Here’s something I wrote before I got ill:
Recently in a Shin Buddhist online forum I heard someone criticising the Jodo Shinshu thinker Takamaro Shigaraki (Professor Emeritus Ryukoku University, Kyoto) for allegedly saying that Amida “is a fictional entity”. Personally I am not convinced that Shigaraki actually says this, however I have found a passage which is probably an example of where the critic thinks he is doing so:
A symbol represents a means or method of pointing to a world-transcending, ultimate truth. Accordingly, since a symbol must always be expressed in an analogical and worldly manner, at some point also it must necessarily be negated. This, then, is the fundamental meaning of the word “symbol.” … In Nagarjuna’s Commentary on the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra we find the phrase, “Rely on the meaning, not on the words.” Shinran cites this passage in the Chapter on Transformed Buddha-bodies and Lands of his Kyogyosho monrui (True Teaching, Practice and Realization). Here Nagarjuna provides an easily understandable illustration involving the moon and a finger. Since we human beings always look downward when we walk, he says, we do not see the beautiful, brilliant moon in the heavens. Someone then taps us on the shoulder and, with his finger, indicates that we should look up at the beautiful moon in the sky. This is the so-called illustration of the “finger pointing to the moon.”
Nagarjuna explains that the finger represents “words,” while the moon represents “meaning.” “Meaning” here refers to true meaning, first principle, or true essence. As we have seen above, it corresponds to the life of Sakyamuni and the content of his enlightenment. In this illustration, ultimate truth is represented by the moon. Since we are not able to grasp this first principle directly, we are directed toward it by words and language—by the finger, or, symbol that points us toward the moon. Nagarjuna urges us not to mistake the finger for the moon. He tells us not to confound words and meaning, that is, not to mistake the secular words that are used to point to ultimate truth for that truth itself. We are able to see the moon because of the finger. However, we should not look at the finger and think that it is the moon. This is the meaning of the phrase, “Rely on the meaning, not on the words.” Here, the topic of our discussion is the significance of symbols. The Buddha-body called “Amida,” that Buddha’s Name, and all of the other words in the Sutra are all nothing more than “fingers.” None of them constitute the “moon” itself. The entire content of the Sutra and the teaching of Amida Buddha’s Primal Vow are expressed symbolically so that we can know the moon itself … Today’s traditional doctrinal studies give absolutely no consideration to this understanding of Amida Buddha as symbol, that is, as a finger pointing to the moon. As a result, proponents of traditional Shin Buddhist doctrinal studies have a tendency in large measure to apprehend the Name of Amida Buddha as a substantial entity …
I have a recollection that relates to this. Long ago, when I was still a student, a certain professor made the statement in a lecture on Shin Buddhist Studies that the Name of Amida Buddha is such that the “Name and its substance are not separate.” To explain what this meant he wrote in a large size the kanji character for “fire” on the blackboard. Touching it with his hand, he said, “Gentlemen. Although I place my hand on this character it is not hot.” I remember wondering what he was talking about. Next, he placed a piece of white chalk in his mouth and made the gesture of lighting a cigarette. “No matter how many times I do this, it will not light.” Finally, he stated, “When we speak of names in this world, they are all simply appellations and have no substance. Thus, the character for ‘fire’ is not hot; you cannot light a cigarette with it. However, the Name of Amida is not like that. The Name, as it is, is perfectly endowed with substance. Thus, the ‘Name and its substance are not separate.’” Even now I can clearly remember that professor’s gestures. Yet, my thoughts then (and now) were that this kind of thinking turns Shin Buddhism into nothing more than a kind of belief in magical incantations. Yet, isn’t this kind of idea still being preached in Shin Buddhist sermons even now?
Takamaro Shigaraki: The Problem of the True and the False in Contemporary Shin Buddhist Studies (.pdf)
Before considering the important question of “Name and its substance are not separate” let’s first dismiss the critic’s accusation that Shigaraki is saying that Amida “is a fictional entity”. Shigraraki writes for example:
a symbol points toward something, it also exists in a profound relationship with the thing itself. This is an important point, I believe. The finger points to the moon, and because of the finger we are able to look up to the moon for the first time. However, the finger is not simply a finger. It is because the finger is bathed in the light of the moon that, for the first time, the finger can engage in finger-activity, which is to point to the moon. The activity of the finger itself would not be able to exist in complete darkness. It is because the moon gives off light that the finger can exhibit finger-activity for the first time. In this sense, a symbol participates profoundly within ultimacy. It is none other than the self-expression of the ultimate.”
It seems to me therefore to be clear that Shigaraki is not denying the reality provisionally designated Amida. Indeed Shigaraki would appear to be in line with Shinran who follows T’an-Luan in saying:
there are two kinds of dharma-body with regard to the Buddha. The first is called dharma-body as suchness and the second, dharma-body as compassionate means. Dharma-body as suchness has neither color nor form; thus, the mind cannot grasp it nor words describe it. From this oneness was manifested form, called dharma-body as compassionate means.” (http://www.shinranworks.com/commentaries/essentialnotes3.htm)
It is with T’an-Luan though that we run into more valid difficulties because the critic’s principle argument against Shigraraki’s usage of the ‘finger pointing analogy’ (and Shigraraki’s criticism of the “Name and its substance are not separate” doctrine) is firmly based upon the Pure Land textual tradition:
“In reference to a previous message of mine, the metaphor of the finger pointing at the sun is indeed from Nagarjuna, but the exception for names of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is actually
from T’an-Luan’s “Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Discourse on the Pure Land”, Fascicle Two, Chapter 2, section 52:
“Question: A name is, as it were a finger to point at an object, as when we point at the sun. If recitation of the Buddha’s name is capable of fulfilling one’s aspirations, the finger which points at the sun should be able to remove darkness. But the finger cannot remove darkness; how could mere recitation of the Buddha’s name fulfil one’s aspirations?
Answer: There are thousands of different things in the world, about which you cannot make a sweeping statement. In some cases, names and things are exactly identical, and in others, they are different. Some examples of the former are the names of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, the word ‘Prajnâpâramitâ’, dhârânis, spells and some other [mystic] phrases. (…)”
Cf. Hisao Inagaki (1988). Ôjôronchû: T’an-Luan’s Commentary on Vasubandhu’s Discourse on the Pure Land. A Study and Translation. Kyoto: Nagado Bunshodo, pp. 210–211 (also: pp. 85–86)
I raised this issue with the translator of the above work, Rev. Inagaki, who wrote to me:
I am afraid I cannot totally agree with Shigaraki-sensei. T’an-Luan was quite right when he said that there are cases in which a name and substance are separate and other cases where they are not. In the case of Amida’s name, it is not separate from Amida himself. This is not mere abstract speculation. The main point is whether you have sincere faith in Amida or not. If your nembutsu is accompanied by deep faith, you actually feel his presence and his saving power. The 7 Masters and Shinran had no doubt that the name and Amida are not separate.”
Also in his list of ‘The Essentials of Shin Buddhism’ Inagaki says:
The Name and Amida’s enlightenment are one and the same …The Name represents Amida; and Amida abides in the Name. The Name and Amida are one and the same thing. So in Shin Buddhism we say: ‘Those who entrust themselves to Amida are saved’ and also ‘Those who hear and accept the Name are saved’.
(http://www.nembutsu.info/largersutra.htm)
However I can’t entirely make sense of Inagaki’s objection to Shigaraki for two reasons:
- The T’an-Luan quote says that Buddhas and their names “are exactly identical” whereas Inagaki just says that they “are not separate”. These two arguments are not the same. After all as I showed above Shigaraki isn’t claiming they are separate only that they are not objectively identical.
- Inagaki bases his view of the non-separateness of Amida and the name on ‘whether you have sincere faith in Amida or not’. I don’t have a problem with this suggestion but it is clear that here we are talking about the oneness of the two being an inner condition or experience. In other words Inagaki’s account of the non-separateness of Amida and the Name is talking about subjective religious experience and describes something very different to the ‘literalist’ perspective put forward by the critic I have mentioned and that Shigaraki criticises as leading to ‘a kind of belief in magical incantations’.
In the end I have yet to get to the bottom of T’an-Luan’s strange claim that, “In some cases, names and things are exactly identical”. However it seems clear to me – in the context of T’an-Luan’s other writings and Inagaki’s comments – that ‘exactly identical’ must mean ‘subjectively exactly identical’. However even if we accept the critic’s perspective that the exact identity of the Name and Amida proves the sutra descriptions of Amida to be literal, objective representations then we must surely be led to reflect that the Name itself means ‘Infinite Light and Life’. As such, in granting the exact identity of Amida and the Name we must surely place their characteristics of ‘Infinite Light and Life’ on a higher level than the more humanly conceivable visual representations found in the sutras.
In my view then the attacks, from certain quarters, on a supposed tendency in modern Shin to conceive of Amida as a fictional entity are actually attacks on a non-existent straw man. No Shin teachers I have come across deny the reality of Amida, on the contrary they are all concerned to help people truly encounter the ‘Infinite Light and Life’ which exists and acts both within and beyond the limitations of human conception.
Kyōshin
Jishin
