International Conference “Kierkegaard & Asia” Joint session
Japanese Buddhism and Soren Kierkegaard
―Faith and its practice as an existential decision―
Kiyohiko Fujimoto (Bukkyo University, Kyoto, Japan)
1. The Dimension of Thought : Honen and Kierkegaard
In today’s method of thinking, two dimensions of human activity, the scheme of scientia(knowing) and fides(faith) in parallel position are connected with the two domains of science and religion. In other words, knowing and faith were characterized as being divided on the base of the viewpoints of the so called science and religion.
Generally speaking, the scientific knowledge represents the attitude of the objective involvement with objects, the religion represents the tendency of an unlimited subjective involvement with objects. For reason of the characteristics of the present age we confront various real problems which we can not neglect.
In such consciousness, my paper discusses the viewpoint of human existence and faith, and brings up the concrete subject of Honen＜法然＞(1133-1212) who is considered to be the reformer of the Japanese Buddhism together with Kierkegaard(1813-1855) who is an outstanding
Christian existential philosopher. The twelfth century, when Honen lived, was a period of change. During one hundred years, many eminent Buddhists, like Eisai(1141-1215), Honen(1133-1212), Shinran(1173-1262), Dogen(1200-1253), Nichiren(1222-1282), and Ippen(1239-1289) transmitted religious salvation to the ordinary people. These Buddhist teachings have been transmitted and continue in today’s Japanese Buddhism. On the other side, Kierkegaard focused on the problems of the Christian faith at a period of change brought about by modern rationalism. He emphasized the human existence as the individual, and initiated the stream of Christian existential thought. From a broader perspective, we can say that Kierkegaard pursued the conquest of human alienation in the modern age by centering on the human existence as the individual. Thus, in spite of the difference of time and place, the case of Honen is quite similar to that of Kierkegaard.
Further explained, Honen perceived the ideal, normative, traditional Japanese Buddhism on the level of human existence as sentient beings (ordinary human beings Bonpu, in Japanese). In other words, Honen’s viewpoint concerns the problem of the ‘individual human existence’. Kierkegaard in turn, criticizes Hegel's thought which regards reason as a crucial element, and stresses the ‘existential individual’. Both Honen and Kierkegaard share the common viewpoint of the ‘existence within religion’. Especially since Honen sees human beings as sentient beings, we understand his intention of being concerned with the ‘existential individual’.
Needless to say, there is of course no literature that links both thinkers. However, Paul Tillich (1886-1967) said that the decision of the faith is an existential decision, not a logical one. To express this, he uses the term of the ‘ultimate concern’ based on existential decision (see, Dynamics of Faith, 1957, p. 66). This point will permit us to discuss Honen and Kierkegaard as very interesting religious thinkers.
2. The point of individual existence：Honen’s and Kierkegaard’s experience
The more faithfully Honen practices the ‘three kind of learnings’: keeping precepts; meditation; and study or wisdom, which is the norm of Buddhist practice, the deeper he reflects on himself. Finally, Honen confessed that a person like he himself can never master these three ways of learning. This confession expresses Honen’s feelings : he is in despair about the Buddhist practices of his time (see, Honen’s words Kurodanishonin-gotoroku vol.5, Honenshonin-zenshu p.460). Honen’s experience is similar to that of Kierkegaard who indicated that “the stronger he reflects on himself, the deeper the possibility of the offense<stumbling> becomes.” (Sickness unto Death, trans. by W. Lowlie, p.164)
Honen who confessed that he is not able to practice such three learnings, immediately asked: “where is the teaching fitting to his heart without the three learnings, which practice is the one he can perform by himself?” (see, Honen’s words, ibid.) It is said that Honen’s approach was an attack on Japanese Buddhism at his time, coming from his subjective passion. Essentially he was merely exploring teaching and practice suited to his mind and body. We can say that his attitude is the same as Kierkegaard’s, who mentioned that the truth is subjectivity (see, Philosophical Fragment).
As you know, Kierkegaard remembered his original experience which became the trigger for the melancholy of existence. When he was twenty years old, he wrote in his diary, “to find the truth which is truth for me, to find that ides for which I am ready to live and die.” (A short Life of Kierkegaard, trans. by Lowlie, p.82) This indicates the same experience which the young Honen had
For Kierkegaard, “the truth which is truth for me” and “the idea for which I am ready to live and die” are important. Even if teachings are excellent and systematic, if they are not suitable for personal practice, they have neither meaning nor merit.
As for Kierkegaard, it is the same as for Honen. We can understand that this situation relates to Honen's mind which is confident concerning the particular teaching and practice on the level of individual existence and the personal self, that is, teaching and practice of Amida-Buddhism, which branched from the comprehensive system of Tendai-Buddhism.
3. The Faith and its practice as existential decision：
toward a common view of the structure of the faith
For example, if we think about Amida-Buddha and God, or about humans in their individuality from a comparative point of view in both Amida-Buddhism and Christianity, we find many differences. But there is a common structure of faith as seen by Honen and Kierkegaard in the polar relationship between Amida-Buddha or God and human beings. This polar relationship is our focus now.
Honen's faith in Amida-Buddhism becomes concrete by the dynamics of the ‘deeply believing mind’. He says, “The first is to believe firmly and deeply that, now in this present body, one is an ordinary sinful sentient being involved in transmigration who has for countless kalpas been always sunk tumbling in the stream of cyclic rebirth, unable to find the karmic conditions for escape. The second aspect is to believe firmly and deeply that Amida-Budda’s forty-eight Vows enfold sentient beings in their embrace and that those who without doubt or reservation entrust themselves to the power of these Vows will certainly attain birth” ( Honen’s main work, Senchakushu, Kuroda- institute, p.101).
The first aspect of the deeply believing mind is called Shinki(信機) in Japanese, the ‘belief in one’s sinful constitution’. It means that I myself believe deeply to be a sinful sentient being. The second is called Shinpo(信法) in Japanese, the ‘belief in Amid’s salvation’ . It means that I believe deeply in real salvation depending on Amida-Buddha’s Vows without any questions. The first aspect is the reality of self as ‘sinful sentient being’, and the second aspect is Amida-Buddha’s salvation of the sinful sentient beings by means of the power of His Vow. The deep mind believes both firmly and deeply. This expresses the characteristics of the structure of faith which is formed in the polarity between the sentient human beings and Amida-Buddha.
It is essential to pay attention first of all to Shinki, that I myself believe deeply that I am a sinful human being. For example, like the relationship between infinite and finite, the human existence, if speaking of the individual existence of a human being, the sentient being (Bonpu, in Japanese) and Amida-Buddha are in polar relationship and far apart. The individual reality is nothing but the absolute separation from Amida-Buddha to whom it constitutes a polarity. On the other side, 'the sentient being and Amida-Buddha', which are totally separate, also co-relate surely in faith, as is expressed in the words ‘to believe firmly and deeply’. In short, there is a real dynamic participation that comes about because of the polarity.
It is important that Shinki, as the ‘belief in one’s sinful constitution’ maintains absolutely the distance between the individual existence and Amida, and that Sinpo, as the ‘belief in Amid’s salvation’ maintains absolutely the close relation between man and Buddha. Both Shinki and Shinpo have, in reality, no relationship with each other. Nevertheless, a relationship comes about through ‘believing firmly and deeply’. This must be understood as a paradoxical process which is not coherent with the logos. I think that such relationship certainly exhibits the structure of the faith as existential decision. In the case of Honen’s teaching and practice, the “Nenbutsu-practice based on Amida’s Vow”(see, Senchakushu ) is indispensable in order to set up this structure of faith.
Honen's theory of the structure of the faith, as I said, Shinki, or the ‘belief in one’s sinful constitution’ and Shinpo, or the ‘belief in Amid’s salvation’, can be understood by the arguments that Kierkegaard mentions in his famous work, ‘Sickness unto Death’ as follows. Firstly, ①” When a human existence is brought to the pass that it lacks possibility, it is in despair, and every instant it lacks possibility it is in despair”( Sickness unto Death, p.171). Secondly, ②”then nevertheless to believe in the possibility, is what is meant by faith”(ibid, p.172). Thirdly, ③”only the man whose being has been so shaken that he became spirit by understanding that all things are possible, only he has had dealing with God. The fact that God's Will is the possible makes it possible for me to pray” (ibid., p.174). Finally, these ①,②, and③ points are synthesized in a fourth one ④”notwithstanding that sin becomes more and more absorbed in itself, and so withdraws, yet in another sense it comes nearer, becomes more and more decisively itself. Despair of the forgiveness of sins is a definite position directly in the face of the offer of God’s compassion: sin is now not entirely in flight, not merely on the defensive” ( ibid., p.256). Here, “faith is: that the self in being itself and in willing to be itself is grounded transparently in God” ( ibid., p.213).
If we compare the three points of Kierkegaard’ s process with Honen’s theory of the structure of faith, I think that their realization is the same as the outcome that Kierkegaard explains in his last point .(the sentence ① characterizes Shinki, that the sentence ② expresses the initial realization of faith, and that in the sentence ③ Shinpo is achieved. And then, in the conclusion, we understand the whole processes which Kierkegaard mentions in the sentence ④)
Then we can conclude that structurally, both Honen and Kierkegaard maintain that the individual human being can grasp the polar existence (Amida-Buddha or God) in the reality of faith.
4. Conclusion：concerning Honen and Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard says, “to worship (which is the expression of faith) is to express the consciousness that the infinite yawning abyss of quality is fixed between them. For in faith again the possibility of offense is the dialectical factor”.（ibid, p.259）In short we can say, that because worship makes us conscious of the infinite yawning abyss of quality between God and human being, worship is the confirmation of the faith as the movement of a qualitative dialectic in which the “offense (stumbling, trans. das Aergernis in German, trans. Tsumazuki in Japanese )” is the medium as the occasion leading to faith.
Here, worship according to Kierkegaard’s view, is in Honen’s case as follows: reciting Namu-Amida-Butsu in Japanese (namo amita buddha, in Sanskrit) is practiced by the voice, uttering Namu-Amida-Butsu (Nenbutsu) which means taking refuge with Amida-Buddha. It is an action of embracing the Buddha who realized enlightenment in immeasurable time and space. However, reciting Namu-Amida-Butsu is a “familiar practice related to Amida-Buddha” (see, Senchakushu), which is different from worship as thought of by Kierkegaard. Honen’s practice implies that one becomes absorbed unconditionally by Amida’s Vows.
Kierkegaard emphasizes the 'qualitative dialectic' in the faith, and therefore criticizes Hegel’s ‘dialectic of reason’. To recite Namu-Amida-Butsu is the practice based on the decision of human existence, at the same time , it is the realization of a familiar relationship with Amida-Buddha. Because of these characteristics, we may also call Honen’s method a ‘dialectic of practice’.