Thomas Chandler Haliburton - "The Attache; or, Sam Slick in England (V2)"

Thomas Bulfinch - "The Age of Fable"

J.M. Stone - "Studies from Court and Cloister"

Various - "Stories by English Authors: England"

The Religion of the Samurai

K >> Kaiten Nukariya >> The Religion of the Samurai




It is not only grandeur and sublimity that indicate Universal Life,
but smallness and commonplace do the same. A sage of old awakened to
the faith[FN#151] when he heard a bell ring; another, when he looked
at the peach blossom; another, when he heard the frogs croaking; and
another, when he saw his own form reflected in a river. The minutest
particles of dust form a world. The meanest grain of sand under our
foot proclaims a divine law. Therefore Teu Tsz Jo-shi), pointing to
a stone in front of his temple, said: "All the Buddhas of the past,
the present, and the future are living therein."[FN#152]


[FN#151] Both the Chinese and the Japanese history of Zen are full
of such incidents.

[FN#152] Zen-rin-rui-shu and To-shi-go-roku.



15. Enlightened Consciousness.

In addition to these considerations, which mainly depend on indirect
experience, we can have direct experience of life within us. In the
first place, we experience that our life is not a bare mechanical
motion or change, but is a spiritual, purposive, and self-directing
force. In the second place, we directly experience that it knows,
feels, and wills. In the third place, we experience that there
exists some power unifying the intellectual, emotional, and
volitional activities so as to make life uniform and rational.
Lastly, we experience that there lies deeply rooted within us
Enlightened Consciousness, which neither psychologists treat of nor
philosophers believe in, but which Zen teachers expound with strong
conviction. Enlightened Consciousness is, according to Zen, the
centre of spiritual life. It is the mind of minds, and the
consciousness of consciousness. It is the Universal Spirit awakened
in the human mind. It is not the mind that feels joy or sorrow; nor
is it the mind that reasons and infers; nor is it the mind that
fancies and dreams; nor is it the mind that hopes and fears; nor is
it the mind that distinguishes good from evil. It is Enlightened
Consciousness that holds communion with Universal Spirit or Buddha,
and realizes that individual lives are inseparably united, and of one
and the same nature with Universal Life. It is always bright as a
burnished mirror, and cannot be dimmed by doubt and ignorance. It is
ever pure as a lotus flower, and cannot be polluted by the mud of
evil and folly. Although all sentient beings are endowed with this
Enlightened Consciousness, they are not aware of its existence,
excepting men who can discover it by the practice of Meditation.
Enlightened consciousness is often called Buddha-nature, as it is the
real nature of Universal Spirit. Zen teachers compare it with a
precious stone ever fresh and pure, even if it be buried in the heaps
of dust. Its divine light can never be extinguished by doubt or
fear, just as the sunlight cannot be destroyed by mist and cloud.
Let us quote a Chinese Zen poet to see how Zen treats of it:[FN#153]

"I have an image of Buddha,
The worldly people know it not.
It is not made of clay or cloth,
Nor is it carved out of wood,
Nor is it moulded of earth nor of ashes.
No artist can paint it;
No robber can steal it.
There it exists from dawn of time.
It's clean, although not swept and wiped.
Although it is but one,
Divides itself to a hundred thousand million forms."


[FN#153] See Zen-gaku-ho-ten.



16. Buddha Dwelling in the Individual Mind.

Enlightened Consciousness in the individual mind acquires for its
possessor, not a relative knowledge of things as his intellect does,
but the profoundest insight in reference to universal brotherhood of
all beings, and enables him to understand the absolute holiness of
their nature, and the highest goal for which all of them are making.
Enlightened Consciousness once awakened within us serves as a guiding
principle, and leads us to hope, bliss, and life; consequently, it is
called the Master[FN#154] of both mind and body. Sometimes it is
called the Original[FN#155] Mind, as it is the mind of minds. It is
Buddha dwelling in individuals. You might call it God in man, if you
like. The following dialogues all point to this single idea:

On one occasion a butcher, who was used to kill one thousand sheep a
day, came to Gotama, and, throwing down his butcher-knife, said "I am
one of the thousand Buddhas." "Yes, really," replied Gotama. A
monk, Hwui Chao (E-cha) by name, asked Pao Yen (Ho-gen): "What is
Buddha?" "You are Hwui Chao," replied the master. The same question
was put to Sheu Shan (Shu-zan), Chi Man (Chi-mon), and Teu Tsz
(To-shi), the first of whom answered: "A bride mounts on a donkey and
her mother-in-law drives it;" and the second: "He goes barefooted,
his sandals being worn out;" while the third rose from his chair and
stood still without saying a word. Chwen Hih (Fu-kiu) explains this
point in unequivocal terms: "Night after night I sleep with Buddha,
and every morning I get up with Him. He accompanies me wherever I
go. When I stand or sit, when I speak or be mute, when I am out or
in, He never leaves me, even as a shadow accompanies body. Would you
know where He is? Listen to that voice and word."[FN#156]


[FN#154] It is often called the Lord or Master of mind.

[FN#155] Another name for Buddha is the Original Mind"
(Kechi-myaku-ron).

[FN#156] For such dialogues, see Sho-yo-roku, Mu-mon-kan,
Heki-gan-shu. Fu-kiu's words are repeatedly quoted by Zen masters.



17. Enlightened Consciousness is not an Intellectual Insight.

Enlightened Consciousness is not a bare intellectual insight, for it
is full of beautiful emotions. It loves, caresses, embraces, and at
the same time esteems all beings, being ever merciful to them. It
has no enemies to conquer, no evil to fight with, but constantly
finds friends to help, good to promote. Its warm heart beats in
harmony with those of all fellow beings. The author of
Brahmajala-sutra fully expresses this idea as he says: "All women are
our mothers; all men our fathers; all earth and water our bodies in
the past existences; all fire and air our essence."

Thus relying on our inner experience, which is the only direct way of
knowing Buddha, we conceive Him as a Being with profound wisdom and
boundless mercy, who loves all beings as His children, whom He is
fostering, bringing up, guiding, and teaching. "These three worlds
are His, and all beings living in them are His children."[FN#157]
"The Blessed One is the mother of all sentient beings, and gives them
all the milk of mercy."[FN#158] Some people named Him Absolute, as
He is all light, all hope, all mercy, and all wisdom; some, Heaven,
as He is high and enlightened; some, God, as He is sacred and
mysterious; some, Truth, as He is true to Himself; some, Buddha, as
He is free from illusion; some, Creator, as He is the creative force
immanent in the universe; some, Path, as He is the Way we must
follow; some, Unknowable, as He is beyond relative knowledge; some,
Self, as He is the Self of individual selves. All these names are
applied to one Being, whom we designate by the name of Universal Life
or Spirit.


[FN#157] Saddharma-pundarika-sutra.

[FN#158] Mahaparinirvana-sutra.



18. Our Conception of Buddha is not Final.

Has, then, the divine nature of Universal Spirit been completely and
exhaustively revealed in our Enlightened Consciousness? To this
question we should answer negatively, for, so far as our limited
experience is concerned, Universal Spirit reveals itself as a Being
with profound wisdom and boundless mercy; this, nevertheless, does
not imply that the conception is the only possible and complete one.
We should always bear in mind that the world is alive, and changing,
and moving. It goes on to disclose a new phase, or to add a new
truth. The subtlest logic of old is a mere quibble of nowadays. The
miracles of yesterday are the commonplaces of to-day. Now theories
are formed, new discoveries are made, only to give their places to
newer theories are discoveries. New ideals realized or new desires
satisfied are sure to awaken newer and stronger desires. Not an
instant life remains immutable, but it rushes on, amplifying and
enriching itself from the dawn of time to the end of eternity.

Therefore Universal Life may in the future possibly unfold its new
spiritual content, yet unknown to us because it has refined, lifted
up, and developed living beings from the amœba to man, increasing the
intelligence and range of individuals, until highly civilized man
emerge into the plane of consciousness-consciousness of divine light
in him. Thus to believe in Buddha is to be content and thankful for
the grace of His, and to hope for the infinite unfoldment of His
glories in man.



19. How to Worship Buddha.

The author of Vimalakirtti-nirdeca-sutra well explains our attitude
towards Buddha when he says: "We ask Buddha for nothing. We ask
Dharma for nothing. We ask Samgha for nothing." Nothing we ask of
Buddha. No worldly success, no rewards in the future life, no
special blessing. Hwang Pah (O-baku) said: "I simply worship Buddha.
I ask Buddha for nothing. I ask Dharma for nothing. I ask Samgha
for nothing." Then a prince[FN#159] questioned him: "You ask Buddha
for nothing. You ask Dharma for nothing. You ask Samgha for nothing.
What, then, is the use of your worship?" The Prince earned a slap
as an answer to his utilitarian question.[FN#160] This incident well
illustrates that worship, as understood by Zen masters, is a pure act
of thanksgiving, or the opening of the grateful heart; in other
words, the disclosing of Enlightened Consciousness. We are living
the very life of Buddha, enjoying His blessing, and holding communion
with Him through speech, thought, and action. The earth is not 'the
vale of tears,' but the glorious creation of Universal Spirit; nor
man 'the poor miserable sinner' but the living altar of Buddha
Himself. Whatever we do, we do with grateful heart and pure joy
sanctioned by Enlightened Consciousness; eating, drinking, talking,
walking, and every other work of our daily life are the worship and
devotion. We agree with Margaret Fuller when she says: "Reverence
the highest; have patience with the lowest; let this day's
performance of the meanest duty be thy religion. Are the stars too
distant? Pick up the pebble that lies at thy feet, and from it learn
all."


[FN#159] Afterwards the Emperor Suen Tsung (Sen-so), of the Tang
dynasty.

[FN#160] For the details, see Heki-gan-shu.





CHAPTER V



THE NATURE OF MAN


1. Man is Good-natured according to Mencius.[FN#161]

Oriental scholars, especially the Chinese men of letters, seem to
have taken so keen an interest in the study of human nature that they
proposed all the possible opinions respecting the subject in
question-namely, (1) man is good-natured; (2) man is bad-natured; (3)
man is good-natured and bad-natured as well; (4) man is neither
good-natured nor bad-natured. The first of these opinions was
proposed by a most reputed Confucianist scholar, Mencius, and his
followers, and is still adhered to by the majority of the Japanese
and the Chinese Confucianists. Mencius thought it as natural for man
to do good as it is for the grass to be green. 'Suppose a person has
happened,' he would say, 'to find a child on the point of tumbling
down into a deep well. He would rescue it even at the risk of his
life, no matter how morally degenerated he might be. He would have
no time to consider that his act might bring him some reward from its
parents, or a good reputation among his friends and fellow-citizens.
He would do it barely out of his inborn good-nature.' After
enumerating some instances similar to this one, Mencius concludes
that goodness is the fundamental nature of man, even if he is often
carried away by his brutal disposition.


[FN#161] Mencius (372-282 B.C.) is regarded as the beat expounder of
the doctrine of Confucius. There exists a well-known work of his,
entitled after his own name. See 'A History of Chinese Philosophy,'
by R. Endo, and also 'A History of Chinese Philosophy' (pp. 38-50),
by G. Nakauchi.



2. Man is Bad-natured according to Siun Tsz[FN#162] (Jun-shi).

The weaknesses of Mencius's theory are fully exposed by another
diametrically opposed theory propounded by Siun Tsz (Jun-shi) and his
followers. 'Man is bad-natured,' says Siun Tsz, 'since he has inborn
lust, appetite, and desire for wealth. As he has inborn lust and
appetite, he is naturally given to intemperance and wantonness. As
he has inborn desire for wealth, he is naturally inclined to quarrel
and fight with others for the sake of gain.' Leave him without
discipline or culture, he would not be a whit better than the beast.
His virtuous acts, such as charity, honesty, propriety, chastity,
truthfulness, are conduct forced by the teachings of ancient sages
against his natural inclination. Therefore vices are congenial and
true to his nature, while virtues alien and untrue to his fundamental
nature.


[FN#162] Siun Tsz's date is later by some fifty years than Mencius.
Siun Tsz gives the reason why man seeks after morality, saying that
man seeks what he has not, and that he seeks after morality simply
because he has not morality, just as the poor seek riches. See 'A
History of Chinese Philosophy' (pp. 51-60), by G. Nakauchi, and 'A
History of Development of Chinese Thought,' by R. Endo.


These two theories are not only far from throwing light on the moral
state of man, but wrap it in deeper gloom. Let us raise a few
questions by way of refutation. If man's fundamental nature be good,
as Mencius maintains, why is it easy for him to be vicious without
instruction, while he finds it hard to be virtuous even with
instruction. If you contend that good is man's primary nature and
evil the secondary one, why is be so often overpowered by the
secondary nature? If you answer saying that man is good-natured
originally, but he acquires the secondary nature through the struggle
for existence, and it gradually gains power over the primary nature
by means of the same cause, then the primitive tribes should be more
virtuous than the highly civilized nations, and children than grownup
people. Is this not contrary to fact?

If, again, man's nature is essentially bad, as Siun Tsz holds, how
can he cultivate virtue? If you contend that ancient sages invented
so-called cardinal virtues and inculcated them against his natural
inclination, why does he not give them up? If vices be congenial and
true to man's nature, but virtues be alien and untrue to him, why are
virtues honoured by him? If vices be genuine and virtue a deception,
as you think, why do you call the inventors of that deceiving art
sages? How was it possible for man to do good before these sages'
appearance on earth?



3. Man is both Good-natured and Bad-natured according to Yan
Hiung[FN#163] (Yo-yu).

According to Yang Hiung and his followers, good is no less real than
evil, and evil is no more unreal than good. Therefore man must be
double-natured-that is, partly good and partly bad. This is the
reason why the history of man is full of fiendish crimes, and, at the
same time, it abounds with godly deeds. This is the reason why
mankind comprises, on the one hand, a Socrates, a Confucius, a Jesus,
and, on the other, a Nero and a Kieh. This is the reason why we find
to-day a honest fellow in him whom we find a betrayer to-morrow.

[FN#163] Yan Hiung (died A.D. 18) is the reputed author of Tai Huen
(Tai-gen) and Fah Yen (Ho-gen). His opinion in reference to human
nature is found in Fah Yen.


This view of man's nature might explain our present moral state, yet
it calls forth many questions bard to answer. If this assertion be
true, is it not a useless task to educate man with the purpose of
making him better and nobler? How could one extirpate man's bad
nature implanted within him at his origin? If man be double-natured,
how did he come to set good over evil? How did he come to consider
that he ought to be good and ought not to be bad? How could you
establish the authority of morality?



4. Man is neither Good-natured nor Bad-natured according to Su Shih
(So-shoku).[FN#164]

The difficulty may be avoided by a theory given by Su Shih and other
scholars influenced by Buddhism, which maintains that man is neither
good-natured nor bad-natured. According to this opinion man is not
moral nor immoral by nature, but unmoral. He is morally a blank. He
is at a crossroad, so to speak, of morality when he is first born.
As he if; blank, he can be dyed black or red. As he is at the
cross-road, he can turn to the right or to the left. He is like
fresh water, which has no flavour, and can be made sweet or bitter by
circumstances. If we are not mistaken, this theory, too, has to
encounter insurmountable difficulties. How could it be possible to
make the unmoral being moral or immoral? We might as well try to get
honey out of sand as to get good or evil out of the blank nature.
There can be no fruit of good or evil where there is no seed of good
or bad nature. Thus we find no satisfactory solution of the problem
at issue in these four theories proposed by the Chinese scholars--the
first theory being incompetent to explain the problem of human
depravity; the second breaking down at the origin of morality; the
third failing to explain the possibility of moral culture; the fourth
being logically self-contradictory.

[FN#164] Su Shih (1042-1101), a great man of letters, practiser of
Zen, noted for his poetical works.



5. There is no Mortal who is Purely Moral.

By nature man should be either good or bad; or he should be good as
well as bad; or he should be neither good nor bad. There can be no
alternative possible besides these four propositions, none of which
can be accepted as true. Then there must be some misconception in
the terms of which they consist. It would seem to some that the
error can be avoided by limiting the sense of the term 'man,' saying
some persons are good-natured, some persons are bad-natured, some
persons are good-natured and bad-natured as well, and some persons
are neither good-natured nor bad-natured. There is no contradiction
in these modified propositions, but still they fail to explain the
ethical state of man. Supposing them all to be true, let us assume
that there are the four classes of people: (1) Those who are purely
moral and have no immoral disposition; (2) those who are half moral
and half immoral; (3) those who are neither moral nor immoral; (4)
those who are purely immoral and have no moral disposition. Orthodox
Christians, believing in the sinlessness of Jesus, would say he
belongs to the first class, while Mohammedans and Buddhists, who
deify the founder of their respective faith, would in such case
regard their founder as the purely moral personage. But are your
beliefs, we should ask, based on historical fact? Can you say that
such traditional and self-contradictory records as the four gospels
are history in the strict sense of the term? Can you assert that
those traditions which deify Mohammed and Shakya are the statements
of bare facts? Is not Jesus an abstraction and an ideal, entirely
different from a concrete carpenter's son, who fed on the same kind
of food, sheltered himself in the same kind of building, suffered
from the same kind of pain, was fired by the same kind of anger,
stung by the same kind of lust as our own? Can you say the person
who fought many a sanguinary battle, who got through many cunning
negotiations with enemies and friends, who personally experienced the
troubles of polygamy, was a person sinless and divine? We might
allow that these ancient sages are superhuman and divine, then our
classification has no business with them, because they do not
properly belong to mankind. Now, then, who can point out any sinless
person in the present world? Is it not a fact that the more virtuous
one grows the more sinful he feels himself? If there be any mortal,
in the past, the present, and the future, who declares himself to be
pure and sinless, his very declaration proves that he is not highly
moral. Therefore the existence of the first class of people is open
to question.



6. There is no Mortal who is Non-Moral or Purely Immoral.

The same is the case with the third and the fourth class of people
who are assumed as non-moral or purely immoral. There is no person,
however morally degraded he may be, but reveals some good nature in
his whole course of life. It is our daily experience that we find a
faithful friend in the person even of a pickpocket, a loving father
even in a burglar, and a kind neighbour even in a murderer. Faith,
sympathy, friendship, love, loyalty, and generosity dwell not merely
in palaces and churches, but also in brothels and gaols. On the
other hand, abhorrent vices and bloody crimes often find shelter
under the silk hat, or the robe, or the coronet, or the crown. Life
may fitly be compared with a rope made of white and black straw, and
to separate one from the other is to destroy the rope itself; so also
life entirely independent of the duality of good and bad is no actual
life. We must acknowledge, therefore, that the third and the fourth
propositions are inconsistent with our daily experience of life, and
that only the second proposition remains, which, as seen above,
breaks down at the origin of morality.



7. Where, then, does the Error Lie?

Where, then, does the error lie in the four possible propositions
respecting man's nature? It lies not in their subject, but in the
predicate-that is to say, in the use of the terms 'good' and 'bad.'
Now let us examine how does good differ from bad. A good action ever
promotes interests in a sphere far wider than a bad action. Both are
the same in their conducing to human interests, but differ in the
extent in which they achieve their end. In other words, both good
and bad actions are performed for one end and the same purpose of
promoting human interests, but they differ from each other as to the
extent of interests. For instance, burglary is evidently bad action,
and is condemned everywhere; but the capturing of an enemy's property
for the sake of one's own tribe or clan or nation is praised as a
meritorious conduct. Both acts are exactly the same in their
promoting interests; but the former relates to the interests of a
single individual or of a single family, while the latter to those of
a tribe or a nation. If the former be bad on account of its ignoring
others' interests, the latter must be also bad on account of its
ignoring the enemy's interests. Murder is considered bad everywhere;
but the killing of thousands of men in a battle-field is praised and
honoured, because the former is perpetrated to promote the private
interests, while the latter those of the public. If the former be
bad, because of its cruelty, the latter must also be bad, because of
its inhumanity.

The idea of good and bad, generally accepted by common sense, may be
stated as follows: 'An action is good when it promotes the interests
of an individual or a family; better when it promotes those of a
district or a country; best when it promotes those of the whole
world. An action is bad when it inflicts injury on another
individual or another family; worse when it is prejudicial to a
district or a country; worst when it brings harm on the whole world.
Strictly speaking, an action is good when it promotes interests,
material or spiritual, as intended by the actor in his motive; and it
is bad when it injures interests, material or spiritual, as intended
by the actor in his motive.'

According to this idea, generally accepted by common sense, human
actions may be classified under four different heads: (1) Purely good
actions; (2) partly good and partly bad actions; (3) neither good nor
bad actions; (4) purely bad actions. First, purely good actions are
those actions which subserve and never hinder human interests either
material or spiritual, such as humanity and love of all beings.
Secondly, partly good and partly bad actions are those actions which
are both for and against human interests, such as narrow patriotism
and prejudiced love. Thirdly, neither good nor bad actions are such
actions as are neither for nor against human interests--for example,
an unconscious act of a dreamer. Lastly, purely bad actions, which
are absolutely against human interests, cannot be possible for man
except suicide, because every action promotes more or less the
interests, material or spiritual, of the individual agent or of
someone else. Even such horrible crimes as homicide and parricide
are intended to promote some interests, and carry out in some measure
their aim when performed. It follows that man cannot be said to be
good or bad in the strict sense of the terms as above defined, for
there is no human being who does the first class of actions and
nothing else, nor is there any mortal who does the fourth class of
actions and nothing else. Man may be called good and bad, and at the
same time be neither good nor bad, in that he always performs the
second and the third class of actions. All this, nevertheless, is a
more play of words. Thus we are driven to conclude that the
common-sense view of human nature fails to grasp the real state of
actual life.

Copyright (c) 2007. topbookz.net. All rights reserved.