Author: 乙

An Internalised Pure Land: Haijime Kawakami and the Imprisonment of Self.

Haijime Kawakami was an economist and one of Japan’s first Marxist philosophers, born in the late 20th century. He published articles which aimed to educate workers in Marxist theory and provided the introduction for the Japanese translation of Marx’s Das Kapital.[1] His activity with the Japanese Communist Party led to his imprisonment in the 1920s, which was formative in his engagement with the Buddhist philosophy of Pure Land. Kawakami’s engagement with the Pure Land is significant, as he belonged to a new generation of secular Pure Land philosophers who aimed to identify and reconfigure the Pure Land independent of religious tradition. Alongside Miki Kiyoshi and Ienaga Saburo, Kawakami used his Marxist background to discuss the potential of the Pure Land as a tool for the liberation of the masses from the state.[2]

Kawakami’s Prison Ramblings, written in 1937 after his arrest because of his involvement in the Japanese Communist Party, reveal his adoption of Pure Land philosophy.[3] This is synthesised with Marxist ideas to create a new sphere in which to propagate a utopian Japanese vision of the future. Consequently, in this work, Kawakami contributed to the reconfiguration of the Pure Land as something accessible and mouldable in the secular sphere. Primarily, Kawakami speaks of a ‘consciousness of consciousness’. He believed that in order to gain a true understanding of ourselves (which was needed in an age of repressive state techniques and the blanket identity of Japanese modernisation) we must examine our own consciousness in an extraordinary way.[4] This acts as an internal reconsideration which places our thought processes beyond the present and extracts us from accepted contemporary thought. Kawakami’s process of reimagining the Pure Land is based on an internalisation of thought which leads to an expansion of the mind beyond traditional peripheries. As such, it is a process of negation that eliminates all thoughts in order to provide access to a sphere of personal realisation, an ‘estranging image’.[5] This is what gave Kawakami’s Pure Land the power against the state. It removes reality in order to lead to an internalised realisation which, in turn, resituates Kawakami in the here and now. This implies an entirely empty vision which extracts the mind from restrictive structures of the state and the physical possibility of the Pure Land and locates Kawakami’s thought in the abstract. It is a positive discovery of the internalised conscience.

The internalisation of thought can be traced to Kawakami’s experience in prison. tenko, or ideological conversion, was a popular technique for confession or release of a prisoner.[6] Kawakami’s attempts, as a secular man, to draw on Buddhist philosophy are therefore surprising due to this attempted suppression and coercion. However, the internalised nature of his thought suggests a physical and mental withdrawal from any association with the state and their narrative of conversion and suppression. Just as the Pure Land itself gave internalised liberation, the actual process of Kawakami’s philosophy and writing of his Prison Ramblings liberated him from the horror of the present moment. As such, the very process of modern Pure Land thought was just as significant as the Marxist ideology behind it. Kawakami’s thought in prison created a space which the state could not access and therefore gave him the freedom that Pure Land advocated. It allowed him to create a solution to tradition, and from the very entrapment of his prison cell, force liberation and globalisation of philosophy. Kawakami’s Pure Land was a product of his Marxist thought- a rejection of the structures of state which literally surrounded him in prison, and emphasis on the individual. A connection with others philosophical liberation grounded him in the Marxist ideal of a communal victory for the masses, whilst his Pure Land remained abstracted within the self.

Kawakami’s Pure Land was revolutionary. He used Marxist theory to reject the structures of the state and remove the need for a centrally controlled paradise. His Pure Land was accessible only individually, through the internalisation of thought and negation of the constrictions of the present world. This was Kawakami’s way of waging revolution on the Japanese government when he was physically restricted in the present world. It was also a philosophical revolution in the sense that Kawakami had no Buddhist background. He uprooted Pure Land philosophy from its traditional religious sphere and opened it up as a possibility for secular philosophers and ordinary people. Both these revolutionary aspects reveal Kawakami’s desire to create a Pure Land which was accessible to the masses, via their own resource of the inner mind. The internalisation which Kawakami advocated can be seen as a philosophical representation of his tangible experiences in the present world. Imprisonment, coercion, and his end of life in the days after World War Two, where briefly, the possibility of a globalised world had become apparent. Kawakami’s internalised Pure Land was a modernist and globalised vision which sought to project this philosophy into the future.

[1] Melissa Curley, Pure Land, Real World: Modern Buddhism, Japanese Leftists and the Utopian Imagination (Honolulu, 2017), pp.86-87.

[2] Curley, Pure Land, Real World, p.84.

[3] Curley, Pure Land, Real World, p.89.

[4] Curley, Pure Land, Real World, p.97.

[5] Curley, Pure Land, Real World, p.29.

[6] Curley, Pure Land, Real World, p.92.

Soga Ryojin and the Formalisation of the Abstract Pure Land.

Soga Ryojin was a 20th century Shin Buddhist philosopher, who worked together with Kiyozawa Manshi to reformulate Shin Buddhism in a modern context. He achieved this through the incorporation of Western philosophical ideas which advocated the rejection of the state and organised structures. Soga and other Shin modernists sought disassociation with structure, instead projecting their image of the Pure Land into the abstract. Initially, therefore, it is apparent that Pure Land intellectualism became personal and internalised. However, conversely, with engagement in philosophical discussion of the Pure Land, Soga contributed to a formalisation of Shin intellectualism and the abstract.

Soga Ryojin’s discussion of the abstract self is primarily focused on the Dharmakara Boddhisattva narrative, found in the Three Pure Land Sutras.[1] They describe the transformation of the Boddhisattva into Amida Buddha, and subsequent alteration of the world of suffering into an enlightened Pure Land. This realisation is read as an expression of ‘cosmic oneness’.[2] Soga’s work, “A Saviour on Earth: The Meaning of the Dharmakara Bodhisattva’s Advent” sought to re-examine this narrative through two abstracted concepts. The first, that the Bodhisattva is the ‘storehouse consciousness’ and the second, that the Bodhisattva consequently ‘becomes me’. The storehouse consciousness is the deepest layer of the mind which contains seeds of thought. Liberation occurs when these thoughts are set free without entrapment in other parts of the mind and the storehouse consciousness becomes entirely empty. This is the revelation of one’s true inner self, and therefore the discovery of an internalised Pure Land. The ‘Boddhisattva becomes me’ through the manifestation of the personal ‘I’ within the life of the Shin practitioner.[3]

With this, Soga aimed to reformulate the Shin Buddhist path through the centrality of the self to understanding the Pure Land. This philosophy implies that Soga sought an independent intellectual existence for modern Shin practitioners. His vision of the Pure Land was entirely dependent on the internal relationships of the mind and its interdependence with fleeting thought patterns. It implies a disassociation with concrete reality and creates a sphere which Shin teachers, Buddhist monastic institutions and the state had no access to. Through understanding Pure Land through the abstract conceptualisation of thought, the mind-body realisation is totally and exclusively embodied within the practitioner. We are placed interior to our own subjectivity, and therefore the Pure Land remains something remote, exclusive, and untouched. Thus, Soga’s Pure Land appears to be separated by its existence in the abstract realm of the mind as he rejects traditional structures of Shin practice reformulates the Dharamkara Bodhisattva as something manifested within.

Despite Soga’s apparent rejection of structure and focus on the abstract, modern Shin Buddhism can still be described as systematised. Soga’s shift away from discourse of concrete practice and manifestation of the Pure Land does entail an intangible abstraction. However, to replace the concrete narratives of previous Shin philosophers, Soga unconsciously systematises the metaphysics of the abstract Pure Land. The concept of alaya-vijnana or the infinite mind-store exemplifies Soga’s formalisation of the abstract.[4] With its creation, Soga identifies, locates and unpacks the inner consciousness in a disciplined way which amounts to an organisation of the abstract realm. He attempts to order the discussion to make it accessible, and in doing so, imposes structural perimeters.

In a later lecture, Soga discusses the ‘True History of Buddhism’.[5] He attempts to define the history of Buddhism from the standpoint of materialism. Soga claims that this materialism negates any concept of a unified body of Buddhist truth and criticises previous scholars who have focused solely on doctrine instead of the practice of the mind.[6] Here, he in fact argues for the concrete nature of Buddhist history and projection of this past into the present, in order to reveal the path toward our own personal Buddhahood. Consequently, Soga advocates for a non-subjective history of Buddhism which can guide us into the present. Whilst the image of the Pure Land may appear abstract, Soga reinforces it with a concrete timeline of Buddhist faith, locating it firmly within the present. In his lectures, Soga sees the larger Sutras as the unifying thread of Buddhism.[7] In his abstraction of the Pure Land, he still provides an attachment to reality which systematises abstract thought. Consequently, within his writing, we can see they very organisation of thought which Soga’s ideas initially appear to reject. His personal structural understanding of the storehouse consciousness is imposed on the practitioner. This creates an entanglement of thought within the storehouse which Soga aimed to avoid. Whilst initially, it is apparent that Soga rejects all structures, he does, in fact, reinforce these very structures he seeks to avoid- those imposed on the inner mind.

Soga Ryojin’s modernist vision of the Pure Land appears entirely abstracted from the concrete practice of the monastic institution and traditional vision of the Bodhisattva. He advocates internal, mindful reform, where progression is dependent on the interrelation of subjective thought processes within the practitioner’s mind. However, this abstraction of Buddhist practice is not wholly subjective, and the formalisation of intellectual thought can still be seen. Through the discussion of concepts such as the ‘mind-store’ and the unifying timeline of Buddhist history, Soga physically and mentally locates the abstraction of the Pure Land within the worldly sphere of space and time. As such, Soga is still able to systematise the metaphysical elements of his Pure Land discussion through terminology and practical discussion.

 

Bibliography

Bragt, Jan (Trans.) Soga Riyojin: Shinran’s View of Buddhist History, (1999).

Unno, Mark, “Modern Pure Land Thinkers: Kiyozawa Manshi and Soga Riyojin” in Davis (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Philosophy, (2017).

 

 

[1] Unno, Mark, “Modern Pure Land Thinkers: Kiyozawa Manshi and Soga Riyojin” in Davis (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Philosophy, (2017), p.184.

[2] Ibid, p.184.

[3] Ibid, p.197.

[4] Ibid, p.197.

[5] Bragt, Jan (Trans.) Soga Riyojin: Shinran’s View of Buddhist History, (1999), p.111.

[6] Ibid, p.112.

[7] Ibid, p.118.

Anarchism as Modernity: The Arishima Cooperative’s Contribution to a Global Narrative.

On Arishima Takeo’s liberation of his tenant farmers in 1922 and declaration of cooperative ownership, he created a space for the proliferation of anarchist thought in a completely new and undefined sphere.[1] Consequently, the Arishima cooperative farm in Hokkaido can be used to redefine traditional notions of anarchism as ‘anti-modern’ and trace the movement of Japanese anarchism into a global sphere.

20th Century anarchism was characterised by a total rejection of state in favour of social revolution.[2] Revolutionary discourse focused on a cultural transformation with emphasis on the individual. In historiography, therefore, it has been misunderstood as introspective and anti-modern due to anarchist’s intellectual isolation from the recognised structure of the state.[3] Furthermore, the proliferation of isolated Japanese anarchist communities has resulted in depictions of these groups as remote spheres with little connection to the globalised world or political trends.[4]  These ideas were reversed by Sho Konishi, who traces the expansion of anarchism to the ‘opening’ of Japan in the 1950s (Kaikoku) where the cultural and intellectual spheres of Russia and Japan merged.[5] He believed that anarchism adopted a transnational and global character which propelled it into modernity.

This is exemplified in the development of the Arishima cooperative farm and its creation of a new space and time. This did not isolate the community but distinguished them from their origins as tenant farmers and consequently propelled them into the sphere of modernity with a new identity. The Cooperative Living Handbook contained a history of the farm and was used to affirm membership in the cooperative.[6] As such, it became a physical demonstration of the connection with a shared heritage that had been constructed around the new freedom of the cooperative. The book served to create a new timeline of history as a reconstruction of the past that legitimised their liberation and placed them firmly in a trajectory of modernisation.

Additionally, the division of space was significant in the construction of a new space and time. Monuments and objects commemorating original members of the cooperative were placed in the centre of the community and used to mark out meeting forums.[7] These were viewed as symbolic objects which affirmed the overturning of the old ideological order in favour of liberation. They reflected the desire for a similar process in the wider political structures of Japan. The physical demarcation of space with such objects suggests that tenants sought to separate their new freedom as a new sphere of possibility which had no relation to the community’s past constraints as tenant farmers. It further implies that for the Arishima farmers, time renewed and began again upon their liberation. As such, this demonstrates that, far from internalised, the cooperative saw itself at the forefront of progress, looking forward into a devolved era of change.

Moreover, the Arishima cooperative did succeed in integrating itself into a wider global narrative. The farm held festivals, including the Autumn Harvest Festival and children’s Olympic festivals, which were open to outsiders and became known throughout the region.[8] Not only did the cooperative look forwards, but it aimed to do so in conjunction with surrounding communities. The proliferation of anarchist thought across the region is exemplified in the adoption of Anarchism by the Hokkaido-wide industrial cooperative in 1926.[9] Additionally, the Agricultural Industrial Cooperative Association published its journal ‘Kyoei’, which sought to promote ‘world thinking’ amongst agricultural labourers. Within this, we can see the Arishima anarchist thought centred within global anarchist thought as the communities sought to educate and connect with the wider world as their practices of mutual aid ‘sogo fujo’ united with wider global narratives of mass liberation.

The Arishima anarchist cooperative can therefore be used to trace the evolution of anarchist thought from a local sphere to global narrative. The vision of the farmers at the forefront of progress allowed for the creation of a new space and time through physical means. This allows for a revision of Japanese anarchism as modern and international. Throughout its evolution, the Arishima Cooperative remained engaged with the intellectual spheres around them as they forged their community to become a vehicle of progress which symbolised a new modernity.

[1] Sho Konishi, “Ordinary Farmers Living Anarchist Time: Arishima Cooperative Farm in Hokkaido, 1922–1935.” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 47, no. 6, (2013), p.1845.

[2] Arif Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, (London 1991), p.29.

[3] Sho Konishi, “Ordinary Farmers”, p.1848.

[4] James Scott in Sho Konishi, “Ordinary Farmers”, P.1848

[5] Sho Konishi, Anarchist Modernity: Cooperatism and Japanese-Russian Intellectual Relations in Modern Japan, (Massachusetts 2013), p.2.

[6] Sho Konishi, “Ordinary Farmers”, P.1858.

[7] Ibid, P.1867

[8] Ibid, p.1878, p1882.

[9] Ibid, p.1884.

Managing Confucian Virtue: Women’s Roles in the Transmission of Confucianism.

Women are seemingly afforded a meagre role within the intellectualism and Confucian ideals of Song China. Their position in the lineage-family structure meant that their function was commanded by the dominance of their male counterparts. However, when examined in closer detail, women’s role in coordinating the household meant that she had a significant influence in the dissemination of Confucian ideals through direct access to the familial environment through which Kongzi’s ‘virtue’ was developed.

The organisation of the Song dynasty (960-1279) was primarily structured by ‘jiazu’, or lineage-family which favoured patrilineal relations.[1] Families were organised and divided by the allocation of a father’s property to his sons and family dynamics were governed by the relations between men. By the necessity of performing rites to a common male progenitor, female autonomy was restricted entirely by the dominance of males within these local structures. Consequently, women initially seem to have a limited role in the Confucian dynamics of family.

‘Discord arises in families mostly when women provoke…with words’.[2]

This implies that women were seen as an obstruction in the ordered arrangement of society and that they purposefully aimed to disrupt the predetermined Confucian family setting, especially if they engaged with the intellectual privilege of ‘words’. It suggests that, based on societal organisation, women would not achieve the ‘individual perfection’ which Kongzi promoted that lead to an ordering of the world based on Confucian morals.[3] This further suggests that women were disengaged with Confucian ideals and on a local level were seen as selfish and untrustworthy. Their key value was in the continuation of the family line with the birth of a son. This afforded them no place in either the household hierarchy or the evolution of Confucian thought.

However, despite the role of the female being dismissed by the moral conduct and expectations of society, women’s role did become increasingly prevalent as they became vital for the transmission of Confucian ideology within the family dynamic. Particularly in the countryside, the importance of family and kinship was expressed through ancestral rituals and conjugal relations. Philosophical thought acted to transform this into a Confucian ideology which could be transmitted locally. Lineage-family divisions presented an opportunity for women to gain more autonomy within a smaller circle of power. When a husband passed away, mothers claimed increased authority over their descendants. It thus simplified relations within the family and decreased the risk of female conflict with in-laws which had previously acted as a curb on women’s power. Moreover, the idea of ‘Zhueni’, or the ‘women’s charge’ became characterised by the ability of women to directly transmit Confucian values and influence the behaviour and structure of their family.[4] They were responsible for the allotment of domestic power and allocation of living space, physically governing Kongzi’s desire for virtue to be transmitted by those closest by blood relation. Consequently, women adopted a significant role in the transmission of Confucian values as they became managers of the family sphere, the place where virtue was propagated.

‘To live in the neighbourhood of Good is fine…’.[5]

With increased presence and action within the family, women were the creators and upholders of the Confucian ‘Good’ and responsible for the family’s collective realisation of wisdom. This is exemplified in the production of female didactic texts in the Song. ‘Mr Yuan’s Precepts’ and ‘Zeng Family Instructions’ established the parameters of female autonomy within the family sphere and exerted a Confucian influence over the function of women in this period.[6] Their social significance may have been decreased by the level of gender control and separation in these texts, but it is increased by the very fact that women were integral to the dissemination of the Confucian message.

[1] Dorothy Ko, Kim JaHyun Haboush, Joan Piggott, Women and Confucian Cultures in Premodern China, Korea and Japan, (California, 2003), p.125.

[2] Ibid, p.127.

[3] Philip Ivanhoe, Bryan Van Norden (Eds.), Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, (2005), p.3.

[4] Dorothy Ko, Kim JaHyun Haboush, Joan Piggott, Women and Confucian Cultures, p.128.

[5] Philip Ivanhoe, Bryan Van Norden (Eds.), Readings, p.10.

[6] Dorothy Ko, Kim JaHyun Haboush, Joan Piggott, Women and Confucian Cultures, p.128.

‘Truth’ in Muso Soseki’s ‘Sermon at the Dedication of Tenryu-ji Dharma Hall’.

 

Muso Soseki’s sermon reveals a Truth exclusive to Zen Buddhism. In Western thought, Truth is often presented as something concrete and revelatory, which reveals the inner nature of someone or something. It is seen as an explanatory interpretation with a finite definition as it sheds light on something which was unknown. Furthermore, Truth in the West is revealed by presenting one’s inner nature to others and granting permission of access.[1] However, in Muso Soseki’s sermon, and other teachings of Zen Buddhism, Truth is presented as personable and flexible. It is not revealed outwardly to others but guarded as something personal and exclusive.

‘I join with my true master…and with all the others throughout infinite empty space…’.[2]

Truth is first discovered within the self, and then shared within the protected community of Zen masters and their disciples. In this quote, Soseki presents the concept of the self, or ‘I’, with a connection to the ‘true master’. This suggests that primarily, an awareness of self is needed to facilitate a connection with the Zen community and reveal the Truth. Consequently, Truth in Zen Buddhism is discovered within one’s being and can only be found through introspective thought and awareness. Truth is envisioned as the essence of thought, indicating that its personal nature lies in its abstract properties and can only be discovered when a true understanding of the self is obtained. This contrasts to a Westernised view of Truth as something given to and shared with others. In conflict, Soseki sees Truth as something you present to yourself, and not others.

Building on the personal nature of Truth, Soseki demonstrates that Truth is not something that is concrete, but mutable depending on the context and recipient. ‘All the others’ implies that Truth has multiple avenues, perspectives and identities. Here, Soseki creates an image of the unity of minds. An individual’s personal Truth combines with all Truths in a mystical environment of non-thinking to discover the ultimate Truth. Other Zen teachers, particularly Dogen also saw the mutable nature of Truth, as he believed reality is a series of individual and personal delusions we impose on the self. For example, Dogen’s use of the Mountain Sutra exemplifies that reality can have multiple meanings and possibilities. ‘One must not doubt’ that the mountains walk just because they do not walk like humans.[3] Therefore, Truth has no limits, only endless possibility and flexibility of the individual mind.

Soseki implies that ‘All Truths are the same Truth’.[4]

Soseki encourages a correspondence with the intellect of self, and the intellect of the higher, greater truth of the Buddha; ‘the same Truth’. As such, after Truth is established within the individual, it can be shared in a personal experience with a Zen master. This view of Truth reflects the importance of the master-disciple relationship within Zen practice. This relationship is guarded by the Zen emphasis on an ancestral lineage which descends from Shakyamuni himself. Zen teaching is limited to those who have a claim to this lineage and as such, the nature of Truth is shared and protected within this community. Both master and disciple engage in ‘katto’ together, in which both internalise their thought within the self, but also become entwined in the Boddhidharma.[5] This process of realisation is achieved through a Truth which is not concrete but acts as the fusing of two minds. As such, the Truth of Soseki’s sermon is not finite, but part of a cyclical existence multiple Truths form the higher Truth of the Buddha. This idea of Truth is dramatically represented in the example of Huike, who cuts his arm off in a physical donation to the community.[6] This demonstrates a literal investment- his Truth is a part of him which must be physically dedicated to his master and the Zen community. In his conclusion, Soseki proclaims: ‘Look! Look! Shakyamuni is here right now on top of my staff’.[7] The Truth he has inherited from his master is literally present on his person. Truth in Zen Buddhism is personal, introspected and fuses with other, flexible Truths to form reality.

[1] T. P. Kasulis, “Truth and Zen.” Philosophy East and West, vol. 30, no. 4, (1980) p.458.

[2] ((De Bary, William, Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol.1: From Earliest Times to 1600, New York 2002, p.329.

[3] Heisig, James, Kasulis, Thomas, Maraldo, John, (Eds.) Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook, University of Hawaii Press, (2011), p.152.

[4] De Bary, William, Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol.1: From Earliest Times to 1600, New York 2002, p.328

[5] Heisig, James, Kasulis, Thomas, Maraldo, John, (Eds.) Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook, University of Hawaii Press, (2011), p.162.

[6] William De Bary, Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol.1: From Earliest Times to 1600, (New York 2002), p.329.

[7] William De Bary, Sources of Japanese Tradition, Vol.1: From Earliest Times to 1600, (New York 2002), p.329.