of Western philosophy in support of Buddhist revival.

Given the reality of Western dominance at this time and the overriding concern to revise Japan’s treaties with the West, Japanese modernity would be measured against the West, and the treaty powers negotiating the terms of revision would be the ultimate assessors of what was acceptable. Consequently, in the battle for the “possession and guidance of social development in the empire,” as the Japan Weekly Mail described the religious debates of the time,3 the important issue was convincing the Western-educated class of Japan of what the Buddhist religion could offer the modern nation. Evidence of this had to stand scrutiny in the terms of the modern West. Inoue used the authority of Western philosophy to argue the case for Buddhism.

By speaking for Buddhism as a philosopher, Inoue assumed the voice of universal rationality. He distanced himself from his Buddhist affiliations and attached the authority of impartial reason (kohei mushi in his terminology) to his speech. He used this claim to unbiased and objective authority to continue the imperatives of Buddhist reform: to denounce Christianity, but also to argue that Japanese Buddhism was the Buddha’s teaching, that Buddhism was not irrational, not otherworldly, not an anachronistic vestige of the past, but the one religion in the world compatible with science and modern thought.[/b]

Because Inoue was a founding member of both the Seikyosha and the Sonno hobutsu daidodan, his work links Buddhist revival with Japanese nationalist sentiment and the political issues of the Meiji Twenties. Most important, the Manifesto, an open letter to the Buddhist community calling for support for the delegation to Chicago, was an echo and a summary of the arguments he presented at length in Bukkyo katsuron joron. The delegation to the Chicago World’s Parliament of Religions emerged from the same stream of Buddhist activity.4 Summarizing Inoue’s arguments can map the field of Buddhist revival discourse at this time. Inoue’s Bukkyo katsuron joron located the various initiatives of revival – the need to win the support of the new generation, the need for Buddhists to undertake social and philanthropic work, the refutation of Christianity, the reestablishment of Buddhism’s links with the state – within the nationalist program for the future of Japan.

Inoue Enryo

Inoue Enryo (1858-1919), born the son of a Jodoshinshu priest, was ordained at an early age and received a Buddhist education. From 1878 until he graduated as a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from Tokyo Imperial University in 1885, his education was funded by the Higashi Honganji as part of its revival program for educating its most able priests. At Tokyo University Inoue studied under the young American professor Ernest Fenollosa, who taught classes in the history of modern Western philosophy, specializing in Hegel and in Herbert Spencer’s theories of social development and evolutionary sociology.5 Such was the interest in Western philosophy among the Japanese elite at this time that Fenollosa was nicknamed daijin sensei (teacher of great men),6 a recognition that many who attended his classes already held positions of responsibility and others were later to become leaders of the nation. Through his study of philosophy Inoue came into contact with this influential elite, and from 1882 he actively worked to promote contact and understanding between Buddhist and secular intellectuals.

Inoue’s period at Tokyo Imperial University coincided with indications of a growing interest in Buddhism among intellectuals. In 1881, Fukuzawa Yukichi, one of the foremost popularizers of Western studies, declared his support for Buddhism and called upon “priests who were amenable to reason” to defend their religion.7 Two years earlier Fukuzawa’s colleague in the Meirokusha (Meiji 6 society, formed to promote Western learning), Kato Hiroyuki, then president of Tokyo University, had appointed Soto Zen priest Hara Tanzan to lecture on Buddhism, thereby setting the precedent of teaching Buddhism as an academic subject within a secular institution, as a system of thought divorced from its ritual and practice. Buddhist philosophy was extracted from Japanese religion and placed in context with Western philosophy and science as a branch of knowledge. It was endowed with the prestige of university recognition.

Although Westernization continued strongly throughout the 1880s, the beginnings of a change of mood, a swing away from adulation of all things Western, at least among the elite, was evident from the early years of the decade. One sign of this was the immediate and generous response to Fenollosa’s plea in 1882 for the preservation of Japanese art. His speech, delivered to the aristocratic Ryuchikai, apparently crystallized an already existing sentiment. Fenollosa received both financial and official support that allowed him to access and catalog surviving collections and train Japanese to continue the work. The emperor showed his personal support by bestowing official court rank on Fenollosa and awarding him several imperial decorations, including the Order of the Sacred Mirror. By 1886 this promotion of Japanese heritage had been officially sanctioned.8

One of the consequences of this revival was the establishment of the Tokyo Fine Art Academy under the direction of Okakura Kakuzo.9 The art this institute promoted was not the result of a nostalgic revival of the past, but a modern application of long-established Japanese expertise. Traditional styles were studied for their universal principles, and the techniques of past eras were applied to make objects suited to contemporary lifestyles. The revival of art, like that of Buddhism, exemplified the Seikyosha ideal of adapting aspects of Japanese heritage to enhance the modern nation. The movement to revive Japanese art indicated both the changed attitude to Westernization and also the functional value of Western authority in validating and promoting the project. Fenollosa led the campaign testifying to the universal value of Japanese art from the perspective of, and in the vocabulary of, Western aesthetics. Invoking the authority and prestige of Western philosophy and his own academic rank as philosopher was the nearest approximation to this voice of Western authority available to Inoue in his revival of Japanese Buddhism.

Inoue the Philosopher

Inoue had established his identity as a philosopher not only through scholarship but also through his activities at university. The Tetsugakkai, the Philosophy Society (1884), developed out a society Inoue formed in 1882 for the study of Kant, Hegel, and Comte, bringing together progressive leaders of both the Buddhist and secular worlds. Core members of this society included Buddhist reform leaders familiar from the previous chapter (Ouchi Seiran, Shimaji Mokurai, Hara Tanzan, Kitabatake Doryu, Kiyozawa Manshi) and other such prominent Meiji intellectuals as Inoue Tetsujiro, Shiga Shigetaka, Miyake Setsurei, Tanabashi Ichiro, and Kato Hiroyuki. A number of these people would later become prominent in the Seikyosha.10 In 1886 the group began publishing a journal, Tetsugaku zasshi (Philosophy magazine), and in 1887 founded the publishing company Tetsugaku shoin (Philosophy Press). This same year Inoue founded his school of philosophy, the Tetsugakkan (later to become Toyo University), teaching Western philosophy but also Chinese and Japanese thought, resuscitating the “pale shadow of Eastern philosophy.”11 In 1889 Inoue traveled to Europe and America to investigate means of teaching Eastern thought there.12 Inoue diligently cultivated his image as philosopher through this constant repetition of the term in his activities.

Inoue made the decisive statement in 1885 when he gave up his Buddhist robes and distanced himself from institutional Buddhism. This in no way diminished his effort to propagate Buddhism, but from this time he worked as an independent citizen. He thereby became an example of the ideal he espoused in Bukkyo katsuron joron, the educated layman committed to Buddhism as a personal philosophical religion, studying Buddhism in the intellectual pursuit of truth and reviving Buddhism to preserve this truth and defend the nation. He worked without the restrictions of a conservative institutional bureaucracy,13 free to emphasize the nonsectarian aspects of shin bukkyo and to criticize the existing state of Buddhism. The greatest advantage, however, was the authority and objectivity of the title “philosopher.” The author’s preface to Bukkyo katsuron joron explained that as a philosopher his discussion of Buddhism was essentially different from that of a priest. The title allowed him to proclaim that his preference for Buddhism and rejection of Christianity was not based on prejudice but on a rational consideration of the issues. He would “judge on the basis of philosophy which is just and takes no sides.”14 This in no way moderated his criticism. Part 2 of Bukkyo katsuron was entirely devoted to denouncing the “evil religion.” But by denouncing it from the supposedly impartial stance of philosopher, Inoue enlisted the support of an audience beyond Buddhists. He did not simply dismiss it as evil but analyzed it as irrational, conceptually untenable, prescientific, deleterious to Japan.15 By taking the title “philosopher” Inoue was able to promote Buddhism and undermine Christian influence from a pedestal of rationality and objectivity. His arguments were made more palatable, he believed, “because my discussion of Buddhism is based on the impartial judgements of philosophy it is essentially different from the explanations of priests in the world.”16

Hosui, the Paradigmatic Meiji Intellectual

Inoue wrote Bukkyo katsuron joron under the pen name Hosui and opened with an account of his search for truth, which positioned Hosui, the autobiographical subject, as the paradigmatic Meiji intellectual.17 He recalled how, prior to the Restoration of 1868, he, like the nation in general, had followed Buddhism as a matter of course with little knowledge of its doctrines and little commitment, “secretly believ[ing] that there was no truth in Buddhism,” and had seized the opportunity offered by the incoming government’s attack on Buddhism (haibutsu kishaku) to “put aside his clerical robes” and seek truth elsewhere.18 Hosui described how he then turned to Confucianism and even Christianity but this brought him nothing more than the conviction that all the traditional religions were inadequate. Hosui, like so many of the Meiji generation, rejected religion because, as he perceived it then, it was not “in accord with the principles of truth.” He was still at the vanguard of intellectual trends in 1873 when he took up Western learning – 1873 was Meiji 6, the year of the formation of the Meirokusha, the society for the promotion of Western learning – and again in the early 1880s when he rejected religion altogether and came to the conclusion that “[t]he truth that I had been struggling for for over ten years was not in Confucianism or Buddhism, nor was it in Christianity; it could only be found in the philosophy that was being taught in the West.”

Unlike others who had followed this path, however, Hosui did not rest here. He turned again to Japanese Buddhism and, with his mind sharpened by his training in philosophy, was finally able to see and understand the truth he had previously failed to notice. “Having discovered the truth within the world of philosophy, when I made one more review of the various religions of the past, it became increasingly clear that the truth is not within Christianity. It was also easy to prove that the truth is not within Confucianism. Only the Buddhist religion is largely in accord with philosophical principles. Then I reviewed the Buddhist scriptures again, and gradually came to know the truth of their theories; I was overjoyed. Who would have thought that the truth that was the product of thousands of years of study in Europe already existed three thousand years ago in the East.”19

The year of this revelation was 1885, the year of Inoue’s graduation, three years after Fukuzawa’s call for the protection of Buddhism, and the year that Ernest Fenollosa, Inoue’s professor of philosophy at Tokyo University, took Buddhist ordination. Whether this is purely coincidental, Fenollosa’s commitment to Tendai, which he described as offering “all the color and texture that Hegel lacked,” would have reinforced Inoue’s confidence in the appeal of Buddhist philosophy to modern Western intellectuals.20 Bukkyo katsuron joron, the record of Inoue’s discovery of the preeminence of Buddhism, was published in 1887. Inoue’s timing coincided with growing reaction against excessive Westernization, and Hosui’s search for the truth mapped the path for patriotic Meiji intellectuals. Inoue vowed to “reform Buddhism and make it a religion for the enlightened world.”

The realization of the preeminence of Buddhist truth was the cornerstone of Inoue’s project. Buddhism alone was in accord with the teachings of modern philosophy and with modern scientific principles. Inoue argued that the Buddha’s highest teaching, the truth of the Middle Way, existed only in Japan because it had died out in India and China. Consequently Japanese Buddhism is the sole source of the truth that Western philosophy has taken “thousands of years to study” to realize. More than this, Japanese Buddhism contains the truth that Western philosophy is only now approaching but does not yet possess. Inoue therefore believed that Western scholars would now welcome Japanese Buddhism and that Buddhism was the one great and unique contribution Japan could made to the modern world. Because of this Buddhism was a source of national pride and potential international prestige. Together these arguments formed his strategy for the revival of Buddhism by attracting support among the educated elite under the slogan gokoku airi, the defense of the nation through the love of truth.

Gokoku Airi

Gokoku airi united the fundamental sentiments of patriotism, intellectual reverence for the truth, and a Confucian sense of duty. The opening lines of Bukkyo katsuron joron asked, “[W]ho has been born that does not care about his country? Who has studied and does not love the truth?” It was the scholar’s patriotic duty to study became “when a nation has no scholarship it cannot progress”; it was his obligation to study because a scholar owed his existence to the nation. “When a scholar has no nation he cannot sustain his existence.” Because the nation must be independent to produce wisdom and scholarship, Japanese scholars had a duty to work for the preservation of Japan’s independence. Because scholars were also citizens and “it is a citizen’s duty to defend the nation …. it is the duty of scholars to carry out, at the same time, both the great principles of defense of the nation and love of the truth.”21

This apparently secular formulation was transformed into a revitalization of Buddhism by Inoue’s Buddhist definition of truth. His term, shinri no ri, was emphatically not restricted to a positivist, empiricist truth of Western philosophy, which was, in his view, “appropriate for experiential study of concrete objects but useless for the investigation of the intangible truth.”22 The truth for scholars to pursue was not the truth that forms “the basis of the branches of study and the arts … which are allowed to change along with the progress of the world.” It was rather “the unchanging and immutable truth,” “the truth that forms the basis of religion.” It was the truth that is the nature of Buddhism.23 “The underlying principle of the truth is not bounded by the world nor by the universe, and there is nothing in heaven or the cosmos to which it does not penetrate. It is truly ubiquitous, extensive, unfathomable and profound. It is truly without beginning, without end, immeasurable and innumerable. Therefore, to limit all ideas of it to this earth … is … the mistaken view of a scholar”24

The scholar was called upon to defend the nation through the study of Buddhist philosophy because this was the highest expression of truth. Inoue’s formulation of gokoku airi also linked patriotism with the more specifically Buddhist concern of reestablishing the relationship between Buddhism and the state, the concern that led Inoue and his colleagues to form the Sonno hobutsu daidodan (Great Society for Revering the Emperor and Worshiping the Buddha). The interdependence between a scholar and his nation that was basic to this scheme can be read as a reformulation of the traditional relationship between the religion and the state familiar in South and Southeast Asia as the reciprocally beneficial interdependence of the sangha (community of religious specialists) and the state: the security of the nation is essential for the sangha to pursue dharma, and the production of dharma is essential for the prosperity of the state. In Japan the concept was embodied in the expression obo-buppo, the inseparability of imperial law and the Buddha’s law. In Inoue’s scheme the sangha and its pursuit of dharma was replaced by the lay community pursuing philosophic truth. Because this truth was equated with Buddhist truth, the lay community was in effect to take on the duty of the sangha. Gokoku airi was a reformulation of Buddhist polity adapted to a modern democratic and secular state, a polity based on the interdependence of the scholar and the nation rather than of the state and the community of religious specialists.

Deploying Western Philosophy

The study of Western philosophy was not excluded by gokoku airi but seen as essential, if preliminary, training. As Hosui, the authorial subject of Bukkyo katsuron joron confessed, he had initially failed to recognize the truth in Buddhism because “my scholarly abilities were meager then and I was incapable of making that discovery”25 He was only able to recognize the truth that had always existed in Buddhism after the study of Western philosophy had increased his intellectual capability. For Inoue, Western philosophy, unlike Christianity, was a source of truth, but its truth was not as complete or profound as the truth of Japanese Buddhism. It occupied a position similar to the preliminary teachings of the Buddha (hoben), the teachings that provided the mental development that is a necessary prerequisite to understanding the more profound truth.26 Inoue left no doubt that Buddhist thought surpassed Western philosophy. “The only thing in which present day Western philosophy excels is providing theories as a foundation of scientific experimentaion.”27 Proving this was one function of the survey of Western thought and its comparison with the various teachings of the Buddha which constitute the body of the work.28

In Bukkyo katuson joron Inoue summarized the history of Western philosophy, showing how it developed through the dialectical resolution of oppositions. Locke’s empiricism, followed by Leibnitz’s naturalism, had been integrated by Kant; the materialism of Hume and the idealism of Burke had produced Reid’s dualism; Fichte’s subjectivity and Schelling’s objectivity had been harmonized by Hegel’s idealism. Post-Kantian German Idealism and Scottish common sense were reconciled by the Frenchman Cousins. Spencer reconciled intellectual and nonintellectual extremes. Inoue’s point was that the development was not yet complete: “[A]ll these theories contain some sort of excess which would in turn require resolution. Although the scholars have striven to maintain impartiality they have not been able to do so.” The teaching of Sakyamuni, on the other hand, embraced and reconciled these oppositions in the teaching of the Middle Way. “Unlike modern philosophers, Sakyamuni lived three thousand years ago, and yet was aware of the dangers of leaning toward extremes.”29 Because it resolved this excess, the Middle Way is greater than any Western philosophy, “unparalleled in all the world and throughout the ages.”30 The point of the survey of Western philosophy was to prove Buddhist superiority. The various sects of Buddhism contained all the knowledge of Western philosophy, but Western philosophy had not yet reached the stage of evolution of Japanese Mahayana.

Inoue validated this claim by conditionally identifying each of the theories of Western philosophy with the teaching of sects within Buddhism. This “identification” of Western philosophy and Buddhism is exemplified by his discussion of the Hinayana sect, Kusha. Inoue began by equating Kusha with Western materialism on the grounds that it is also based on the constant existence of elements of matter. These are the Five Aggregates (goun in Japanese; panca skandha in Sanskrit), which Inoue explained at some length.31 The explanation then led to the qualification that Kusha was essentially different from materialism because among these five Buddhist elements, only one was matter in the Western sense of the word. The other four were perception, conception, volition, and consciousness, which are classified in the West as mind. Hence, Inoue concluded, Kusha differed widely from materialism. “Seen in this light, it [Kusha] is a philosophical theory of dualism.”32 In the space of a few paragraphs he had overturned his original equation, but the tentative identification had served its purpose by providing an opportunity to expound Buddhist doctrine. He had introduced the reader to a fundamental Buddhist concept. By a similarly qualified and partial identification of the Buddhist concept of “storehouse consciousness” (Japanese araya shiki, Sanskrit alaya vijnana) with the absolute subjectivity of Kant and Fichte, Inoue equated the Hosso sect with Western idealism, and the Tendai concept of ri with Hegel’s absolute reason.

Inoue’s scheme was to present Buddhist thought as both encompassing all of Western philosophy and, following the dialectical pattern of the West, having preceded it to its final development. Unlike Western philosophy, however, Buddhist teaching did not gradually evolve through the trials and error of men. It had all been taught by the Buddha Sakyamuni during his lifetime. According to the Tendai doctrine of goji (Five Periods) the apparently diverse sects of Buddhism are related as graded and partial revelations of the one truth of the Mahayana Middle Way.

The Buddha’s teachings are divided into five periods. In the first, immediately after his Awakening, the Buddha revealed the Middle Way of the Avatamsaka Sutra.33 However, he realized that this was beyond the comprehension of those in his audience. “They simply could not hear what was being explained to them” because they were “clinging to the belief in the distinction of self and non-self.”34 So he then explained the superficial doctrines of the Hinayana, “simply explaining the vanity of believing in the self.” This accomplished, he was then able to teach the Vaipulya sutras and then, by these degrees of the truth adapted to the audience’s ability to comprehend, to progress toward the Mahayana sutras. The message was that the Mahayana teaching of the Middle Way had been his original teaching, his last teaching, and the only complete teaching of his truth. The other teachings were expedients. As such, they were not false but incomplete. They were stepping-stones to the truth. The Middle Way of Japanese Tendai Buddhism was, Inoue explained, a more perfect expression of the conclusions reached thousands of years later by Hegel. By this scheme Inoue not only established Sakyamuni’s priority over Hegel but also answered the charge that the Mahayana was not the Buddha’s teaching.

Throughout the argument, Inoue’s identification of Buddhist concepts with Western philosophical terms was always qualified and, as in the claim of the identity of the teachings of Hegel and Tendai, was always drawn from isolated examples, the coincidence of isolated principles rather than of coherent systems. Nowhere does he give an explication of any Western philosophy. Western names and categories appear rather as signposts within an introductory explication of Buddhist thought – guides to familiarize the territory to his Western-educated audience. Inoue used the prestige of Western philosophy to draw attention to, create interest in, and then expound Japanese Buddhism.

Buddhism and Patriotism

The strong patriotic concern for the welfare and independence of the nation embodied in gokoku airi pervaded Bukkyo katsuron joron. The first step for scholars was to become better equipped to serve the nation through the study of philosophy.35 Next, Inoue called upon them to revive Buddhism because it was the highest form of philosophy. “The doctrines of Buddhism are truly unparalleled in the world and peerless throughout eternity. Should we not offer our strength for this truth? Should we not offer our hearts for the sake of this truth?”36 The intellectual passion for truth was to be justification enough for its preservation. There were, however, more explicitly patriotic reasons for reviving Buddhism, and in 1887, the time of the publication, treaty revision and its implications of Western imperialism were the focus of patriotic concern.

In Bukkyo katsuron joron Inoue introduced the basic Seikyosha premise that defense against Western imperialism depended on developing a strong national spirit. This would win the respect of foreign powers as well as assist in building a strong nation, one that was capable of making a distinctive contribution to international welfare and progress. It was only by maintaining a distinctive national identity that Japan could expect to deal with the world as an equal, and this was the basic aim of treaty revision.

Inoue challenged the belief that adopting Christianity would assist revision with a pragmatic statement of the reality of international relations. Japan’s present inability to establish relations of equality with Westerns was not because of any difference in religion or language but a matter of strength: “If a nation creates both financial solvency and strong military power, the people of that nation will have the necessary strength for instantly forming equal friendships with the West and revising unequal treaties, no matter what religion they are practicing.”37

The role of religion in strengthening the nation lay in its direct relationship with the spirit of man. The advantage of Buddhism was its long connection with Japanese culture. For more than a thousand years, he wrote, it had permeated the hearts and minds of the Japanese. Adopting Christianity would harm the spirit of the country and forfeit the independence of Japan. Progress, he continued, depended on maintaining a balance between heredity and adaptation. Therefore, adapting Japanese Buddhism to modern requirements would be more conducive to progress than following the early Meiji trend of adopting the completely foreign Christianity. “To unseat Buddhism and replace it with Christianity would surely have a negative influence on the spirit of independence.” It would result in “the loss of Japan’s inherited nature, and would unquestionably impair its development”38 He simply could not explain “why anyone believes that by abandoning Buddhism and accepting Christianity we will be obtaining a more satisfactory means for establishing international relations, promoting a national constitution, or realizing the goal of treaty revision”39

The intimate connection between religion and the spirit of man was also an argument against conversion to assist modernization. Because “the West has a nature peculiar to the West,” there was no reason to believe that any benefits that Christianity did bestow on the West would be transferred to Japan.40 Inoue also confronted the assumed association between Western progress and Christianity, arguing that, even within the West, Christianity obstructed progress, it “oppressed men’s spirits and impeded the development of scholarship.”41 Western progress has been achieved in spite of Christianity. Nevertheless, he observed, in Japan Christianity had attracted young men of talent. In a passage of Bukkyo katsuron joron that may well have been addressed to the Doshisha Christians, typical of the talented and ambitious men who converted to Christianity, Inoue wrote: “It is said that the talented men, who should have ambitions for the future, are converted early in life to Christianity …. When I hear about this, I am deeply grieved…. If they have the intention of loving the country how can they not promote their country’s traditional religion? If they know that the clergy’s ignorance and lack of intelligence make it unfit to map out the revival of Buddhism, why do they not plan for the revival of the religion without the clergy?”42

A Secular Sangha

The question Inoue posed was particularly pertinent because these converts rejected all traditional religion equally. The Christianity they had originally adopted was a liberal theology, elaborated upon by their own reading of contemporary criticism. By the late 1880s, the time of Inoue’s publication, they had distanced themselves from missionaries and were developing their own rationalized, demythologized interpretation of the Christian doctrine. Why, Inoue suggested, invoking the reform ideal of koji Buddhism, did they not carry out a similar exercise on Japanese religion? Why not redirect their considerable intellectual effort to making the Japanese religion meet their ideals rather than the foreign one?

Inoue did not attempt to deny that Buddhism as it could be observed in contemporary Japan was in a degraded state and in dire need of reform. Rather, in the mode of all rhetoricians attempting to stir outrage and action, the picture he painted was exaggerated. “Present-day Buddhism is practiced among foolish laymen, it is handed down by foolish clergy, and it is full of depravities; in short it is not free of becoming a barbaric doctrine.”43 This was “nothing intrinsic to Buddhism”; Buddhism simply reflected the “corrupt customs of society.”44 Inoue’s own efforts to effect change included promoting Buddhist philanthropy and campaigning against non-Buddhist superstition, folk belief in ghosts and the supernatural.45

Another passage of Bukkyo katsuron joron that might have been directed at the Doshisha converts confronted the belief of the Min’yusha (Friends of the Nation) that social evolution justified their assiduous Westernization. As they saw it, because social evolution was universally applicable, all societies must pass through the same stages. Therefore, for Japan to outstrip the West it must therefore follow the same path. They believed Japan would be able to overtake the West because of the superiority of the Japanese spirit. Inoue recognized that the intention of “our countrymen in accepting the West and studying English and German is not to make Japan an imitator and follower of other countries, but to make it a competitor and rival that will someday surpass the West.”46 Nevertheless, he warned, Japan would never overtake the West by following in its footsteps, or by discarding its strong points and adopting the shortcomings of the West. This could only be achieved by building a strong national identity, which, as he had already argued, depended on reviving and preserving Buddhism. Buddhism, in spite of its present state, was one of the strengths of Japan. In an argument that paralleled that of his Seikyosha colleague Shiga Shigetaka, Inoue argued that imitation was poor political strategy. It would lead the West to despise the Japanese as lacking energy, strength, and an independent spirit. Imitation was the behavior of slaves and flatterers: “[T]hey may regard us as a vassal state … but never, by any stretch of the imagination, look upon us as equals”47 In the Nihonjin a year later he would be even more explicit. “The best way Japanese can be made Japanese and Japan can remain independent was to preserve and propagate Buddhism.”48


Buddhism and International Prestige

Inoue believed in the necessity of projecting Japanese achievement in indigenous terms, not as an imitation of the West. For him Buddhism was the means by which Japan could gain the respect of the world and contribute to international welfare. Buddhism is Japan’s “special product”, its “strong point,” a source of national identity and international recognition and prestige. The proposal carried the nationalistic appeal of Japanese superiority and offered hope for the practical result of gaining recognition as a “civilized” nation and thereby effecting treaty revision. On top of all this, Inoue offered the altruistic appeal of contributing to the benefit of the world as a whole.

First, he argued Japan’s responsibility to Asia. Buddhism is the basis of Eastern civilization and has greatly influenced its scholarship, language, customs, and even the sentiments of its people.49 However, “the good strain” of Buddhism, the Mahayana, had died out elsewhere; it was virtually extinct in its country of origin and the little that did remain “is only the shallow doctrine of the Hinayana.”50 Japan, therefore, as the sole repository of the Buddha’s highest teaching, had a particular duty to preserve and propagate it. “Only in our country, Japan, do we have these sacred sects and texts, as well as people who know the profundities of the one vehicle [Mahayana]. If this is not maintained in Japan today, and if the people leave, the writings perish, and the sects are destroyed, in what land will Buddhism rise again? This is why the support of Buddhism is our most pressing urgent need today.”51

Inoue did not miss the opportunity to suggest that the survival of the Mahayana teachings in Japan was also evidence of the racial superiority of the Japanese. Mahayana Buddhism had died out elsewhere because of the deterioration of the races. His botanical metaphor of the “strains” of a plant emphasized that, though deriving from a common ancestral seed, the Mahayana Buddhism of India and China was not the same as the Mahayana Buddhism of Japan. The “good strain” was “the special product of the country that nurtured it.” There was, however, “absolutely no reason why it cannot be transplanted to other lands.”52

The next step was a pragmatic recognition of the superiority of Western achievement: that there was very little that Japan could produce that was not already available in the West, that the West was also ahead in its social and public institutions, the model for “government, law, the military system, education, the physical sciences and technology.” The one advantage that Japan had, he argued, was religion, and because “this fine product of ours excels those of other countries”53 it was “the one thing that Japan might transmit to foreign countries and thereby win fame.”54

Inoue then appealed to the sense of duty of his Confucian-educated readers. Just as it is the duty of Japan’s farmers to make agriculture flourish and to export food to foreign countries, and the duty of merchants to increase trade and to compete with the foreigners, it is the scholars’ duty to their country to make learning and religion prosper and to propagate them abroad.55 He assured his readers that the West would welcome Japanese Buddhism. “Western scholars have come to hate Christianity bitterly, and day and night, they are eagerly looking for a religion based upon philosophy.”56 Japanese Buddhism offered the evolutionary completion of Western philosophy, as well as philosophical Buddhism, a religion that accommodated the spiritual needs of the modern world. As a religion based on philosophical truth, far from being in conflict with philosophy as Christianity appeared to be, if offered an introduction to it. The fact that Western scholars studied Buddhism indicated an existing interest in Buddhism in the West, but this interest was not as great as it could be because the West only had very limited and biased access to its truth. Their scholars only investigated the Hinayana, “the most shallow of all Buddhism,” and Western understanding was further hindered by the fact that “the books about Buddhism sent to the West were all written by Christians.”57 Inoue’s message was clear. If the West was to realize the worth of Japanese Buddhism, able Japanese scholars must present it to them.

Fundamental to the whole argument was the evolutionary imperative for competition between species. Not only was Buddhism the most perfect expression of the truth that the Western world had been seeking for centuries, but it would provide the competition with Christianity that was essential if the West was to reach its full evolutionary development. The progress of man depended on competition between different cultures. Japan had a mission – a moral obligation – to develop its distinctive national characteristics to advance world civilization. History demonstrated the need for diversity. The prosperity of the West was a consequence of “competition among all the branches of learning and the arts,” but “when any kind of scholarship or religion is implemented as the sole ideology of that nation, progress is impeded.”58 The West had no religion except Christianity, which carried the additional burden of being “often guilty of obstructing the development of science and philosophy.” Introducing Buddhism would provide the competition essential to stimulate progress without which Christian civilization could not reach its full potential. “This is one more reason why the promotion of Buddhism in Japan is one of the most pressing needs of the day.”59

Though this may seem a particularly beneficent concern, Inoue, like Hirai at the World’s Parliament of Religions, believed that Christianity at its full development – when it had overcome its reliance on myth, mental props such as its concept of Deity, and unscientific doctrines – would not be different from Mahayana Buddhism. It was an expression of generosity not unlike that of the Christian missionaries who came to the East “not to destroy but to fulfill.” Summarizing his argument for the revitalization of Buddhism, Inoue concluded rhetorically, “[I]s it not Buddhism alone that can make our country’s scholarship independent in the East, and supersede that of the West? Is it not Buddhism alone that will make our country’s doctrines overwhelm the world and swallow the globe? Is it not Buddhism alone that can make Japan’s prestige shine throughout the world, and make Japan’s fame resound throughout eternity? Should we not defend this teaching for the sake of the nation? Should we not love this religion for the sake of truth?”60

Taking Buddhism to the West

Whether in response to Inoue’s plea or not, toward the end of the 1880s Japanese Buddhists, led by the Honganji institutions (both Nishi Honganji and Higashi Honganji), developed international contacts. Although there had been contact from earlier times the initiative was formalized with the founding of the Society for Communication with Western Buddhists (Obei bukkyo tsushinkai) [later reorganized as the Buddhist Propagation Society (Kaigai Senkyo Kai, literally Overseas Missionary Society), under the leadership of Akamatsu Renjo] in 1887 under the leadership of Akamatsu Renjo. Akamatsu, an associate of Inoue, had been one of the first Buddhists to travel to Europe and the first to write on Japanese Buddhism in English. A branch office was opened in London in 1890, and a journal, Bijou of Asia, was published.61 The arguments of Bukkyo katsuron joron explain the essential connection between the propagation of Buddhism overseas and the contest of religions within Meiji Japan. It was at least as much a strategy in the discourse determining the religious future of Japan as a missionary drive for expansion. In this context the invitation to the World’s Parliament of Religions was an outstanding opportunity. The Parliament provided a chance to speak directly to a select audience of religious specialists, to introduce them to Japanese Mahayana, and, moreover, offered the opportunity, through the publication of the proceedings, for the reform representation of Buddhism to enter into Western discourse.

Conclusion

The apparent paradox in Inoue Enryo’s career is that he broke his formal ties with Buddhism in order to promote it. Such was the authority of the West in Japan in the 1880s that even in a time of reaction against excessive Westernization, a time when many Japanese were looking to their indigenous heritage in search of a distinctive national identity, Japanese Buddhism had to be validated in the international currency of Western standards. To do this, Inoue adopted the title of philosopher – a distinctively Western title at that time – and, with it, the claim to speak on behalf of Buddhism with the voice of unbiased reason.

He used this claim to rational, objective authority to establish the superiority of Buddhist thought by comparison with the standards of universal reason. He used Western philosophical theory to present an analysis of Buddhism. He used the names of Western philosophy to attract the attention of the Western-educated elite and the terms of Western philosophy to signpost the less familiar concepts of Buddhist teaching. But Inoue’s identity as a philosopher offered more than this. Just as Fenollosa’s authority on Western art and aesthetics had been crucial in launching the revival of Japanese art, Inoue’s credentials in Western philosophy validated his promotion of Japanese Buddhism. This recourse to Western authority was also a factor in taking Japanese Buddhism to Chicago. Acceptance of Japanese Buddhism in the international, Western, and Christian event – or at least the appearance of acceptance – validated the revivalist project. However, regardless of the importance of Western philosophy in Inoue’s work, there is no question that what he taught in Bukkyo katsuron joron was Buddhism. I suggest that Inoue’s use of Western philosophy is best understood as a deployment of Western authority. What was important in this exercise was the authority that Western philosophy commanded among Inoue’s target audience. The term “deployment” points to a strategic purpose – in this case, Inoue’s related projects of recreating a role for Buddhism in modern Japanese society and establishing a relationship between Buddhism and the new Japanese state.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:01 am

CHAPTER 7: DEPLOYING WESTERN AUTHORITY I

Henry Steel Olcott in Japan


Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, founder and president of the Theosophical Society, toured Japan from February 9 to May 28, 1889, at the invitation of a committee of young Buddhists led by Hirai Kinzo, "to do for the religion of [Japan] what he and his colleagues have done for the religion of India."1 The tour is significant in this discussion as one in a series of events linking the Buddhist revival of Inoue Enryo and his associates, Seikyosha nationalism, and the delegation to Chicago, and. in demonstrating their shared concern with the value of the West in authorizing local initiatives. There is, for a start, a continuity of personnel. Lay delegates Hirai Kinzo and Noguchi Zenshiro were prominent in the organization, and there is a constant background presence of Shimaji Mokurai, Akamatsu Renjo, and Nanjo Bun'yu in both the tour and the delegation.2 More significant, though, is the organization of the performance itself. In a gesture not unlike Inoue's use of the names and labels of Western philosophy to attract an audience and signpost his introduction to Buddhist thought, Olcott was paraded about the nation as a sign of Western approval of Buddhism. His speeches extolling Buddhism, attacking Christianity, urging the preservation of Japanese heritage, warning of the inadequacies of Western culture, and advocating Buddhist missions to the West reinforced and verified the arguments of the reform movement typified by the writings of Inoue. The timing, too, was ideal. Olcott arrived on February 9, 1889, just two days before the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution. His tour was part of the surge of activity in Buddhist reform in the Meiji Twenties. The political concerns of Buddhist reform were symbolized by the union of nationalist and Buddhist flags flying over the processions of priests and waved by the vast crowds that gathered to welcome Olcott to provincial centers.3

The importance of his Western identity is underlined by the discrepancy between the public feting of Olcott by his hosts -- among whom are many familiar as supporters of the political Buddhist organizations already mentioned and the delegation to Chicago -- and their awareness of the inadequacy of his understanding of Buddhism. Like Ernest Fenollosa, who had fronted the revival of Japanese art, Olcott was a Western authority speaking on behalf of Buddhism. As the "White Buddhist," a title bestowed on him by the press in Ceylon and repeated by the Japanese press, he was living testimony to Western interest in the Buddhist religion, a testimony that was enhanced by his position as founder and president of a Western religious organization.4 He was a religious specialist. Most significant, however, he embodied many of the ideals of Buddhist modernity. He was a practical man of action, a colonel in the American army (a military rank no doubt added to his standing in a society where the ex-samurai still constituted an elite); a man of science, since he had achieved initial prominence through his research and publications on scientific agriculture; an experienced lawyer and journalist; an ambassador for Buddhism with firsthand knowledge of bureaucratic government.5 Olcott's credentials, widely reported in newspapers, preceded him on tour, countering the accusation that Buddhism was incompatible with modern Western life. By the time of his tour of Japan his achievements on behalf of Buddhism in Ceylon were added to his authority. He was a proven champion of Buddhism. Noguchi spoke of him as "Jamashaka, 'Bodhisat of the nineteenth century.'"6

Olcott's fame did not depend solely on his exploits in Asia. His reputation as founder of the Theosophical Society also aroused interest -- particularly among the European community in Japan -- and the fact that discussion of Olcott and his Theosophy in Christian circles was often critical did not detract from his prestige among Japanese Buddhists. Rather, the very existence of Theosophy and its growing following confirmed the Buddhist claim that Christianity was failing in the West and that Christians were seeking an alternative religion. Moreover, in the atmosphere of confrontation in Japan, Christian hostility reinforced Olcott's alliance with Buddhists. The discussion within the European community, as well as the publicity of the extensive press coverage of his tour, also served to bring the issues of the revitalization of Buddhism to the attention of the Western-educated elite who previously had little to do with religion. Consequently, Olcott's tour was an extension of previous initiatives such as Inoue Enryo's Philosophical Society, and of the work of Seikyosha Buddhists like Ouchi Seiran and Inoue in attempting to engage the secular elite in the preservation and defense of Buddhism.7 It publicized and lent Western authority to the existing movement.

The importance of Olcott's "Western-ness" is underlined by the lack of media interest in Olcott's traveling companion, the young Ceylonese lay Buddhist David Hevaviratne (Anagarika Dharmapala), who was rapidly becoming a leader of Buddhist revival in Ceylon. Dharmapala was unwell and spent almost the entire visit in the hospital in Kyoto, where he was befriended by Japanese Buddhist activists. The Japanese formed a local branch of Dharmapala's Mahabodhi Society (Indo busseki kofuku) to assist in the project of restoring the sites of Buddhist pilgrimage. Later, at the World's Parliament of Religions, the Mahabodhi link and cooperation between Dharmapala and the Japanese would be displayed as symbols of Buddhist universality.

Colonel Olcott's Theosophical interpretation of Buddhism was apparently also of little concern to his Japanese hosts.8 First, the large majority of Olcott's audiences spoke no English and consequently depended on the Japanese translation, which, Olcott "was pained beyond expression" to discover, did not necessarily adhere to his ideas.9 Second, Japanese would not expect a non-Japanese to have grasped the profundities of Japanese Buddhist doctrine. Olcott, after all, had taken his Buddhist vows in Ceylon, and the superiority of Japanese Buddhism over Theravada was not questioned in Japan. He spoke of the value of Buddhism in general, of its superiority over Christianity, of the need for Western-educated Asians to preserve their distinctive heritage, of the flaws in the Western way of life. His presence on tour attested to his commitment. Although, as we will see, it would become so later, Olcott's actual understanding of Buddhist teaching was beside the point to the tour organizers.10

The organizing committee -- headed by Hirai Kinzo and the Reverend Sano, "an influential priest," evidence of cooperation between lay Buddhists and clergy in Japan -- was clearly aware of events within the international Buddhist community. Its expectations were specific. As Noguchi, who had been dispatched to escort Olcott to Japan, explained to an Indian audience: "We, Japanese Buddhists, now ask you to lend us this worker of social miracles, this defender of religion, this teacher of tolerance, for a little time, so that he may do for the religion of my country what he and his colleagues have done for the religion of India. We are praying that Colonel Olcott will come and help us; to come and revive the hopes of the old men, to put courage into the hearts of our young men, to prove to the graduates of our colleges and universities, and to those who have been sent to America and Europe for education, that Western science is not infallible, and not a substitute, but the natural sister of Religion."11

Olcott was to bring hope and encouragement, revive pride in Japanese religion, and counter the tendency toward Western materialism. The committee expected that the commitment to Buddhism of this Western authority would restore Japanese confidence in Buddhism as a religion for the modern world. Noguchi also spoke of the tasks Japan faced: the unification of Buddhist sects, the education of both priests and laymen, the reconversion of Japanese to Buddhism, discrimination in the adoption of things Western.12 These aims had long been on the reform agenda, and although he would make greater claims, Olcott was invited to Japan to act as a catalyst for developments that had been put in place some time earlier. He was to be a European spokesman for a revival movement that was already well defined and had made substantial progress. His role was to attract the interest of a wider community to the Buddhist cause through his authority as a Western sympathizer of Buddhism.13 This had been his achievement in Ceylon, which he was invited to repeat in Japan.

Because of this it is necessary to give a brief account of Olcott's career in Buddhist revival in Ceylon before discussing his tour of Japan. The Ceylon experience was important to Olcott's Japanese hosts because it established his reputation as white champion of Buddhism. It is important in this discussion because it characterizes Olcott's interest in and knowledge of Buddhism, and also because it establishes that Olcott was invited to Japan after, and in spite of, Ceylonese disillusionment with Olcott and accusations that he propagated false doctrine.

Olcott and Buddhist Revival in Ceylon

In 1879 R. S. Copleston, Anglican bishop of Colombo, wrote of the "impetus" Buddhism was receiving from displays of European interest.14 His letter was prompted by a Buddhist pamphlet that reprinted and publicized a letter Olcott had sent to Mohottivatte Gunananda and Hikkaduve Sumangala, high priest of Adam's Peak, both leaders of the Buddhist revival, congratulating them on their success in debate against Christian missionaries.15 The letter was accompanied by extracts from Madame Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled, described rather loosely by the bishop as "an English book on Buddhism." Copleston expressed his concern for the effect this "nonsense" had on both the common people and on the educated Sinhalese who used it to "justify their adherence to the national religion" and stressed the potency of Western approval in attracting the educated elite to Buddhism. "All that comes out here is made much of," he warned.

The impact of the pamphlet may well have inspired Mohottivatte and Sumangala to organize Olcott's first triumphant visit to Ceylon in May 1880. The tour, as it began, was essentially a parade of Western interest in Buddhism. Although he arrived in Colombo on May 16 and met Mohottivatte there, Olcott and Blavatsky continued on board the ship until the southern port of Galle. Olcott's reception took place in Galle -- the area of greatest Buddhist support -- and unfolded as a continuous series of processions, welcoming ceremonies, and speaking engagements organized by the monks and reported in the press. The tour was thus preceded into British strongholds by descriptions of its success and the news that a "pukka sahib" and a Russian princess (Madame Blavatsky) had embraced Buddhism. "We were the first white champions of their religion speaking of its excellence ... in the face of the missionaries, its enemies and its slanderers."16

However it might have been originally envisaged, the significance of Olcott's work in Ceylon was not restricted to this legitimation and publicizing of Buddhism. Once involved, Olcott enthusiastically embraced and advanced the Buddhist cause. The Ceylonese Buddhist monks had a clear perception of their needs and aims but were hampered in their ability to achieve them, first by the restrictions Theravada Buddhism imposed on the association between monks and the lay community, and second by Ceylon's colonial status, which placed the monks at a severe disadvantage in dealings with the foreign, English-speaking and Christian-supporting administration. Olcott's anomalous position as a foreign sympathizer allowed the waiving of the rules of the Vinaya forbidding a monk to associate on equal terms with a layman,17 and from this position he was able to apply his considerable organizational skills liaising between the laity and the priesthood,18 a major factor in the success of the program to establish Buddhist schools.

His bureaucratic experience was put to use in 1884 when he traveled to London to intercede with the Colonial Office on behalf of Ceylonese Buddhists. The concessions he gained included official recognition of Buddhism's position as the religion of the majority of the people, an achievement symbolized by the instigation of the national holiday for Wesak, the commemoration of the Buddha's birthday. Buddhists of Ceylon were also granted permission to hold religious processions, and Buddhist registrars of births, deaths, and marriages were to be established so that Buddhists would no longer be "forced as hitherto to depend for these services upon their bitter enemies of other faiths."19 Olcott attributed the success of his mission to his "long familiarity with the methods of public business."20 His experience in law is also apparent in the drafting of his submissions.21 In these instances his value to Buddhism depended on his personal skill and experience and on the particular problems faced by Theravada Buddhists under colonial administration. The Japanese situation, however, did not allow Olcott the opportunity for similar achievements on their behalf. Consequently, the tour of Japan was planned along the lines of the original Ceylonese demonstration of Western support, with a similarly tight schedule of orchestrated parades, welcoming crowds, photographic sessions, an exhausting lecture program, and extensive press coverage.

Buddhism as Theosophy

Olcott had originally accepted the invitation to Ceylon as an opportunity to establish branches of the Theosophical Society. Once he became involved in local issues, however, the promotion of Buddhist reform took priority and he declared that the Theosophical Society in Ceylon would be "devoted to all matters concerning Buddhism and would be the means of spreading Buddhist propaganda."22 The non-Theosophical nature of the society in Ceylon was underlined by the formation of a small and entirely separate "Lanka Theosophical Society composed of Freethinkers and amateurs of occult research."23

Similarly, although the invitation to tour Japan included the inducement of forming Japanese branches of the Theosophical Society, the one local branch of the society created with "Hongwanji officials for officers" was, as even Olcott observed, a mere formality; it "never did any practical work as such."24 By the time of his visit to Japan Olcott had become occupied with the idea of uniting the various Buddhists of the world, creating a united front against Christianity, and a common platform from which to proselytize. This was to be achieved through the Buddhist Division of the Theosophical Society, led by Olcott himself, "for it goes without saying that it can never be effected by any existing organization known as a Buddhistic agency."25 By the end of his first tour of Japan, Olcott was so enthusiastic about the plan that he considered resigning from the Theosophical movement to devote himself entirely to building up "an International Buddhistic League that might send the Dharma like a tidal wave around the world." Nothing eventuated from this idea because it was opposed by both Madame Blavatsky and "a far higher personage than she."26

Olcott's personal ambition for his visit to Japan was to initiate this movement by uniting Southern and Northern Buddhists, and to this end he carried a letter in Sanskrit from Sumangala, representing Theravada Buddhists, to the chief priests of Japanese Buddhism expressing the hope that the Buddhists of Asia would unite for the good of the whole Eastern world.27 As Olcott informed the gathering of the heads of the Eight Buddhist Sects of Japan: "My mission is not to propagate the peculiar doctrines of anyone sect but to unite you in one sacred undertaking."28 While Meiji Buddhist reformers were similarly committed to a united, nonsectarian platform, their goal was a union of Japanese Buddhist sects. Any vision they might have held of union between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists was not to be achieved by reduction to a lowest common denominator, as Olcott proposed, but by encompassing the Theravada within the ultimate truth of Japanese Mahayana.

Why did Olcott wish to promote Buddhist unity? One reason was that he was opposed to the Christian missionary effort in Asia and believed that only by banding together could Buddhists be strong enough to compete with the Christians and counter the immense strength and wealth of the Christians with their Bible, tract, Sunday school, and missionary societies.29 Another reason was his Theosophical interpretation of Buddhism, which saw the Buddha as one of the Adepts and equated his teaching with Theosophy, the occult science that lay at the root of all true knowledge.30 Olcott's own account of taking Buddhist vows in Ceylon shows that he rejected all existing Buddhist practice: "[T]o be a regular Buddhist is one thing, and to be a debased modern Buddhist sectarian is quite another." He also claimed the greatest possible freedom for personal interpretation: "[ i]f Buddhism contained a single dogma that we were compelled to accept, we would not have taken the pansil nor remained Buddhists ten minutes."31 Olcott's public avowal of "Buddhism" was for him simply a statement of his commitment to Theosophy.32 "Our Buddhism was that of the Master-Adept Gautama Buddha, which was identically the Wisdom Religion of the Aryan Upanishads, and the soul of all the ancient world-faiths."33

Consequently, although Olcott's interpretation of Buddhism, like that of Pali scholars, denied the legitimacy of contemporary Buddhists whose practices he regarded as degenerations from the original teachings of the Master-Adept, it diverged significantly in other respects. It did not privilege Theravada Buddhism over the later Mahayana Buddhism, for it was here that he most readily found the "Mahatmas" and the "siddhis" of Theosophy. He also accepted the doctrine of the succession of Buddhas, the teaching that Sakyamuni was one in a line of Buddhas that are born in this world to revive the perennial dharma. This doctrine, though found in the earliest Pali sutras, was typically dismissed as "priestly elaboration" because it conflicted with the historical view that Buddhism was founded by Sakyamuni. It did, however, conform to the Theosophical account of the Adepts, conveniently providing Madame Blavatsky's "pre-Vedic Buddhism."

Olcott's Buddhist publications borrowed freely from the sources of both Northern and Southern Buddhism to support his Theosophical mission. The Golden Rules of Buddhism (1887) contained a chapter called "Adeptship a Fact" -- an overt appropriation of Buddhism to the cause of Theosophy -- that depended on selected passages from Chinese Buddhist texts.34 These liberties did not go unnoticed. Olcott's first publication on the subject was The Buddhist Catechism (1881), a Buddhist version of those "elementary handbooks so effectively used among Western Christian sects."35 It was intended for use in Buddhist schools and Sunday schools, to protest against and substitute for the Christian Bible tracts used to teach English in Sinhalese schools. The Buddhist Catechism incorporated Buddhist "legitimation" of concepts of Theosophical interest such as auras, hypnotism and mesmerism, the capacity for occult powers, and displays of phenomena.36 Apart from such dubious additions, it was a gross simplification of the doctrine and caused considerable uneasiness among the monks who supervised its production. Olcott commented that it would not have been published if he were Asian, but "knowing something of the bull-dog pertinacity of the Anglo-Saxon character, and holding me in real personal affection, they finally succumbed to my importunity."37 Even with these concessions, an impasse over the definition of nirvana almost aborted the project. Olcott attempted to suggest the "survival of some sort of 'subjective entity' in that state of existence," claiming that this was the view of Northern Buddhists, but "the two erudite critics caught me up at the first glance at the paragraph."38 On this occasion Olcott reluctantly modified his entry. He did nevertheless manage to produce in the Catechism a version of Buddhism that supported and propagated his Theosophical beliefs, and this anecdote-suggesting as it does that the work was produced under the strict supervision of specialists -- claimed authentication for it as an accurate interpretation of Buddhism.

Although the Catechism served its immediate political purpose and survived through multiple editions in several languages, Olcott's erstwhile patron Mohottivatte began composing his own catechism in 1887, explaining specifically the need to reassert the true doctrines of Buddhism against the false teachings many Western sympathizers had begun to incorporate into the religion.39 Since this incident occurred before Olcott's trip to Japan, the invitation was presumably offered in the knowledge of the shortcomings of Olcott's mastery of Buddhism.

Because he perceived a relation between Northern Buddhism and Theosophy, Olcott was predisposed to discovering Theosophy in Japanese sects. "It is averred ... that the Shingons are the esoteric Buddhists of the country. They know of the Mahatmas, the Siddhis (spiritual powers in man), and quite readily admit that there were priests in their order who exercised them."40 "Esoteric" here refers not to the Japanese Buddhist technical term mikkyo but to the Theosophical use of the word as it appeared in Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism, published in 1883, a sense specifically denied by Japanese Buddhist priests.41 Olcott's comment that Fenollosa and Bigelow's "Guru," presumably the Tendai master from Miidera, was "a mystic and partial adept (they say)"42 reveals both his expectations of Mahayana Buddhism and his skepticism that a Japanese Buddhist priest could have such powers. His skepticism was also apparent in his disparagement of Japanese paintings of Rakan (Sanskrit arhat, Buddhist sages). To Olcott they were mere "caricatures ... of Mahatmas."43 Japanese Buddhism was, after all, "debased modern sectarian Buddhism" and was to be measured against Theosophy, which was for him "regular Buddhism."

Japanese disdain for Olcott's understanding of Buddhism became apparent in 1891 when he returned to Japan with the draft of the pamphlet Fundamental Buddhistic Beliefs. This was a grossly simplistic reduction of Buddhism to a mere fourteen points "upon which all Buddhists could agree," which Olcott intended to use as the platform for the proposed International Buddhistic League. Like the Catechism, it presented Buddhism at the level of sophistication of a Sunday school tract. Olcott, misinterpreting the courtesy shown him on his previous tour, had expected his document to be signed by all the leading abbots, the promoters and supporters of his first visit. To his disappointment, the Japanese refused to sign "these condensed bits of doctrine," complaining that "there was infinitely more than that in the Mahayana."44 He persuaded one member of the committee to sign by arguing the vital necessity of the Northern and Southern churches offering a united front to a hostile world. However, even this endorsement appears with the qualification that the fourteen points are "accepted as included within the body of Northern Buddhism" as "a basket of soil is to Mt. Fuji," an attempt to avoid the implication that the extract represented the essence of Buddhism.45 A partial understanding of Buddhism was acceptable, even commendable, coming from a sympathetic Westerner. It could not, however, be endorsed as institutionally accepted truth, even as a political expedient.

Olcott did eventually manage to obtain signatures from representatives of most of the sects, if not at the level of authority he had expected. Among the Japanese names are those of Kazen Gunaratna and Tokuzawa Chieza, for example, two young priests sent to Ceylon to study Pali. They had no institutional authority and were guests at Adyar at the time. One sect that is not represented is the Jadoshinshu, from which came the principal benefactors of his earlier tour and, incidentally, the official, if inactive, representatives of the local branch of the Buddhist Theosophical Society formed in 1889. Olcott, upset at this rejection, fell back behind the defense of Western scholarship and its model of Original Buddhism as the ascetic, world-rejecting, and egalitarian teaching of the historical Sakyamuni. On his first visit he had favorably characterized the Jadoshinshu as "the Lutherans of Japan."46 After the rejection, he wrote that they occupied "an entirely anomalous position in Buddhism, as their priests marry-in direct violation of the rule established by the Buddha for his Sangha" (that is, they were not ascetic). They were "the cleverest sectarian managers in all Japan" (not otherworldly), and "the most aristocratic religious body in the empire" (not egalitarian).47 Olcott, the "champion of Buddhism," exploited the versatility of the Orientalist stereotype against modern Buddhists. Those who conformed to it were criticized for not meeting the needs of the modern world. Those who did meet the needs of the world were simply not real Buddhists and could be criticized for failing to uphold the ideals.

Olcott and the Revival of Buddhism in Japan

I have argued that Olcott's tour of Japan was inspired by the success of his tour of Ceylon and had much in common with it. In both cases Olcott was invited as a European spokesman for a revival movement that was already well defined and had made substantial progress. His role in both countries was to attract the interest of a wider community in the Buddhist cause through his authority as a Western sympathizer of Buddhism. Most important in both countries, the binding factor as well as the reason for the initial contact between Olcott and Buddhist revival was his strong anti-missionary position. His Theosophy was of no interest to Buddhists in either country, except insofar as it signified his authority as a man of religion, and the growing membership of the society signified a Western dissatisfaction with Christianity.

By his own account, Olcott's tour of Japan was both more extensive and more spectacular than his famous welcome to Ceylon, progressing through the major cities and provincial centers from Sendai in the North to Kumamoto in the South, bringing him "before all classes and conditions of men."48 During his 107- day tour Olcott delivered seventy-six formal lectures, "with an average audience of 2,500 from first to last." He was everywhere welcomed by a retinue of priests in ceremonial robes accompanied by large crowds waving Buddhist and national flags. On top of this heavy speaking engagement, he was introduced and entertained at the highest social levels, regularly dining with high-ranking officials, politicians, and even members of the imperial household. The head priest of the Nishi Honganji, Otani Kosan, himself publicly honored Olcott by pausing to bow to him during a ceremonial procession.49 He was showered with gifts of valuable Buddhist artifacts and books for the Adyar Library. The tour was, as it is recorded in Old Diary Leaves, "one of the most significant events in the Society's history,"50 progressing from "The Visit to Japan," to "Successful Crusade in Japan" and "Further Triumphs in Japan."51 In contrast to this retrospective vision of heroic progress, the diary written during the tour, though equally impressed with the fanfare, shows signs of stress (fig. 10).

The grueling schedule arranged for him belied the public show of esteem. He was regularly required to lecture in the evening after traveling all day, or to lecture in several different towns in a day. On March 27, after a full day he "was dragged out to visit a temple and make a ten minute speech." Olcott was also called upon to speak at his dinner engagements, to visit factories and institutions, to receive visitors at all hours. No alteration was made to the schedule to accommodate his regular bouts of illness. On April 29, with still a month to go, he recorded in his diary that he was "almost dead with fatigue."

The consistently vast size of the audiences, frequently made up of members of a school or an institutional body, attests to the organization and activity in Buddhist circles more than to Olcott's personal fame in rural Japan. So does the distribution of flags to the crowds, especially if the "Buddhist flag" mentioned was not a traditional Japanese version, but the flag designed by Olcott himself as the international emblem of Buddhist unity. Buddhist reformers planned Olcott's tour through provincial areas not only to bring the issues of Buddhist revival to wide, public attention, but to demonstrate the strength of support for Buddhism among the people across the nation.

Image
Figure 10. Olcott in Japan (Theosophist [August 1932): 628; courtesy of the Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Chennai, India)

As in Ceylon, Olcott was also an ardent spokesman for Buddhist revival. His speeches reinforced and verified the arguments of the reform movement. By his own account, he called for Buddhist unity, "revival, purification, the preparation of elementary and advanced books for the education of the young and the information of adults, and expose [d] the falsehoods circulated against it by its opponents."52 Although what Olcott intended with his call for unity differed from the intentions of his Japanese hosts, the call itself was familiar. All of these recommendations were major features of the reform agenda promoted in Inoue Enryo's Bukkyo katsuron joron just a year or two earlier.

Olcott also repeated the earlier message of Inoue when he urged that the Japanese Buddhists send missionaries to Europe and America "to tell the millions now disbelieving Christianity and looking about for some religion to replace it, that they will find what will convince their reason, and satisfy their heart, in Buddhism." On another occasion he spoke to a large audience of students and Buddhist priests on the necessity of a religious basis in education and, in an echo of Seikyosha appeals, warned against accepting Western values too quickly and throwing away their own traditions.53 Olcott, internationally renowned Western orator, speaking with unquestionable personal conviction, confirmed and extended the Buddhist reform message.

Olcott also supported the Seikyosha call for greater self-confidence among Japanese and stressed, as they did, "the advisability of not prostrating themselves completely before the shrine of foreign civilization."54 Olcott was impressed that the Japanese "bore themselves as free men" and, unlike the people of India, mixed with Westerners as social equals. He emphasized that the Japanese should preserve their own institutions and systems because "[w]ithout pride, without patriotism, there could be no real prosperity, no sound progress." Modern civilization, he warned, was a two-sided picture; the comfort, refinement, and culture were accompanied by self-seeking greed: "Let the Japanese beware of accepting this civilization in its entirety." Olcott, himself a representative of the modern scientific West, spoke in agreement with Seikyosha and progressive Buddhists, arguing not for conservative preservation of the past but for progress through the selective adoption of positive and appropriate aspects of Western culture from a base of pride in a distinctive national identity.

Olcott criticized Christianity, declaring, just as Inoue Enryo had some years earlier, that, in spite of missionary claims to the contrary, Christianity impeded progress.55 Echoing the Japanese sense of insult at the presence of foreign missions in Japan, he deplored the inconsistency of Christians subscribing money to "despatch propagandists to distant lands" while millions in England never entered a church "from year's end to year's end." Moreover, Olcott continued, "Japan had already an excellent creed. She had Buddhism," a religion he believed to be superior to Christianity because it was not in conflict with science. He confirmed the growing Western interest in Buddhism: there were, he said, twice as many Buddhists in America as there were Christians in Japan.56 The convergence with the Buddhist reform position is again evident. Although Olcott saw himself bringing "the pure light of Buddhism to the benighted land of the rising sun,"57 the importance of his lectures in the revival of Buddhism was that he, as a Western authority, repeated and confirmed a number of the Buddhist reform arguments. Most significantly, he -- the Western celebrity -- was able to draw an immense and diverse audience to hear them.

This statement, however, raises the question of what was communicated to his audiences. Predominant though the messages discussed here may have been, they were not the sole content of Olcott's speeches. His address at Maebashi, one of the few attended by members of the foreign community in Japan, was criticized for being essentially an attack on Christianity rather than an address on Buddhism.58 The same complaint appeared a month later.59 A Westerner who had attended a lecture near Kyoto complained that the speech there was nothing more than a rehash of the tired old ideas of spiritualism. The Missionary Herald reported that Japanese Buddhists did not think highly of Olcott and did not recognize his teachings as good Buddhism.60 Such are the reports from the rare members of the audience who understood English.

Most of Olcott's lectures were delivered to Japanese-speaking audiences in rural centers. The only time he spoke without the aid of an interpreter was at Tokyo University. His diary attests to the stress suffered by his interpreters. Noguchi became ill shortly after Olcott arrived in Japan (February 9) and was replaced by a Mr. Kimura. By March 29 Kimura was "tired and surly," and on April 6 he "broke down" under the strain of a three-lecture day. Nanja Bun'yu stepped in to interpret during this emergency, and when his replacement, Sakuma, became unwell, two men took over the task, "one telling the other what I said and he rendering it into Japanese!" Even with the best of intentions it would have been most surprising if Olcott's speeches were communicated anywhere near literally, and Olcott himself seems to have been aware of at least a tendency in his interpreters to be selective. "I cannot say how much of this was translated to them, but at least those present who knew English had the benefit of my opinions."61 He was distressed when a bilingual member of the audience in Tokyo noticed considerable discrepancies in translation. As the Mail reported:

Colonel Olcott spoke in English which was rendered into Japanese by an interpreter. Considering that the lecture had not been written, and that the interpreter was wholly unprepared, it cannot be denied that the rendering deserved much credit. But, on the other hand, it often erred, and erred very seriously, sometimes by sins of omission, sometimes by sins of commission. Perhaps this was inevitable. One point, however, we deem it advisable to note. To his Japanese audience it must have seemed that Colonel Olcott intended to criticize adversely the tendencies of this empire's leading statesmen towards Western civilization. The impression was entirely due to incorrect interpretation. Colonel Olcott used no words capable of being construed by English hearers in that sense.62


The audience on this occasion included a large number of influential people, and the incident becomes even more significant in Olcott's account of it because, he was led to believe, the emperor himself had attended the lecture incognito.63 How many members of the audience outside of the capital would have sufficient control of both languages to monitor the translations? To what extent was the freedom of translation used to enhance Olcott's delivery of the reform message? Olcott was the perfect puppet, his full-bearded, physical presence the image of a man of substance. He was a forceful rhetorician, self-motivated, committed, and unquestionably sincere in his delivery, exuding enthusiasm while "speaking" the message of his translators.

Olcott's Tour as Performance

Delivering ideas was, however, not his only function. His tour was also a performance, an event creating the opportunity for advertisement, review, and interpretation, publicizing and endorsing Buddhist reform. The tour was orchestrated so that the greatest part of his direct audience comprised provincial Japanese. The success of the lectures, measured in the size of the attendant crowds, was reported in the press, which naturally emphasized those aspects of his speeches most relevant to the current concerns of Japanese readers. The Dandokai, for example, reported that "since Colonel Olcott's arrival in Japan Buddhism has wonderfully revived .... He has everywhere been received with remarkable enthusiasm .... He has taught the people to appreciate Buddhism, and to see that it is our duty to impart it to all nations."64 In the Japan Weekly Mail, March 16, 1889, a letter signed "A Buddhist" commented on the warm welcome Olcott had received in Japan and ventured to "prophesy a revival of our national religion as the certain consequence of Colonel Olcott's visit," but only if, the letter continued with a plea strongly reminiscent of Inoue Enryo's opening to Bukkyo katsuron joron, "a number of earnest, unselfish, persevering, and courageous men ... unite without distinction of sect, for the vigorous promotion of the pure religion taught by Shakyamuni." Significantly, this same issue of the Mail expressed regret that no notice of Olcott's Tokyo lectures was posted and that consequently the general public had no chance to hear him.65 Was this an oversight, or did the organizers decide that the revival movement was better served among the English-speaking community by processing Olcott's lectures through the press? His speech then remained under control.

Olcott's schedule in Tokyo was filled with social engagements rather than lectures. He was introduced into the highest, and politically most influential, levels of society. On one occasion he was introduced to "an Imperial Prince and Princess, a Marquis of high rank, Vicomte, Master of Ceremonies at the Imperial Palace and other men of influence."66 The governor of Tokyo entertained him at the Nobles' Club. The prime minister, also in attendance, invited him to present his views "about the system of education which I thought most likely to advance the interests of the nation."67 He also addressed the Japan Agricultural Society on Practical Scientific Agriculture.68 In Tokyo, the metropolitan center of the modern nation, the Western champion of Buddhism was shown to be a man of public position, someone to be taken seriously, a man of science who saw Buddhism as the religion of the modern world.

Conclusion

The tour of Japan was recorded in Old Diary Leaves as a triumph for Olcott, attributing to his three-month tour the achievements of a decade of Buddhist revival. The "visible results of the Colonel's mission" included the institution of "three Buddhist universities and various colleges, and the establishment of about 300 periodicals advocating and defending Buddhism." Moreover, by Olcott's visit "the spread of materialism and scepticism was checked; the insufficiency of Christianity was shown, and the truth of Buddhism vindicated .... Imperial princes and princesses have begun to take a prominent part in Buddhistic education and propaganda."69 As we have seen in a previous chapter, the establishment of Buddhist universities and periodicals had begun well before Olcott's tour. Nor should he be credited with inspiring the imperial family's interest in Buddhism. In 1884, five years before Olcott's visit, the Shingon priest Toki Horyu -- later a delegate at Chicago -- twice performed the seven-day Shingon initiation ceremony (shichinichi goshuho) at the imperial court.70

Toki Horyu (土宜法竜) (1854-1923)
by BritishMuseum.org
Accessed: 8/3/20

Priest of the Shingon sect of Buddhism, donated priest's garments to the BM [British Museum] in 1895. While chief-priest at Mitani-ji temple (on Shikoku) he was one of four Japanese representatives who attended the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. He returned to Japan via the UK and France (accompanied by Shaku Soen): in London in October 1893 he met Minakata Kumagusu (q.v.), after which they began a long correspondence on religion, with him he visited the British Museum and was shown the library by Sir AW Franks (q.v.); in Paris he conducted the Gohoraku ceremony at the Musee Guimet in November 1893. He later became chief abbot of Koyasan temple complex.

-- Antony Boussemart, "East Meets West: Toki Horyu (1854-1923), a Shingon Monk and the 1893 Chicago World's Parliament of Religions", 'Japanese Religions', vol. 27, no. 2 (July 2002), pp. 179-194.


When the fanfare of this first visit to Japan is compared with the cool reception of the second, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Olcott was used, deployed to the advantage of Buddhist revival in the Meiji discourse on religion. Japanese Buddhists had little respect for his understanding of doctrine and were scornful of his Catechism and of Theosophy. Olcott's real contribution was as spokesman for their cause. He lent their arguments the authority of Western science, attracting the attention of the pro-Western elite, and consolidating support for Buddhist revival among the population at large. As an educated man of science, a convert to Buddhism from Christianity, he was living testimony of Buddhist revival claims of Buddhist superiority, Christian inadequacy, and the compatibility of Buddhism with science. He also spoke of the importance of Buddhist education to the prosperity and independence of the nation. As in Ceylon his endorsement of Buddhism allowed the educated elite "to justify their adherence to the national religion." Olcott's tour of Japan was another carefully orchestrated move in the program of Meiji Buddhist revival.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:01 am

Part 1 of 2

CHAPTER 8: BUDDHISM AND TREATY REVISION

The Chicago Project


The invitation to participate in the World's Parliament of Religions came as the perfect answer to the recurrent reform cry to take Japanese Buddhism to the West. Reform rhetoric associated the revitalization of Buddhism with issues of modernity and maintaining the nation's sovereignty against Western aggression. Buddhist nationalists, as we have seen, argued that preserving Japan's independence-revising international treaties was an important aspect of this -- depended on demonstrating a strong and distinctive national spirit, on identifying and developing something uniquely Japanese that would contribute to the general welfare of the modern international world. Like Inoue Enryo, they argued that Buddhism was the basis of Japanese civilization; more important, religion was the one area of endeavor in which Japan excelled all other nations. It held the truth that the West was now seeking. Taking Buddhism to the West would establish Japan's intellectual and spiritual credentials and thereby win the respect of Western nations-and presenting it at Chicago was a first step in this process. These aims meshed closely with Japan's more general exposition project outlined in Chapter 1: modifying existing perceptions of Japan to establish its right to acceptance among the "civilized" nations of the world and thereby secure favorable revision of its treaties with a number of Western nations.

The nature of Japanese religion was itself central to the question of treaty revision. As Chicago delegate Hirai Kinzo explained, Western powers used the claims that Japan was uncivilized and that the Japanese were heathen idolaters as excuses for not revising the treaties. In particular, they refused Japan's request to abolish the extraterritoriality clause on the grounds that this would expose their nationals to Japanese laws. The definition of "heathenism" and "idolatry" was not simply a religious debate but a pivotal contest in this contentious issue. The delegation challenged these charges through its explication of Buddhism and its place in Japanese society. This chapter considers how the imperatives of treaty revision shaped the presentation of Japanese Buddhism.

Organizing the Delegation

Although the delegates as a group represented the main sects of Japanese Buddhism, as late as April 1893, mere months before the opening of the World's Parliament of Religions, the Japanese Buddhist community was still debating the value of sending official representatives to Chicago. Initial response had been enthusiastic. The Japan Weekly Mail reported in July 1892 that "a large representation is promised from Japan." Plans had been disrupted, however, when Japanese newspapers carried a report of a sermon in which the Reverend John Henry Barrows, chairman of the World's Parliament of Religions, had expanded on "the possibilities for Christianity" of the event.1 The fears of the conservative Buddhist community appeared to be confirmed: the event was a Christian conspiracy, organized by Western Christians to undermine and discredit the claims of other religions. Official endorsement of the delegation was withheld. Even progressive Buddhist leaders who supported the initiative conceded that "there are some aspects of attending this meeting which has been proposed by Christians and in which the Chairman is a Christian which are not entirely satisfactory."2 They were equally wary of the Christian aggression of the organizers of the Parliament but did not believe that this reason was sufficient to pass up an opportunity that promised such "far reaching benefits for Buddhism," the chance to "expound the truth and attack wrong belief." They were prepared not only to confront Christian aggression but to counter it, even in Christian territory.3 They argued that this was, "quite simply, not the time to be conservative"; rather than offer "passive resistance to the invasion of the foreign religion ... why shouldn't we make the great effort and attempt the surprising strategy of expansion?"

The document arguing this position, here referred to as the Manifesto, was an open letter from "Concerned Buddhists" to the Buddhist All Sects Council (Bukkyo kakushu kyokai) asking its members to reconsider their earlier decision not to endorse the delegation. It was published simultaneously in a number of journals, signed by twenty-five supporters described by the Japan Weekly Mail as "leaders of the community and eminent priests." Among them were such prominent leaders of the Buddhist community as Ouchi Seiran, Shimaji Mokurai, Nanjo Bun'yu, and the Chicago delegates Shaku Soen, Toki Horyu, and Ashitsu Jitsuzen. Inoue Enryo is elsewhere listed as a supporter.4 The Manifesto stressed what might be achieved by sending official delegates to this great international gathering where "in one action we can convey the teachings of the Buddha and the truth that is special to Buddhism to the scholars and religious specialists of the world." Its aims, and the list of signatories to the document, link the delegation with the Buddhist nationalism of the Seikyosha.5

The Manifesto

The Manifesto, the papers presented by the delegates at Chicago, and the papers they published on their return demonstrate the relationship between Buddhist revival and the political developments in Meiji Japan. The Manifesto echoed Inoue Enryo's call of gokoku airi (defense of the nation through the love of truth), the strongly patriotic association of the promotion of Buddhism and the preservation of national independence. It argued, as Inoue had, that the propagation of Buddhism in the West would benefit not only Japan but the world as a whole. The benefits to Japan, the prestige and respect it would win, depended on the conviction, encouraged by Western Orientalist scholarship, that Japanese Buddhism already held solutions to intellectual and spiritual problems the West was now facing. An official publication prepared for distribution at the Parliament also echoed Inoue: the advancement of science appeared to have induced an interest in Buddhism among the Christian people of the West, and "even the Hinayana doctrine of Southern India was highly admired by them. How much more then must they glorify the wonderful doctrine of Mahayana!"6 It was the duty of Japanese scholars to bring Japanese Buddhism to international attention. This required positive action, such as making the effort to attend this international conference as the Manifesto urged. "The sound of a large bell reaches far and wide, but the bell must be rung; the doctrines of a great sage are by no means restricted to a small district, but opportunities for their propagation must be utilized."7 The Parliament "offers Buddhism the opportunity of external expansion and provides the means to achieve it."8

The first argument of the need to propagate Buddhism in the West in "active resistance against the invasion of the foreign religion" was a matter of national honor. For Japanese nationalists Christian missions in Japan were not only a threat to Japanese sovereignty through their connection with Western aggression but also another humiliating indication of Japan's inequality with Western nations, a perpetual reminder of their "uncivilized" status. The Japanese perceived and challenged the implied moral superiority of missionary effort. As a correspondent to the Choya shimbun wrote, European and American missionaries were sent to Japan in the belief that "Japan is a miserable, uncivilized region, still under the baneful influence of paganism .... If anyone doubts that the sending of missionaries to this country is a flagrant insult to it, let him imagine the result if the German people were to send missionaries to England, France or the United States .... In the very nature of things, missionaries are essentially dispatched by civilized to uncivilized nations."9 The logical converse of this was that to claim moral superiority, and the power status it legitimated, Japan needed to dispatch missionaries itself. From this time, as the Japan Weekly Mail reported, Buddhist missions were established in Korea, Siberia, Tibet, Honolulu, and India.10 Preparations for missions to China accompanied the Sino-Japanese War.

The second argument for the external propagation of Buddhism engaged directly with the racist lessons of the Columbian Exposition. Japanese Buddhism was proof of Japanese superiority among nations of the East and challenged the assumptions of white supremacy. The Manifesto observed how society rises and declines under this general trend of survival of the fittest, how "the whole world is thrown into a hurricane of racial contest." The ultimate contest of the "racial war will be between the white and the yellow," it argued; consequently, "now is the time to decide the success or failure of European nations." Within this war, it continued, religion is the "battlefield of truth" and, again following Inoue, the principal contestants are Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism's value to the world was its difference from Christianity, because it was competition between different species that stimulated evolutionary progress. The argument was most forcefully articulated by Yatsubuchi in his report on the Parliament, II and in his post-Parliament article, "The Conflict between the Yellow Races and the White Races and between Buddhism and Christianity," which presented a rather more aggressive restatement of Inoue's argument that it was Japan's obligation to introduce Buddhism to the West because, without the competition of a strong rival, Christianity would not reach its full development. Yatsubuchi's argument also embraced the idea, more particularly expounded at the Parliament by the Indiandelegates, that Eastern spirituality was a necessary antidote to Western obsession with the material world. "Only Buddhism can save the white race .... If Europe could receive Buddhism its evils would be healed, spiritual as well as physical progress would be gained, and the perfect civilization would be realized."12

The Delegates

These nationalist sentiments were shared by other members of the Japanese contingent. In all, there were fourteen Japanese speakers contributing a total of seventeen papers. Apart from the six Buddhist reform delegates, there were seven Japanese Christians and a representative of Shinto. Papers were also submitted by a member of the Nichirenshu and Mr. Horiuchi, president of the Japanese branch of the Mahabodhi Society. Although one of the principal determinants of the representation was the competition among Buddhists and Christians in the contemporary domestic discourse on religion, in the international forum of Chicago they were united by shared patriotic concerns for the future of Japan, for countering Western incursion and foreign interference in Japan's sovereignty, and for dispelling the humiliating accusation that Japan was "heathen." All saw Japan as the leader of Asia, defending Asia against imperialism and leading Asia into the modern world. They differed only on the means of achieving these aims. The relationship between the Christian and Buddhist delegates and their shared concern for the future of the nation are mapped by Kenneth Pyle's opposition of the Min'yusha (Friends of the Nation) and the Seikyosha (Association of Politics and Education). Although neither of these associations had specific religious affiliations, they correspond to the Christian and Buddhist delegates respectively.13

Image
Figure 11. The Japanese delegation (Houghton, Neely's History, 37)

In spite of the force of its arguments, the Manifesto failed to convince the All Sects Council to reverse its decision, and the delegation to Chicago participated without official endorsement. However, even if the delegates could not claim to represent Japanese Buddhism as such, they were representatives of Meiji Buddhist reform rather than simply independents. The Buddhist contingent was a strong group of six speakers: four scholarly priests -- in the order in which they appear in the photograph (fig. 11), Toki Horyu, Yatsubuchi Banryu, Shaku Soen, and Ashitsu Jitsuzen -- and two politically active Buddhist laymen, Hirai Kinzo and Noguchi Zenshiro (on the right). The Buddhist priests of the delegation were well qualified for their task by their rank and education and, among them, represented the major sects. Shaku Soen (1856-1919) was chief abbot of the prestigious Rinzai Zen complex, Engakuji. Toki Horyu (1854-1923) was superintendent priest of the Koyasan branch of the Shingon sect.14 Ashitsu Jitsuzen (1841-1921) was a Tendai scholar, editor of the progressive journal Meido, 15 and a founding member of both the Seikyosha and the Sonno hobutsu daidodan. By the time of the Parliament he had also published two books, Notes on the Future Religion of Japan (Nihon shukyo miraiki, 1889) and The Aim of the Constitution: The New Buddhist Law of the East (Kenpo seigan: toyo no shin buppo, 1890). His involvement in Buddhist social work and the promotion of lay Buddhism has been mentioned earlier.16 In 1890 Shaku Soen, Toki Horyu, Ashitsu Jitsuzen, and Shimaji Mokurai had been chosen to co-edit a five-volume work intended to promote Buddhist unity as part of the reform platform (The Essentials of Buddhist Teachings) and therefore already held some claim to be spokesmen for the movement. The fourth priest, Yatsubuchi Banryu, was a Jodoshinshu abbot from Kumamoto. His journey to Chicago was funded solely by the support of the Kyushu Buddhist Alliance (Kyushu bukkyo do mei kai), a society consisting of his local clergy and parishioners.17 He emphatically declared that he could in no way be considered a representative of the sect (ha) or the head temple (honzan) but was a representative of the local people. This is less an admission of failure to obtain official support than a claim to the zaike bukkyo ideal.

Although official endorsement may have made funding the delegation much easier, even in this the delegation was not entirely independent. There was a rumor that Shaku Soen sold a set of paintings from Engakuji to pay for his trip. Though endorsed by Shaku Soen's biographers as an example of his independent spirit and determination,18 the Buddhist journal Hansei zasshi doubted it was true.19 The delegation was funded by contributions from forty-two hundred priests20 and received assistance from institutions in the preparation and publication of books and pamphlets, if nothing else. The Jodoshinshu, the largest of the sects in Japan, reportedly distributed more than thirty thousand volumes of five different Buddhists publications. Titles mentioned by Noguchi in his introductory paper include A Brief Account of Shinshu, A Shinshu Catechism, The Sutra of the Forty-Two Sections and Two Other Short Sutras, A Skeleton of a Philosophy of Religion, and Outlines of the Mahayana as Taught by Buddha. This last volume achieved greater permanence than others because it was reprinted and further distributed through the Theosophical Society in 1894.21 The Skeleton of a Philosophy of Religion was written by Higashi Honganji scholar Kiyozawa Manshi -- at that time known as Professor Tokunaga -- and translated by Noguchi, who was a student of his. Noguchi distributed copies as gifts as he traveled to Chicago and passed out the last ten copies to people sitting close by during his speech. The publications indicate strong Jodoshinshu support for the delegation, even though it was not official. This is not surprising given the problems of overcoming conservative forces described by Kiyozawa Manshi in his December Fan.22 Even projects supported by the chief abbot Otani Koson were vetoed. Otani had been responsible for sending scholars to the West and for promoting the study of Western philosophy by priests. Honganji support for Buddhist reform and propagation to the West was considerable. In June 1893 the Japan Weekly Mail had reported that although there was as yet no official decision to support the delegation, there was "much moral approval."

The lack of official endorsement in no way affected the reception of the delegation. Barrows introduced them as leaders of the Buddhist Church of Japan. As the Manifesto had warned, the Parliament would welcome as a representative whatever Japanese Buddhist priest attended, and a delegate's protests of independence, they predicted, would be interpreted "as simple modesty," "and in so far as he is actually a Japanese Buddhist, whatever he says and does would be taken as fact, recorded as the principles of Buddhism, published in magazines and spread all over the world. If this happens, even if it is found that there are points in what this individual said that are not in accord with the beliefs of some of the schools or sects of Japan, it will not be able to be withdrawn or corrected."23

The Manifesto's point was that not sending official representatives could have severe repercussions for the Western understanding of Buddhism. Could the Buddhist Council afford, they pleaded, not to have control over what will be said at Chicago? The council nevertheless voted to allay the fears of the conservatives by officially avoiding the Christian challenge. Can we read the council's lack of response to this argument as confidence in the delegates whose views and scholarly achievements were well known to them? These were, after all, with the exception of Yatsubuchi, the scholars chosen to edit the multivolume Essentials of Buddhist Teachings. Could they have chosen official representatives who would have been better qualified than these independents?

The Buddhist delegation also included two laymen, Noguchi and Hiraj,24 both of whom acted as translators but also spoke as delegates representing the new, increasingly influential lay arm of Meiji Buddhism, the koji Buddhists.25 Both had a long history of commitment to Buddhist revival. Their lack of clerical rank was no handicap. Noguchi spoke as a "simple layman" uncommitted to any sect of Buddhism. Hirai's first paper, eloquently delivered in English, was a forceful plea for the West to display the principles of "real" Christianity in their dealings with Japan, specifically by removing the unfair conditions of the treaties. It had more public impact than those of any other of the Japanese representatives. Hirai typified the educated elite of this time, turning to Buddhism, as he told the Parliament, in protest against Christian aggression. He had been one of the first to speak out against Christianity and had attempted to establish a Buddhist school in opposition to the Christian Doshisha, which was attracting many who sought Western education.26 At least as early as 1887 he had initiated contact with Henry Steel Olcott, the founder of the Theosophical Society,27 and in December 1888 Noguchi arrived in India to escort Olcott to Japan. Both Hirai and Noguchi were committed to the promotion of a nonsectarian, lay Buddhist practice specifically as a defense of the nation against Christian incursion.

Buddhism in the Campaign for Treaty Revision

Noguchi's opening address for the Japanese delegation explicitly linked the representation of Japanese Buddhism at the World's Parliament of Religions with American imperialism in Japan and the issue of Japan's treaties with the United States. With a teasing appearance of Japanese collusion in the American vision of the Westward progression of civilization, he compared Commodore Perry, "who led us to open our eyes to the condition of other civilized countries,"28 with Columbus. The message was, however, an inversion of this dream. The Japanese erected a statue to Perry, as the Americans had done to Columbus, but beside it they placed a statue of Ii Naosuke, the chancellor of the Tokugawa bakufu who had been assassinated as a traitor, Noguchi explained, because "he opened the door to a stranger without waiting for the permission of the emperor."29 The juxtaposition of the statues was a subtle allusion to the invalidity of the treaties forced upon Japan by the United States. Maintaining his ironical message of gratitude, Noguchi thanked America for sending Perry and presented Japanese Buddhism as the most precious gift that Japan could offer, the only fitting exchange for the boon of opening Japan to the modern world and the "wonderful changes and progress" that had taken place in Japan since that time.

His gift consisted of "four Buddhist sorios"30 (the priests who were the principal Buddhist speakers), "many thousands of copies of English translations of Buddhist works," which had been specifically prepared for this occasion, and "four hundred volumes of the complete Buddha Shaka's Sutras imported for the first time into this country."31 Noguchi apologized for the fact that the sutras were in Chinese, but "I regret to say that there is probably no Mahayana doctrine, which is the highest order of Buddhist teaching, translated into English."32 Although the teachings these books contained were incomprehensible to his audience, their bulk and presence carried the important message that there was a great deal of Mahayana Buddhism yet unexplored by Western scholars. Translation would be no easy task, Noguchi conceded, but he was nevertheless confident that it would be the "shortest way" to the one truth that all religions must eventually reach in their full development, the pinnacle of religious evolution where "there will be no more any distinction between [religions] or any difference between faith and reason, religion and science."33

Noguchi's paper was short and appears inconsequential as a representation of Japanese Buddhism. It nevertheless outlined the project of the Buddhist delegation, which was developed by the later speakers. As well as the themes of Western aggression and the fundamental illegality of the treaties, he repeated the message of the Hooden, Japan's vision of itself as a civilized country before the arrival of Perry, and the idea that Buddhism was the source of this civilization. True to the ideals of the Seikyosha, he recognized and accepted Western contributions to Japan's modernization but remained convinced of the international superiority of Japanese Buddhism. It was Japan's gift to the world.

"Heathenism" and Treaty Revision

Hirai Kinzo was the second speaker for the Buddhist delegation. Under the disarming title of "The Real Position of Japan toward Christianity"34 he mounted a blistering attack on Christian imperialism in Japan, the main thrust of which was to undermine the unquestioned equation of Christianity and civilization. Citing examples of American injustice toward Japan and the Japanese, typified by the U.S. refusal to correct the glaring injustice of the unequal treaties, Hirai argued that Christians were more barbaric than the so-called heathen Japanese.35

Hirai disguised his attack as an explanation of the lack of missionary success in Japan. The first reason Japanese could not accept Christianity, he explained, was its historical alliance with imperial aggression, its "record of foreign devastation under the guise of religion." Japan's experience in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had impressed upon the Japanese mind that Christianity is "the instrument of depredation." This "hereditary horror" of Christianity was daily revived by the reality of the "powerful nations of Christendom gradually encroaching on the Orient," by the injustice of the treaties that "deprive us of our rights and advantages," particularly through the extraterritoriality clause and the loss of tariff control: "Would not the people of America and Europe think that they were being trampled upon and their rights ignored, if they were denied the application of their judicial power over those cases which occur at home? Would not Western nations be indignant and consider that they were deprived of independence, if they were compelled to renounce their rightful custom duty?"36

The discrepancy between Christian principles and Christian behavior was, he explained, another reason Japanese found it difficult to accept Christianity. This was evident in the refusal to rectify these injustices, but also in innumerable incidents of American abuse of power against Japanese: illegal seal fishing; abuse of consular judicial powers; acts of blatant racism, such as had been recently displayed in San Francisco when Japanese were barred from schools and employment; racist treatment of Japanese in treaty ports of Japan; depriving Japanese in Hawaii of their suffrage.37

Hirai's two papers at the Parliament were supplemented by three articles that appeared in the journal Arena, suggesting that he, with the aid of sympathetic Americans, used the journal as part of the Japanese campaign in public relations at the Columbian Exposition, this time specifically targeting a liberal intellectual readership.38 Hirai's article "Religious Thought of Japan" appeared just a few months before the Parliament and foreshadowed the issues he would raise in his two papers, unhindered by the format of the Parliament itself. Unlike the formal papers, the Arena article was able to take space to develop and explain ideas and cross the boundaries of the set themes of the Parliamentary agenda. Hirai, who, according to Barrows, had been living in California for some years, apparently wrote the article in English because it appeared in the Japanese religious journal Bukkyo with the note that it had been translated into Japanese by Noguchi Fukudo.39 The second article, "Japan and Her Relation to Foreign Powers," written by an American, Annie Elizabeth Cheney, described by B. O. Flower, an editor of the journal, as "intimately acquainted with" Hirai and other Japanese scholars, appeared in the September edition of the journal immediately before the opening of the Parliament.40 The third article, written by Flower, a direct call for "Justice for Japan," was strategically timed to revive the issue during the period of final negotiations. All three articles stressed the injustice of the treaties in principle, Japan's legitimate right to demand revision within the terms of the treaties themselves, and the hypocritical contradiction between Christian and American ideals and the behavior of treaty nations toward Japan so eloquently pleaded in the final lines of Hirai's address: "We, the forty million souls of Japan, standing firmly and persistently upon the basis of international justice, await still further manifestations as to the morality of Christianity." The question beneath all three papers was the definition of "barbarian." Was Buddhism "barbaric" simply because it was not Christianity?41 Were not the Western powers barbaric in their behavior toward Japan? The constant message of the repetition of instances of injustices is "If such be the Christian ethics, well, we are perfectly satisfied to be heathen."42

The definition of the term "heathen" was pivotal. Hirai was convinced that the denigrating label was being used by the Western powers as an excuse to avoid giving Japan the simple justice of law: the Japanese "are being called heathen; and this is one of the reasons why our rightful claim to revise the treaty, stipulated forty years ago between the Western powers and Japan on an unequal and disadvantageous footing, is still ignored."43 The justification for the extraterritoriality clause of the treaty, the sticking point of negotiations, was the perceived need to protect Western nationals from the harsh penalties of law in non-Christian countries. Consequently, Western misunderstanding of Japanese religion was used as an excuse for not granting Japan's request for abolition of extraterritoriality and favorable revision of the existing treaties. Hirai's article therefore concentrated on correcting the "misunderstandings," that is, on explaining that contrary to the assumptions based on superficial observations of Western travelers and missionaries, Japanese religions were not heathen, barbaric, or idolatrous.

Hirai not only spoke English well but was a skilled public speaker.4'1 In his contentious and celebrated address to the Parliament, he played to American disapproval of aggressive "European imperialism" and appealed to "the sympathy and integrity" the American people had demonstrated by "their emancipation of the coloured people from slavery" and "the patriotic spirit which established the independence of the United States of America."45 The Chicago Herald, September 14, 1893, reported that "[l]oud applause followed many of his declarations, and a thousand cries of 'Shame' were heard when he pointed to the wrongs which his countrymen had suffered through the practices of false Christianity." He concluded by reciting the Declaration of Independence and then made a direct plea to American conscience:

You citizens of this glorious free United States, who, when the right time came, struck for "Liberty or Death"; you, who waded through blood that you might fasten to the mast your banner of the stripes and stars upon the land and sea; you, who enjoy the fruition of liberty through your struggle for it; you, I say, may understand somewhat our position, and as you asked for justice from your mother country, we, too, ask justice from these foreign powers .... We, the forty million souls of Japan, standing firmly and persistently upon the basis of international justice, await still further manifestations as to the morality of Christianity.46


Image
Figure 12. Hirai Kinzo (Houghton, Neely's History, 169)

Was Hirai's reference to the American battle for independence simply a rhetorical appeal to the hearts and minds of America or a suggestion that Japan may also be willing to fight to the end? Unilateral denunciation of the treaties and the contingent risk of retaliatory war was discussed by some Japanese at this time.47 Hirai's speech brought the house to its feet in cheering sympathy. Even Barrows, who had tried to suppress the paper,48 grasped his hand, and "the Rev. Jenkin Lloyd-Jones threw his arm around his neck, while the audience cheered vociferously and waved hats and handkerchiefs in the excess of enthusiasm."49

Hirai had discreetly avoided being too specific about Western crimes against Japan on the excuse that "it is not desirable to injure the feeling of good friendship which now exists between Japan and the West." He ventured only that "among many kinds of wrongs, there are some which were utterly unknown before and entirely unknown to us heathen."50 It was left to Cheney to give a heart-wrenching and detailed account of the impact of the treaty on Japanese society, from the broad economic consequences and financial restrictions on development, to the description of specific cases of injustice such as the crime against a Japanese woman "before the enormity of which the healthy imagination sickens."51 Her description of the injustices suffered by Japanese citizens through the consular courts system was a pointed inversion of the American argument of the need to retain extraterritorial rights for the protection of its nationals from "barbaric" law.

Flower's article reiterated and elaborated Cheney's principal arguments, declaring the revision of the treaties to be a matter of concern for "every American who loves justice and values the honor of the republic." To ignore Japan's claims, he wrote, "is to dishonour our flag."52 Treaty revision was "as all absorbing with the Japanese as was the slavery question with us in the closing days of the fifties,"53 a rhetorical gesture that recalled Hirai's wildly successful recitation of the Declaration of Independence.

The focus of both papers was the fundamental injustice of the treaties. From the time the treaties were originally drafted the terms imposed upon Japan reflected its classification among the "uncivilized." Both quoted the U.S. secretary of state at the time admitting the injustice of interfering with the internal law of a foreign country but regretting that it could not be otherwise. Such were necessarily the terms "when we stipulate a treaty with an oriental country," as with "Turkey, Persia and all other barbarous races."54 The terms "oriental" and "barbarous" are here used interchangeably. On the other hand, for those who had some knowledge of Japan, including Townsend Harris, the American consul general who had negotiated the Treaty of 1858, the injustice of the inappropriate treaty conditions had been apparent for some years. In 1875 he had regretted that he could not revoke "these unjust articles" before he died.55 Harris's hope that "others in the future would witness the change" remained unfulfilled nineteen years later, in 1893, and Japan was still attempting to distance itself from association with the "orientals" and the "barbarous."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:33 am

Part 2 of 2

Japanese Religion, Buddhism, and Heathenism

For Hirai, to counter what he declared to be the widespread misrepresentation of Japanese religion involved extolling the virtues not simply of Buddhism but of Japanese religiosity as a whole, establishing that the apparent diversity of religious practice in Japan, along with what mistakenly appeared to Westerners as idolatry, was only a manifestation-adapted to the varying needs of the people -- of the one encompassing Truth. The failure of Westerners to comprehend this, coupled with the absence of any serious scholarship on Japanese religion, which allowed undue weight to be given to the casual observations of travelers and missionaries,56 was the reason that Japan was so badly misunderstood "and the whole nation is condemned as heathen ... ignorant, unthinking and superstitious idolaters."57 Western misconceptions of Japan, Hirai explained, were based in the failure of monotheists to understand the tolerant syncretism of Japanese religion, which saw no conflict in simultaneously being "a Buddhist, a Shintoist, a follower of Confucius and possibly a warm admirer of Christ." He argued that the national understanding and search for truth that encompassed Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, and even "real" Christianity was without conflict, without idolatry, and without inconsistency.

This eclecticism was made possible, Hirai explained, by the Japanese realization that "though there are many roads at the foot of the mountain, yet if the top is reached the same moon is seen."58 This, and metaphors of the same import, occurred frequently in his various presentations. It was the basis of his concept of "Synthetic Religion," the subject of his second paper.59 He also called it "entitism," in reference to the essential a priori belief in an entity that is the basis of all religions, and "Japanism" because "it is the inherent spirit of Japan."60 It was synthetic not in the sense of being artificially constructed but in being the synthesis of all religious activities in Japan and, potentially at least, in the world. Unlike the Christian claim to universality, however, it demanded no changes or conversion. Each religion could continue to exist as before, enriched by its understanding of its place in the hierarchy of expressions of the truth. Hirai left no doubt, however, about where he saw the center of this synthetic religion: "The one and the same center" of the "one synthesized religion ... is called satori or hotoke in Japanese."61 Satori is the Japanese term for Buddhist awakening or "enlightenment"; hatoke is the term commonly used to refer to the Buddha. Clearly, for Hirai, as for Noguchi, "Synthetic Religion," the fundamental religion, culminated in Japanese Buddhism.

Atheism Disrupted

In Hirai's vision, all religions "properly understood" are nothing other than the pursuit of truth, and God, who cannot be limited or "personalized into the form of man, image or picture," is the "real essence of universal reason, the connecting link between cause and effect -- truth is God." Consequently, Hirai explained, the word "atheist," a term constantly used by Christians to denigrate Buddhism, is meaningless. Both terms, "theist" and "atheist," he argued, depend upon a concept of deity that is a limiting of the limitless, and this is a logical absurdity. The concept of deity is merely a device whereby the human mind can handle the abstract concept of the unknowable, which is ultimate truth. As each of the world's religions evolves, it will realize this, as Mahayana Buddhism does.

The two main implications of this argument are, first, that all religions, even Christianity, when fully realized will not be different from Mahayana Buddhism; and, second, that since "no-one can deny the existence of truth, those who call themselves atheists are true theists." Hirai pointed out that those presently called atheists -- Buddhists and philosophers -- are actually, by this reasoning, theists of a higher order, pursuing truth in its most abstract form.62 The highest stage of religious evolution is "non-ceremonious belief in the unknowable," as espoused by "unbelievers of religion," "non-religionists."63 For Hirai, in contrast with the prevailing nineteenth-century Western view, philosophy is not in opposition to religion but is its third and highest state.64 As well as identifying Buddhist truth with the latest concepts in Western philosophy, he had distanced Japanese Buddhism from the nihilistic associations of the atheist label.

Idolatry Dismissed

But what of the external and observable attributes of Japanese religiosity, the temples, images, and ceremonials that have led foreigners to misunderstandings? In a discussion bristling with references to science, the touchstone of truth, he explained the Japanese attitude to images, which are not idols to be worshiped, but aids to the comprehension of abstract and complex ideas.65 Turning to specific examples he explained that the white paper gohei or nusa found in Shinto shrines represents "the purity and immutability of universal truth or reason"; the folded shape of the single strips of paper "represent[s] the perpetual changes and revolutions of the phenomena of the universe." The mirror, the other object commonly found in shrines, suggests, he said, that "worshippers should clear their minds." Shinto, the indigenous Japanese religion, is, by Hirai's account, essentially the worship of rational truth. Hirai explained away one of the obvious contradictions of this scheme, the association of certain Shinto shrines with deified historical figures such as Hachiman, God of War, or Tenjin, patron deity of scholarship, by comparing this with the "the American and European notion of naming universities, public buildings and churches after distinguished individuals, and dedicating the buildings as monuments to their greatness."66 It was, as he put it, conveniently overlooking the common practice of praying to and asking favors of these kami, no more than the honoring of great men and women as models of morality. Japanese were no more idolaters than Americans.

Marshaling the forces of nineteenth-century scholarship in his aid, Hirai offered philological evidence that kami, the word commonly translated by the English word "God," carries no sense of image or idol in the Japanese but is "an abbreviation of the word kangami which literally means to think or perceive the truth." Moreover, Hirai argued, claiming the prestige of Aryan origins for the "pure Japanese language," koto, the Japanese word that should be used to represent the supreme deity, "has the same origin as the English word 'God.'"67

Hirai's purification of Shinto was aided by the fact that many Shinto shrines had been stripped of images, paintings, and sculptures immediately after the Meiji Restoration as part of the enforced separation of Shinto from Buddhism described in Chapter 5. All that was left for missionaries and visitors to observe in shrines by this time-if one overlooks votive tablets, foxes, and such things that were attributed to "folk superstitions" -- were the mirror and the gohei, both easily explained by Hirai.68

The material evidence of "idolatry" in Buddhism was less easily dismissed. There are images in some Buddhist temples, Hirai conceded, "but they are not regarded as sacred." They are, once again, symbolizations of the truth. This argument depended on understanding the meaning of the term "Buddha." Hirai explained that, contrary to Western understanding, "Buddh" does not simply mean Gautama. "It has a triple meaning: first, truth or reason, or cause and effect; second, the human consciousness of it; third, the one who is conscious or has the potential consciousness of it."69 That is, Hirai explained at some length, "Buddh" is the universal truth or reason that governs the universe. It applies to any person who understands universal reason, hence its use for Gautama. It refers also to all beings because they all have this potential, even if they are unaware of it. Once this is accepted, the various Buddha images are seen to be nothing other than representations of aspects of the unlimited and unknowable. "The image of Amidabutsu is only the symbol of this eternal universal truth." Hirai conceded that such symbolizations must seem ridiculous to those whose mental capacity was developed enough to comprehend the truth without a symbol, but he justified their existence by comparison with the use of numerals by mathematicians, of formulae by chemists, and the reformed Christian church's resort to verbal imagery to facilitate the comprehension of the average mind.70 Japanese Buddhism was no more idolatrous than Protestant Christianity or science itself.

Nirvana and Social Engagement

Hirai identified nirvana as the other Buddhist concept misunderstood by Westerners. It was not, as commonly understood, the annihilation of passions, sensations, or desires, but the "eternal and unchangeable principle that governs all things," the principle without which passion would not exist. "It is not the aim of philosophers, including Gautama, to make human beings idiotic or senseless, but to teach them the unchangeable principle which may be utilized and deduced for the changeable daily life of human society."71

Hirai's arguments addressed the most prominent issues of Buddhist apologetics -- idolatry, atheism, and nihilism -- not as a justification of Buddhism per se, but to question the exclusive Western equation of Christianity and civilization. His point was that Japanese are not idolaters but people who have long held an attitude of nonsectarian ism and progressive tolerance such as was now being demonstrated in the convening of the World's Parliament of Religions.72 The followers of Buddhism and Shinto are not atheists but philosophers with a more developed sense of deity such as was only now being approached by the West. Nirvana, as understood by the Japanese Buddhists, is not annihilation, not even annihilation of the passions, which implied a detachment from the concerns of the material world, but a clear-minded and active realization of the nature of truth, an insight to the principles of law that could be used for the benefit of society at large.73 Japanese Buddhism, he explained, is neither world-denying nor archaic.

Imperialism and the Moral High Ground

Hirai's paper "The Real Position of Japan toward Christianity" was not the description of contemporary Japanese interest in Christianity that his title may have led the audience to expect, but a plea for imperial powers to behave according to the ideals they espoused. In an inversion of the familiar missionary ploy, Hirai compared the observed behavior of so-called Christians with the "real" Christianity of the Bible and found them wanting. They lacked the spirit of charity, compassion for the weak, the spirit of brotherhood, and the sense of justice which were supposedly the foundations of their civilization. Hirai claimed for Japanese religion the moral high ground and demanded that treaty powers behave as "real" Christians, showing the virtues of Christian brotherhood and compassion, the "real" Christianity of the Bible. At the same time he undermined the fundamental justification for colonial enterprise. In the words of a French advocate of colonialism, "[T]he basic legitimation of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority, not merely our mechanical, economic and military superiority, but our moral superiority. Our dignity rests on that quality and it underlies our right to direct the rest of humanity."74

The Japanese delegates were not alone in their attack. Hirai's paper was only one manifestation of the conflict between the Asian delegates and imperialist Christians that seethed beneath the protestations of universal brotherhood and the polite formalities of the occasion. The letter from the Sinhalese high priest Sumangala was more forthright in its criticism of Christianity, claiming the superiority of Buddhist methods of propagation. The teachings of the Buddha had spread because of "their intrinsic excellence and never, as we rejoice to know, by the aid of force, or appeal to the superstitious weakness of the uneducated masses. No blood stains our temples, no profitable harvest have we reaped from human oppression."75 Dharmapala continued the crusade, his first paper claiming priority for Buddhism in solving the religious problems of the day. His second, less frequently cited paper, "Buddhism and Christianity,"76 was even more audacious. It claimed a Buddhist origin for Christian virtue. Dharmapala introduced the idea by listing biblical quotations as "Buddhist teachings as given in the words of Jesus and claimed for Christianity,"77 quoting from Western scholars to establish that "the Christian religion has sprung directly from Buddhism." 78 Buddhism not only was superior to Christianity but had bequeathed to the later religion all that was admirable in it. It is no surprise that this last contentious sentence does not appear in Barrows's official history.

Buddhist representatives confidently claimed priority in religious tolerance, the great pride of the Parliament organizers, in their complimentary comparison of Barrows with Asoka.79 Hirai's distinction between "real" Christianity and the behavior of Westerners preserved Japan's claim to complete religious tolerance. Their apparent rejection of Christianity was explained by the distrust engendered by this observed discrepancy between principle and practice. Consequently, although the Japanese "well know what abstract truth is in Christianity," they could not take Christianity seriously "unless the inconsistency which we observe is removed, and especially the unjust treaty by which we are curtailed is revised upon an equitable basis."80

Responses: A Christian Gaze

Hirai's address was clearly aimed at enlisting public sympathy for Japan as the unjustly oppressed, calling on the American people to stand by their ideals. Nevertheless, to the evangelical missionary contingent of his audience, including Chairman Barrows, his paper seemed also to hold the tempting offer that if the treaties were favorably renewed, the Japanese public might convert to Christianity. 81 In spite of Hirai's stress on the injustice of the West and his plea for assistance in removing the particular injustice of the treaties, and in the face of his very strong Buddhist stance, his audience was apparently convinced that he -- if not Japan as a nation -- was on the point of conversion.

Hirai's paper also found approval among liberal Christians who welcomed his observations on the reasons for the disappointing results of the missionary venture. They saw it as "a stinging rebuke" against "the false Christians who had done so much to impede the spreading of the gospel in Japan."82 Hirai had touched on an important issue in the American establishment, the discrepancy between the beliefs of the intellectual liberal Christians at home and the often poorly trained missionaries in the field. His paper, reinforced as it was by similar criticisms from Asian delegates to the later Congress of Missions,83 generated considerable discussion among Christians, and inspired a Mrs. Haskell to establish an overseas lectureship to send Christian intellectuals to speak directly to educated Asians.84

Barrows had read and rejected Hirai's paper and, according to Yatsubuchi's account of the incident, had been quite distressed and attempted to stop Hirai when he enforced his right to be heard.85 He apparently recovered when he saw the audience's enthusiastic reception, and what he heard from Hirai's paper, at least in retrospect when he compiled the official record, was a confirmation of his missionary dream that Japan was ready for conversion. He apparently did not notice Hirai's call to throw out Jesus and tear up the Bible, or at least had edited it from memory as he had from his record.86 He apparently also failed to notice that what Hirai was offering was that Japanese would accept Christianity along with the other religions they were perfectly capable of holding simultaneously, because each of them, including the "real Christianity," was nothing other than the reverence for the ultimate truth most fully expressed in Mahayana Buddhism. According to Hirai, "[W]hether Buddhism is called Christianity or Christianity is named Buddhism, whether we are called Confucianists or Shintoists we are not particular; but we are very particular about the truth taught and its consistent application."87 Barrows apparently heard only that Hirai was happy to be called a Christian, but there was a crucial difference between Barrows's dream of a universal Christianity and Hirai's synthetic religion. Could Barrows accept Hirai's abstraction of deity? Could he, like Hirai, look forward to a time when there would be no difference between theism and atheism?

Japanese Christians in Defense of National Character

Hirai and the Buddhist delegates were supported in the defense of Japan against the charge of heathenism by the Japanese Christian delegates. These men had been educated in a strongly anti-Buddhist Confucian tradition and in their Japanese publications spoke of Buddhism as an anachronistic link with the feudal past. In the international context of the Chicago fair, however, national unity prevailed. All Japanese religions were allied with Christianity against the destructive forces of materialism, atheism, and pessimism.88 As Kishimoto Nobuta explained, not only were the Japanese not heathen, but their tolerant religious eclecticism was fundamentally compatible with Christianity. The essence of Shinto was the doctrine of divine immanence. The universal teaching of Buddhism, the law of cause and effect, was not different from the Christian idea that "one reaps what one sows."89

The fundamental compatibility of Japanese religions with Christianity was also the subject of papers by the Japanese Christians Matsugama Takayoshi and Kaburagi Peter Goro.90 Matsugama pointed out that Shinto "was not the original religion" of Japan; that the word itself was of comparatively recent origin when used with its current meaning; that Shinto grew out of "Shingonese Buddhism"; and that "pure" Shinto (his quotation marks) was created in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century.91 His project was to establish that the pre- Shinto religion of Japan, that is, the real indigenous religion of Japan, was remarkably similar in principle to the teachings of Christianity. It recognized a trinity -- "persons of one supreme creator, the object of worship, a spirit and invisable"  -- a God who demanded that his followers purify themselves from sin, revere him, and serve him gladly. It further taught that man consisted of body and spirit, that there is life after death, and the existence of hell. The original religion had been "limited to one supreme god."92 It was essentially monotheistic and "does not oppose [Christianity]."93 Kaburagi reinforced this by speaking of Shinto as the Way of God, singular and capitalized, as in Matsugama's paper.94 In Shinto as in Christianity, he pointed out, "[c]onfession of sin is made and the wrath of the Highest being averted"; punishment of evildoers and reward of the just are strictly observed. He specifically dissociated Shinto from two of the common attributes of heathenism: it is not idolatrous and does not involve animal sacrifice. Together the papers assured the Christian audience that there was nothing in the real Japanese religion incompatible with the teachings of Christianity.

The second aspect of their defense of Japanese religiosity, however, was more specifically nationalistic and anti-imperialist. Though themselves anti-Buddhist, at the Parliament they presented Japanese Buddhism as the highest development of the Buddha's teaching, proof of the intellectual and spiritual superiority of the Japanese people. The Japanese development of Buddhism offered the promise that Christianity -- introduced from abroad as Buddhism had been -- would similarly reach its highest development under the Japanese genius. The Christianity Japanese Christians envisaged as the religion of their nation was not American Protestantism. It was, as their papers explained, distinctly Japanese, rational and liberal. Although grateful to American missionaries for reminding them of the Bible, they argued that America had no particular claim to Christian authority. Christ was an Oriental. Christianity was originally an Oriental religion and had been a Japanese religion since the sixteenth century. Christianity, like Buddhism, may have been introduced from abroad but would similarly reach its culmination under the Japanese spirit.

The three distinctive features of Japanese Christianity were, as Kozaki Hiromichi, president of Doshisha College and leader of the delegation, explained, the nature of its converts, its total lack of sectarian spirit, and its liberal spirit in doctrinal matters. These characteristics set it apart from Christianity elsewhere in Asia, distanced it from the various Christianities of the West, and argued its suitability as the religion of the modern scientific world. Through the nature of its converts, Japanese Christianity was a virile (Kozaki's term) religion, with all that word's connotations of energy and power. The Japanese congregation was predominantly made up of young males from the shizoku (military) class, a well-educated moral elite, and was consequently quite distinct from congregations in countries like China and India, where missionary success had been predominantly among the least educated.95 It was, at least in ideal, emphatically nonsectarian, an all-Japan Christianity. In naming it they had deliberately chosen the word kumiai (associated) over the word kaisha (congregational) to avoid any implied association with English and American churches. It was liberal because the Kumamoto Christians had wanted a new theology of Western scientific scholarship, not the theology of orthodox evangelists. Japanese Christianity was to be totally free from myth and superstition, compatible with the scientific world view. It was, in short, Christianity brought to its modern culmination.

Kumiai theologians had found "large room for improvement and progress" in orthodox Christianity, presumably the teachings of the American Board of Missions who had helped establish Doshisha, and had therefore "done away with some of the Christian doctrines which were regarded as essential in Western countries."96 They found "the divinity of Christ and the efficacy for us of the death of Christ on the cross" and the miracles of the Bible "stumbling blocks to acceptance."97 The result was an interpretation of Christianity that was not easily recognized by the orthodox audience at the Parliament. God in this scheme was not unlike Spencer's incommensurable, unknowable supreme existence, which Buddhists such as Hirai identified with the Buddhist truth. Kishimoto summarized their position: "We want the truth of Christianity; nay, we want the truth pure and simple. We want the spirit of the Bible and not its letter. ... But we Japanese Christians ... are ambitious to present to the world the one new and unique interpretation of Christianity as it is presented in the Bible, which knows no sectarian controversy and knows no heresy hunting."98

The Kumiai rejected all Western interpretations of Christianity and most particularly rejected American missionaries. They had recently been embroiled in a dispute severing the Doshisha curriculum from missionary control, insisting on the distinction that it was a Christian school but not a mission school.99 Kozaki told the Parliament that "Japanese will never be contented to work under missionary auspices. To be really useful to our country the missionaries must either cooperate or join the native churches and become like one of the native workers."100 Kozaki concluded his paper with the Christian formula of submission. In the context of his paper, however, it read less like his personal submission to the Deity than a reminder to the American Board of its Christian duty: "Christianity is from God, and so it will be in all times. We must plan many things, but all will be executed by the divine will. As the saying goes 'Man proposes and God disposes.' Then our prayer is and always must be 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so on earth.''' America had been God's agent in reawakening Christianity in Japan, but Japan had also been given a mission: "I believe there is a grand mission for Japanese Christians. I believe that it is our mission to solve all these problems which have been and are still stumbling blocks in all lands; and it is also our mission to give to all the oriental nations and the rest of the world a guide to true progress and a realization of the glorious gospel which is in Jesus Christ."101 Japanese Christians no more wanted American Protestantism than their Buddhist compatriots. The future world religion would be Japanese. The contest for them was which of the Japanese religions.

Conservative Buddhist Opposition

There can be no doubt from the Manifesto that the reasons for taking Buddhism to the West were, at one level at least, strategies for the defense of Buddhism against Christianity and of Japan against the Western imperialism this signified. The Manifesto summarized Buddhist initiatives but, unlike Inoue Enryo's writings on similar themes, it nowhere explicitly mentioned the issues of treaty renewal that are elsewhere so closely related to increasing Japanese prestige in the international context. One explanation for this may be that the purpose of the Manifesto was to enlist support for the delegation among Buddhist conservatives. The problem was that by 1893 it was widely accepted that revision of the treaties would involve granting foreign access to the interior of Japan, the concession demanded by Western powers for lifting the hated extraterritoriality clause. Many conservative Buddhists were fearful that the first Westerners to benefit from this would be the Christian missionaries. An article in Bukkyo koron warned in mid-1892: "It is probable that when the country is thrown open to foreigners, the first to take advantage of the privilege will be not merchants but missionaries and their zeal will lead to the further spread of Christian schools, this time taught by themselves. Thus Christianity will become stronger and stronger, and the result to Buddhism is plain to be seen."102

This fear did not bear rational scrutiny. Christian missionaries had circumvented restrictions and were already established outside the treaty ports, and, moreover, a large body of Japanese Christians -- Christians in full possession of the Japanese language -- actively proselytized throughout the country.103 The article as a whole urged progressive reforms, and it seems that this evocation of an old fear may have been intended to stir a complacent clergy to action, espousing conservative views to win support for its proposals to build Buddhist schools and youth camps. The effect of such rhetoric, however, was to reinforce uncertainty among the conservative majority about the consequences of treaty revision.

More generally, progressive Buddhist leaders argued for increased self-confidence. The teachings of Buddhism were more than the equal of Christianity, and if after all these years of close association with the Japanese people Buddhist institutions could be so easily replaced, then they did not deserve to be protected. The following article, which appeared at the same time as the other, is more typical of the reform position:

It is said that we must give mixed residence in exchange for Extraterritoriality. This means that the contact with new ideas is sure to affect more or less the old customs of the country. Now this would not be an unmixed evil. There are some good customs of the West which we should not be sorry to see supplant some of our unworthy ones. On the other hand, we must hold fast to all that is good in our existing practices, and resist the innovations of Western Customs. For this no support is better or surer than Buddhism. The revival of Buddhism is the only means of preserving our national individuality.104


This may be essentially the same message, but it carried a significantly different impact.

One problem in raising support for reform initiatives such as the delegation to Chicago was that the Buddhist community stretched across the whole social spectrum, and the well-educated, internationally oriented elite was vastly outnumbered. At a meeting of the All Japan Convocation of Buddhists (Zenkoku bukkyosha daikonwakai) in April 1891, 160 representatives passed a resolution to form an alliance against mixed residence.105 It is apparent from reports in the Japan Weekly Mail at this time that treaty revision was a contentious issue among the wide Buddhist community, and for this reason the connection between treaty revision and taking Buddhism to the West -- never more than one issue among many -- was perhaps better left out of the Manifesto. We can note, however, that the list of twenty-six patrons at the end of the document included Ouchi Seiran, Shimaji Mokurai, and Ashitsu Jitsuzen. For these, at least, it was an issue, as it unquestionably was for the Buddhist delegates themselves.

Conclusion

The delegation to the World's Parliament of Religions was no less a part of Japan's demonstration of its equality with Europe than its display of industrial and material progress in the exhibition halls of the Columbian Exposition, the textbooks on education, or the display of architecture, art, and gardens in the Hooden. Japanese Buddhism was the embodiment of Japanese culture, evidence of the antiquity and endurance of a sophisticated and intellectual civilization in Japan, a civilization worthy of recognition among world powers. But more than this, it was also the rational, scientific religion of the future, the shortest route to the pinnacle of religious evolution. Because spiritual development was assumed to accompany social evolution in general, this claim to religious superiority supplemented the bid for world status. The delegates also engaged in the debates on racial hierarchy that pervaded the Columbian Exposition. Their claim that Japanese Buddhism was the universal religion for the modern world challenged assumptions of white, Christian supremacy.

The connection between the representation of Buddhism and treaty revision was most particularly addressed by the two Buddhist laymen, Noguchi and Hirai, but the themes they introduced were elaborated and given authority by the Buddhist specialists, the four priests of Noguchi's gift to the West. Their presentations protested against American imperialism and Christianity's complicity in it, and their rejection of the Western religion was reinforced by Japanese Christian delegates who argued for the superiority and universality of a Japanese interpretation of Christianity. Japan may have been grateful to the United States for its contribution to the modernization of Japan but emphatically rejected the foreign religion. Not only was it inferior to the local product, but it epitomized the designation of inferiority Japan was striving to shed: the civilized send missions to the uncivilized.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:34 am

Part 1 of 2

CHAPTER 9: DEFINING EASTERN BUDDHISM

Prior to the World's Parliament of Religions, all manifestations of Buddhism were classified as either Southern Buddhism or Northern Buddhism. At Chicago, the Japanese delegates introduced a third category, Eastern Buddhism. This was the Ekayana,1 the all-encompassing teaching of the Buddha, equated by them with the Buddhism of Japan. It was universal Buddhism, but not simply in the sense of being the underlying essence from which other forms of Buddhism had developed. This was the narrow role that Western scholars had assigned to Theravada. It was universal in an expansive sense, encompassing all other forms of Buddhism and developing these regional variations to their fulfillment. Eastern Buddhism was the full exposition of the Buddha's wisdom, and it was preserved in Japan alone, the one Asian nation, the Japanese claimed, intellectually and spiritually capable of comprehending its profundity. On the basis of the demonstrated flexibility of the component elements of Eastern Buddhism in meeting the spiritual, intellectual, and moral needs of diverse peoples throughout the ages, and its compatibility with Western scientific thought, the Japanese delegates argued that it was the religion best suited to become the universal world religion. Eastern Buddhism was shin bukkyo, the product of Meiji reform, rearticulated for Western, international consumption.

Defining Eastern Buddhism was possible because Western academics, pursuing the truth in Pali texts, had totally neglected it. Individuals like Ernest Fenollosa and William Sturgis Bigelow living in Japan had been drawn to personal study, but, as already noted, their knowledge had not been disseminated,2 so that up to the time of the Parliament in 1893 almost nothing was known about Japanese Buddhism beyond the general assumption that as a form of Mahayana it was necessarily a later and therefore aberrant form of the original teachings of the historical Buddha. The reason for the neglect complicated the task. While even followers of the Theravada had to contend with the problem of establishing their right to speak on Buddhism, for the Japanese delegation this involved the additional obstacle of proving that the Mahayana was taught by the Buddha Sakyamuni, that it did spring from the original source. Their evidence for this was the Mahayana doctrine of the unfolding of the Buddha's teachings over five decades, which inverted Western assumptions by presenting the various Mahayana sutras as the fullest and the earliest expression of the Buddha Sakyamuni's wisdom.

By creating the new category of Eastern Buddhism, the delegates opened a space within the existing Western discourse, but not an entirely uncontested one. They first needed to distance Eastern Buddhism from the perceived defects of Northern Buddhism, the Mahayana of China and Tibet, as it was known at the time. Then, because Western approval was directed exclusively to Southern Buddhism (Theravada), they needed to position their religion in relation to it. They argued that Eastern Buddhism not only preserved all that the West approved of in the Pali manifestation but developed and extended it. Eastern Buddhism was not only compatible with the latest findings of Western science and philosophy, but superior to them in offering a more sophisticated philosophical development. In particular, the Mahayana conception of nirvana as preserved in Eastern Buddhism was neither nihilistic nor world-denying but, by means of its distinctive conception of the bodhisattva, provided an ideal of active participation in social welfare and humanitarian activity.

Eastern Buddhism also had the advantage of transcending the dichotomy of religion and philosophy, which had been used to criticize the Theravada. As we have seen in Chapter 4, Western scholars agreed that "Original" Buddhism was a philosophy, but Buddhism as they observed it clearly operated in Asian societies as a religion. They accounted for this discrepancy in terms of the failure of Buddhism to meet the needs of the people, or alternately, the failure of the people to meet the demands of the teaching. Consequently, even supporters criticized Southern Buddhism for being demandingly austere, leaving lesser mortals (inferior races) to turn to atheistic ritual and idolatry. Theravada was ideally an ethical philosophy. Eastern Buddhism, while in no way sacrificing the philosophic ideal, also offered a religion for those who needed such solace. Unlike Christianity, however, the religion of Eastern Buddhism was based on philosophy and consequently was not only not in conflict with it, but it assisted the evolutionary development of mankind toward philosophic ideals. It was a religion that answered the questions of existence and morality without recourse to an interventionist God -- a religion compatible with science.

The Chicago Presentation

The representation of Japanese Buddhism at the Parliament was based on the rationalized interpretations of Meiji revival, which had been formed out of a need to meet charges of irrationality, otherworldliness, irrelevance to the modern world. It presented Buddhism reinterpreted in accord with the rules of Western scholarship, directed to fulfilling the religious needs of a modern society in a manner acceptable to the Western-educated elite of the new Japan. The Buddhism of Meiji reform had accommodated both Orientalist scholarship and Christian criticism and was ideally suited to meet the challenges of the Christian Parliament of Religions. Eastern Buddhism, the Buddhism of the presentation, was consciously directed to a Western audience with the explicit aim of winning its esteem. The delegates knew of the role Buddhism was playing in contemporary Western religious debates and spoke to these issues. As they saw it, their success depended on establishing the compatibility of Buddhism with the latest developments in science and Western philosophy, presenting Buddhism as a nontheistic ethical system, a humanist alternative to orthodox Christianity.

The Japanese delegation was supported in this project by the delegates of Ceylon and Siam. A certain unity of Asian Buddhist purpose and doctrine was essential for the claim of Buddhist universality as well as of the encompassing nature of Japanese Mahayana. The major difference they promoted was that Japanese Buddhism alone preserved the most advanced philosophical teachings of the Buddha. Western scholars had recognized that Theravada Buddhism foreshadowed trends in "the latest speculation among ourselves." Japanese Buddhism, the full disclosure of the Sakyamuni's wisdom, embodied all of Western philosophy and, moreover, resolved its current conflicts. Eastern Buddhism was the fulfillment both of Theravada and of Western religious and philosophical thought.

The evolutionary implications were that Eastern Buddhism was the answer to the religious and philosophical needs of mankind at all degrees of development, in all times and in all places. Inoue Enryo -- writing in Japanese and therefore unconcerned by the possibility of offending other Asian delegates -- had bluntly stated that Mahayana had died out in India because of the decline in culture there and for similar reasons was virtually nonexistent in China.3 The delegates at Chicago were more circumspect but frequently reiterated the message that both Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism "were taught by one Buddha" and "are nothing but different aspects of the same principle, adapted to the capacity of converts."4 The racism of this argument was in keeping with the pervading evolutionary ethnology of the exposition in general and also with Japan's projection of itself as the leader of Asia.

Eastern Buddhism was bound to concepts of Japanese racial superiority and Japan's late nineteenth-century bid for world-power status, and to the project for treaty revision and establishing Japan's place in the comity of nations. It must, however, be stressed that the speakers were all Buddhist priests well versed in Buddhist scholarship. There is no question that they misrepresented their religion, or that their claims for it were unjustified. Nevertheless, the aspects of Buddhism they selected from the vast array of possibilities they might have spoken of and the language they used in their translations reveal political imperatives.

A Note on Sources

Principal primary sources for this chapter are the English and Japanese published records of the papers presented at Chicago. There are, however, problems in trying to establish just what was said there. As I have already discussed, the papers in Barrows's official copyright record have been heavily edited to conform to his agenda. Houghton's edition, though generally presenting longer papers, also shows signs of cuts. There are Japanese-language reports of the event because the delegates published their accounts of it. The two I have referred to are by Yatsubuchi Banryli and Shaku Soen.5 While their accounts of the proceedings are frequently valuable in supporting one English-language authority over the other, they are not necessarily more reliable, as their publication was equally politically determined. Most evident is their desire to convince the Japanese audience of the welcome Buddhism received in the West -- of the success of their mission.

Among the English-language sources is the considerable body of material written by the Japanese delegation and their supporters who were aware of the power of publication in diffusing and consolidating knowledge. As we have seen, they argued the need to present an officially approved version of Japanese Buddhism because whatever was published would be spread all over the world as the truth of Buddhism and would then be very difficult to alter.6 Because of this, perhaps the most reliable record of what the delegation as a whole intended to convey to the Parliament is the small book Outlines of the Mahayana as Taught by Buddha. The title page attributes the book to Kuroda Shinto, superintendent of education of the Jodo-Sect, under the editorship of the Bukkyo Gakkukwai. It was written specifically for circulation at the Parliament and had been "carefully examined by the scholars of the Tendai, Shingon, Rinzai, Soto and Shin sects." Because the draft had also been circulated in Buddhist journals for general comment and approval, it represents a transsectarian consensus of knowledge.

The content of Outlines corresponds exactly with the priorities specified in the Manifesto as "items it is especially important to represent." These were (a) the principles of Buddhism. Buddhist idealism and philosophic idealism; (b) the differences and similarities between Buddhist idealism and philosophic idealism and the extent of each. (c) The generally accepted explanation and evidences concerning the immortality of the spirit. (d) The flow of birth and death (rinne). (e) The law of cause and effect (inga no riho). (f) Nirvana (nehan). (g) The two approaches to awakening (shojo nimon).7 The Manifesto list continued with the history of Buddhism, the influence of Buddhism, the present state and future prospects of Buddhism. According to the Japan Weekly Mail (April 1, 1893), Outlines was to deal with all these topics. The papers of the delegates taken together cover the same agenda, each elaborating on key points. However, because the book was prepared in advance and translated into competent English, it avoided many of the obstacles to communication of the spoken presentations. Most particularly, it circumvented Barrows's editorial hand. For this reason, too, the papers Hirai and Ashitsu published in American journals are valuable indications of what these delegates wished to present to the West.

Because, by definition, Eastern Buddhism encompassed all other forms of Buddhism, the papers of the Theravada delegates also contributed to its presentation; here again, it is necessary to work closely with the various edited texts. Dharmapala's paper in Barrows is long, too long to have been read in the short time allocated to speakers. Houghton presents it in two parts, the paper presented, plus a longer paper Dharmapala gave to the editor. Here again the paper in Barrows shows considerable editing, omitting the opening quotation of Max Muller, cutting references in praise of the Theosophical Society and H. G. Blavatsky, and reducing a long paragraph on the universal admiration for the life of the Buddha among Western scholars. On the other hand, the paper in Houghton's edition omits material that appears in Barrows. Going to Guruge, Return to Righteousness, does not bring us any closer to a Ceylonese archive since it simply reproduces Barrows, confirming its official status if not its accuracy as a true record of the proceedings.

Reclaiming Buddhism: Orientalism and Asian Modernity

The first step in an Asian representation of Buddhism was to establish that Western approval was for their religion, not, as Max Muller and Rhys Davids believed, for an ancient abstraction Asian Buddhists had neglected, smothered under ritual, idolatry, and other practices. Max Muller and Rhys Davids had little but contempt for the contemporary manifestations of the doctrine. Past greatness did not reflect glory on contemporary society but became a measure against which to gauge present "degradation." The ideals of the past became weapons available for use against colonial dependents, justifying colonial domination. By the late nineteenth century Asians responded, and Buddhist nationalists, exemplified by the delegates to the Parliament, attempted to reappropriate their own Orientalist past.

For the delegates from Ceylon who had been in contest with Christian imperialism in colonial Ceylon since midcentury, the Parliament was an extension of earlier contacts with Western Buddhist scholarship. Both Ceylon and Siam shared with Japan the problem of presenting the indigenous religion in terms that would be attractive to their Western-educated elite. In Ceylon this produced Protestant Buddhism; in Siam, new, rationalized accounts of the life of the Buddha.8 Both showed an active engagement with Western Buddhist scholarship, particularly that of Rhys Davids's Pali Text Society. From the time of its inauguration in 1881 fully 50 percent of the individual subscribers were Ceylonese bhikkhus.9 Early issues of the society's journal reproduced letters of benediction, showing support from more than seventy of the most prominent members of the sangha offering manuscripts, help in translation, and advice. The king of Siam, who headed the subscription list, sponsored a number of publications in the Pali Text Society series. Sangha support indicated a desire to participate in the propagation of Buddhism to the West, employing the authority of the society and its access to an interested, specialist, international audience.

The Pali Text Society served the interests of Asian Buddhists in a number of ways but particularly in making the indigenous religion attractive to the Western-educated Asian elite, a class most important in the development of modern Asian nations. It offered a rationalized interpretation of Theravada Buddhism that reconciled the indigenous religion with the changes that had accompanied modernity in Asia. It achieved for Buddhism what Rammohan Roy, Dayananda Sarasvati, and others set out to do in Hindu reform, with the added authority that the work emanated from respected Western scholars, validated by their scrupulous concern for the techniques and procedures of scientific scholarship. The authority of the society and its international readership contributed to establishing this interpretation as no local Asian initiative could.10 The texts, produced in the high tradition of Oriental ism, nevertheless provided what indigenous Buddhist movements were trying to establish, a recognition of the value and validity of their religion in Western terms. When Rhys Davids died, letters from India, Ceylon, Burma, and Japan paid tribute to his promotion of Buddhism in the West. "He appeared at a time when missionary prejudice was misrepresenting Buddhism and undermining their faith and beckoned them back to the glories of Buddhism." The problem was to claim these glories for the living practitioners.

The Buddha in Southern Buddhism

The Theravada Buddhist challenge at Chicago began with a paper read by Dhamapala from the Sinhalese high priest Hikkaduve Sumangala (1826-1911). Entitled very pointedly "Buddhism: Southern Orthodox," it opened with "greetings, salutations of peace and tolerance" from "the Singhalese followers of the arya dharma, miscalled Buddhism by Western scholars."11 Although Sumangala's paper demanded the right to define Buddhist orthodoxy, the religion of modern Ceylon, he claimed, was not different from the Buddhism of Pali scholarship. The Theravada argument was rather that there was still more to its wisdom than the West had yet realized. In Sumangala's words, Dharmapala's task was to give "a summary of what Southern Buddhists believe it necessary for the world to know, in the interest of human progress and human happiness," Rather than attempt a comprehensive explanation of their religion, the Theravada speakers essentially reiterated the Western vision of Buddhism as a system of humanist ethics. The purpose it served for Eastern Buddhism was to confirm for the Parliamentary audience those aspects of Buddhism already admired in the West.

Dharmapala's paper "The World's Debt to Buddha" strung together quotations from prominent Western scholars to establish that the Buddha's teachings prefigured all the achievements of Western philosophy. He quoted profusely, constructing his argument in the voices of Western authorities -- each of whom recognized some aspect of Western thought in Buddhism -- as if to convince the audience that what he claimed must be true because their own scholars had said so.12 Dharmapala's second paper rather audaciously claimed Buddhist precedents for Christianity itself. The result was that the Dhamma -- Dharmapala followed Sumangala in avoiding the Western term "Buddhism" -- as he defined it at Chicago was nothing less than the object ostensibly sought by the Parliamentary gathering, the universal religion of the modern world -- a synthetic religion composed of the best that each religion had to offer.

"The World's Debt to Buddha" began with a quotation from Max Muller extolling the virtues of the religions of India and continued on the theme, showing that "history was repeating itself." Twenty-five hundred years earlier India had "witnessed an intellectual and religious revolution" culminating in Sakyamuni's "synthetic religion," which embodied "all the good ... collected from every source." As he saw it, the World's Parliament of Religions was proof that "the Christian world is going through the same process" and "the thinking minds of Europe have offered a tribute to his divine memory." "The crude conceptions of anthropomorphic deism are being relegated into the limbo of oblivion," and the "thoughtful are accepting evolution and monism."13 Even Western scholars had noticed the similarities between the conclusions of Sakyamuni and the general trends of Western thought as it groped in its evolutionary development toward resolution. The problem was, Dharmapala explained, that Western scholars had glimpsed only a part of the wisdom of the Buddha. The result was a variety of conflicting partial identifications rather than an understanding of the full philosophic synthesis:

The notion that it is a system of materialism has been exploded. The positivists of France found it a positivism; Buckner and his school of materialists thought it was a materialist system; agnostics found in Buddha an agnostic, and Dr. Rhys Davids, the eminent Pali scholar, used to call him the "agnostic philosopher of India"; some scholars have found an expressed monotheism therein; Arthur Lillie, another student of Buddhism, thinks it is a theistic system; pessimists identify it with Schopenhauer's pessimism; the late Mr. Buckle identified it with the pantheism of Fichte; some have found it a monism; and the latest dictum of Professor Huxley is that it is an idealism supplying "the wanting half of Bishop Berkeley's well known idealist argument."14


The Buddha Sakyamuni, the hero philosopher, was the basis of Southern Buddhism's claim to "have seen deeper than the greatest modern idealists."15 Upon his existence and his exemplary life rested all that was admired. The space that Barrows granted to Dharmapala's speech and the care with which he edited it point to the crucial role of Southern Buddhism in Christian discussions of the time, and hence the imperative of articulating Eastern Buddhism in relation to it.

The Buddha in Eastern Buddhism

Sumangala's rejection of the term "Buddhism" obliquely challenged Western assumptions that the dharma originated from the historical Buddha, but Dharmapala's overall argument of priority was well served by the historicity of Sakyamuni. The issue was more complicated for the Japanese. All Buddhists accepted that Sakyamuni existed in human history, but he was not considered the founder of the religion or to be the only Buddha. From the earliest known records, the Pali sutras and the stone sculptures at Bharhut and Sanchi, Buddhism taught that Sakyamuni was but the latest in a series of Buddhas who were born into the world to revive the eternal dharma. As Yatsubuchi assured the audience at the Parliament, there were innumerable Buddhas, both before the Buddha Sakyamuni had taught and after him. The historical evidence of Sakyamuni's existence, though a product of European preoccupations and Orientalist scholarship, did not contradict Buddhist doctrine but rather gave scientific credence to an already unquestioned, if not particularly central, belief. While a lineage tracing back eventually to Sakyamuni is important, precise dates in a secular world history are not. Dates given for Sakyamuni's life varied widely across Asian traditions, but adopting the dates ascertained by Western scholarship presented no particular problem, precisely because they were of no particular consequence.16

Outlines of the Mahayana as Taught by Buddha addressed the problem even in its title. It opened with a brief, historical resume of the life of Sakyamuni and referred to the Mahayana canon, Daizokyo, as the "complete works of Buddha Shaka."17 For Japanese Buddhists to limit the conception of Buddha to identification with Sakyamuni would have required compromise with the Mahayana use of the term, preventing access to more profound aspects of Mahayana doctrine, its conception of self, the world, awakening, and nirvana, which all depended on understanding the nature of "Buddha." In Eastern Buddhism, as Hirai and other delegates explained, Buddha is the universal principle, truth, reason, the law of cause and effect; it is the nature of all beings; it is a name applied to one who understands this.18 The mission of establishing the similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and philosophic idealism depended on conveying this extended meaning of "Buddha." The dilemma, then, was to confirm that the Mahayana was taught by the Buddha (Sakyamuni) while unsettling the exclusive Western identification of this term with him.

Toki, the first priest to speak, opened with a strong statement grounding the Mahayana in history. "Bhagavat Sakyamuni ... born 2,020 years ago, according to the chronicle handed down to us ... died on the bank of a river in the city of Kushi at the age of seventy-nine."19 He continued, explaining how "[t]he doctrines of Buddha, taught during his lifetime, are divided into two -- Mahayana and Hinayana" -- and that this distinction was part of the Buddha's plan to provide teaching "according to the plane of intellect of his disciples." The form is dense and cryptic and consequently probably conveyed little to the audience, but these brief sentences encapsulate several crucial arguments: the Mahayana is the Buddha's teaching; the Mahayana is superior to the Hinayana (Theravada), which is a preliminary introduction to the truth; there are different levels of the teaching because there are different planes of intellect; the Japanese, who alone have preserved the true Mahayana, occupy the highest. These ideas were reiterated by each of the Japanese delegates.

Eastern Buddhism: Sakyamuni's Highest Teaching

A fundamental concept in the definition of Eastern Buddhism was the Mahayana belief in the five periods of the Buddha's teaching (goji), which was outlined most completely by Ashitsu in his paper "Buddha." Ashitsu's summary is rather incoherent as it stands, a schematic outline of the Buddha's systematic revelation of the truth given without explanation of the technical terms, little more than a list of the period names. The five periods in Japanese are kegonji, agonji, hodoji, hannyaji, and hokke-nehanji.20 As Ashitsu explained it, "Right after Buddha attained his perfect enlightenment," he preached the Kegon. This was followed by the teaching of the Hinayana (including Theravada), then the Hodo which led disciples from Hinayana to Mahayana, the fourth level, and finally he "brought his disciples to the highest summit of his doctrine," by teaching the Hokke.21 While this account is intelligible if one is already familiar with the teaching and the way the Japanese names would appear in English, it probably would have meant little to the Parliament audience. It is a vague indication of the doctrine explained in detail in, for example, Inoue Enryo's Bukkyo katsuron joron, where it was used to establish that not only was the Mahayana indisputably the Buddha's teaching, directly transmitted to the world by Sakyamuni himself, but it was his first teaching, his last teaching, and the only complete teaching of his truth.22 The Hinayana sutras are not only secondary, but preliminary and -- the racial message -- associated with less intellectually developed societies, peoples of less ability to comprehend the higher truths.

The importance of the doctrine in the Chicago presentation is indicated by the repeated references to it and to the closely related messages of the Buddha's skill in teaching "according to the capacity of mankind." Toki explained that Sakyamuni taught the three yanas (the three great divisions of Buddhism) over the fifty years of his life. Although they are different, the truth of the yanas is the same. The difference in appearance is in the minds of the disciples who receive it because Sakyamuni taught "according to the capacity of mankind."23 Yatsubuchi reinforced this with his lecture on shitsu tan, the four teachings by which the Buddha gave teachings according to the needs of the listeners. The theme is repeated by all the delegates and by each of them more than once. Yatsubuchi used the poetic metaphor of the sun illuminating the world. The Kegon Sutra, the Mahayana doctrine first taught by the Buddha, was like "the first beam of morning light" striking the "highest peak of the mountain." The Hinayana sutras were like the sun of "noon-day [which] shines on every lower object of the earth." The Hokke-Nehan, the "most sublime" teaching, "superior to all," was like "the purple streams of twilight" reflecting off the highest peaks and onto the clouds above.24 Toki emphasized that the differences between Hinayana and Mahayana were not arbitrary or man-made but emanated from the Buddha himself: Sakyamuni "intended to make this distinction" to provide teaching "according to the plane of intellect of his disciples."25 This directly confronted Western belief in the later origin of the Mahayana and consequent accusations that it is necessarily a degradation of the Buddha's teaching. The implications of Mahayana superiority were clear, explicit, and no doubt heartfelt.

The evolutionary implications of this doctrine -- arising from the nineteenth-century assumptions of the parallel progress of material and intellectual development -- were that as Hinayana countries progressed in Darwinian terms, they would also move through the progression of the Buddha's teaching: "We believe the two [Mahayana and Hinayana] will come together without any contest according to the development of the human intellect and the progress of science." The recent formation of the Mahabodhi Society and its Japanese branch, the Indo busseki kofukukai, was proof, claimed Toki, that this union was imminent. 26 Contact with Mahayana through the society would elevate Hinayana toward the greater truth, and Buddhist universalism would culminate in Japanese Buddhism. Note how this differs from Colonel Olcott's vision of Buddhist Union, based on his reductionist pamphlets The Buddhist Catechism (1881) and The Golden Rules of Buddhism (1887), as the essence of all sects. Olcott's scheme proposed union on a lowest common denominator; Toki's vision was to elevate Hinayana, advancing it toward Mahayana in the progression toward greater truth mapped by the Buddha Sakyamuni himself.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:38 am

Part 2 of 2

From Pan-Asian Buddhism to Universal Religion

Ashitsu also spoke of the Mahabodhi Society, of cooperation between Japan, Ceylon, India, and the British in bringing it about, and of its potential for promoting pan-Asian ties: "[O]ur Buddha Gaya movement will bring people of all Buddhist countries into closer connection, and will be instrumental in promoting brotherhood among the people of the world."27 Under the bland heading of "The Present State of Buddhism," the Manifesto had listed the Mahabodhi Society as a priority topic. Along with the present state of Buddhism in Northern and Southern Buddhism, initiatives in overseas missionary work, the state of Buddhism in the West ("England, America, Germany and other countries"), and "statistics on Buddhists in the various countries of the world; a chart of research on things like race, occupation, and culture," it was evidence of Buddhist universality and Japan's leading place in it.28 Eastern Buddhism alone possessed the full disclosure of the universal truth, a truth that transcended boundaries of race, nation, and time. Its universal applicability was manifest in its global spread, its ability to accommodate social and racial differences evident in regional varieties of Buddhism, its diverse but compatible sects. The delegates gave long lists of the various countries professing forms of Buddhism and frequently mentioned the vast number of adherents. Dharmapala offered the Parliament "the good wishes of four hundred and seventy five millions of Buddhists."29 Toki spoke of the five hundred million human beings on earth at the present age who pay respect to Bhagavat Sakyamuni.30 Because these numbers greatly exceed the population of either Ceylon or Japan, both spoke as members of a greater Buddhist community.

Buddhism for the West

Another Manifesto priority, the history of Buddhism and its sects, similarly unpacked with strategic significance. Toki's paper under this title not only legitimated the Japanese transmission but also exemplified the versatility of the doctrine, its proven ability to adapt to "the special conditions" of changing historical societies. Japanese history showed that new regimes and new social forms had always given rise to new interpretations of Buddhism.31 At one level this was a justification and legitimation of the Meiji interpretation as the logical and natural consequence of the new Japanese regime, but it also carried wider implications of the universal applicability of Japanese Buddhism. It was a declaration of the relevance of Eastern Buddhism to America and its problems. Dharmapala had pointedly addressed questions of social welfare, temperance, benefits to women, patriotism and law, religion and science, showing that the Buddha's teachings answered the needs of the modern world. Conveying this was also part of Toki's plan: "Japanese Buddhists ... can not but feel rejoiced when we think of the probable result of this new change by which the Buddhism of great Japan will rise and spread its wings under all heaven as the grand Buddhism of the whole world."32

In the context of the Parliament, the various expressions of the rich variety of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha's skill in presenting the truth in forms appropriate to his audience, of "giving medicine according to the disease"33 transcended the varieties of Buddhism to claim that "[ i]t is a Buddhistic idea that 'the truth is but one while its dress may be different.'"34 Hirai's concept of "Japanism," the "inherent spirit of Japan," which was the recognition that truth is the basis of all religions, reiterated the concept. The implication of this, Hirai explained, was that if Christianity were purified of its irrationalities, it could be encompassed within Japanese religion. Toki made the same point when he explained that "Buddhism regards [the truth of other religions] as the truth of Buddhism disguised under the garment of other religion."35 In a total inversion of Barrows's vision of the Christian conquest of the world, Japanese Buddhists spoke of Christianity reaching its fulfillment in Eastern Buddhism

Eastern Buddhism Is Scientific

A principal reason for Western interest in Buddhism, as well as the basis of claims that it was better suited than Christianity to be the future world religion, was its perceived lack of conflict with a scientific world view. Promoting Buddhism's compatibility with science was therefore a major feature of the presentation at Chicago. Buddhism did not depend on a belief in the supernatural and was essentially empirical: the Buddha "earnestly enjoins that nothing whatever be accepted on faith" and that his followers promote education and foster scientific inquiry.36 The "true nature" of the Buddha's teaching was its lack of dogma and fixed doctrine.37 It was also perceived to be in sympathy with science in a number of incidental ways. As Toki mentioned, for example, the Nirvana Sutra (Nehankyo), which teaches that all beings have the Buddha nature, is consistent with the ideas of "mental science and biology."38 Edwin Arnold, reading the doctrine of karma as a rather simplistic account of the transformation of species, had spoken of Buddhism as "anticipatory Asiatic Darwinism."39 Western scholars such as Arnold had pointed out that in Buddhism, as in evolutionary theory, the difference between humans and the higher animals was one of degree rather than kind as all life belonged within the interdependent continuum of samsara. Given these Western models and the desire of the delegates to capture Western approval for Buddhism, it is no surprise that Buddhist delegates scattered their papers with scientific terms, referring to "the law of cause and effect" and "evolution," appropriating the kudos of this "identification." Prince Chudhadharn, for example, working from a definition of dharma as the "essence of nature," developed the idea that dharma is "the accomplishment of eternal evolution." "Dharma represents the universe, and varies according to the degree of evolution accomplished within it. ... The difference between all material things, as seen outwardly, depends upon the degree of evolution that is inherent to matter," and by extension "the difference between all spirits depends on the degree of will, which is the evolution of the spirit."40 Buddhism also complied with the scientific principle of the conservation of energy, he argued, as all beings are "destroyed and recreated again and again by an eternal evolution." But these issues were peripheral to the fundamental clash between orthodox Christianity and the scientific world view that had initiated Western interest in Buddhist thought. Buddhism's great advantage was that it offered a moral explanation of the manifest world that was not dependent on the concepts of God as first cause, divine wrath, or Providence. These are the issues that Shaku Soen addressed in his paper, "The Law of Cause and Effect as Taught by the Buddha," arguably the most influential paper on Buddhism at the Parliament. The title is a translation of the Japanese term inga no riho,41 listed among the highest priorities of the Manifesto and, like other key points, was spoken of by other delegates as well.

Shaku Soen's argument followed patterns familiar to Western philosophical proofs of the existence of God but arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions. He began by explaining that the law of cause and effect, as the Buddha taught it, was a complex system of interdependence where all the necessary causes may be difficult to identify but were, for all that, in "an endless progression." His second point arose from this. Because "a cause must be preceded by another cause," the search for an origin was an infinite regression. This is, of course, precisely the point reached by Western theologians who therefore posited the need for God, an external force, a first mover, the first cause, "an original principle of all transition from mere potency into act, a being self-existing, whose essence is pure act and the source of all actuality."42 This speaker used the metaphor of a long train of cars requiring a locomotive to make his point. The Buddha's response, as Shaku Soen explained, was to argue instead that the universe must therefore be eternal, without beginning and therefore without need of Creator. "Since even if we trace back to eternity, absolute cause cannot be found, so we come to the conclusion that there is no end in the universe. The assertion that there is a first cause is contrary to the fundamental principle of nature." Buddhism here was again consistent with science, offering a view of the universe in a continual, but ultimately conservative, change of state, following the pattern of evaporation and condensation of water as it shifted from rivers, to clouds, to rain.43

Although Shaku Soen's paper impressed monist Paul Carus, for more orthodox Christians such ideas were simply unthinkable, as one delegate to the Parliament explained: if we admit that "there may be a world of dependent beings each of whom depends on another, and no one of them nor all of them depend on an independent being ... philosophy is made impossible and theology deprived of its subject matter." It was literally unthinkable because "such an admission would destroy thought itself."44

Shaku Soen spoke of the "self-formation of cause and effect" and its implications for the ability of individuals to influence their own existence by their own actions -- how the action of cause and effect over the interdependent three worlds of the past, present, and future explained the inequalities and apparent injustices among individuals. The Buddhist virtue of self-reliance, so much a part of Western regard for Buddhism, depended on the doctrine of cause and effect because it taught that "the pleasure or pain of the future depends on our present actions." "There is no-one in the universe but one's self who rewards or punishes." Rewards and punishments, Shaku Soen explained, are determined according to the doctrine of "self-deed and self-gain" and "self-make and self-receive."45 "Heaven and hell are self-made. God did not provide you with a hell, but you yourself."46 Conversely, glorious happiness is the effect of present virtue. What Shaku Soen explained was the concept of karma, which is literally "action." However, even by the time of the Parliament it was regularly translated as "rebirth" or "transmigration." By avoiding these words he shifted the focus away from the Theosophical interest in reincarnation and questions of the soul that it more usually connoted to the humanist concerns of individual morality and theodicy. Human morality did not depend on the external authority of divine wrath but on self-discipline against the inevitability of self-induced retribution.

Shaku Soen finished his presentation by explaining how the immutable law governed the progress of the universe. "Things grow and decay, and this is caused not by an external power but by an internal force which is in things themselves as an innate attitude." He invoked the familiar Western metaphor of the clock "which moves by itself without external intervention" to illustrate the Buddhist view of the world that eschewed the concept of Providence. The law of cause and effect was an immutable law that not even the Buddha himself can contradict;47 that is, it was an entirely consistent system dependent on the conception of the Buddha nature of all things and the inexorable workings of the consequences of actions. As he put it, "[T]he Buddha was not the creator of this law of nature, but ... the first discoverer ... who led thus his followers to the height of moral perfection."48 The Buddha was not God, Buddhism was compatible with science, and Eastern Buddhism was the Buddha's teaching.

Eastern Buddhism and Philosophical Idealism

Prominent on the Manifesto list of important points to convey to the audience at Chicago was showing the "differences and similarities and extent of ... Buddhist idealism and philosophic idealism,"49 the basis of the Japanese claim that Eastern Buddhism concurred with the latest intellectual developments in the West. Dharmapala's paper had listed the "identifications" already made by Western scholars. 50 His aim was to claim Buddhist priority, that "it is a remarkable indication of the subtlety of Indian speculation that Gautama should have seen deeper than the greatest of modern idealists."51 Although this message was also of great importance to the Japanese, they did not rely on the discoveries of Western scholars. Inoue Enryo had gone further, claiming that Japanese Buddhism contained all the truth of Kant and Hegel, without the "excess" that left these philosophies unresolved.52 The Middle Way, the Buddha's highest teaching, "is not being nor is it emptiness; it is both being and emptiness and materialism and idealism are reconciled within it.... it simultaneously embraces subjectivity and objectivity .... As a theory it lacks nothing, and as an explanation there is nothing in it that is insufficient. All the other theories and explanations of the past and present, East and West, are no more than a trickle or a molecule of it."53

As we have seen, in Bukkya katsuron joron, Inoue used the labels of Western philosophy to attract the attention of Western-educated Japanese intellectuals (Chapter 6). While not identifying Eastern Buddhism with Western idealism, he argued that Eastern Buddhism had dealt with the same issues and with greater success. His initial provisional identifications were quickly qualified in his discussion to demonstrate Buddhist superiority. The Chicago delegates, all of whom had studied Western philosophy, were similarly conscious of the fundamental differences that accompanied the similarities between Western philosophy and Buddhism. They simply held up Mahayana ideas in the expectation that Western scholars would make the identifications as they had done with Pali Buddhism, and regularly drew their audience's attention to the vast oceans of Buddhist thought that Western scholars had not yet discovered. 54

Kuroda's Outlines of the Mahayana culminates in its chapter 5, "All Things Are Nothing but Mind," in which he translates Buddhist technical terms into the English of contemporary philosophy to explain, with reference to the Mahayana sutras, the Buddhist view that the apparent phenomena around us have no constant nature of their own and are produced by mental operations within us. Their difference in appearance is caused only by differences in mental phenomena. 55 The pivotal concept of this idealist position, Kuroda explains, is "Bhutathata (permanent reality)," which he translates as "essence of mind." This is the Japanese term shinnya, translated as "[t]husness, suchness, the true form of reality." It is regarded as identical with hosshin, the dharmakaya, which, Kuroda explains, "cannot be expressed in words or contemplated by the unenlightened man."56 This is the absolute reality that transcends the multitude of forms in the phenomenal world, the underlying reality upon which all phenomenal existence depends. The entire phenomenal world is produced of it by the action of ignorance (the minds of unenlightened sentient beings).

Underlying the phenomena of mind, there is an unchanging principle which we call essence of mind; the fire caused by fagots dies when fagots are gone, but the essence of fire is never destroyed. The essence of mind is the entity without ideas and without phenomena, and is always the same. It pervades all things, and is pure and unchanging. It is not untrue or changeable, so it is called "Bhutathata" (permanent reality). The essence and the phenomena of mind are inseparable; and as the former is all pervading and ever-existing, so the phenomena occur everywhere and continually, wherever suitable conditions accompany it. Thus the perceptible and imperceptible phenomena are manifestations of the essence of mind, that according to the number and nature of conditions develop without restraint. All things in the universe, therefore, are mind itself.57


Interdependence and Karma

The law of cause and effect was also pivotal in presenting Japanese Buddhism as philosophical idealism since it established the interdependence of all things. Realizing it was to realize the true nature of the world; it was the law one must understand to attain nirvana. All things have essentially the same nature, variously described as dharma, truth, mind, Buddha nature (bussho), the tathata inherent in all things. The perceived differences are the result of causes, motion, actions, karma, or evolution. As Toki explained it: "The action of the law of cause and effect is the operation of truth, and truth and the law of cause and effect are respectively appellations of the substance and action of the one thing, but not of two things. The truth is the substance and absolute, and cause and effect is the action and relative. By the surface of the sea and the motion of its waves, the truth and the cause and effect can be understood."58

Like so much of the Japanese speeches at the Parliament -- at least as recorded in the official publications -- Toki's explanation is a cryptic condensation that is decipherable only by those who already know. This last sentence, crucial to the claim that all is mind, was explained in more detail by Prince Chudhadharn: "The waves of the ocean are formed but of water, and the various shapes they take are dependent upon the degree of motion in the water; in a similar manner the Dharma represents the universe, and varies according to the degree of evolution accomplished within it. ... The difference between all material things, as seen outwardly, depends on the degree of evolution that is inherent to matter. ... These differences, however, are only apparent; in reality, all is one and the same essence, merely a modification of the one great eternal truth, Dharma."59

Ashitsu and Yatsubuchi elaborated the idealist nature of Kuroda's Bhutathata (shinnyo, dharmakaya, hosshin). "The fundamental principle of Buddha is the mind, which may be compared to a boundless sea." It was described as colorless, formless, omnipresent, and eternal. "Every form or figure such as heaven, earth, mountains, rivers, trees, grasses, even a man, or what else it may be, is nothing but the grand personality of absolute unity ... so it is clear that the principle of the Buddha is the mind .... There is nothing but the grand personality of absolute unity."60

The relationship between essence of mind and phenomena was developed through their explication of the doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha.61 As Yatsubuchi explained, the first body of the Buddha is the absolute unity of "Hosshin" (dharmakaya), which is "colourless, formless omnipresent and eternal," hence the "Buddha makes the truth or original body of universe his own body."62 This body is identical with the shinnyo, translated by Kuroda as "essence of mind." The second body is "Hoshin" (sambhogakaya), the body that resulted "as an effect by the cause, proving that even the Buddha is not beyond this great and immutable law of causation." This he identified with the Buddha Amida as seen in his Pure Land. The third body, "Oshin" (nirmanakaya), he identified with "the Lord Buddha Shaka, the earthly manifestation of the Buddha." Yatsubuchi, confirming and elaborating Toki's paper, stressed that the three states differ only in response to cause and are essentially the same. The world as we know it is a consequence of the law of cause and effect acting within the essence of mind.

Buddha Nature and the Nature of Buddhas

Each of the delegates spoke of the Buddha nature inherent in all beings, explaining that there is no difference between the Buddha and other people except in his achievement, his realization of his Buddha nature.63 It followed logically then that "as every object of the universe is one part of the truth, of course it may become Buddha"64 and that "the only difference between Buddha and all other beings is in point of complete enlightenment." The subject was dealt with most fully by Ashitsu, who related the doctrine of the bodies of the Buddha to the concern of Western philosophy, the individual human intellect. The three bodies of the Buddha are "attributes of the Buddha's intellectual activity," and are also possessed by humans. The only difference between ordinary beings and the Buddha is that "he is developed, by his self culture, to the highest state, while we ordinary beings are buried in the dust of passions. If we cultivate our minds, we can, of course, clear off the clouds of ignorance and reach the same enlightened place with the Buddha." There is nothing but the absolute mind-unity throughout the universe.65

Apart from establishing Buddhist idealism, these discussions by Yatsubuchi and Ashitsu on the nature and various meanings of the terms translated into English as "Buddha" attacked the exclusive association by Western scholars of the term with the historical Sakyamuni. As Hirai had previously explained, though with less concern for validation by reference to sutras and technical terms than these professors of Buddhism, "Buddha" means truth and is the basis of the law; it also means one who has realized the truth (hence its application to the sage Sakyamuni), and it is the real nature of all beings and all things. "Buddha" is the substance of the universe and Buddhism corresponded with the latest developments in Western philosophy.66

Nirvana in Eastern Buddhism: Compassion and Social Action

Western interpretations of nirvana, as the term was encountered in Pali Buddhism, had led to accusations that Buddhism was nihilistic and world-denying or, at best, self-centered and selfish since its highest objective was personal enlightenment. The delegates aimed to distance Eastern Buddhism from these critical features, and to achieve this they explained the different conceptions of nirvana available in Mahayana thought. They expressed dismay that European scholars still thought that Hinayana nirvana is the ideal of "our Buddhism."67 Kuroda was adamant that the true nature of nirvana could not be understood from the Hinayana alone. The Japanese delegates repeatedly explained that in Mahayana teaching moksha (attainment of nirvana) meant "mastering the mind, abiding in truth ... even among worldly relations," and that only Hinayana moksha was equivalent to extinction.68 Explaining the difference was a function of Ashitsu's paper, "Buddha." The centrality of the term to the project becomes evident when we look at the post-Parliament exchange between Shaku Soen, Ellinwood, and Barrows.69

Ashitsu explained that Eastern Buddhist texts described four kinds of nehan (nirvana), honrai jishoshojo nehan, uyoe nehan, muyoe nehan, and mujusho nehan.70 The first and fourth are specifically Mahayana forms of nirvana since they both depend on the realization that there is no distinction between the realms of samsara and nirvana. The first, honrai jishoshojo nehan, refers to the essential Buddha nature of all phenomena, equivalent to the hosshin (dharmakaya), explained above as the colorless, formless, eternal, omnipresent, and unchangeable nature of the universe. The other specifically Mahayana form of nirvana is mujusho nehan, the state when one who has attained complete awareness of reality does not elect to dwell in tranquillity, but actively works in the worlds of transmigration for the benefit of sentient beings.71 This is the basis of the Mahayana conception of Bodhisattva personified in Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva of compassion -- or, following Ashitsu, "humanity" -- who attained a state of perfect enlightenment and vowed not to leave the world until all beings had attained a similar state. The Meiji interpretation of this ideal, as explained by Hirai, was most important in the Japanese projection of their religion as a positive social force. It was evidence of Buddhism's power to solve the problems of the modern world, the Eastern Buddhist ideal of a life of service to humanitarian ideals that was characteristic of Meiji Buddhism, and in keeping with the koji Buddhist movement. Nirvana as presented by Japanese Buddhists at Chicago is not annihilation -- not even annihilation of the passions, which implies a detachment from the concerns of the material world -- but a clear-minded and active realization of the nature of truth, and insight into the principles of law, which could be used for the benefit of society at large. As Shaku Soen explained to Barrows, "The positive side of nirvana consists in the recognition of truth. The destruction of desires, of envy, hatred, extinction of selfishness implies charity, compassion with all suffering, and a love that is unbounded and infinite .... The eradication of all that is evil in man's heart will set all his energies free for good deeds, and he is no genuine Buddhist who would not devote his life to active work, and a usefulness which would refuse neither his friends nor strangers nor even his enemies."72

The nirvana of Eastern Buddhism, unlike that of Southern Buddhism, was not nihilistic and, far from demanding renunciation of worldly affairs in the pursuit of personal spiritual attainment, it enjoined its followers to devote themselves and the knowledge they attained to selfless work for society as a whole. As Hirai, quoted earlier in Chapter 8, put it, attaining nirvana was realizing "the unchangeable principle which may be utilized and deduced for the changeable daily life of human society."73 The relevance of nirvana to this life was also emphasized by Toki, who took care to distinguish "transmigration" -- the effect of actions of body and mind on future life-from "absorption," the attainment of nirvana. This was the point when "those who go along the Mahayana road" aspire "to engage in active exertion for humanity."74 He dissociated nirvana from death and rebirth, and from connotations of personal extinction or annihilation. Far from being nihilistic, the nirvana of Eastern Buddhism produced the highest and most constant engagement in the promotion of human welfare. Unlike the nirvana Western scholars understood from Southern Buddhism, it was not selfish, self-centered, otherworldly, or nihilistic.

Eastern Buddhism Is a Philosophical Religion

The Manifesto priorities included the doctrine of shojonimon, the Japanese Buddhist doctrine of the two approaches to awakening, the "Holy Path" (awakening through one's own efforts) and the way of the Pure Land schools (dependence on the compassionate vows of Amida).75 The doctrine of shojonimon extended the case for the infinite adaptability and universal applicability of Buddhism. It also resolved the conflict between the intellectual pursuit of philosophy and the human need for an emotional response to religion. Buddhism answered both needs. As Inoue Enryo had argued in Bukkya katsuron joron, "Buddhism is a complete religion of both the intellect and the emotions."76 In Buddhism, religion, science, and philosophy were not simply compatible. The religious practices were based on the same principles as the philosophy and acted to introduce people to the higher modes of truth. Eastern Buddhism therefore stimulated the evolution of mankind and progress of civilization. It offered a religion that could be held without compromise of progress.

Of God and Soul

What of the problems of theism and the soul? As already discussed, the delegates did address the question of Buddhism's attitude to God, but simultaneously denied the designation of atheism and argued that the Christian concept of God was both unnecessary and illogical. Toki made it clear that Buddhism had no strong objection to the concept of creator, that it spoke of Vairocana as "the first origin of all ... the base of the universe," but this was "a relative concept," "a one-sided view," stressing the "differentiality," which in reality was merely an aspect of the essential unity of the universe.77 Buddhism was not atheistic as such, but as Hirai had explained, the question was simply beside the point, a limiting of the unlimitable. Alternately, by defining religion as "a priori belief in an unknown entity," Eastern Buddhism offered "the perfect union between theism and atheism." God is truth, "the connecting link of cause and effect, the essence of phenomena."78

The related question of personal immortality, the nature of soul, was addressed on the first page of Kuroda's Outlines of the Mahayana. He conceded that anatman, which he translated as "non-individuality" rather than the more familiar but nihilistic "absence of soul," was a general principle of Buddhism, but explained that it was less a denial of individuality than a device to "destroy man's erroneous attachment to ego."79 This was hedged still further by his reassurance that the Buddha "never set forth unchanging doctrine by establishing fixed dogmas," Toki went so far as to describe a soul concept. It was "not an incorporeal substance of reason ... but it has a fine phantasmal form."80 His main point was that transmigration did not depend on an external power. The existence of an immortal soul that transmigrated from one life to the next was also implied by Shaku Soen's account of the moral aspects of the law of cause and effect. No doubt it would have detracted from his argument, which as it stands was praised for its clarity and intelligibility, to have introduced the radically un-Christian concepts of anatman and sunyata, but there was also another reason. As Shaku Soen said some years later in his lectures to Americans, "Most people are exceedingly alarmed when they are told that the self or the soul, which they cherished so fondly is void in its nature, and will overwhelm us with a multitude of questions."81 The "destruction of the popular belief relating to the nature of the ego ... tends to emphasize the negative aspect of Buddhism," and "we must have something positive when this erroneous belief is removed." That is, Shaku Soen practiced the Buddhist principle of teaching according to the preparedness of the audience. In 1907 he was also willing to relate the dharmakaya (Japanese hosshin) to the "Johannean view of God."82 At the World's Parliament of Religions the delegates avoided confronting the question of the nature of personal existence in order to convey an understanding of the Buddhist system of morality to the Christian audience and thereby win acceptance of Eastern Buddhism among world religions, an initial step in establishing its preeminence.

Conclusion

In his memorial diary, Shaku Soen recorded with satisfaction what he saw as the achievements of the delegation. Chief among them were convincing the audience, both foreign and Japanese (naigaijin), that Buddhism is a universal religion; showing that "our Buddhism" closely corresponds with the teachings of modern science and philosophy; and overthrowing "the deluded notion that the Mahayana is not the Buddha's teaching."83 These are, at first glance, modest claims, but they were significant statements in the context of the Japanese discourse on religion of the Meiji Twenties, claiming Western validation for Eastern Buddhism's challenge to Christian universality and for its claim to possess the highest truth. Establishing that the Mahayana was the Buddha's teaching was pivotal. Upon this rested the claim that Japanese Buddhism was "real" Buddhism, defined in the Western discourse as the teaching of the Buddha Sakyamuni, and the right of Japanese delegates to speak with authority on Buddhism as such, not simply on their regional beliefs. Establishing the authenticity of Mahayana Buddhism was also fundamental to their claim that Eastern Buddhism both encompassed all that was admired in the West of Theravada and contained none of those aspects of Theravada open to criticism. The superiority of Eastern Buddhism as the repository of the first, the last, and the highest of the Buddha's teaching also implied Japanese racial superiority and underpinned Japanese claims to be the preservers of Asian tradition and the future leaders of Asia.

Shaku Soen's diary also mentioned as an achievement of the delegation the conversion of a "Mr. Straw, a wealthy New York merchant."84 Although the conversion of an American was in itself important, indicating success at Chicago in winning Western approval for Japanese Buddhism, Shaku Soen's mention that Mr. Straw was a man of commerce was also significant. This was evidence of the suitability of Eastern Buddhism as a religion of the modern world, a challenge to the image of Buddhism as "otherworldly." Eastern Buddhism was the future world religion, and as Shaku Soen recorded in his diary, this had already been recognized by at least one American. Most significant, however, is his awareness that the delegation spoke simultaneously to two audiences. Taking Eastern Buddhism to Chicago was not simply an exercise in bringing Mahayana Buddhism to the West. It was also a statement in the Japanese discourse on religion.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:54 am

Part 1 of 2

CHAPTER 10: PAUL CARUS

Buddhism and Monist Mission


To the extent that the aim of the delegation was to gain respect from Western scholars and men of religion for the profundity of Mahayana thought, the representation of Eastern Buddhism at Chicago was a failure, at least in the short term. Japanese Buddhism remained marginalized, and authority on Buddhism remained in the possession of Pali philologists. Eastern Buddhism did, however, make an impact on publisher and philosopher Paul Carus (1852-1919), who is now remembered less for his contribution to American philosophy than for the consequences of his contact with Buddhist delegates: his role in the transmission of Zen to the West and his book The Gospel of Buddha.1 The Gospel was an archetypical example of Orientalism, the appropriation of the Orient -- in this case Buddhism and the life of the Buddha -- to support a decidedly Western and Christian project. Carus was quite explicit about this, declaring in his preface that "[ i]f this Gospel of Buddha helps people to comprehend Buddhism better, and if its simple style impresses the reader with the poetic grandeur of the Buddha's personality, these effects must be counted as incidental. Its main purpose lies deeper still. The present book has been written to set the reader a-thinking on the religious problems of today. It presents a picture of a religious leader of the remote past with the view of making it bear upon the living present and become a factor in the formation of the future."2

Whatever the title might suggest, The Gospel of Buddha was written to propagate Carus's post-Kantian Christian religion of science. Carus believed that it was the duty of all true believers to proselytize. There were two reasons for this, both characteristically scientific. The first was his conviction that universal truth would be revealed by comparison. The second was based on evolutionary theory. Because evolution depended on the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest, Carus believed that progress toward the ultimate universal religion would be hastened by bringing protagonists into greater proximity through active missionary work. He was particularly interested in Buddhism because he genuinely admired it and had no doubt that it was the only possible contender against Christianity for the role of the religion of the future. Comparison and competition with Buddhism in the minds of a Christian audience would force the evolution of Christianity to its inevitable and ultimate perfection.

It is no surprise that the book is an extremely idiosyncratic interpretation of Buddhism. It does, however, remain in print more than a century later. The Gospel of Buddha took on greater importance than it would normally have attained because of Carus's personal connection with the Asian delegates to the World's Parliament of Religions, which led to its publication in a number of Asian languages. It went into three editions within nine months and was eventually translated into Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Malay, Urdu, and Tamil, as well as German, French, Dutch, and Spanish. An English-language edition was used in schools in Ceylon, an alternative to the Bible -- as Olcott's Catechism was -- in language instruction.3 Because of these Asian editions, Carus has rather misleadingly been described as "one to whom Buddhists throughout the world looked for source material and instruction in their own religion."4 His Buddhist writings are considered here both as a consequence of the Japanese delegation to Chicago and as an illustration of the processes of the formation, presentation, and validation of knowledge of Buddhism in the West.

This chapter first looks at the Western response to the Japanese representation immediately after the Parliament, examining in particular Carus's interpretation and deployment of Buddhism. It points to the tension between his dependence on characteristically Mahayana Buddhist concepts of Eastern Buddhism and the regime of truth within which he wrote that continued to refuse to accept anything but the "original" Buddhism of the Pali canon. Carus's text also bears the signs of an inherent tension between a genuine overlap of certain monist and Buddhist concepts -- at least in their superficial expression -- and the distortion required to bring Buddhism within the bounds of what was accepted as Christian. How convincing was Carus's proposition that Christ was a Buddha? It then analyzes The Gospel of Buddha showing Carus's impeccable control of his text, the care and attention with which every aspect of it is ordered toward fulfilling his mission; the care with which he attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to provide the work with academic validation. Carus failed to popularize monism, but the Gospel was nevertheless installed as a source of popular knowledge of Buddhism. It is still in print in at least two editions. The 1973 paperback edition boasts that it had by then already sold more than 3 million copies.

Haeckel's influential "Biogenetic Law" -- "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"...Taking this principle as a starting point, as early as 1866 Haeckel proposed a new "natural religion" based on the natural sciences, since "God reveals himself in all natural phenomena." In many later publications he promoted his pantheisticnatural religion based on scientific principles -- a philosophy he called "Monism" -- as a way of linking science and religion. Haeckel was interested in theorizing about the driving natural force of life and evolution, which he insisted Darwin left out of his (therefore) incomplete theories. His somewhat quasi-vitalistic descriptions of monism provided that. However, his first specific recommendations for a monistic religion came in 1892 in a speech in Altenburg. He argued fervently for a monism as a new faith founded on a "scientific Weltanschauung," thus going beyond a mere substitution of atheistic materialism for Christianity (as he was generally perceived as doing by his contemporaries and even by many historians today).

As the 1890s in Central Europe were marked by the rise of volkisch utopianism based on a rejection of the Christian myth and an emphasis on the worship of nature (particularly the sun), many took Haeckel's call for the establishment of a monistic religion in his best-selling book of 1899, Die Weltratsel (The Riddle of the Universe), to heart as a way of winning the Kulturkampf ("the struggle for civilization"). Haeckel himself exhibited a messianic zeal in promoting his logical, new pantheistic "nature religion" through lectures during which he would display his own beautiful hand-colored drawings and etchings of cells, embryos, and other natural phenomena that appealed on an emotional level to those seeking a greater meaning in life through the study of its apparent rationality, organization, beauty, and essential unity. It was visual material that had a striking "shock of the new" quality about it in an age without cinema or television...

"In the sincere cult of 'the true, the good, and the beautiful,' which is the heart of our new monistic religion, we find ample compensation for the anthropistic ideals of 'God, freedom, and immortality' which we have lost," writes Haeckel, echoing Winckelmann's Apollonianism. In a secular rite of passage, the monist is thus reborn through the rejection of the tenets of organized religion (separation), an initiation into the proof of the essential unity of matter and spirit (a period of liminality), and then participation in local societies promoting monistic ideas (reincorporation).

By 1904 groups all over Central Europe had formed and were known as the Monistenbund (the Monistic Alliance), with some trying out rituals based on this new scientific religion. In Jena in 1906, under the guiding hand of Haeckel himself, they were formally organized under a single administrative umbrella, like cells united within the individual identity of a larger body. The ground in German Europe has long been fertile for such ideas to take root, especially among German Darwinians, for "a large number of them had abandoned the Christian religion" and, like Haeckel, spoke out against organized religion. The Monistenbund attracted many prominent cultural, occultist, and scientific celebrities as members, including physicist Ernst Mach and sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies. It also attracted such luminaries as the dancer Isadora Duncan, then-Theosophist Rudolph Steiner, [42] and psychiatrist August Forel (1848-1931). Forel was a former director of the Burgholzli and a dominant figure in Switzerland and in the French clinical tradition at the turn of the century. Although he is best remembered for his contributions to psychiatry (and his influence on other prominent figures, such as Bleuler, Adolph Meyer, and Jung), his Monistic League affiliation and his active promotion of eugenics and Social Darwinism are rarely discussed in the historical literature of psychiatry.

Although Haeckel himself was not advocating an atheistic and materialistic philosophy at this time -- he preferred the label "monistic" -- this was the professed emphasis of many of his fanatical cultists. Monism was the unity of matter and spirit (Geist). Haeckel's Apollonian ideals soon disintegrated into Dionysian excess in his view, and he soon distanced himself from his own movement. In 1911 Nobel-laureate Wilhelm Ostwald of Leipzig University, a physical chemist, became president of the Monistenbund and founded a "monistic cloister" devoted to initiating Social Darwinian cultural reforms in the areas of eugenics, euthanasia, and economics. An elite devoted to the preservation of the Monistic Religion clustered around the charismatic Ostwald and his volkisch metaphysical works. Indeed, it is these works of speculative philosophy (Ostwald even embraced the term Naturphilosopllie for this exercise) that made him an international figure long before his 1909 Nobel Prize, and many considered him a prophet of the modern age....

Before his death Haeckel himself was briefly a member of the Thule Society, the secret organization of prominent nationalists that included prominent members of the National Socialist movement of the 1920s, such as Rudolph Hess.

-- The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement, by Richard Noll


Eastern Buddhism Dismissed

The reception of Eastern Buddhism by Western academics and religious specialists was summarized in a public exchange between Shaku Soen, Barrows, and the Reverend Dr. F. F. Ellinwood reproduced in Open Court.5 What so "greatly disappointed" Shaku Soen and initiated the exchange was that after the Parliament, Barrows still persisted in repeating "those errors which were common in the various Western books on Buddhism."6 He continued to discredit Buddhism on the basis of a nihilistic definition of nirvana, which was, for him, "the goal which made Buddha's teachings a dubious gospel ... the extinction of love and life."7 As Shaku Soen protested to Barrows, his show of "friendly and sympathetic treatment" of non-Christians at the Parliament had endowed him with a certain authority on the subject. Consequently, "your utterances are of importance because they will be received as an impartial representation of our religion, since you, having been Chairman of the Religious Parliament, are commonly considered to have the best information about those religions that were represented at this famous assemblage."8

Shaku Soen's concern was well founded. As a direct consequence of the Parliament, a wealthy widow, Mrs. Caroline Haskell, made several bequests to extend the work of the Parliament in the Christian conquest of Asia. One was to found the chair of comparative religion at the newly established University of Chicago, and another was for an external lectureship on "the Relationship of Christianity and the Other Religions" to be delivered to the English-speaking native intelligentsia of Indian cities.9 Barrows, America's authority on Asian religions presumably because of his personal contact with its representatives, filled both positions. Consequently, although the Parliament did not alter Barrows's attitude to non-Christian religions, it greatly enhanced the authority with which he spoke on them. Mrs. Haskell funded Barrows's dream of the Christian conquest of Asia, and he devoted the rest of his life to this mission.10

In his letter, Shaku Soen carefully, patiently, and politely explained, as he had at the Parliament, that even in its negative aspect "nirvana means extinction of lust, not of love; extinction of evil, not of existence; of egotistic craving, not of life" and that its positive aspect set the energies of man free for good deeds, to devote his life to active work for general good. Barrows's reply was short and dismissive, not only placing Western philological authority above that of the Japanese Buddhist abbot but dismissing Mahayana entirely. For him there was no question that Buddhism -- and its true definitions -- resided in the texts of the South. "My interpretation of nirvana is that of some of the most friendly students of Buddhism who have gained their views from reading Buddhist scriptures."

This exchange did not end the matter. Ellinwood, responding to Shaku Soen on Barrows's behalf, elaborated on Barrows's theme, again citing Western Buddhist scholarship to convince Shaku Soen of his error in understanding his own religion and to dismiss Eastern Buddhism as heretical. "If, then, we are to decide upon the meaning of nirvana, or parinirvana as taught by Buddha, we must turn back from all these northern developments to the older canonical teaching."11

The delegation had failed in its attempt to distance Eastern Buddhism from the Buddhism of the South and North. Ellinwood quoted Pali scholar T. W. Rhys Davids in his support. Rhys Davids, as the authority on Buddhism, dismissed Ashitsu's account of the four kinds of nirvana as the misconceptions of "popular beliefs." He simply stated that the "two forms of nirvana which Ashitsu ascribed to the Southern literature cannot be found there." He was bemused at the idea of ascribing Mahayana concepts to the immediate disciples of Buddha12 and totally unconvinced by the delegation's claim that the Mahayana sutras were the Buddha Sakyamuni's teaching. For him, the claim indicated only how much in error contemporary "so-called Buddhists" could be, how astounding "the gulf on all sides between popular beliefs and the conclusions of science." Eastern Buddhism remained a regional variation, a later falling away from the true word.

Ellinwood appeared to be impressed by the Mahayana development of the Bodhisattva concept but commented that it "comes nearer to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul than those of Sakyamuni." The curious inconsistency embedded in this admiration is that the positive features of Japanese Buddhism made it a "heresy" against the Buddha's teachings, but Japanese, as Buddhists of sorts, remained stigmatized as believers in nihilism, "the meaning of nirvana as taught by the Buddha." Alterity had to be preserved. In 1899, six years after the Parliament, Barrows still repeated the message of Hardy and Saint-Hilaire: "In no religion are we so constantly reminded of our own as in Buddhism, and yet in no religion has man been drawn so far from the truth as in the religion of the Buddha."13 What appeared to be admirable in the presentations of Buddhism, Barrows warned, was due to the contact these Westernized Buddhists had had with Christianity. In his letter to Shaku Soen, Barrows commented that "if modern Japanese Buddhism teaches conscious personal life after death and believes in a personal Heavenly Father, full of love, its divergence is not so marked as we had supposed,"14 To the extent that Eastern Buddhism became acceptable by Christian standards, it ceased to be Buddhism at all. The rules of Western academic scholarship provided the means of excluding Eastern Buddhist voices from definitions of Buddhism.

Neither Rhys Davids nor Max Muller, the two leading Orientalists, had attended the Parliament.15 Muller later expressed his regret that he had not attended but clearly he had not expected anything more than a Christian theological event, "a part of the great show of industry and art."16 In retrospect he admired the spirit of brotherhood displayed but was critical of the absence of textual authority, which "interfered with the usefulness" of the event. The very idea of accepting statements put forward by "those who professed to speak in the name of Buddhism, Brahmanism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism -- by followers of these religions who happened to be present" -- was simply unacceptable. Muller doubted that these speakers would have been able to substantiate their claims with references to "chapter and verse from their own canonical books."17 This comment seems to have been particularly leveled at the representatives of Eastern Buddhism, since he further observed that "it might have seemed hardly courteous to call upon a Buddhist archbishop to produce his authority from the Tripitake or from the nine Dharmas." The more useful Parliament of Religions was, for him, the "forty silent volumes" of his series, Sacred Books of the East. In spite of his claim to the belief that "true religion" is "practical, active, living religion,"18 the authority of the edited and selected texts overrode living authority. Like Ellinwood, Muller apparently admired much of what was said by the delegates, but "enthusiastic descriptions of the supreme excellence" of religions cannot be accepted as true accounts of the religion without textual reference. The evidence for Eastern Buddhism was inadmissible. If it had actually been taught by the Buddha, it could not be accepted because it had not been preserved in the early texts. If it was the result of twenty-five hundred years of development in Buddhist thought, it was equally unacceptable because Buddhism was defined as the original teachings of the Buddha. Western academic Orientalists were simply not interested. Living Buddhism -- for this is what the Parliament offered -- was the concern of missionaries, not scholars.

Buddhism Appropriated: Paul Carus and Monist Mission

Paul Carus was not an Orientalist but a post-Kantian philosopher (Ph.D. Tubingen, 1876) and dedicated missionary of the religion of science. For Carus "missionarizing is the inevitable outcome of a serious conviction"19 and, moreover, provides the competition that promotes religious health, broadens minds, and promotes constructive thought. "Every religious man should study other religions in order to understand his own." For him the Parliament had been an opportunity to share his conviction of the harmony of science, philosophy, and religion.20

Carus was the editor of two journals devoted to "earnest and thoroughgoing reformation of religion under the influence of science" through the publication of an eclectic mixture of articles on scientific developments, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, biblical research, and non-Christian religions, "all of which directly or indirectly throw light on the origin of our own religion today." 21 Open Court, founded 1886, was followed in 1890 by the Monist, which published articles on similar topics but of a more technical and philosophical nature.22 Through the Open Court Publishing Company Carus published more than a thousand articles and fifty-odd book-length monographs. Only a small proportion of these writings were concerned with Asian topics and the popularization of Oriental religion in America he is now remembered for. Everything he wrote, including these, was directed to the same end, propagating his Western philosophy, and it was through this that he expected to win fame. Carus believed his mission was the fulfillment of Kant's ideas. "If Kant compared his work to that of Copernicus," he wrote in his first American publication, "I may fairly liken mine to that of Kepler who filled out the Copernican system and reduced the law of motion of the planets to simple mathematical formulae."23

It is not surprising that Carus's philosophy seemed to have so much in common with Eastern Buddhism as it was presented at the Parliament. The delegates had particularly focused on those areas of religion of interest to Carus: Buddhism's compatibility with science and philosophy -- especially philosophic idealism -- and their resolution with religion. As well as this, certain Buddhist concepts did overlap with ideas in Carus's own post-Kantian philosophy published some years before the Parliament.24 Most important, the delegates had emphasized the life-affirming and social aspects of Buddhism. After his contacts with Japanese delegates at Chicago, Carus read Buddhism as a version of his own Christian monism and, driven by a strong belief in the positive good of missionary activity, propagated it as such.25

There is no doubt that the Japanese presentation was a major revelation for Carus. In spite of his commitment to comparative religion, his writing before the time of the Parliament indicated a surprisingly vague acquaintance with Buddhism. His 1890 note on "The Religion of Resignation" suggests that he found nothing of interest in the nihilistic image of Buddhism current at the time.26 His first article on Buddhism, "Karma and Nirvana,"27 was published within months of the Parliament and covered most of the doctrinal information that formed his future publications. His dramatic change of attitude is clear.

The article opens with a statement of the negative assumptions of the nature of Buddhism as he had previously understood it. "Buddhism is generally characterized as a religion without a belief in God and the human soul, without hope of a future existence, pessimistic and desolate, looking upon life as an ocean of suffering, quietistic in its ethics, and finding comfort only in the final extinction into nothingness."28 The body of the article overturns these assumptions point by point. Quoting from major Orientalists, it shows that Buddhism does have a concept of deity, does not deny the existence of the human soul, does teach of life after death, is not pessimistic, and is not quietistic but teaches active self-improvement. 29 This realization that Buddhism was not nihilistic was pivotal to his project. Carus had recognized similarities between his own previously formulated monist ideas and several of the Buddhist concepts presented by the Japanese delegates. His problem was that orthodox Christians dismissed monism, as they did Buddhism, as nihilistic. As he later put it, "[N]ot only are the similarities that obtain between modern psychology and Buddhism striking, but we must meet with the same misconceptions and objections."30 In distancing Eastern Buddhism from these charges, the Japanese delegates had provided Carus with a model and a precedent for the defense of monism.

The Japanese delegation's assurance that Eastern Buddhism offered not only a philosophical system but also a religion answered another of Carus's difficulties. He shared with more orthodox Christians an abhorrence for any conception of the world that denied notions of the soul or God.31 In his Parliament paper "Science a Religious Revelation," he had argued that while a conception of religion that rejects science is inevitably doomed, humanity must have a religion because belief in God was "the innermost conviction of man which regulates his conduct." The resolution as he saw it was that religion would undergo changes, would "free itself from paganism, evolve and grow"32 in keeping with scientific developments. A new conception of the soul such as he had described in The Soul of Man was fundamental to this transition. In 1890 he had written: "The new view is monistic: it regards the soul as identical with its activity; the human soul consists of man's feelings and thoughts, his fears and hopes, his wishes and ideals."33 After his introduction to Eastern Buddhism he wrote that the Buddhists "anticipated the modern conception of the soul as it is now taught by the most advanced scientists of Europe"34 and restated this view in Buddhist terminology. "Buddhism is monistic. It claims that man's soul does not consist of two things, of an atman (self) and a manas (mind and thoughts), but that it is made up of thoughts alone. The thoughts of a man constitute his soul; they, if anything, are his self, and there is no atman, no additional and separate 'self' besides."35

The point is that Buddhism did not alter Carus's philosophy but provided him with the words to express it. He was not unique in using Eastern religions in this way. Ralph Waldo Emerson wanted "not the metaphysics [of Hinduism]' only the literature of them,"36 and wrote that "should another's words describe the fact, use them as freely as the language of the alphabet."37 Emerson had recognized Oriental precursors of his ideas and "like some other preachers, I have added my texts -- derived from the Chinese and Hindoo scriptures -- long after my discourse was written." Eastern Buddhism, Buddhism presented in its modern, Japanese guise, provided this resource for Carus.

Buddhism also rendered Carus a service in providing a relatively neutral ground for discussing these ideas. As he expressed it, it was easier to explain the "natural difficulties of the Western mind" in understanding the concepts of a foreign religion than to directly confront these same problems in understanding monism. In his first article on Buddhism he wrote that "the difficulty to a Western mind in the comprehension of the term nirvana lies mainly in our habit of conceiving of the nature of the soul in the old Brahmanical sense of an ego-entity, the doer of our acts, the perceiver of our sensations, and the thinker of our thoughts."38 Although here he disparagingly refers to the dualistic conception of the soul as "old Brahmanic," this is precisely how he described the orthodox Christian concept of soul he argued against in The Soul of Man. My point is that he used the label "Brahmanic" to cloak his attack on the Christian dualistic soul conception. Carus's conception of God, the "Soul of the Universe,"39 was correspondingly unorthodox, and, by putting forward a case for Western understanding of Buddhism, he simultaneously commended monism. Ostensibly defending Buddhism, Carus wrote that "our popular conceptions of a Creator-God and an ego-soul are so deeply rooted in the minds of our people, that, as a rule, they still consider these two ideas as the indispensable foundations of all religion."40 Unsettling these assumptions was as essential to the acceptance of Carus's monism as it was to Buddhism.

Christ Is a Buddha

Carus's ideal had much in common with Eastern Buddhism. One problem, however, was that his vision was unquestionably Christian. He attempted to overcome this by arguing that Buddhism and Christianity were essentially the same religion. They were both allegorical expressions of the one universal truth, their apparent differences nothing more than culturally determined "modes of expression." Christianity had "assumed a less abstract and more concrete shape, so as to appeal to the energetic races of the North."41 The Christian conceptions of an anthropomorphic God, God the Creator, and of a personal, immortal ego-soul are allegorical vestiges of the religion suited to an earlier period.42 One implication of this argument was that neither Buddhism nor monism was nihilistic as such. What they denied were merely these outmoded allegorical expressions.

As Carus saw it, one advantage of Buddhism over Christianity was that its followers were aware of the allegorical nature of their belief. He referred to Buddhist and Christian iconographic sculpture to make this point, juxtaposing a Roman Catholic representation of Madonna and child with a Chinese porcelain figure of "Kouan-yin," the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, depicted in this case in a seated, feminine form, holding a child. The external similarity of form demonstrated the "palpable affinity," "the unmistakable coincidence of aspiration," between Christian and Buddhist conceptions of deity in their iconographic art. The important difference, however, was in their focus: unlike Jesus in the arms of Mary, "Buddha [that is, the bodhisattva figure] is conceived not as the object of motherly love, not as the infant, but as Love itself." Both icons were attempts to express the same truth, but, he argued, the Buddhist concept of deity was more obviously the anthropomorphization of an abstraction. Orthodox Christians had simply forgotten the allegorical nature of these images.

The identity of Buddhism and Christianity was essential to Carus's project.43 He rejected suggestions that the similarities between the two great religions might be explained in terms of cultural influence imposed on different bases. The identity had to be fundamental. Buddhism and Christianity had to be expressions of the same truth. His most radical declaration of their essential identity was his hypothesis that Christ was the Buddha Maitreya, a claim he "validated" by a rather dubious use of Buddhist texts. The entry for "Maitreya [sic]" in Eitel's Handbook of Chinese Buddhism mentioned a legend in which Sakyamuni appointed Maitreya to "issue thence as his successor after a lapse of 5,000 years."44 By slipping a zero, Carus quoted the text predicting Maitreya's appearance in the world five hundred years after the death of Sakyamuni, a date approximating the birth of Christ. Hence he could write that "Buddha prophesied that the next Buddha after him would be Maitreya, the Buddha of kindness, and without doing any violence to Buddha's words, this prophecy may be said to be fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the Christians may be said to be Buddhists that worship Maitreya under the name of Christ."45


Although this extreme claim no doubt stretched Carus's credibility among his Christian audience, it does indicate the significance of his constant stress on the "extraordinary similarities" between the two religions. By equating the essence of Buddhism with the spirit of Christianity, Carus claimed that Buddhism's insights -- those areas where he saw Buddhism to be more compatible with the evidence of science -- were common to both religions and only more readily apparent in Buddhism. That is, monism, though at odds with current orthodox assumptions, was in fact within the spirit of Christianity. Carus marshaled Christian witnesses for this claim: "[T]hough the great majority of Christians believe in a soul entity ... the great representatives of Christianity, St Paul, Thomas Aquinas ... show strong tendencies towards the doctrine of anatman."46
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:01 am

Part 2 of 2

Trinity and Trikaya

Perhaps the greatest doctrinal debt Carus owed to Eastern Buddhism was the Mahayana doctrine of the trikaya, the Three Bodies of the Buddha.47 Eliding this with the Christian Trinity provided him with an acceptable alternative to the Christian anthropomorphic conception of God. Carus argued that although they do not believe in a personal God, "Buddhists believe not only in the Sambhoga Kaya which is an equivalent of the Christian God-idea, but even in a Trinity of Sambhoga Kaya, Nirmana Kaya, and Dharma Kaya, bearing a close resemblance to the Christian conception of Father, Son and Holy Ghost."48 This is a peculiar arrangement of the three terms that are usually presented in Buddhist literature in the order of increasing manifestation: dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya, or in Carus's equation, Holy Ghost, Father, and Son, an arrangement less obviously parallel. He compared this Buddhist conception of deity to the attitude of "many faithful Christians ... who look upon the theist dogma merely as the symbolical expression of a deeper truth." Carus devoted a whole chapter of the Gospel to suggesting this parallel but the implications of it are most explicitly stated in "Buddhism and Christianity," where he concluded that "Buddhist atheism, apparently, is not wholly unlike Christian theism."49

Although Carus rejected an atheistic world view, he was satisfied with the abstract Buddhist conception. An immortal soul was similarly so important to Carus that he would rather accept "the erroneous conception" of the "immortality of the disembodied ghost," as he characterized the orthodox Christian belief, than deny the possibility altogether.50 The problem was not adequately resolved in The Soul of Man,51 but Carus discovered a solution in Buddhism, "the transfer of the Samskaras according to the law of Karma."52 This doctrine, as Shaku Soen had explained at the Parliament, supplied the "ultimate authority of conduct" lacking in Carus's monist system. The Buddhist conception of the self constituted by the samskaras provided not only a scheme for both rebirth and immortality53 but a system for "the elevation and sanctification of everyone's self,"54 because by the law of karma, as Shaku Soen's paper had explained, there will be retribution for actions, the unfailing justice of moral law. One problem for those used to the Christian conception of immortality was that the system depended on recognizing the connection between the individual formed from the samskaras after death and the individual of before. "The T of today has to take all the consequences of the actions which the T of yesterday performed ... the individualized Karma of future times will reap all that which the individualizing Karma of the present time sows,"55 To accommodate this, Carus's vision of the self constituted by the samskaras was a cohesive entity persisting beyond death. It was a soul.

Carus's interpretation of Buddhism owed a great deal to the Japanese delegates, but he gave them credit only in the most indirect way. Their positive attitude inspired him to turn to the books, that is, to the translations of Buddhist texts by Western authorities and, consequently, to the Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism from which they had hoped to distinguish themselves. Like Eastern Buddhism, however, the Buddhism Carus promoted stressed compatibility with science, particularly in the nature of the soul, the nonduality of the world, and the impossibility of creation out of nothing. Also, although it was compatible with idealist philosophy, it was not the purely philosophical construct of the hypothetical original Buddhism, but a religion. This change in perspective was also a consequence of Carus's contact with the Japanese delegation. A footnote in "Karma and Nirvana"56 explained that the Hinayana or Southern school "prefers to some extent negative and philosophically strict definitions," whereas the Mahayana or Northern school of Buddhist thought "aims at positive and religious definitions." In the preface to the Gospel we see: "The Mahayana is a step forward in so far as it changed a philosophy into a religion and attempts to preach doctrines that were negatively expressed in positive propositions."

Carus nevertheless remained ambivalent in his attitude toward the Mahayana, if only to avoid being associated too closely with criticism directed at it. "Although the Mahayana unquestionably has its shortcomings, it must not be condemned offhand, for it serves its purpose," which was, as he saw it, changing the intellectually and morally demanding philosophy of original Buddhism -- a philosophy "which enabled a thinker, but not the masses, to understand the dispensation of the moral law that pervades the world" -- into a religion that rendered the Buddha's teachings "accessible to the multitudes." This was most important to Carus. His monism was not just a philosophy but a religion to replace orthodox Christianity in the scientific age.

The Gospel of Buddha: Popularizing the Construct

Carus's encounter with the Japanese delegation at Chicago gave him a Buddhist vocabulary to rearticulate his philosophical vision. However, the articles in Open Court and Monist reached only a small audience, mainly liberal intellectuals.57 The evolutionary struggle from which, Carus believed, the religion of the modern world would emerge, would have to take place at the level of the body of the Church. The ideas had to reach a wide general readership. This popularization was the function of The Gospel of Buddha, which appeared a year after the Parliament. The ideas it contained were those of the earlier articles. The genius of the book was Carus's control of their presentation.

The title, The Gospel of Buddha, Compiled from Old Records, as Told by Paul Carus, presented the book as nothing more than a short version of the Buddhist canon. It was the truth of the life of the Buddha, the Gospel truth with all the colloquial connotations of the term, in the same way that the Christian Gospels, upon which the text was modeled, was the truth of the life of Christ. The religious nature of the work was signaled to his Christian audience by the familiar form of chapter and verse, and the King James style of language he purposefully adopted. Buddhism was a religion, if a philosophical one. The preface, like the title, attempted to efface the presence of the author, stressing the book's reliance on the canon, claiming that many passages, indeed the most important ones, were literally copied. It admitted to modifications such as trimming needless repetitions and adornments, but reassured the reader that there was nothing in the book for which prototypes could not be found in the traditions of Buddhism. For Carus, unlike his Orientalist contemporaries, this included the traditions of all Buddhist societies in all times, not just the Pali canon.

The claim that the book was merely a compilation, however, hardly does justice to what is in fact a most ingenious original composition.
Carus's claim that the most important passages are copied is not exactly incorrect but is misleading. He used Buddhist texts in a number of ways. Some chapters he copied extensively from Buddhist sources, but often with a revised ending that attached a new lesson to a familiar story. He developed whole chapters from a short quotation -- typically a two-line verse from the Dhammapada -- but the lesson of the chapter was monist rather than Buddhist. In contrast, one very short chapter in the Gospel (ch. XXIV) carries the reference to a very long section of text, verses 1496-1521 of Asvaghosha's life of the Buddha.58 Following the example of all Orientalists of the time, he trimmed texts of "apocryphal adornment." Chapter 6, not an atypical example, gives an idea of how extensive this trimming could be. Verses 191 to 322 (131 verses) of the Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King were reduced to 23 verses in the Gospel. Elsewhere he strung together various passages from assorted Buddhist works, using them like words in a vocabulary to create totally new statements. He nevertheless succeeded in stitching together this incredible patchwork in a highly readable continuous narrative, creating a work in prose that deliberately rivaled Edwin Arnold's epic poem Light of Asia.59


Carus's own late discovery of Buddhism indicated how little academic knowledge of Buddhism had diffused beyond specialist circles. Rhys Davids had argued against the nihilistic interpretation of the doctrines of anatman, karma, and nirvana in his Buddhism (1878) and in the Hibbert Lectures in 1881. That the prevailing characterization of Buddhism should still be nihilistic, as Carus testified in "Karma and Nirvana" (1894), suggests that the message of missionaries and the influence of Western philosophers such as Schopenhauer had a greater impact on the general knowledge of Buddhism than the Pali scholars. Clearly, if Carus wished to modify this general perception, his work had to reach a wider audience than the Orientalists did. Sir Edwin Arnold's Light of Asia provided an alternative model. It had been spectacularly popular, but because it was a work of literature rather than scholarship, it lacked the claim to authority that Carus wanted for his work. Carus's Gospel aimed at a compromise, a narrative account of the life of the Buddha, but with the academic validation that Arnold's work lacked -- hence his stress on the Gospel's reliance on the canon and the pseudoacademic trappings of a "table of reference," "where the reader can find the sources and the parallelisms of the Buddhistic doctrines with Christianity, a full glossary of names and terms, and an exhaustive index."60

Appending Authority

The table of reference appended by Carus compensated for the absence of footnotes in the biblical format. In this the sources for each chapter are indicated by an abbreviation, which the reader must decode in a further table several pages over. A casual glance reassures that each chapter has a textual reference, that its truth is pinned to a Buddhist text. "M.V." one discovers refers to the Mahavagga, "D.P." to the Dhammapada. But how many readers would have been sufficiently diligent in tracing the sources to discover, for example, that "E.A.," the reference for the first three chapters and for some of the most outstanding passages, stands not for a Buddhist text but for "Explanatory Addition," and designates Carus's own original contribution? "E.A." indicates material for which Carus could find no textual reference, and it is in these passages that he expounded his principal themes. One other imaginative passage carries the reference "E.H.," which decodes to Eitel's Handbook of Chinese Buddhism. Few readers would recognize that this is actually a dictionary and that consequently this reference -- the meaning of one term -- is used to suggest that a whole chapter of Carus's work has a canonical basis. Given the author's unidentified intrusions in most other chapters, the function of this attribution seems less to confess to his own creation than to conceal the absence of a Buddhist reference. The dubious nature of the source has been buried in the bibliography. The table of reference not only claimed academic legitimation, it concealed the author's considerable personal contribution to the work.

Not even the glossary is free of the author's presence. Amid the list of Sanskrit and Pali technical terms the entry "Mahase'tu" sits unobtrusively. This is not, however, a Buddhist term but a pseudo-Sanskritic neologism that confirms the author's commitment to Christian superiority: "Mahase'tu. The great bridge. A name invented by the author of the present book to designate the importance of Christianity compared to the Hinayana and Mahayana of Buddhism."

A survey of sources for chapter XCVI, "Maitreya" (Metteyya, in Pali, in later editions), illustrates Carus's control of texts. The function of this key chapter is to allow the Buddha to predict the advent of a Messiah to continue his teaching. It presents the basis of Carus's argument that Jesus is a Buddha, the Buddha Maitreya, and his conviction that Buddhism and Christianity are the same religion. Since the substance of Carus's chapter is a dialogue between the Buddha, Sakyamuni, and his principal disciple, Ananda, on the eve of the Buddha's parinirvana, the principal reference is Rhys Davids's translation of the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta.61 Carus opened the chapter by following the text very closely, exemplifying his claim that "[m]any passages, and indeed the most important ones, are literally copied from the translations of original texts,"62 He made editorial changes to avoid repetitions, and substituted the more biblical "thou art" for "you are" in keeping with the style of the Christian Gospel. In this way, verses 1-3 of the Gospel correspond to verses 3-6 of the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta, though not to the more substantial fourteen-verse block indicated. Carus cut out the "apocryphal adornments," verses 7-14 of the sutra, which concern the presence of gods and spirits as witnesses to the Great Decease.63 The omission itself is characteristic of his rational approach, but why did he include these eleven rejected verses in his reference if not to make it seem more substantial?

Carus's text then leaps forward, beyond his reference, to verse 32 of the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta, which finds Ananda weeping at the thought of the Buddha's passing. After a brief reiteration of the real nature of the self in Carus's own words (since this is not indicated as an "Explanatory Addition," is it an example of the adaptation of the passage for modern readers?), Carus then has Ananda ask the question "Who shall teach us when thou art gone?" (96:12), which allows the Blessed One of Carus's Gospel to predict the coming of Carus's Buddhist Christ.

In this chapter, Carus has used three verses of the Mahaparinibbana Suttanta (3-6) to establish the scene and its characters. The lesson of this chapter in the Buddhist sutras is, however, quite different, concerned not with future teachers but with the conduct of the brethren after the Buddha's death; the four places of pilgrimage (16-22); the correct deportment toward women (23); the correct forms of treating the remains of a Tathagata (24-31). There is no mention of Maitreya in this sutra, and these issues -- the substance of the reference -- are not mentioned in the Gospel.

Here we find the prediction that Maitreya will appear five hundred years after Sakyamuni's decease, once again inaccurately quoting Eitel's dictionary.64 Careless transcription seems highly unlikely as an explanation because Carus's other references for this section, Rhys Davids's Buddhism (pp. 180, 200), also confirm Eitel's prediction that Maitreya Buddha is expected to appear five thousand years after Sakyamuni.

This pivotal equation was enhanced by illustrations in the second edition (fig. 13). That the scene is the Buddha's parinirvana is signaled by the twin sala trees in bloom behind the figure and the grieving disciples before him. In Buddhist art the dying Buddha is more commonly depicted lying on one side and never with a beard. The garment, hand gestures, hairstyle, and small earlobes all owe more to depictions of Christ than to Buddhist iconography. Such artistic liberties would be inconsequential except that the book includes a five-page testimony by the illustrator, Olga Kopetzky, claiming years of research on Asian art and her assurance that "historical fidelity has been preserved in my work."65 The Buddha even looked like Christ.66

Carus's use of texts in this chapter is typical of the work as a whole. The references provided are an unreliable guide to the extent of Carus's marshaling of the texts to his purpose. Some do indicate his sources, but rarely do the verses, or the lessons, actually match. Although it may well have functioned as a general indication of directions for further reading, "for those who wish to trace the Buddhism of this book to its fountainhead," the table of reference was in no way a substitute for the footnotes and references of academia. Its advantage, at least for the author, was that unless one actually attempted to use it, it did create the impression of textual scholarship. The Critic praised the table of reference for "showing at an eye glance the sources of his extracts and parallelisms in the Gospels."67 At a glance, if not on closer inspection, the reader could be reassured of the "authenticity" of the work.


Image
Figure 13. Christ is a Buddha (Carus, Gospel, 243; courtesy of Open Court Publishing Company, Peru, Ill.)

Carus made full use of the preface, the one area of a book -- even a philologically correct translation of the canon -- that allows the author the prerogative of interpreting his work.68 He defended Buddhism against the Christian charges that the doctrine of anatman denied the existence of a soul,69 denied that Buddhism is "negativism," and pointed out Buddhism's "many striking agreements" with Christianity, and in general established the features of Buddhism basic to his monist project. In the preface Carus declared that his purpose was not to popularize Buddhism but to aid in the formation of the religion of the future and expressed the hope that the book would "bring out a nobler faith which aspires to the cosmic religion of truth."70 He was quite explicit that his intention was not to explain Buddhism but to stimulate the evolutionary development of religion. The Gospel concluded with a poem, "In Praise of All the Buddhas," composed by Carus himself but presented as a Buddhist hymn. It was a song of Carus's universal religion of truth: all the Buddhas are one in essence, all teach the same truth. Carus's Christ was a Buddha.

The Content of the Form: The Bible as Model

Carus used the form of the work to reinforce his message of the similarity between Buddhism and Christianity. The name, The Gospel of Buddha, immediately signaled to his Christian readership the essential comparison between the Buddha Sakyamuni and Jesus Christ. Dropping the article before the title "Buddha" personalized the voice with which the author purported to speak.71 The Christian Gospels, the source of information on the life of Christ, have become, in colloquial speech, a synonym for truth itself. Hence the title implied that this was a true account of the life of the Buddha and that this was the truth that Buddha, the historical man, taught. Because "gospel" means the glad tidings of the teaching, the title also signaled Carus's intention of reversing negative perceptions of Buddhism. "Rejoice at the glad tidings .... The Buddha our Lord has revealed the Truth" is the refrain and lesson of the opening chapter. The three opening chapters, referenced to "E.A.," were entitled "Rejoice," "Samsara and Nirvana," "Truth the Saviour."

Carus also appealed to the Bible as a model to justify his free use of diverse Buddhist sources. He informed his readers in the preface to the Gospel that he had chosen to follow the model of the Fourth Gospel of the New Testament,72 presenting the "data of the Buddha's life in the light of their religio-philosophic significance." For Carus this meant "not shrinking from the marvellous ... whenever its moral seemed to justify its mention."73 This gave him the freedom to range over the existing versions of the Buddha's life, introducing material outside that recognized by previous chroniclers who had been attempting to establish the historical presence behind the mythology. Just as the Gospel of Saint John apparently derived from a wider range of sources than the Synoptic Gospels, Carus's Gospel of Buddha included material from Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Japanese Buddhist works. His constant reference for the narrative was, curiously, not the Pali material used by Oldenberg, the logical contender for the title "original contents of Buddhism" he claimed to have marshaled, but the fifth-century Chinese translation of Asvaghosha, a text from Northern Buddhism.

In defense of his use of Mahayana sources, Carus declared that his intention was not to present "Buddhism in its cradle" but "Buddhism up to date."74 This position not only allowed him to break away from adherence to the Buddhism of the Pali texts but to incorporate the modern views of Dharmapala and the Japanese Buddhists who stressed the compatibility of Buddhism with science and the modern world, the Buddhism presented at the World's Parliament of Religions.
The problem Carus faced was of legitimating contemporary Buddhist ideas in an academic regime where truth was tied to the interpretation of canonical texts. Given that the Gospel was the culmination of inspiration on Buddhism Carus received at the Parliament, it is curious that his bibliography and references do not include the papers on Buddhism presented there, which had been published by both Houghton and Barrows.

Carus's Gospel, in common with all Western scholarship at the time, claimed to pursue the essence of Buddhism, "the universal in the particular," the "nonsectarian ... ideal position upon which all true Buddhists may stand as upon common ground,"75 that is, a transnational and textual Buddhism, the "real" Buddhism compared with which each Asian practice was a distortion or aberration. In spite of his dependence on characteristically Mahayana thought, he conformed to the prejudice toward Theravada texts where possible, and his life of the Buddha was as purged of "adornment" and "accretions" as any Pali scholar's. As a result, Carus's Buddha was the archetypal nineteenth-century intellectual: "the first positivist, the first humanitarian, the first radical freethinker, the first iconoclast and the first prophet of the Religion of Science."76

Reception

The Gospel of Buddha was a great success as a popular work. Carus had "made a very agreeable and instructive book of it. ... Dr. Carus deserved the thanks of all readers for his painstaking in the preparation of a work so instructive, so practically helpful."77 Others appreciated "the simplicity of this presentation, the freedom of the text from notes or uncouth and outlandish diacritical points."78 In Carus's Gospel "[t]he best thoughts of the great Oriental faith [are] put into readable and understandable shape by a clever, learned and a sympathetic scholar."79

The book naturally attracted criticism from less tolerant sections of the Christian community. Some refused to be impressed: "Compared with the Gospel of Christ, this story is as water unto wine, as a dim candle by the full orbed sun." Others were affronted: "The book is misnamed. Buddha was a noble character; but he taught no Gospel. There is one Gospel, and one only, the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Many commented on Carus's demonstration of the similarity between the careers of the Buddha and the Christ, but some refused to concede the point: "A useful book to all who are curious to know how little Buddhism resembles Christianity and how superficial and pretentious the tenets of its Gospel."80

Carus was particularly offended by the charge that he was attempting to convert Christians to Buddhism and protested that this was definitely not his purpose. The preface to Gospel showed particular concern not to antagonize its targeted Christian audience, speaking of the advantages of Christianity over Buddhism, and concluding with a statement of the religious hierarchy as Carus understood it: "Above any Hinayana, Mahayana, and Mahase'tu is the Religion of Truth." Carus's image, which appropriated the Buddhist metaphor of the doctrine as a vehicle to transport followers to awakening, likened Christianity to a great bridge, "still more adapted to the needs of the multitude" than the large vessel of the Mahayana for crossing "the stream of self-hood and worldly vanity."81 "While the schools of Buddhism may be compared to ships that cross the stream, Christianity is a large and solid bridge. Christianity is a Mahase'tu. A child may walk over in perfect safety."82 Whatever Carus's personal path to salvation may have been, his publications were intended to bring general enlightenment within the existing Christian society of his readers, to "bear upon the living present and become a factor in the formation of the future," the formation of a "non-pagan Christianity," a religion for the present generation.

The Gospel was not well received by scholars. Professor J. Estlin Carpenter, for example, wrote that it was "worthless stuff" because the compiler showed no concern for historical development, indiscriminately using texts from different countries and different periods; ignored the differences in "metaphysical and ontological speculation" among the sects; placed "side by side extracts from books separated by hundreds of years in date and by still wider intervals of philosophic thought as though they all alike represented the teachings of the founder of Buddhism." For Carpenter it was as unacceptable as "a Gospel of Christ compiled from writings of the first, fourth and thirteenth centuries." In all, the work was neither philological nor historical, the only academically acceptable approaches to Oriental religions. Of Carus's use of his sources, he wrote, "[H]is spirit is excellent, but his method is execrable."83

Carus took the opportunity to reiterate and clarify his position by addressing Estlin Carpenter's criticisms in the Open Court.84 Under the title "Scholarmania" he dismissed the Orientalists who translated the ancient texts as the laborers, those who gathered the material for intellectuals such as himself to work with. He accused Carpenter, "the hodcarrier," of "hooting at the mason," and explained again that his purpose was different. He was not attempting to represent "Buddhism in its cradle, but ... BUDDHISM UP TO DATE, in its nobler possibilities."85 His final argument of the worth of the book, however, was that it had been translated into Japanese, and that a group of Japanese were undertaking to translate it into Chinese. There was "[n]o better evidence, that I have succeeded at least to some extent, in my aspiration" than that contemporary Asian Buddhists appeared to accept his book as representative of their religion.

This was not the only occasion on which Carus used this apparent Asian approval of Buddhism to counter Western academic criticism. Soon after this, Open Court also carried a favorable review from a Ceylonese journal, and again Carus quoted their appreciation of his work to deflect academic criticism. The review was proof that "our interpretation of the Buddhistic doctrine is in harmony with representative thinkers of Southern Buddhism." Elsewhere in the same issue he wrote, "Whether or not [The Gospel] faithfully represents the Buddhistic doctrine, it is for Buddhists to say."86 Although he flaunted news of the Japanese publication of Gospel, the approval of Southern Buddhists was particularly important to him because "they have preserved the tradition most faithfully and are very punctilious in the statement of doctrinal points." Here again we see the tension between Carus's debt to Mahayana Buddhism, particularly the Eastern Buddhism of the Japanese delegation, and the need to defer to Hinayana -- the older, the original, and therefore the more doctrinally punctilious -- for legitimation within the dominant regime of academic Orientalism.

Conclusion

Paul Carus's writings on Buddhism were a direct consequence of the representation of Buddhism at the World's Parliament of Religions and, in particular, of the emphasis the Japanese delegation placed on Eastern Buddhism's resolution of religion with science and philosophy through Mahayana doctrine. Carus's monism, though essentially quite different, did overlap some Buddhist concepts, and Carus's work in promoting Buddhism as a religion of science and in denying its association with nihilism did reinforce the Buddhist project at the Parliament. Consequently, the king of Siam could sincerely thank Carus "for the very hard and difficult task of compilation you have considerately undertaken in the interests of our religion."87 Prince Chandradat Chudhadharn could be exceedingly generous with his praise: "[A]s far as I could see, it is one of the best Buddhist scriptures ever published." D. B. Jayatilaka, headmaster, Buddhist High School, Kandy, Ceylon, could declare it to be "undoubtedly the best popular work on Buddhism in the English language." The criticisms they had can only be inferred from the polite qualifications: "as far as I could see"; "it comprises almost all knowledge of Buddhism itself."

The Gospel of Buddha was a success in that it made Buddhism familiar to a new and wider audience. It was undoubtedly a Westernization -- even, as Verhoeven writes, an Americanization -- of Buddhist ideas, emphasizing the empirical, psychological, and "positivist" aspects of Buddhism, and perhaps because of this, it succeeded in presenting a nonthreatening Buddhism that Westerners could accept. Carus's achievement, summarized in Suzuki's tribute, was as "a pioneer in introducing Oriental ways of thought and feeling to the English-reading public. In that respect all Oriental scholars, Eastern as well as Western, are deeply indebted to Dr. Paul Carus."88 Carus should rightly share in the credit Seager gives the Asian delegates to the World's Parliament of Religions for helping to usher in the era of religious plurality to North America. As Verhoeven and Tweed demonstrate, with the possible exception of Henry Steel Olcott, Carus was probably the most influential person in stimulating discussion and interest in Buddhism in the United States.89

The Gospel was less successful in promoting monism. Meyer, speaking of Carus's attempt to establish a religion of science, says bluntly, "He failed. The public to which he spoke was deaf to his voice: his ideas were too abstract for the average man and too simple for the intellectual."90 The role of the Gospel in the propagation of the religion of science presented the additional problem that the ideas explicitly expressed in Carus's other works were here embedded, unsuspected in their Buddhist guise, suggested rather than argued. Although Carus considered his Buddhist writings integral to his philosophy, his audience typically separated them. Philosophers read and dismissed the philosophy. Orientalists read and rejected his writings on Buddhism. He conformed to the rules of neither discipline.91 His success with The Gospel of Buddha was among a general readership. The cover of the paperback edition currently available carries the boast "More than three million copies sold."92

Reasons for the success of The Gospel of Buddha include the appeal of the book itself. It is a skillful compilation, and Carus succeeded in giving it something of the literary attraction of Arnold's epic poem. Access to his own press and journals to promote the publication to a targeted audience no doubt also contributed, and, as noted earlier, it offered a nonconfronting alternative to orthodox religions. The success of the Gospel, however, was to a great extent dependent on the acceptance of the book by Japanese and Sinhalese Buddhists. Apparent Asian approval validated the work, provided a guarantee of its truth in the absence of the more usually accepted academic criteria. A promotion for the 1895 edition of the Gospel announced in boldface type, "A Japanese translation for the use of Buddhists of Japan has already appeared and is now in its second edition."93 The edition currently available still carries the message: "The best evidence that this book characterizes the spirit of Buddhism correctly can be found in the welcome it received throughout the entire Buddhist world. It has even been officially introduced in Buddhist schools and temples of Japan and Ceylon."94 Carus's representation of Buddhism had apparently been endorsed by practicing Buddhists. Carus shared in their authority, at least in the popular arena. The work has never been considered academically acceptable in the West.95
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West,by Judith Snodg

Postby admin » Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:40 am

CHAPTER 11: DEPLOYING WESTERN AUTHORITY II

Carus in Translation


Within months of its American release, Paul Carus's The Gospel of Buddha had been translated by D. T. Suzuki and published in Japan with a preface and endorsement by Shaku Soen and a biography of Carus by Suzuki. This book, Budda no fukuin, a conscientiously literal translation of the original text, was imbued with the political concerns of Meiji Japan.1 Its value was in attracting the attention of the Western-educated elite of the nation -- Inoue Enryo's "young men of talent and education" -- introducing them to Buddhist ideas, presented in an accessible form acceptable by Western standards, and reassuring them of Western intellectual interest in and approval of their indigenous religion. Budda no fukuin was both a consequence of the Japanese delegation to the World's Parliament of Religions, validating the mission abroad, and an extension of its project, presenting Eastern Buddhism as the religion of modern Japan through its claim to be the universal religion of the modern world. It was an event in sequence with the Meiji Buddhist revival project outlined in Inoue Enryo's Bukkyo katsuron joron -- another example of the deployment of Western authority demonstrated by the highly orchestrated Japanese tour of Henry Steel Olcott and by the performance at the Chicago Parliament. A most important feature of the book was the Western status of its author. As Suzuki's biography presented him, he was a German philosopher who rejected Christianity in favor of Buddhism as the modern scientific religion. As such he illustrated reform claims that Western intellectuals were finding Christianity inadequate.

Contrary to the assumption of Carus's biographers, the reason for the publication was not that Shaku Soen saw him as a source of Buddhist wisdom. He and Suzuki were well aware of the shortcomings of Carus's representation of Buddhist thought, but in the context of Buddhist revival the content of the book was of secondary importance. The Asian publication of the work was, however, a major factor in the enduring reputation of the book and its author, and the principal reason it still circulates as a source of knowledge of Buddhism to this day. This chapter describes its function in the Meiji Buddhist revival and its apparent endorsement by Japanese Buddhists.

The Gospel of Buddha in Japan

The preface to Budda no fukuin lists three reasons for its publication: "First, to make our readers know how much our Buddhism is understood by Western scholars; second, to point out a short road for studying Buddhism for the younger generation; third, through the life of Sakyamuni, to sow widely the seeds of the great teaching of Buddhism."2 The first of these reasons is the most compelling: it is a statement uncommitted to the quality of the work, suggesting "Let the book speak for itself;' and carrying the dual implication that this is evidence of the strength of Western interest in Buddhism and of the limit of Western understanding on the subject. The second and third reasons indicate the audience targeted by the publication, the young Western-educated elite, namely, Japanese seeking a religion compatible with modern science, with modern Western thought, precisely those who had been interested in Christianity but who were now looking for an indigenous answer to their spiritual needs. The Western authorship of Gospel was essential to the force of its communication, testimony to the truth of Shaku Soen's claims that "there are signs that the West might welcome Buddhism," even if "there is doubt attached" to whether Western scholars have fully understood the "essential principles of Buddhism."

The importance of Western interest in Buddhism in the Meiji context of rivalry between Japanese Christians and Buddhists is shown in the address made by the delegates Shaku Soen, Yatsubuchi, and others to the Young Men's Buddhist Association (YMBA) of Yokohama shortly after their return from Chicago: "The Parliament was called because the Western nations have come to realise the weakness and folly of Christianity, and they really wished to hear from us of our religions and to learn what the best religion is. The meeting showed the great superiority of Buddhism over Christianity, and the mere fact of calling the meetings showed that the Americans and other Western peoples had lost their faith in Christianity and were ready to accept the teachings of our superior religion."3

The existence of The Gospel of Buddha was further evidence of these claims, which were repeated, though rather more subtly, in Shaku Soen's preface, where he connected the achievements of modern science, which had "made the truth more and more clear;' with the fact that "there are many signs in the Western civilization that it will welcome Buddhism."4 Scientific developments were preparing the West to receive the truth of Buddhism. Shaku Soen mentioned the current interest in Oriental literature, history, and fine arts and the "new and powerful interest in comparative religion" as indications that "the time is at hand in which Western scholars begin to see how brilliantly our Buddhism shines in all its glory."5 "The World's Parliament of Religions held in America the previous year was a great achievement that was proof of the westward advance of Buddhism."6

As the delegates' address to the YMBA shows, Western interest in Buddhism was not only claimed as proof of the worth of Buddhism but was also construed by the Buddhists to imply the failure of Christianity to meet the needs of the modern world. Suzuki's biography of Carus presented him as a case study of this process. It related how Carus, born in Germany, the son of a prominent Christian clergyman, a scholar who had taken a doctoral degree in philosophy from a prominent German university, had rejected Christianity in favor of Buddhism. The existence of the Gospel was material evidence of the claim. Suzuki's emphasis on Carus's German background and training reflected the high esteem for German philosophy in Japan. That Carus, a German philosopher and man of science, rejected Christianity because he perceived it to be incompatible with the scientific world view was a specific challenge to Japanese converts, many of whom had turned to Christianity as the natural concomitant of modernization and Westernization.7

Carus's book, concerned as it was with the religion of science, was particularly valuable in Meiji religious debate because, in an inversion of its function in Carus's monist project, it actually argued the case for the Buddhists, defending Buddhism against the common charges of nihilism, skepticism, and atheism. Its emphasis on present concerns, future developments, and the religious basis of modernity supported the Buddhist reform project because it presented Buddhism as a religion suited to the modern scientific world view represented in Japan by the West. Most important, its Western authorship verified these claims, claims that had been made by Japanese scholars such as Inoue Enryo for some years.

Shaku Soen remarked on Carus's use of Mahayana sources as a particular feature of the work.8 The relationship of Mahayana Buddhism to the historical existence of the Buddha was a contentious issue in Meiji Buddhism. That the Mahayana was taught by the Buddha was central to the reform position. In his summary of the achievements of the delegation, Shaku Soen mentioned his sense of satisfaction that "the mistaken idea that Mahayana Buddhism was not actually the Buddha's teaching had been put to rest."9 The book's acceptance and inclusion of the Mahayana sutras in this Buddhist "gospel" gave it additional value. Though these features provided evidence of a Western interest in and sympathy for Buddhism, the value of this went just so far. In his introduction to the second edition of Fukuin, Suzuki expressed misgivings about the quality of the work. "The book, which was not intended for Japanese hands, was unsatisfactory." One problem was its simplicity. It had been written in simple language that made it accessible to "anyone with a junior high school education;' but as a consequence there were "many immature words;' which, Suzuki was concerned, might hinder understanding.10 This was not his only complaint. "In the translator's view, there are not a few passages where there are omissions or where there are revisions. This is the work of a Westerner and, from my personal view, it has the odour of a Westerner about it."11

Shaku Soen, referring to the works of major Orientalists, explained how each produced an incomplete and idiosyncratic interpretation: "Swedenborg came to Buddhism through his interest in mysticism; [Edwin] Arnold through his elegant poetic vision; Olcott through his interest in superior intellect; Max Muller through his interest in the refined Sanskrit language."12 Although each of them is excellent in his own field, he concluded, "as for attaining the essential meaning of the noble truths of Buddhism, there is reason to doubt whether these scholars had penetrated the secret."13 If these great leaders of Oriental scholarship had failed in the task, what was Shaku Soen suggesting his readers should expect of Carus?

In spite of whatever shortcomings he may have seen in the work, Shaku Soen compared the arrival of Carus's book to "the rainbow and clouds after a serious drought."14 This was because "an eager demand for a concisely compiled work on Buddhism has arisen throughout the country which it is our duty to satisfy." Shaku Soen was explicit that it was neither absence of information on Buddhism nor a falling off in Buddhist scholarship that led to the publication of the book. As his preface explained, "[H]ere [in Japan] the tradition is not disappearing; the writings are accumulating at a vast rate, and there is an exceedingly great superabundance of books"; "the Buddhist tradition which had existed in Japan for more than a thousand years was not disappearing; we have the complete Tripitaka, specialist teachers of the sutras, and the commentaries." The problems were rather that the literature, already so vast, continued to accumulate, and that canonical texts required a profound skill to master. "The characters are difficult and the sentences scholarly and intricate."15 Hence the scholars of today "are at a loss how to begin the study of the Tripitaka, the 'perfection of the ancients.''' These "scholars of today," "the up-and-coming young Buddhists" to whom Fukuin was directed, were the growing class of Western-educated young moderns who had not the classical training needed to cope with the special difficulties of Buddhist texts, which are not only written in Chinese but are further removed from even the educated general reader by specialist technical terms. For the benefit of this audience the Gospel was translated by Suzuki into "a very easy style."

There were already some introductory books in modern language available in Japan. Inoue Enryo's works, written specifically to meet the needs of this audience, have already been mentioned, as have those of Nakanishi Goro. There was the five-volume work intended to promote Buddhist unity that Shaku Soen, Toki Horyu, Ashitsu Jitsuzen, and Shimaji Mokurai had begun to compile in 1891.16 Although this work was probably not suitable for the general distribution that Shaku Soen envisaged for Budda no fukuin, it does contradict the assumption that Japanese Buddhists went to Caruss for knowledge of their religion. There were as well at least three short introductions to Buddhism that had been written in Japanese before being translated into English for distribution at the Chicago fair, and there had also been books on the life of Sakyamuni.17 The fact that Shaku Soen also saw a use for Fukuin as a primer of Buddhism does not detract from its primary function as a sign of Western recognition of the superiority of Buddhism as a religion for the future.

One advantage of Carus's Gospel was that a book on Buddhism by a Western scholar could be expected to reach a wider audience than these previous works. The Buddhist content of Carus's Gospel was not new to Japan. The audience for a book by a Western author, however, would presumably consist of the already pro-Buddhist audience of Inoue, Nakanishi, et al., extended to include the pro-Western Japanese as well as that element of society which in any country is curious to find out what outsiders have to say about it. Just as Carus had used the book to extend his message to the general public, beyond the elite readership of his journals, Shaku Soen's Fukuin could popularize and extend the audience for Buddhist reform arguments. Shaku Soen has been described by Furuta Shokin as the founder of lay Zen in Japan, but his work was only part of the more general movement of koji Buddhism, bringing Buddhism out of the institutions and into the lives of the lay community. Carus's book, which was intended to introduce Buddhism-monism to the general public in America, was put to a similar task in Japan.

Validating the Chicago Mission

The Gospel of Buddha was also a sign of the success of the Japanese delegation to Chicago, a reply to conservative critics who had withheld official endorsement. That the book had been the consequence of the meeting between the Japanese Buddhist delegation and this German philosopher was spelled out in both the preface and the biography of Carus that Suzuki appended to Fukuin. The existence of the Gospel -- the fact that exposure to Eastern Buddhism had inspired Carus to write it -- justified the initiative taken by the delegates; it was proof that they had advanced Buddhist understanding by their attendance in Chicago. The content of the Gospel validated Shaku Soen's specific claim that the delegation had shown "that Buddhism closely corresponds to modern science and philosophy."18

In his Bankoku shukyo taikai ichiran (Outline of the World's Parliament of Religions), where Shaku Soen listed the achievements of the delegation, he concluded modestly that "we have simply fulfilled our mission in spreading the wisdom of the Buddha and we will not make an announcement of this to the public." This "private memento" was nevertheless published through a number of editions. These, as well as addresses such as that to the YMBA, the Buddhist journals, and local newspapers, made much of the success and achievements of the delegation. The delegates became the Champions of Buddhism19 and Fukuin became evidence for the Japanese public of the success of the delegation. Shaku Soen's communication of the success of the delegation should not be read as a sign of personal pride unbecoming in a Zen abbot. The message is rather proof of the argument in the Manifesto quoted previously: the times call for action, not passive resistance to the Christian invasion. The future of Buddhism in Japan depended on it, and the Parliament offered an excellent opportunity to take Eastern Buddhism to the West-to "attempt the surprising strategy of expansion."20

The delegation to Chicago had been a strategy in the defense of Buddhism against Western encroachment in Japan, and it had achieved its initial, modest, purpose: "It is beyond our expectations to achieve an immediate positive result from sending one or two delegates to the Conference .... what is important is simply to make a step in the grand design for future progress." Christian investment in Japan was inefficient, the Manifesto argued, in that their immense effort had not been compensated. Nevertheless, it was undeniable that "Christianity had built up a great latent force in our society" through its activity, and, the argument ran, Buddhists should also be willing to take action. Reviewing the achievements of the delegation, which dealt less with transmission of doctrine than with the conversion of a New York businessman, and the cooperation of an expatriate Japanese businessman in funding extra lectures at the exposition, Shaku Soen mused on the possibilities for Buddhism if the wider Buddhist community could be moved to such action: "It would be a marvelous event which would change the face of the country."21 The Gospel was an indication of the possibilities.

Creating Space for Discussion

Shaku Soen's endorsement of the book lent it authority among Buddhist readers, because he was not only chief abbot of an important Rinzai Zen temple complex but also a well-known Buddhist scholar, but his disclaimer on the accuracy of Western understanding of Buddhism suggests that the book could have created a space for the discussion of the place of Buddhism in the modern world. Because it was written by a non-Japanese, a Buddhist sympathizer but not an educated Buddhist priest, the ideas it presented were open to freer discussion in Japan than if it had been written by Shaku Soen himself, for example, with the responsibility his position within institutional Buddhism demanded.

The careers of the two extremely influential Meiji Buddhist scholars, Inoue Enryo and Murakami Sensho, show some of the difficulties. Inoue, though a graduate of the Otani Buddhist university, resigned from the Honganji institution to remain in the intellectually less restricted climate of the academic world. Murakami Sensho, whose writings also contributed to a deeper understanding among non-Buddhists, particularly intellectuals and statesmen, remained a priest, but controversy caused by his scholarship forced him to resign from the Otani sect in 1901.22 Although he always maintained his belief in the doctrinal superiority of the Mahayana, Murakami's study of Buddhism using Western academic methods led him to question whether it had actually been taught by the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni. Some issues of importance if Buddhism was to conform to Western criteria for acceptance as truth were not open for discussion by institutional clergy.

In Japan Carus was respected as an authority on the West and on Western philosophy. The title page identified him as a German doctor of philosophy (in Japanese the distinction is made that his doctorate was in the discipline of philosophy, Tetsugaku hakushi), claiming for him a share in the high esteem in which German philosophy was held among Japanese intellectuals. Shaku Soen could enthusiastically endorse him for his goodwill in wishing to promote Buddhism and for his achievement in avoiding some of the errors of other Western scholars, but his opinions on Japan and Buddhism could be questioned without upsetting orthodoxy. They could be easily dismissed as yet another example of the inadequacy of foreign understanding. The foreign origin of the book was signaled by the title, Budda no fukuin, where fukuin was the word coined by Christian missionaries in Japan to designate the Christian Gospels. The Japanese rendering of the characters is "glad tidings;' corresponding to the etymology of the English "gospel," and current Japanese-English dictionaries indicate its close association with Christian evangelism.23

Shaku Soen apparently chose not to transmit Carus's emphasis on the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism; Fukuin does not include the "Table of Reference" which showed these parallels. The "List of Abbreviations" was transformed into a bibliography, effectively a statement of the extent of Western scholarship on Buddhism, again an endorsement of the claims of the reformers, presented in both English and in Japanese. Non-English readers could see the extent and nature of Western scholarship in the Japanese. The English version of the bibliography provided a source of reference and further study for the Western-educated.

Budda no fukuin in Buddhist Nationalism

Paul Carus's The Gospel of Buddha was deployed in Japan as a sign of Western recognition that Buddhism was the most appropriate religion for the modern, scientific world. This idea was fundamental to Meiji Buddhist reform but by no means the total issue. It is no surprise that Shaku Soen's preface also spoke on other issues in the discourse: the reinstatement of Buddhism as a state religion and the benefits that Buddhist teaching bestows upon the nation.

The preface opened with a message of hope for Buddhism in overcoming its present problems, of Buddhism's strength in adversity, its adaptability. "The strength of Buddhism is like fire ... the more you beat it, the more it burns ... if attacked it becomes more and more aroused."24 Arguing from history, it described how in ancient India Buddhism survived the dissension of ninety-six heretical sects; in China, it survived the opposition it faced from the two competing religions and oppressive rulers; over the hundreds, thousands of years of its eastward advance, Buddhism had survived crushing attacks, but its real character had not been decreased in the least,25 The state of Buddhism in Meiji Japan, stripped of its power, suffering attack from Christians, was nothing new, the preface suggested. Buddhism had survived greater adversity, and not only survived but had emerged stronger for the purification. "Now, once again, although we met the crushing attack of hai ki26 Buddhism's real character had not been decreased in the least."

The preface then retold the story of an interview between an ancient Chinese emperor and a Buddhist sage that argued the virtues of Buddhism, its benefits for beings of all ranks, and its benefits to the state. The emperor asked the sage to teach him what benefits Buddhism offers living beings. The emperor, convinced by the sage of Buddhism's superiority, converted to Buddhism and established it within his kingdom. The lesson of this sermonlike section of the preface was that "the Buddha is truly the Sage of complete wisdom and virtue, and the dharma which he preached is the true principle of all ages and all countries, East and West" (emphasis added). The unspoken conclusion is clearly that the Buddha dharma, the future universal religion, must also be the true principle to guide Meiji Japan.

In summary, as well as its messages of Western interest in Buddhism as the religion of the future, the preface argued that Buddhism was the solution to the questions of Meiji religion, the problem of the ideological base for modern Japan, a religion to assure the welfare of the nation. It also continued the campaign to reestablish the relationship between Buddhism and the state. Budda no fukuin, Carus's text as it was deployed in Japan, was imbued with the political concerns of the Meiji period and owed its publication to its strategic value in the discourse of Meiji religion.

The Two Prefaces: The Extension of the Parliament Project

My concern so far has been the significance of The Gospel of Buddha in the discourse of Meiji religion in Japan. But Shaku Soen's preface to Budda nofukuin appeared in two versions. The second, which purported to be the English translation of the original, was published in Carus's journal, Open Court.27 This "translation" shared a few paragraphs with the original but was essentially rewritten for the American journal, suggesting that Shaku Soen also realized the opportunity offered by the publication of Budda no fukuin to intervene in the Western discourse on Buddhism. In effect it was an extension of the project of the Chicago delegation: an attempt to gain Western respect and appreciation for Buddhism, on the one hand to satisfy the Buddhist missionary ideal but, more important, as the Manifesto indicated, to strengthen the position of Buddhism in Japan.

Shaku Soen's summary of the achievements of the delegation began with the statement that "we drew the attention of both foreigners and Japanese to the following points at least;' indicating his awareness that by speaking in Chicago he was also addressing a certain local audience. The Japanese and American discourses intersected for a Japanese elite which was typified by people such as Hirai and the Christian delegates to the Parliament -- that is, progressives, both Buddhist and Christian -- many of whom contributed to the Monist and Open Court.28 Articles by Japanese also appeared in liberal magazines such as Arena and Forum. Even non-English-speaking Japanese were brought into contact with articles of particular interest in English journals, which were translated and republished in Japan. In Open Court 9 (1895), for example, a letter from Mr. K. Ohara of Japan reported that he had published a translation of the "Triangular Debate on Christian Missions," an article from the Monist, in his journal the Shi- Do-Kwai-Ko-Koku.29 Hirai's article from Arena was translated and republished in Japan. The Monist regularly noted the contents of Japanese journals received. It was not unreasonable to assume that an article on Japanese Buddhism in Open Court or the Monist would reach members of this particular elite, either directly or by report. Indeed, certain parts of the preface seem directed more particularly to this elite than to a Christian readership. The "translation" of the preface to Fukuin, therefore, like the delegation to Chicago before it, was a strategic intervention in both discourses. Shaku Soen not only appropriated Carus's text for deployment in the discourse on the religious future of Meiji Japan; he took the opportunity of the Japanese publication to continue his intervention in the Western discourse on Buddhism.

The Preface in Open Court: The Message to the West

The version of Shaku Soen's preface to Budda no fukuin reproduced in Open Court differed from the original in both omissions and additions. The initial historical paragraph illustrating the resilience and adaptability of Buddhism in the face of adversity, and the discussion between the emperor and the sage were omitted, perhaps a consequence of Carus's editorial hand. The sections dealing with the westward advance of Buddhism, Orientalist scholarship, and the reasons for the Japanese publication were reproduced more or less completely. There were, however, significant additions that had no parallel in the original. These we must attribute to Japanese authorship and an extension of the delegation's mission to the West.

The opening paragraph stressed the Buddhist belief that the dharma predates the historical Sakyamuni, challenging the Western assumption that Buddhism was originally a secular philosophy, the creation of a historical man, an assumption that underlies Carus's vision of the Buddha as the first humanist, first positivist, and so on. The preface stated emphatically that "Sakyamuni was born in India about three thousand years ago, but Buddhism existed long before his birth .... Buddhism is not an invention of Sakyamuni, but the Truth of the world."30

Although equating Buddhism with the truth of the world has a superficial coincidence with Carus's representation of Buddhism as the religion of truth presented in the Gospel, Shaku Soen's claim is fundamentally different. In Carus's vision, Buddhism and Christianity shared equally in the truth. They were the result of parallel evolution, the result of the same truth adapted to two different cultural and historical environments. For Shaku Soen, Buddhism, the truth of the world, was the fulfillment of all world religions. He described Buddhism as the center of the solar system of religion, and relegated Christianity to a position among all other religions, one of "the larger or smaller planets revolving around this brilliant sun of the Truth."31

The difference here is profound. The friendship between Carus and Shaku Soen was apparently based on their shared commitment to the principles of the Parliament, universal religious tolerance and dedication to the search for truth. Carus wrote to Shaku Soen that" [a]ll religions contain more or less truth, and all Bibles and sacred books more or less error. What we want is the best of them, the truth without the error, the good without the evil."32 This statement seems in remarkable accord with Shaku Soen's lecture to a meeting of Japanese religious leaders, Christian and Buddhist: "In both Buddhism and in Christianity, truth and untruth are, without doubt, mingled .... We are a people with a strong belief in truth, therefore we must search for whatever glimmer of truth there is, even amongst the rubbish, even amongst the excrement, we are willing to bow before it and rejoice."33

The coincidence of aim between Carus and Shaku Soen was not as close as it first appeared. Shaku Soen advocated religious tolerance and coexistence, but he had no doubts about the relative status of the ultimate rewards of Buddhism and Christianity. In the religious crisis of Meiji Japan, he called upon both the Christian and Buddhist communities to drop their rivalry and prejudice and cooperate for the good of the nation. There were, for him, undeniable differences in belief: "The doctrinal arguments of philosophers cannot be reconciled ... but men of religion should disregard this and adopt the basic position of nondiscriminating, impartial benevolence .... Christians and Buddhists both together must meet the urgent task of today through carrying out philanthropic work."34 Both believed in the imperative of the search for truth and both believed it was present in all religions, but for Shaku Soen the unity of Buddhism and Christianity was not to be found at the level of the highest Truth, which Buddhism alone possessed, but in the common belief in charity, benevolence, and compassion. "Those who have the aptitude to believe in Christianity can follow Christianity and obtain consolation. Those who are born to follow Buddhism can accept Buddhism and attain liberation."35

But let us return to the preface. From this firm conviction of the superiority of Buddhism in the hierarchy of world religions, Shaku Soen described his vision of their interrelationship. Confucius is, he wrote, "a Bodhisattva that appeared in China; and Jesus and Mohammed are Arhats in the West." (Here again Shaku Soen differed from Caruso He granted Jesus a high spiritual status but not that of a Buddha.) The function of each of these great teachers was to prepare their followers to receive Buddhism, and although "some religious doctrines are inferior to and less deep than others ... as far as they are consistent with the Truth, they may freely find their place within our Buddhist doctrines." This is more than a restatement of the encompassing tolerance of Buddhism. In this scheme the preexistence of an established religion is a necessary condition for the entry of Buddhism into a nation: "If Brahmanism had not arisen in India, Buddhism would never have come into existence"; similarly, the existence of Confucianism in China and Shinto in Japan made it possible for Buddhism to be introduced into those countries. Without the Arhats of the West, Jesus and Mohammed, there would be no Buddhism in the countries where those religious teachers are worshiped. "For all these religions, I make bold to say, are nothing but so many conductors through which the 'White Light' of Buddha is passing into the whole universe."

Kitagawa sees the use of this typically Christian formula of fulfillment by Asian religious reformers as a legacy of the Parliament, a lesson learned from Christians.36 Although this may be the case for the Indian delegates he quotes, the idea has a much earlier origin in Japan. Edward J. Reed recorded an interview with Akamatsu Renjo, a Honganji priest who had accompanied Shimaji Mokurai to England for two and a half years from 1873. Akamatsu believed, said Reed, that his sect of Buddhism contained all that was good and true in the Christian religion and that the people of England were ripe for the reception of Buddhism.37

How did Shaku Soen expect a Western audience to respond to this Buddhist appropriation of Carus's concept of the religion of truth and its claim of Asian priority? I do not believe that his argument was intended to attract converts to Buddhism. On the one hand, the preface attempted to dispute Carus's representation of Buddhism; it also challenged the Christian and Western assumption of natural superiority. On the other hand, it assured Japan's pro-Western generation that Buddhism already has all that the modern West was striving for. The publication of this statement in Open Court was a form of Western endorsement.

Shaku Soen's preface, recomposed for American publication, was a minor strategy in Western discourse, but as Foucault points out, the overall effect of a strategy escapes the author's intentions. "People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does."38 Carus and his American readers gave no sign of noticing Shaku Soen's vision of Buddhism as the fulfillment of Christianity, his opposition to Carus's position on truth and the relationship of Buddhism and Christianity, or his doubts on the success of Orientalists in understanding Buddhism. What was communicated to the Western reader, what did enter the Western discourse, was that Shaku Soen, a high-ranking Buddhist, propagated Carus's work in Japan. Whatever the reason for the deployment of this Western text in the Japanese discourse, and regardless of any reservations Asian Buddhists may have held about the accuracy of its representation of Buddhism, Japanese acceptance of the Gospel validated the text in the West.

Budda no fukuin was the first of more than thirteen different editions that appeared in Carus's lifetime.39 Japanese Reform Buddhists started on a Chinese translation in 1895 as part of their mission into the Chinese mainland, and this was reportedly tested out on prisoners of the Sino-Japanese War. The Gospel was republished in Ceylon but was not translated into Sinhalese because it was of greater use to the anticolonial Buddhist movement there as a Buddhist reader to replace the Bible used in government schools to teach the English language, the key to obtaining positions within the bureaucracy. It continued to be used for this purpose until the middle of the twentieth century.40 In Ceylon, as in Japan, the book was endorsed not because it was a source of knowledge on Buddhism as such, but because it was of strategic value in the Buddhist nationalist movement. However, the constant reiteration of this Asian acceptance in Carus's publications and in promoting the book was, in the absence of its conformity to the rules of a historical or scientific presentation of the subject, the guarantee of the Gospel's truth as a representation of Buddhism. As Carus himself put it, "Whether or not it faithfully represents the Buddhist doctrine, it is for Buddhists to say."41 As recently as 1973 the work was republished with the reassurance that "[t]he best evidence that this book characterizes the spirit of Buddhism correctly can be found in the welcome it has received throughout the entire Buddhist world."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Cults

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron