著者

山本 伸裕

出版者

東京大学東洋文化研究所

雑誌

東洋文化研究所紀要 (ISSN:05638089)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.160, pp.441-496, 2011-12-22

---

This paper seeks to clarify the relationship between Nāgārjuna's philosophy of the Middle Way, based on the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā), and Pure Land Buddhist thought, of which Shinran was a devotee. In Shinran's texts, one can see many references to Nāgārjuna as one of the greatest teachers of Mahāyāna Buddhism as well as of Pure Land Buddhism. But, it is still open to debate whether he may be considered the real ancestor of Pure Land Buddhism, though Shinran seems to have had no doubt that he was the very man who set the precedent for the teaching of the easy path of nembutsu. As a matter of fact, one can say that Jodo-Shin-Shū has not dwelt a great deal on Nāgārjuna's philosophy of emptiness. One reason may be that, for many people, Nāgārjuna's thoughts on emptiness were too profound to comprehend. Again, some might say there is little relationship to the teachings of the Pure Land, in which various expedients (upāya) are used to guide ordinary people. Nāgārjuna's emptiness is mainly mentioned in Sanskrit texts such as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (“Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way”). One must carefully reread these texts in order to see how the philosophy of emptiness can be employed in the generation of Pure Land thought. This is as most Buddhists have been reading Nāgārjuna's texts through the classical Chinese translations. In this thesis, two key terms prapañca and prajñapti are carefully examined. Although both are surely related to human conceptual and linguistic practices, they are often considered to be of secondary value, at best, as compared with the notion of emptiness. But, such understanding may not be correct as it is influenced, to some unknown degree, by the style of the individual translator. The word “prajñapti” means practice in this world, of which nature is nothing other than “emptiness” (śūnyatā). Consequently, all of our deeds are subject to failure. But, once one accepts this uncertainty of emptiness, one will no more be tormented by one's own actions. Meanwhile, Shinran, basing his own faith on Pure Land Buddhism, emphasized the role of expedients, or “means,” and salvation by faith to the Other (Amitābha). This salvation by faith means giving up reliance on one's own ability and accepting the power of “emptiness.” In this way, one lives in the real world expediently and depending upon linguistic practice.

著者

山本 伸裕

出版者

東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」

雑誌

死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)

巻号頁・発行日

no.16, pp.74-100, 2011-10

---

Akegarasu Haya (暁烏敏1877-1954) -- whose thought is commonly regarded as being in the tradition of Kiyozawa Manshi's seishin-shugi, or 'spiritualism,'(精神主義) -- has been accused of leading a great number of Japanese people into war in Kiyozawa's name. Kiyozawa is an extremely important figure in the development of Shin thought in the Meiji period, and might rightly be considered a torch-carrier for the tradition. However, it is a fact that Akegarasu, a disciple of Kiyozawa, lead Japanese citizens in his role as a Shin-Buddhist preacher. This is a large stumbling block when one seeks to evaluate the ideological parameters of Shin. One may assert that there are some critical differences between Kiyozawa's way of thinking and Akegarasu's. The first point is the difference in their approach to the word 'religion.'Kiyozawa, in his final essay "Waga-shinnen (我信念)," describes how he, through his efforts to lead an ethical life in the real world, came to a realization of how truly powerless he was as a person and how he finally came to an understanding of 'religion'or, "the real faith of Shin-Buddhism." In contrast, Akegarasu confessed that he had feared death since he was a child and that he felt that he needed to be saved through the compassion of Amida Buddha. Differences, such as this, between the master and his pupil inevitably influence their sense of ethics. For Kiyozawa, matters of ethics are essential to his view of religion, as he acquired his faith through a deep sense of failure in ethics. He felt that in order to be liberated from the bonds of suffering it was necessary to seek for religious meaning while remaining in the everyday world. In other words, he couldn't live without religion in his life. On the other hand, Akegarasu's faith shows a striking contrast. As a matter of fact, his faith in Amida Buddha was necessary solely for overcoming his own fear of death. He insists that once people die they are sure to be reborn in Amida's Pure Land, achieve eternal life, and even be reunited with their families and intimate friends. According to his belief, one needn't worry about what one does in everyday life, whether it be good or bad, as one will unquestionably be saved by the prayer of Amida Buddha after death. This must surely explain why there seems to be no ethical element in Akegarasu's interpretation of Shin-Buddhist thought. Their contrasting attitudes in regard to ethics may also be rooted in their understanding of Amida Buddha. Kiyozawa interpreted Amida as 'Absolute Infinity', whereas Akegarasu grounded Amida in reality, relating him to real-life elements such as the Emperor of Japan or the Empire of Japan. For Akegarasu, though he was a Buddhist priest, the Emperor was of more value to him. Actually, some who knew him well point out that he placed particular value on the idea of lineal purity and even became obsessive over the issue. Therefore, from his point of view, there was no need to argue points on the "great righteous cause" of Japan. Thusly, he was unswerving in his view that people must never hesitate to lay down their life and cut down all those that stand in the way in establishing the Pure Land in this world. Thus, one must take particular care when dealing with the concept of seishin-shugi.

著者

山本 伸裕

出版者

東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科

雑誌

死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.307-305, 2009-03